Posted by
Steve Smith on
Aug 21, 2013; 2:18am
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/How-Laura-Poitras-Helped-Snowden-Spill-His-Secrets-NYTimes-com-tp7583618p7583707.html
Marcus -
> On 8/20/13 2:36 PM, glen wrote:
>> You've given us a nice set of bounding concepts from which we might
>> define a Truth {clever, consistent, elegant, purposeful/non-clumsy,
>> appropriate-to-context}. The question is whether or not this set of
>> ascriptors can lead to something transpersonal.
> Rather than the software diffs example, judicial opinions might be a
> better example. How all of contemporary U.S. law unfolds from the
> Constitution is a big pill to swallow. It's less opaque to read an
> opinion and identify the concepts it appeals to and ensure that at
> least the logic is sound, and that the scope of the interpolations /
> extrapolations are evident. I can learn to trust the person making
> the legal opinion on the basis of the content of his or her opinions,
> but not have to trust that all of the original premises are also
> sound. The delta from the configuration that was given can often be
> found to be the right delta, even if the starting configuration is
> arbitrary.
>
> Marcus
This sounds a lot like the problem of verifying computer-generated
proofs like the early example of the 4 color problem. It might be
almost good enough to be able to verify each "step" of the proof and the
"logic" that it all hangs together with, even if no human can claim to
actually intuitively grasp the entireity of it?
It also reminds me of Aboriginal Song Lines and the Polynesian Stick
Charts for Navigation. In some sense, these might be complex and
obscure enough that the only way to apprehend them is to go through them
(en-route) and "experience" them.
My own experience with US law is that case law is a series of
elaborations and fine-tunings, and contextualizings of the original
legislation which itself has a similar relation to the constitution,
etc. I depend on what you say about the way it works, but that doesn't
stop me from seizing up when an opinion or decision is handed down that
is "just plain wrong". Lawyers, i suppose will try to trace back it's
provenance to find where the flaw occurred. Me, I just want to hold a
mirror up to, or shine a light on, it's flaws.
- Steve
============================================================
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