82,910
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{a|systems|}}as we have technologies we have moved from read (passive) to read/write (active and interactive) while our language has moved from interactive write/read (interpretative imaginative) to read (symbol processing/data processing) and due to requirements of scale systems have moved to dynamic complex systems to simpler ones in the interests of control focused with no interaction, responsibility {{Sa}} *{{Br|The Unaccountability Machine}}") Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|systems|}}as we have technologies we have moved from read (passive) to read/write (active and interactive) while our language has moved from interactive write/read (interpretative imaginative) to read (symbol processing/data processing) and due to requirements of scale systems have moved to dynamic complex systems to simpler ones in the interests of control focused with no interaction, responsibility | {{a|systems|}}as we have technologies we have moved from read (passive) to read/write (active and interactive) while our language has moved from interactive write/read (interpretative imaginative) to read (symbol processing/data processing) and due to requirements of scale systems have moved to dynamic complex systems to simpler ones in the interests of control focused with no interaction, responsibility | ||
One way communication is symbol processing. Code. A set of single instructions with no ambiguity that leads to a deterministic outcome. It is ''[[binary]]''. | |||
The very design of the Turing machine, at its core is predicated on the ''impossibility of ambiguity''. A switch is on or off. Open or closed. There is no third way. Nothing between 1 and 0. There is no [[betweenness]]. | |||
If weintroduced a “between” value — if code was written in tertiary, not binary, then what would that intermediate value represent? ''Maybe''? ''Somewhat''? ''You decide''? | |||
That a baffling amount of complicatedness [[emerges]] from binary code if there is enough of it and it runs fast enough should not obscure this fact: there is no decision, discretion or interpretative act conferred on the processor of code. (I don’t want to call a symbol processor a “reader” because reading is an inherently interpretative act, and by sloppy use of our non-binary language — it is ambiguous — we risk imputing to a signal processor feats of reading which it cannot perform.) | |||
Recap: symbol processing is a unidirectional, simple (or complicated) mechanical, deterministic outcome. It is a simple system. It can be optimised, brute force calculated, probabilised and, with enough processing power, ''solved''. It is alpha go, or chess. A [[finite game]] | |||
A read/write process is, by contrast, a collaboration: an open, dynamic, unpredictable system. It is undetermined; its rules, boundaries and participants change and are beyond the control of any player. A speech act can be (from the speaker’s perspective) be misconstrued, ignored, disputed or reinterpreted. It is complex. | |||
The larger an organisation is, the more that good governance demands it be run like a turing machine. A sole trader can make whatever decisions she likes. An employer of five can comfortably delegate wide discretion to her staff, as she has good view of what they are doing. A firm of five thousand, this is clearly less so. | |||
{{Sa}} | {{Sa}} | ||
*{{Br|The Unaccountability Machine}} | *{{Br|The Unaccountability Machine}} |