Wikipedia describes the problem here.
I thought money was hard to understand!
Purely intuitive hat on here: Maybe there is some connection between the complexity of the P vs NP problem beyond their sharing of complex concepts.
Maybe the common connection is their shared perceptions of two fundamental things: what a thing is and what a thing does.
What the computer (money) thing is and what the computer (money) thing does. After all, isn't it all about the computational language trinity of Logic, Language, Structure?
Important note to understanding what follows: What I wrote preceding this was to frame the complexity level of the following examination of what Money is. By pure coincidence both the preface framing and the following examination relate independently to two extremely intelligent individuals with the last name Winograd that relate to complex problems in a logical manner.
I have known about and admired the intelligence of Terry Winograd since I bought and attempted to understand the book (Language as a Cognitive Process) he published in the early 80's when faced with a professional system design challenge that was way beyond my ability to accomplish but became a cornerstone in developing a fundamental approach to problem solving as well as another book I read at the time: Small Talk-80, The Language and its Implementation
I found some interesting discussion here at this link about the nature of what the thing is and what the thing does. The link looks at the Turing Test and the Winograd Schema.
It seems to me that the Turing Test is based on the idea that a thing is as a thing does. If it walks like a duck then it is a duck. Maybe the Winograd Schema is oriented more or in the extreme (I don't know if either applies) on the attributes of what a thing is rather than what it does.
In a schema and here I have to put in the context of object orientation, the iterative question is: What is this thing a child of what higher level thing? Until one gets to the point that there is no higher level except one that goes into a higher level domain than he physical world implementation of Time and Space that has both physical and meta physical children.
It gets big.
If a computer acts, behaves like a human then it is human?
If money acts, behaves like a medium of exchange then it is money?
In both question cases the answer is no! A thing is what it is. That nature is its logic that expresses itself through a language to create a structure. The creator of the structure and the object that uses language to create it is the dominant object in the relationship. Language and Structure are its shadows on the wall.
Money is debt in the current monetary system. Debt is a projection of what money is as Logic (debt).
Debt Money is false Logic (Object Noun) expressed through the implementing Language (Verb) of finance (debt creation process) to relate the Object noun to the Subject noun: Debt.
Debt Money is the defined Monetary System Logic.
But............
Debt Money is a qualification subset type of a higher level object: Money.
In the sub class domain of Debt Money as a qualification child of Money this is the true relationship:
Finance is the Logic, (subject noun) Debt creation is the verb Language implementing the function (action) relationship to an Object structure (noun) called Debt Money.
What rules the domain structure? What is the Logic of the whole thing?
The test:
What is the Logic that derives the system:
Is it
Finance
or
Money
???????????????????????????
If:
Finance
then
Money
If
Money
then
Finance
When Finance drives then all Money is Debt
When Money drives then Finance is.........what? A Contractual Obligation in the purest form???
A contractual obligation expressed in terms of Money as a situational case application of the Money Logic.
Its complex but it has a solution. Money and Finance are two equal level Logic children of a higher level Logic Object Parent:
Name that parent!
It's a test.......................
There are 184 response comments to this link: Turing test no longer useful - Winograd schema new test for AI. Goal is to be "Google proof"
The discussion is fascinating.
...............................................................................
I can see clearly now the rain is gone.
I can see all obstacles in my way.
Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind.
It's gonna be a bright (bright) bright (bright) sunshinin' day
No comments:
Post a Comment