On 8/20/13 9:02 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
On 8/20/13 8:18 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
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?
Not a constructive proof, I'm claiming that from a bunch of wonky
premises the `candidate for proposed trust mode 3' can iterate a
argument forward in a useful, convincing, or subjectively interesting
way that causes me to listen for more. It might just be because
they're a good at sales and that I'm a sucker. The Kool-Aid is tasty,
may I have another glass?!
Goof! I lost the thread. I was arguing that universal truth could be
displaced with best-effort transactional scrutiny. Passing
transactional scrutiny I argue is form of trust mode 1. It's only a
good as the available eyes on the problem -- the trust giver's. Trust
mode 3 is where "subjectively interesting" lands. Trust Mode 1 =
Convince, Trust Mode 3 = Entertain / Motivate
Marcus
============================================================
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
