For everything written about "The Big Picture" in the prior blog entry I am certain that the big picture as seen by my mind's eye did not emerge in any other mind but my own. Nor would or does anyone read what I went at length to describe and create a simple "Big Picture".
No matter. I only write for myself but I would like to think that it is not all fruitless. Therefore it must bear some fruit......if only to me.
The "Big Picture" is the essence of the Problem Domain simple presented. A figurative "Big Picture" that says it all elegantly. It embodies the essence of the situation as well as the solution. It is an algorithmic formula approach. The variables simply have to be plugged in and then the solving computation run to produce the result. The result then tested for truth.
Testing for truth? One way to test is top down breakdown and bottom up assembly. Work it down from the top or up from the bottom and the same result is derived. It can be applied to two different relationship chains: One being the object chain the other being the action chain. I tend to approach a problem from the object analysis standpoint. It could be equally approached from the action analysis standpoint. In either case they are ultimately an integration of object and action. Nouns and verbs.
My Object Oriented approach says: Set up (define establish, spawn, create) the two key ultimate big binary objects that are to be related. Then Discover (Go searching for) the Action necessary to Implement the relationship between the two objects.
The big picture of objects? What two basic things are involved at the Highest/Lowest level. What is being worked with? That question points to what has to be actions have to be done with them.
The alternative Action Oriented approach says: Define the Action necessary to make something happen (achieve result) then Discover (Go searching for) the two key binary objects that must interact via the Defined Action to produce the desired Problem Domain solution.
The big picture of Action? What action is going to be done to produce the desired result? What is going to be done? That question points to what things to do it with.
There is an object/action symmetry. That is the structure of our Natural Language used to express our conceptual thinking in a meaningful package of two nouns and a verb. A much less ambiguous way to do that is with a less ambiguous language. It is an interesting thing to ponder why that is called an Artificial Language. Only because the traditional frame of reference for our concept of "Language" was the spoken sound? Think about it: The spoken sound is really the Artificial Language. If the purpose of Language (it intended application) is to accurately (least ambiguity possible) to express something then the gold standard for language is Accuracy. Math, music, etc. better than mumbo jumbo communication with a variable degree of noise in transmission.
An algorithm is the best possible language. A couple of days ago I read that a few Titans of Technology all agreed that Algorithm was supreme. Duh! That is computing!
Does that compute? Absolutely (or more nearly so). Any way it is tested it is logical. Algorithms is doing the heavy lifting of organizing and delivering communication. Increasingly efficient and effective as they deliver better results that are being categorized under the term Artificial Intelligence.
One of the big questions of the day is will AI rule us or will we rule AI? In defense of Watson: IBM is framing the situation that Watson merely extends our human intelligence capacity. Watson will not replace it. However I think Watson will. At least for an increasing percentage of the population but serving a decreasing number of those that are using Watson as an extension of their intelligence????
Back to the Big Picture. What is it?
It is an object.
and.....
It is an action.
Just like our stereo vision that gives us depth 3d perception they work together to see the picture but they are two different components.
One is Object.
the other is...
Time.
Time is just a higher order term for Action. Action being a function of time (time line passage) between two objects. Time is the ultimate blockchain that locks the relationship of objects into an absolute result.
All Objects (natural and conceptual) have a degree of persistence over Time. Some as brief in existence as those short lived objects that physicists seek to discover or concepts that are infinitely small fleeting thoughts (wave theory level) in our heads that live long enough to create conscious thought that goes into the blockchain of our thinking time line. Some Objects approaching eternity. Infinity at the extremes of both ends of time. Big Time at one end, Little Time at the other.
The most stable objects, the more persistent ones either physical or conceptual are the ones we work with to produce things that last. Things that last are in the domain of time. Things that last that we create (natural or conceptual) have a nature of stability. Change is evolution or revolution of stability. Change is a function of time and we can control to increasing degree ??? the rate of change in the things we create (natural or conceptual). Our conceptual creations have variable direct relationship to natural objects defined by natural physical laws from total direct fact based to total faith based. Different strokes for different folks. Real world connections that are based on truth of existence in real instant time or old time religion based on the truth of being proclaimed to be true over time eternal.
A step closure to the Big Picture. It is not easy to get to the simple Big Picture although once there, up close and personal it is the writing on the wall. Getting there is by forks in the road. When you come to a fork in the road take it. All forks lead to the same destination solution. All forks in the road are either an Action or an Object fork. Taking either one is optional but knowledge of which (where to) direction the other takes as they depart course must be carried forward because they meet at the next junction fork in the road. Think of it like this: At each fork Object goes one way, Action the other but they do so hand in hand to meet at the next fork to reaffirm course of problem domain solution.
The Big Picture is binary: Object and Action.
