I will add to this throughout the day. It takes the concept of the Allegory of the Cave which was the subject of a prior post as an explanation of the "User View" of a complex system. Maybe more along the line of "User View Variable Points of Entry Into a Complex System". We all have different conceptual points of entry to structure our perception and comprehension of the things and functions that relate them and how to get into the complex system.
Most people enter a house by the front door. Some the back door. A few by a window. Hulk would crash through a wall and only one person would enter by the chimney. On second thought, there is an class of people that enter through the chimney. Can you guess what that class is?
I will return to add to this subject....seems to be an important conceptual entry to the problem domain of money. It all depends of the user view.
One aspect in the evolution of computer science is the binding of data to its processing. Initially they were tightly bound, structuring the data in a pointer networking system assigned "pointers" to data that pointed to other data that it was related to by some process. That network pointer system was replaced by a relational system where the nature of the data was related to other data in a relational data base that replaced "pointers" built into the pointer network system (that had to be changed as relationships changed) with logical relationships that could be changed logically. Oracle is in that kind of business. It is a data independence of process model of computing science.
Treating data and process as independent but inter-related things reduces complexity and increases efficiency. It opens the door to many different view points of the nature of the system to which computer science is applied. Going hand in hand with the evolution of user view in computer science from the beginning is the trend of putting that user view more in terms of human user view rather than machine user view. Consequently, we have a user view of the content and process of internet called a browser that separates us from the complexity of system processes analogous to the separation of data from process. Computing machines (combinations of hardware and software) still have and always will have their own "machine view" of the computer world with some "geniuses" that have a user view of that world more in the terms of that world that we do not have to have because we not only don't need or care in order to use it without a degree in computer science and the brain it takes to get it.
We have a simple user interface with computer systems. Others have a more complex view of it depending on which part of the system they work in and it is a highly specialized one.
While we look at shadows on the wall with a browser projected there by a system that goes all the way back to a conceptual reality of a binary relationship, and there are people who could trace the entire system back to that fundamental binary of a 1 and a 0 in software and its electrical reality of the presence or absence of an electrical charge. Like anyone could become president we could all learn and take the same journey back in the system to its binary genesis...if we wanted to.
We don't do that. We are not chained to a post to look only at the projection of shadows. We have faith that the system structure is based on a truth of logic tested by the fact (in the absence or our own validation) that.......it works.
However, computer systems (hardware and software) that do (what they are in themselves) independent of whatever Real World Conceptual Problem Domains we wish to apply them too, are distinct in their level of Design integrity. Computer systems in themselves are highly accurate in what they are and do. They are a combination of real and conceptual things governed on one hand by the rules of nature and conceptual logic as described in The Computational Trinity which I previously examined the concept in this blog entry , and, this blog entry.
While the computer system is highly structured and accurate and works, Our Conceptual Systems existing prior to computer systems have various degrees of structural integrity. These pre-existing conceptual systems based on both in design dictated by the laws of nature reality and the conceptual logic applied to them to create a user view of the combination have over time been refined.
To the extent that our big Conceptual Systems have not in the past been refined based on logic, they are either not subject to refinement in that domain (logic) and continue to exist as systems of faith (religion, superstition, faith in the past that it was always like this and always will be because it always was and should be, forever and ever).
However, Money is a logic system, should be a logic system. A big problem arises when the illogical fundamental elements of any conceptual system structure are modeled in a computer system they pop out to be self evidently false system logic. Computer Science is a science. It has to be fault tolerant to natural physical laws to identify and correct malfunctions. The laws of the natural science world are rather strict. On the conceptual side of computer science it is designed with the intent to identify faults identified in the conceptual logic structure. That is as vital to its structure and behavior as being in tune with the natural laws governing its hardware side.
Retro-fitting our big Existing Conceptual Structures or Reverse Engineering them to operate on a computer system is an exercise of applying rigorous logic to their structure and design. Logic is an attribute that the Existing Conceptual Structure already has.....to some degree....maybe just enough to allow for its existence or maybe its existence as a functioning structure is the hidden, by design or default, in order to allow it to live in its existing form.
When some Existing Conceptual Systems meet the rigors of computer science logic failures are identified. Initially the science identified, (still does) errors in number logic (math). The state of the art has now progressed to identify logic errors at the core of Conceptual Design that dictate a change in design based on logic. There are certain systems where the operators of the system simply do not want to go there. The operators of the system are not the core designers of the system. Those designers are a bunch of dead white guys. That is the advantage of building a new conceptual system from the ground up. Like FaceBook. You do not have to contend with the entrenched operators of a legacy system designed by dead white guys and everything necessary to change it.
