The cyber-physical

Silence, as seen recently as measured by a small number of posts, on the topics of this blog has no meaning other than evidence that a respite occurred. The world is changing in many ways such that one has to stop from time to time to observe the landscape.

Below, there are a few words on a new development in thinking about the types of problems of interest to advanced techniques. That some may have thought that a process, like designing and building some complicated system such as an airplane, could be a one-button affair driven by computational prowess will continue to have some attention. Of course, such types of thinking were not being done by the engineers who are responsible for success and safety.

That some may think of modeling, especially of the mathematical type, as being a replacement for natural processes, too, will require a re-look in order to know why 'quasi-empiricism' is not more prominently considered.

But, for now, let's look at developments under the guise of cyber-physical systems: the NSF's introductory statement, one interested party and a related blog.

Now, as an aside, we ought to know that the quasi-empirical stance is at the basis for these types of inquiries. Too, there are tighter couplings for us to note between the cyber and the physical that will be necessarily considered. Some of these issues will be discussed in future posts.

Remarks:

05/28/2011 -- The 'avatar' will be multi-faceted in use, not just play its current role of fancy icon with behavior.

12/17/2010 -- These types of issues are continually there for our resolution.

09/14/2010 -- Must and may. Two important concepts.

03/02/2010 -- Perhaps, misinformed might be used instead of misplaced. That the title uses 'faith' might suggest that what we have with human reactions to software, and computational modeling in general, is a belief-based system. But, then, is not science so, at its core?

Ah, arguable point, one might say. Yet, those who argue the importance of 'quasi-empirical' thinking might bear more attention. That is, if the underlying mathematics can be problematic, why would not that which is super-positioned there upon?

Too boot, the NSF description, in my mind, ignores a whole slew of issues related to problems of logic and problem solving. That is, for one example, 'undecidable' is not just a property of the infinite set. It has operational use.

What we see, in my opinion, is a reliance on various types of ad-hoc closures, some of which are learned since they are really at the essence of human intelligence. These need to be lifted out for inspection and management, perhaps even toward control.

One might suggest that the concepts related to 'truth engineering' are necessary for complicated systems, especially those that are heavily involved with human affairs.

By the way, the auto engineers are not guilty of sins any worse than those committed by the best-and-brightest who spawned toxic financial material on an unsuspecting populace (and their leaders) through their mis-use (interlopers, all) of quantitative techniques in a very un-insightful manner. At least, with the auto, we can be empirical, albeit more quasi than not.

Modified: 05/28/2011