Example of the expressing (taking) the action component fork in the road: Give 'Em the old One - Two! This is pure focus on the action component to deliver the punch or ball. Give 'Em is the operator verb. One-Two would seem to be the object nouns involved in the action of what is being Given. The expression however can be viewed or interpreted as pure total action expression with no objects involved if the old "One" and "Two" are intended to conceptually mean actions, not objects One and Two but actions One and Two. One and Two being the actions of "Wind Up" and "Pitch" to deliver an intended object thing result condition of Strike or Strike Out. Alternatively; Deliver the Punch...or not. How to manage the action to make the desired solution happen as a function of a designed course of actions.
Example of expressing (taking) the object component fork in the road: "Ball and Bat" or "Fist and Nose" direction sign at the fork in the road pointing one way. Punch or Strike direction sign at the fork in the road pointing the other way. Take the object branch of the fork and the problem is to how to implement the relationship (or not) between ball and bat or fist and glove. How to manage the attributes of each object and their methods of expressing those attributes to let the desired solution happen as a function of what the objects known methods.
Making something happen by controlling actions of the things involved is one way to get things done. It involves a significant direct control of specific planned actions.
Allowing something to happen by investing the objects involved in producing the action with intelligent method choices the objects know how to do is another way of getting things done. It involves a significant amount of front end design to teach the objects the methods for selection of application at the time of implementation. Increasing inherent intelligence ability for the objects to figure out which methods to choose or even create new ones enables a learning system.
Object intelligence, endowing conceptual objects with the intelligence ability to choose what best to do or independently create a better choice of what to do is the best way to get things done...to accomplish the solution to the Problem Domain.
Designing a definitive Chain of Actions that conceptual objects must perform is the other way to accomplish the Problem Domain solution. It is a more rigidly controlled approach where the Action chooses what objects to utilize in performance of the Action rather than the Object choosing methods of performance at its disposal including the possible choice of creating its own new action.
"I here that train a comin', comin' round the bend......
So here is where it finally comes around the bend full circle to the matter of the Big Picture.
Present the Big Picture in the frame of reference of objects with the endowed algorithms to perform the methods they already know or if there is a better solution then endow the objects with the intelligence to create it and apply it. That intelligence is in itself an higher order Algorithm.
This is the tie to the prior blog entry that went off at a creative tangent fork in the road based on the thinking of Col Boyd.
Set up the structure of things (Objects (plane/armament and pilot) with inherent attributes and intelligence to create new ones on the fly as necessary) then when the implementation action of the relationship of one thing with another (good guy/bad guy) is required object oriented control of the situation will win over action oriented control of the situation.
In war it has been said that military centralized control focused of the actions of forces was a failing strategy. Designing components of the military forces with inherent methods at their tactical disposal was a winning strategy.
Freedom and independence is our winning national strategy for each object citizen pursuit of happiness and promotion of the general welfare.
The more that the nation depends on or allows by default Action Oriented centralized planning and control. At the cost of decreasing or not defending object oriented design and operation based on the known and intelligent choice of methods objects may choose to apply to their own Problem Domain.
Then
The less efficient the system of social governance will be and the greater the cost to maintain it.
What would Col Boyd do? Silly question! It is not what he would "Do" it is what objects would he manage in the battle problem (plane and pilot) to get the job done.
He would set up the objects that do the battle.
That is contrary to common military strategy of "Take the Battle to the Enemy" that has the driving force of Action Orientation. Courses of Actions to be taken, directed.
The conundrum is the situation that Chuck Spinney alludes to that there is a dominating military/ industrial relationship that is winning because the player objects involved, top level military and corporate level are operating on the intelligent Object Oriented model. Objects with internal methods that know what to do and create new intelligent methods based on its relationships to other objects to find the most efficient solution. Solutions that at the top level command and control increasingly are directed toward personal gain rather than true mission objective.
An example of solving the problem by Object Oriented methodology.
http://chuckspinney.blogspot.nl/2016/06/update-on-palestinian-water-crisis.html
Another example of the Object Oriented approch;
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/business/dealbook/goodbye-password-banks-opt-to-scan-fingers-and-faces-instead.html
Perhaps nothing is more conducive to using the Action Oriented Approach to a problem than when the problem is a Crises. What is a crises? A situation where and Action must be done and direction of Action is the response and traditional directed action is the first response. Intelligent action as a choice of an Object entity is the alternate. In a crises Intelligent Object Entity Action is the best solution to directly solve the problem but a more Action oriented solution is an opportunity for an Object Oriented entity to gain narrow self interest benefit from a sub-optimized Action oriented solution that Entity may or may not have responsibility for.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/how-financial-crises-produce-political-polarization.html#comment-2620419
Action or Object orientation is a subtle yet extremely important manner of control and the true nature of who controls and method of choice and how it is applied are not easily seen. Like chess moves.
Wall Street is winning because it has an object orientation methodology to manage an Object Entity that the public views more in terms of it actions, what money does, than what money is. In that manner, money does a great deal for Wall Street.
Money is the Object:Debt to Wall Street, meaning the focus is on the object orientation of money.
Money is what money does to Main Street, meaning the focus is on the action orientation of money.
No comments:
Post a Comment