Money, the Monetary System, what money "is" is an Old Dead White Guy Conceptual System built on an alternate reality conceptual logic that is a fault. It cannot and will not stand the test of current computer science logic systems design and implementation.
UML and OOP are the state of the art in the computer science world of system design and implementation. Our current monetary system is a square peg that cannot be driven into that round hole. It could be possible by bending over backward to make perverse logic fit the state of current logic design and implementation. However in this Information Age which elevates Information Structures to a highly integrated level, the higher the level of Big Conceptual Domains the more the attempt to integrate them highlight their simple failure to integrate for a higher level efficiency. That is what computer science does.
Our Current Monetary System fails to logically integrate with all of our other Big Conceptual Systems. It may integrate better and more logically with the Capitalist System. On the other hand it they are both revealing mutual faults in logic in both object logic, language and behavior (the Computational Trinity).
The last thing that the operators of an Old Dead White Guy system would allow to happen is an examination that whole system buy UML methodology. This is a very interesting situation because that is the state of the art being applied to the Monetary System now at increasingly higher levels. It may have started with ATM machine systems but it is increasingly working upward as a top level management tool.
I am convinced that it is the bank contracted UML engineers that are advising/training management in the methodology and applying it to increasingly higher levels of the banking conceptual structure of what money is that are (will be) the first to create an existing user view of what money is in terms of existing logic that will point out the essential core failures of that view and how to correct it by what it should be. When these engineers get too close to the core of the concept and thrash out the failure in logic the validation of the truth will = "You're Fired".
The Big Problem Domain of a Bank is not how to make more money but how to stop the truth because simply attempting to hide it is increasing turning into twisting it as it emerges and twisting the truth is not only a delaying tactic in an increasingly integrated environment but also a self defeating strategy failure.
The Debt Crises is a mini stage play rehearsal of digging in on one side in defense of failed logic of a Dead White Guy Concept founded on the current fallacy of the foundation of the debt money system.
Money must be a debt free object with debt creating behaviors..... No! that is not correct! The debt creating behavior is a method belonging to a Conceptual Class called Contract that knows a method to create debt relationships.
What Money is not is this: Money is not a Contract! Debt is not a state of money. Debt is a Contract:Party:State both parties have a relationship to Money and its properties as a medium of exchange to change state and its degree. It is the Contract:Amount that goes out of existence by degrees to the nothing from where it came by mutual agreement when a loan is repaid......Not the money itself if it is debt free, or in other words free of association with the debt itself just like it is free from association with any other things is associated with in its application of a medium of exchange.
The essential question applied to order things in the Object Oriented Paradigm is: This thing is a type of what thing?? Then ask what type of thing is that thing. Keep asking it until you run out of things that the type of thing is. At some point you want to draw a line beyond which all the big things in the natural or conceptual structure that all their "types of the thing" have been summed up to. Probably the rule of 8 to 12 things apply. Beyond that is progress to combine them to fewer bigger things until in a very few steps the only two things are binary and are related by a behavior. Then you have arrived at the Trinity of Computation. Really more academic but a rigorous exercise. 8 to 12 basic things (10 + or - 2) categories, real or conceptual, can be a real start to build any system.
There are 10 things in the Bill of Rights
There are 10 things in the Commandments
In general, any system built on more than 12 basic conceptual things probably has things in its total number of "essentials" that are really just sub things of the basic things. They should be eliminated by reducing them to a lower level type of a higher level thing.
It is those 8 to 12 things that combine to throw the shadows on the wall that we generally accept as the reality we believe in. If we are not shacked to that view or can freely cast off any shackles to that view because they are of out own choosing and follow the logic path of any and all of those 8 to 12 big things to their ultimate relationship and even beyond that to their binary logic trinity relationship that is as far as logic goes, should go and must go if we are living in a conceptually true state. Beyond that level is faith for those that wish to go there and believe that there are no shackles called logic that bind us in seeing the truth that leads to as well and whatever trinity, binary presence/absence or unity lies at the end of that faith journey.
I think this was a good blog entry!
Did I cover 10 things here? I should go back and parse it using the "type of" method.
If I live long enough there might someday be an app that will parse this entire blog to identify the 10 (plus or minus 2) conceptual things that integrate in my scheme of life and their properties and behaviors and states that in application resulted in the story of my life.
Probably not in my life but perhaps my grandchildren or their children might go back and find an explanation using that future app that answers the question: What type of guy was he?
That is the core logic question.
My user view of what money is
No comments:
Post a Comment