4 ms·
That excerpt reads to me much like explaining how a guidance system works on a missile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe5J8SVCYQ https://www.youtube.com/watc
by Nadya 5y ago
That excerpt reads to me much like explaining how a guidance system works on a missile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe5J8SVCYQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe5J8SVCYQ
> The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.
Very simple words, with 3 or 4 exceptions, but it short-circuits the brain a bit if you aren't following along carefully enough.
- pramodbiligiri 5y agoThat sounds like something Humphrey Appleby would say in Yes Minister.
- marginalia_nu 5y agoA lot of the difficulty in the Parmenides case is that it's discussing a lot of the same concepts that appear in the discussion, such as sameness and difference. As an aside, I do contracting work for the Swedish public sector, and come in contact with an interesting conflict of needs. They have a mandate to use easy language, but also a need for specific legal terms. As a result, they've started overloading specific meanings on common words, making sentences appear understandable (the words are simple), but really easy to misunderstand (because half the words don't mean what you would think). I'm not sure what's a good solution to this.