New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Campaigns
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (7144 previous messages)

rshow55 - 06:56am Dec 31, 2002 EST (# 7145 of 7147) Delete Message
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

Lunarchick and I have been worrying some about control theory - and related matters with close connections to life and death, peace and war, prosperity and muddle.

If you're trying to build something that works (or if evolution is to produce a successful result) - these very basic principles, or dimensions, are vitally important - at every level, and in detail.

. Order

. Symmetry

. Harmony

Usually in that order, though there have to be exceptions. Sometimes you have to mix them up. But if something is to develop (or evolve) that works - these principles, in interaction together, are important again and again.

Sometimes there are assemblies that are designed (or evolved, or some of both) - and if they are subject to a lot of work - over a lot of time (or a lot of evolution) patterns happen - with very good order, very good symmetry, and complete harmony witin the system itself, and in the system as it is placed in the system (environment) that it is a part of.

But things that are perfect for one purpose can be perfectly awful for some other purpose - and so sometimes there have to be exceptions. After all, sometimes a system has to do different things at different times, or has to fit into different contexts. The more specialized and perfect that system is for one job - the more ill fit it can be for another. If both jobs need to be served - there is a "contradiction" - a need for exception handling according to a pattern that may be more or less mechanical.

And the exception handling, after a while, if things are complicated and there are a lot of things going on, has to be organized itself, and becomes another system - connected to the first, lower system - with ways of changing or switching that lower system in detailed ways, through interfaces with the components.

rshow55 - 07:00am Dec 31, 2002 EST (# 7146 of 7147) Delete Message
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

As the exception handling system sorts itself out, or evolves, or is developed - the exception handling itself becomes a system - and many of the same sorts of issues that applied at a lower level to the lower system now apply (though at a higher level) to the exception handling system.

An exception handling system that works well has to involve these very basic principles:

. Order

. Symmetry

. Harmony

Usually in that order, though there have to be exceptions. Sometimes you have to mix them up. But if something is to develop (or evolve) that works - these principles, in interaction together, are important again and again. The higher the level of control, the more complicated notions of order, symmetry, and harmony have to be.

And a system of exception handling - or exception handling system trimming - if it is complex enough, or exists in a complicated enough context, will itself involve conflicts, or problems, or situationally inappropriate responses that require a higher level of control.

And so on.

Things sort themselves out into levels - the image in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs by William G. Huitt Essay and Image : http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/regsys/maslow.html is a clear, important, and general example of a heirarchical system with controls and interfaces of mutual constraint.

Look at the picture.

More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us