[FRIAM] Gross incompetent maggots concast

[Steve Smith]

I know you missed my point but then made it for me.   When we treat 
redundancy as a linear way of increasing some quality 
(availability/bandwidth/etc) we set ourselves up for experiencing the  
recursion of N sets of belts and suspenders can become N-1 which can 
then become (N-1)-1 until we reach 0.   Your point as I understand it is 
what I was urging...

Not urging Gil to write two checks, but for Gil and each of his 
neighbors to write their own separate checks and with minimal increased 
complexity mesh their services within conventional WiFi range...  each 
participant might choose their uplink according to their own 
idiosyncratic interests (the one who has 6 TVs running on different 
cable channels gets ComCast, the one who loves Elon Musk gets Starlink, 
the one whose brother-in-law is a co-owner of the wireless company..., 
the one who likes annoying her tinfoil-hat neighbor uses a 5G hotspot,  
and the oldSkool prepper/survivalist provides the HAM radio relay 
uplink, maybe the overgrown boyscout offers a 1bps semaphore service 
with his friends within line-of-site) and then they all benefit from the 
*robustness* you speak of.  We are in violent agreement again.

On 7/21/22 12:29 PM, glen wrote:
> Ha! Well, that kinda misses the point, which was, in part, a criticism 
> of "monism" and "reductionism", on top of telling Gil he needs to 
> write 2 checks, one each to mechanistically *different* providers.
>
> Another part of the "2 is 1; 1 is none" refers back to things like the 
> epiphenomenator and the many-to-many nature of gen-phen maps and 
> Rosen's definition of complexity. The reason I pointed to the systems 
> engineering wiki rather than, say, a standard engineering definition 
> of "redundancy" is because (finally) systems engineering is coming 
> around to an understanding of plectics (cf 
> https://www.incose.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/complexity-primer-overview.pdf?sfvrsn=0), 
> whereas regular ole engineering is still dragging its feet.
>
> In our push for "elegant" solutions to complex things, we are building 
> epistemically *fragile* models of the world. But when we have multiple 
> mechanisms that can fill equivalent roles within a model, those models 
> are robust. Then the model is only as fragile as it's most monist 
> component. This is why, I think, biology will always be a "special 
> science". The saying "life is messy" is more than just a statement 
> about personal resilience. It's an identity. Messy is Life. And Life 
> is Messy. If you *think* you have a universal hammer, you're wrong. 
> What's actually happened is you're incapable of seeing non-hammer things.
>
> So ... your progression below is exactly backwards. Many is not fewer. 
> Many is reality. Fewer is fantasy. And the fewest few, 1, is nothing.
>
> On 7/21/22 09:12, Steve Smith wrote:
>> 2 is 1, 1 is none <glen>  or in the extreme "many is fewer... until 
>> it is also none".
>