Why conversational equations and emergence (General)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, March 30, 2014, 21:58 (3889 days ago) @ David Turell

I think the fundamental missing element in this conversation is something that game designers refer to as 'perfect knowledge'. In a game, which typically has a finite number of states, it is reasonable to assume that a player that has perfect knowledge (knows the state of every element in play) can predict or solve the outcome of any game. -Where this fails in real world application is that it is impossible to have perfect knowledge of a anything, as it would require instantaneous measurements of everything from the quantum level on up to the universal level in a given instance. -"Most systems of systems use their component systems in ways that were neither intended nor anticipated. Assumptions that were reasonable and appropriate for individual component systems become sources of errors and malfunction within systems of systems. As a result, the individual systems ... and the system of systems as a whole -- acquire vulnerabilities that can be triggered accidentally by normal actions of users and automated components, or exploited consciously by intelligent adversaries. For the complex systems of systems being constructed today and defined for the future, it is no longer possible for any human or automated component to have full knowledge of the system. Each component must depend on information received from other systems whose capabilities, intentions, and trustworthiness are unknown."-If we had perfect knowledge and could confidently state that there was no such thing as a random event, we could discard things like 'emergent behavior'. However, that is simply not the case in never will be in any practical application.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.