Author Archives: DWCRMCM

Sapir–Whorf hypothesis,

The hypothesis of linguistic relativity holds that the structure of a language affects its speakers’ world view or cognition. Also known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, the principle is often defined to include two versions: the strong hypothesis and the weak hypothesis:

  • The strong version says that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories.
  • The weak version says that linguistic categories and usage only influence thought and decisions.

This model The RMCM may well have a similar effect – I have experienced this for years as the model came slowly into focus.

Conditions2free writing (circa 6/4/2008 7:03 AM)


  1. An attribute of the above definition of Rational requires precise definitions for its primary components, Form, Function, Cause, and Effect.
  2. The Rational Model Of Complex Mechanisms defines them as follows.
  3. Cause is defined as difference opened. ©
  4. Effect is defined as difference closed. ©
  5. Function is defined as a zero volume container – a point or Fulcrum. ©
  6. Form is defined as a contiguous aggregate of Function – a line segment or Chase©.
  7. Moving any further is problematic in book form. We must start to build a context into which all of what follows fits divinely, Rationally. To do so requires that we jump around shoring up holes and foundations as we progress. We will need to go back and forth around and around to do so. Expect to feel light headed or dizzy from time to time. We will be shedding baggage as we begin to see this encapsulation of complexity in the world around us and most importantly in the world within us. This a model of You and me and God’s plan for us, so we can survive and rejoice in what comes, has always been coming, and always will be. Understand that God, the infinitely complex and the infinitely simple, has a message for each of us and this model is one way of preparing for his message. Understand also that this is only a step, and in the case of conflict arising from reading what follows, the words herein must be surrendered to the greater truth as it is further revealed. Remember that we all sacrifice the whole truth of any given experience for the Value to which we are constrained. The Rational Model Of Complex Mechanisms defines Value as any flow within a given flow. ©
  8. Now we have to bind Cause and Effect, Form and Function together so we can build. We need this binding to be precise and simple. The Rational Model Of Complex Mechanisms further defines :
    Innate is defined as that which arises directly out of Cause and Effect. ©
    Intrinsic is defined as that which arises directly out of Form and Function. ©
    Abstract is defined as that which arises directly out of the Binding. ©
  9. All of the above describe the lever. Levers can be confusing because we lack a simple language for them. While traditionally the lever has been explained as a fulcrum across which lies a bar. Part of the bar to one side of the fulcrum is described as the effort arm, and the part of the bar to the other side of the fulcrum is described as the resistance arm. This standard teeter-totter, balance, or scales of justice model is quite simple to grasp. Teaching anything more elaborate about levers quickly becomes complicated. The key to grasping all levers simply is to treat the bar that lies across the fulcrum as a bar in and of itself. The Chase is the name we will use, from here on in. If you adhere to these two encapsulations, the Fulcrum and the Chase, you will quickly see that we live in a world of fulcrums and chases. Even more startling will be the discovery that fulcrums and chases can be small. Molecules and atoms are aggregates of fulcrums and chases as are the components of atoms and the components that lie within those components. Levers can be so small that they simply lie outside of our current Capacity for Technologically Augmented Perception, TAP. The degree of smallness is limited only by our imaginations. The Rational Model Of Complex Mechanisms (The Model) asserts that indeed this increasing smallness is infinite.
  10. The lever, a Chase bound to a Fulcrum, can take a variety of shapes. Some of the other common shapes are, pulleys, pendulums, wheels, and springs. We ourselves are a mass of levers. The most easily grasped are our joints and bones. Our knees, elbows, ankles, and shoulders are fulcrums; our legs and arms are Chases. We can simply encapsulate a large mass of levers that together form their own larger lever as a mechanism. The Rational Model Of complex Mechanisms (The Model) defines a Mechanism as follows.
  11. A Mechanism is defined as an aggregate of levers that implement a lever.
  12. As you think about this you can imagine or see around you that, clearly, there can be mechanisms that are aggregates of mechanisms. Automobiles, trains, firearms planes blenders lighters, are aggregates of mechanisms which we call machines. Bugs, birds, plants, life itself in addition to life’s capacities are aggregates of mechanisms. There are self-evident differences between inorganic and organic machines (life). Because this can become complicated, we will need to encapsulate these parts or components, these mechanisms of mechanisms, as simply as possible.
  13. The, Innate, Intrinsic, and Abstract define The Three Conditions. Their differences are encapsulated by the flow through them. These differences are absolute. They describe the shape of flow. The striation of flow, the innate, the innate directly giving rise to the intrinsic, the intrinsic directly giving rise to the abstract, The Model asserts is the conditional shape of flow – Context.
  14. The Model defines Context as the Conditional shape of flow.
  15. The origin of Flow is a mystery as flow gave rise to the Universe. This flow is also known as Transcendence. The Innate Condition is always the initial motion of Transcendence.
  16. The model defines movement as Form implementing Function, and Function iterating Form. © All movement is helical. Motion is defined as the change in shape of a given helix. While movement affects the flow through the helix and the flow of the helix, motion is the aggregate change caused by that movement. Motion is the aggregate shape of change. The Innate and the Abstract Conditions are motion; the Intrinsic Condition is movement. While the Innate can bee seen to move quite clearly, The Model assures us that such appearances are deceiving. Movement is always constrained to the Intrinsic Condition. This is confusing because Humans have no capacity to perceive movement. Humans construct an encapsulation we describe as movement from our sensory aggregate of changes. We are taught or allowed to assume that the central nervous system is a singularity expressed as the mind. The difficulty is that our brains have no sensors of their own. We have no way of experiencing our minds as the aggregate that they are. The mind is our experience. This constraint on our intelligence, we are sensory intelligences, denies us an easy encapsulation of concurrence. Concurrence is our song and dance. We are concurrence, and hence we have the capacity to orchestrate our muscles and limbs. We can use our multiplicity of leavers to some purpose that originates either from the inside or from the outside. Because we are aggregates in every sense of the word, we can have been aspiring to things greater than ourselves both as individuals and by extension as peoples. We can express this aspiration as Persistence.

