One important fact to keep in mind is that, as we push computer-based knowledge forward, we are at risk of encountering "limits." Some limits can be overcome, while others are fundamental.
As stated by Gregory Chaitin of IBM, "... Gödel discovered incompleteness, Turing discovered uncomputability, and I discovered randomness... that some mathematical statements are true for no reason, they're true by accident. There can be no ``theory of everything,'' at least not in mathematics. Maybe in physics! "
Presumably he meant "Maybe in Physics" humorously, because given that a self-contained "logical" environment like mathematics exhibits limits, physics is in even worse shape, because it combines mathematics with real-world, often untrustworthy or incomplete experiential inputs. Modern physics demolished the neatness , knowability and seemingly infinite predictability of Newtonian "Laws."
The good news is that "determinism" is, to use a boxing term, "on the ropes" and taking a terrible beating. Not that long ago, it seemed that, collectively, the state of every particle in the universe at a given time determined the future of the universe, but the injection of limits and probabalistic ingredients along with "Chaos theory" demolishes that notion, while Einstein demolished the notion of a "given instant of time."
On the other hand, another implication to be drawn from the examples of modern mathematics and modern physics is that we can never achieve perfection nor even have full confidence in our systems at some lower limit of performance, because of these fundamental limits. Of course, in addition to these fundamental limits, we also have to handle "experiential" data, and that data brings with it further limits and contamination by error.
One major consequence is that, in dealing with the quasi-religious debates over systems design and implementation, it is important to recognize that there are no "right answers" in any absolute sense. There are what may be empirically "better" answers, but these are situational and sometimes ephemeral. Although there is a tendency among system designers to think like "Newtonians," the fundamental facts are that there is no solid "Newtonian" ground on which to stand.
Fulton Wilcox
Colts Neck Solutions LLC
www.coltsnecksolutions.com
No comments:
Post a Comment