So, along with the comments made about Roberts' memos and recognition that the court is just as political as the other 3 branches (and the implicit 4th), and hearkening back to the apparent capitalist *requirement* of a permanent, but materially open, under class, what concrete form could a Platonic Constitutional Representative Democracy take? If not "text", then what? What expression(s) do we have to enshrine in order to enshrine the abstract concepts being expressed?
Maybe *multiple* expressions would approximate it better, a text, a diagram/animation, and a mechanistic computation. (My principle is 3 are required, 2 is inadequate, 1 is ridicule-worthy.) So if the concept(s) to be enshrined are separation of powers into, say, 4 branches of government, then from that conceptual constitution, we write a text, draw a diagram, and build a simulation. Then those 3 "documents" are held up as "the Constitution" ... "the law of the land". To my mind, that question *precedes* the causal inferencing (well-) shone by Whitehouse. The extraction of an ephemeris from noise requires some sort of prior model. We have to decide kindasorta what we're looking for before we start willy-nilly inferring. (While relatively agnostic inference algorithms like empirical mode decomposition are always attractive, TANSTAAFL.) On 10/13/20 12:09 PM, David Eric Smith wrote: > I don’t really know which thread to attach to, or where best to attach to it. > > But in a room I was in, Sheldon Whitehouse’s statement in the confirmation > hearing was playing: > https://www.facebook.com/derek.friday/videos/10102085065399760/ > This seems to me where the conversation should be, (or at least this part of > it). I would like the evening news better if they would include content of > this kind. For cynics about politicians who want to cop-out and say “Ah, > they’re all rats”, I would like to put this forward as an argument that there > are plenty there to work with. > > Narrow questions that can be answered legalistically, but that refuse to > address the big mechanisms of causation, seem to me to be pure distractions, > and it irritates me that they get more than proportional time. Any meaning > the narrow moves get is coming from these big causal contexts, and it is > worth seeing a bit of the machinery by which they are organized. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
