Yes, particularly for artificial systems, the separation/linearity can be relatively clear. I suppose it boils down to whether or not a mechanic is capable of appropriate intervention with a non-mechanical[*] system?
But, ultimately, I gel with your gist. Even if a mechanic fails to _know_ for certain why an intervention should or should not lead to a planned outcome, we can at least hope for one who _tries_ to circumscribe the space of possible outcomes and estimate the uncertainty involved (even if based largely on heuristics built up through deep and long experience). That's especially true when the only viable competing interventionist exhibits complete ignorance of the current system. [*] This mailing list should be populated by people who understand the constellation of issues surrounding the concept of a mechanism. On 10/18/2016 11:08 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > "But corrected implies some sort of coherent controller-controlled separation > and relation. " > > Maybe instead of a doctor, a talented mechanic that can hone in on faulty > spring or loose screw that creates a hard to reproduce rattle. I want the > gal that has those kind skills fixing my car (or designing one), not some > idiot that says it is a disaster of a car and I should sue the automaker. > > I claim it is better if an entity that introduces a disruptive technology > understands exactly why it is better, in a deep technical way, more so than a > fetish for some shiny object or as a distraction and relief from their own > ignorance. Maybe at the end of the day the automaker should be sued. > (Maybe the foreign power or non-state actor should be blown to oblivion. > Maybe the universal health care plan should be torn to ribbons, etc. ) Or > maybe just a 5 cent spring needs replacement. -- ␦glen? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
