Error Creation

Sometimes a system will seemingly generate an error. When that
happens frequently we may refer to the problem as a system mis-
specification. The system needs to be recast so that it no longer
generates an error. Inherent, however in most systems are errors that
we tolerate because their ramifications are slight, or because
correcting the system may be over costly with respect to tolerating
the errors.

Systems can evolve and when they evolve to include undesirable
qualities that are very costly we do have to make an economic decision
as to whether the new errors are worth fixing. Such decisions can be
both economical and political, and require debate as well as
evaluation and much research.

Working within a world of errors

We all know that the world is imperfect in many ways.  We all know the works us made up of systems and that for the most part these systems are in balance.  We know that natural systems are approximated very well by the mathematics of chaos, which means that they produce averages that  can be approximated by mathematical statistics.  We also know that all systems while tending to their averages occasionally thrown up values that are extremes.  It is the extremes of values for systems that tell us that the world is made up of many seemingly ordered systems, but that we cannot know all the systems in operation and that it us this lack of knowledge that surprises us when we see errors and judge these to be failures in the system.  These errors are evidence that there are other systems in play that we do not yet understand and have excluded so as to have a simpler view of the world.

Some may refer to these errors as evidence of the inherent randomness of all systems.

My position is that what makes human life and awareness is the presence of errors.  Our human brain uses errors to learn and without awareness of errors we would be exinct long ago!  We see and our senses work because of errors  in the systems around us.  To exclude errors would be to reduce the information our brain needs to understand the world more completely.  Errors put us on new paths of revalation and discovery.  Being able discern errors allows us to understand and correct them and to do that we explore systems at deeper levels to know more about them and how the work and can fail.

Hello again and again

Read previous blog page first, or just continue to be confused!

What might exist is an indeterminabke outcome or a multitude of possible outcomes and no single front runner!  Perhaps, it would be easier just to assume that because you exist the outcome is determinate and that all the systems of the whatever are complete and fully functional.  Yep! You may be just in for the ride of your life time, but that is obvious anyway.

Maybe, because the systems are all complete and fully functional they are actually a single unbelievably large system of a whole that is complete and fully functional.  Maybe, this is not the only ride of a life time that you will have!

It seems to me that one life would make the whole system incomplete, and it would mean that it is not a system at all.  No it need not be finite, but it could be an infinite system within other infinite systems.  Wow!  That increases the chance of another life on earth infinitely to the power of infinite, which means it is certain!

Oh!  Hello again, and again!

World without end!

Is it all complete?

In mathematics, we can have a system of equations to represent the
balance of forces. In mathematical statistics, we can have a
generating function to generate the values of probabilities for
whatever can generate values. We can even add different generating
functions to arrive at unbelievably complex generations of statistical
values.

Each mathematical generating function represents a balance with a
single equation or multiple equations. The equations may represent a
system. Systems of equations may exist within other systems of
equations, so it all gets very complicated very soon.

If we could ever assume that all can be represented mathematically, we
would have an enormous collection of equations. My question is
whether that collection can ever be complete.

If you assume that it can be complete then you may assume that a
balance of forces may exist in some way, or that a statistically
determinable outcome may actually be inherent within the mathematical
representations. This requires an enormous amount of faith in what
can be eventually found if one is ever to set out to find it.

Confused a little?

What exists?

This is a complicated question for to know one might bc expected to
experience? However, we have the notion that more exists than we can
ever know. If the sum total of what exists is observed that is one
set of notions, but we have more out there than what is aware that it
exists. Thus, conscious existence is only a part of what exists. The
other parts do not know they exist. To experience even is only
partial, for experience is had without knowing. We experience the
world without knowing the world. We may come to know more and more
about the world, but we do not know the world completely, nor is it
likely we will ever know the world completely.

Knowing is akin to being smart. We will never be smart enough to know
everything. How smart is the smartest being in all the universes? Do
we make a mistake in assuming that being is smart enough to know
everything there is to know? For such a being to know all, it would
need to be from one end to the other of all that is knowable and it
would need to exist within a world that is by definition fully knowable.

When you assume such a being you assume that all exists in a way that
is knowable. All needs only to be not all for the supreme being to
not know all!

So what are you assuming? Is it that all is knowable?