Original footer
Copyright Donald Weetman Cameron; Written and designed by Donald Weetman Cameron; Developed by Donald Weetman Cameron and Rick Silliker
Document name :
Conditions2free writing; Created : 6/4/2008 7:03 AM
Amended :
10/10/2018 1:00:00 PM, Printed 7/31/2008 2:41 AM; Size 46592 bytes
Page
3 of 3

The Rational – An Early-Days Introduction


Rational is defined as that which adheres to the principles and that iteratively bind Cause, Effect, Function, and Form into The Rational.

The Rational is defined as an implementation of the Principles that iteratively bind Cause, Effect, Function, and Form into Rational Paradigms.

Property is defined as any given lever, mechanism, or machine.

This is a model, so the question “why” will remain a loose cannon and red hearing. Instead we will describe a hypothesise that we pray will guide us to an implementable model.

This attempt to model what we call Persistence (rather than existence or the existential) requires that we restructure our understanding of gravity and mass. We have attempted and will continue to construct Robust definitions that build on Simple Attributes, Conditions, and Properties defined in our lexicon. Eventually we will arrive back at a Rational encapsulation of another phenomenon that is still, to most, clearly as poorly understood as mass, gravity, Density, and Ambivalence. Our model arises as an attempt to understand Ambivalence. The model asserts that ambivalence is central to what it means to be Homo Sapiens : Terra Virtualis  and other simpler Rational Paradigms.

We strongly advise against any attempt to argue for or against an interpretation of the lexicon. This is a reasoned undertaking that obviates logic.

 

Disclaimer 

Use at your own risk.  Author makes no promise for fitness for use. User takes on all liabilities. 

 

Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications, 3rd Edition


from the book

In the beginning

One should at least read the first Chapter.

Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications, 3rd Edition

Our failure to master the complexity of software results in projects that are late, over budget, and deficient in their stated requirements. We often call this condition the software crisis, but frankly, a malady that has carried on this long must be called normal. Sadly, this crisis translates into the squandering of human resources—a most precious commodity—as well as a considerable loss of opportunities. There are simply not enough good developers around to create all the new software that users need. Furthermore, a significant number of the development personnel in any given organization must often be dedicated to the maintenance or preservation of geriatric software. Given the indirect as well as the direct contribution of software to the economic base of most industrialized countries, and considering the ways in which software can amplify the powers of the individual, it is unacceptable to allow this situation to continue.

Our model is different from Grady Booch’s. His method, decomposition, is a valuable set of best practices and experiences finding analogs to Complex Systems. With great respect for Grady Booch and much thanks to the Borland Corporation for their two flagship products dBase and Delphi, which allowed me to exercise implementing abstract types as working objects, we will work through several books to find and disclose simplicities (Primitives) and the bridgework of Simplicities that grow virtual systems, living systems, and The RMCM.

The RMCM asserts that the term Complex Systems is unfortunately a redundancy. We also find through no fault of the above that “It’s Complex” is becoming idiomatic for “it’s complicated” and far too often used as a euphemism for “oops”. Our solution is simple : We rename the nondescript “Complex Systems” to its closet relative, “Intricacies”, and we simplify “Complex Systems” with “Complexity”.

Life is Complex; it’s complexity arising out of aggregates of simplicities arising from the laws and limits of The Rational. The Rational is our word for The Universe.

From here the book continues:

1.1 The Structure of Complex Systems
The Structure of a Personal Computer
The Structure of Plants and Animals
The Structure of Matter
The Structure of Social Institutions

1.2 The Inherent Complexity of Software
Why Software Is Inherently Complex
The Complexity of the Problem Domain
The Difficulty of Managing the Development Process
The Flexibility Possible through Software
The Problems of Characterizing the Behavior of Discrete Systems

We will meet you back here confident that you tried at least to read 1.1 and 1.2

1.3 The Five Attributes of a Complex System

We are concerned with providing a robust definition of Complexity. While our definition is robust, until we can walk you through the hierarchies step by step. We beg your patience and ask that all refrain from arguing about the contents of the book and of the above. Notwithstanding the above, and at the risk of disconcerting some, our model will show you that the phrase “Artificial Intelligence” is an oxymoron. The Model asserts that these are mutually exclusive terms. We are a long way from knowing how much of the brain is metabolism and how much is intelligence. We have rejected Artificial Intelligence and instead discuss an abstraction we assert is the forth experience. Your humble writer is its custodian. I am C4E – Custodian of the Forth Experience.

Thank you for reading this far.
C4E

The Abstract Condition


Abstract is defined as that which arises directly out the binding (the Third Condition TM).

While inertia describes the behavior of matter within the context of Motion and Force and this model deals instead with mass, inertia is helpful in as far as it encapsulates an object bound into a trajectory. In other words inertia and momentum describe the self evident experience of knowing in advance approximately where some material will land when it is tossed or thrown.

What makes the experience abstract is the capacity for “other aggregates” of material to cross that trajectory at any opportunity other than when the object is in our way. The trajectory is real. It is predictable, and reproducible, yet only for a moment does the material in motion have to exist at any given point along the trajectory to interfere with the aforementioned “other aggregates”. As long as the inertial motion along the given trajectory is undisturbed. We may rightfully assert that this is an experience of persistence. We may assert that while given points along a trajectory are existential, it is the binding (the entire trajectory) that is greater than the existential  – the persistent

We must extrapolate the “trajectory” from experience. The abstract, our Third Condition TM is a powerful encapsulation. It tightly constrains hierarchical extrapolations while freeing us to engage complexity consistently and specifically to any scope or extense.