3 ms·

Tractable compared with non-thought stuff - try reworking wood or metal. But you're right that it's impossible to eliminate all dependencies, and a large interd

by 10ren 18y ago

Tractable compared with non-thought stuff - try reworking wood or metal. But you're right that it's impossible to eliminate all dependencies, and a large interdependent structure becomes tedious, and scary, to change. "Throw one away", Brooks even admitted (if you can.) Alan Turing predicted that programming need never become boring because you can automate the mechanical aspects. If it really is repetitive, you can automate it. One can also make small tools that are useful to others. e.g. I got a thrill even from a trivial script to automate away a tedious step, when other people used it. I don't believe in a personal god but I respect people, like Knuth and Fred Brooks, who do. If they think a tree is designed, I'm happy to think of the intrinsic beauty of a tree - and of all nature. I couldn't make any of it. It's surprisingly renewing to spend some time in nature.

glymor 18y ago
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't refering to whether God designs. I was refering to the differences in each snowfake or leaf being of random source that is what I meant by "each".
- 10ren 18y ago
  Oh, you mean they aren't individually designed (without commenting on whether the process that generates them is designed or not); and the variations in each one (that snowflakes are the canonical example of) are just random fluctuations. The beauty comes from the process, not the randomness. I see what you mean. I think taking a personal God point of view, one would say that those random fluctuations are not random, but designed; just as each individual person is a real textured thing. Every individual is more than a mere variation on a platonic theme. My own tendency is think that when we don't understand something, it's easiest to model it as random; but whether it really is random is something we don't know. So I'm with Einstein in the "god does not play dice with the universe" on this one. BTW: on a separate note, I'm concerned about you. Having a project canceled is very distressing. The last time I heard someone talking like this (an editor at my publisher, who just had an important proposal knocked back), they committed suicide a couple of weeks later. I sensed something was a little odd, but I didn't do anything. Please, if you are feeling low, ring one of those suicide helplines. I'll be very relieved if you do (or if I'm ridiculously off-base, even more so).

by 10ren 18y ago

glymor 18y ago

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't refering to whether God designs. I was refering to the differences in each snowfake or leaf being of random source that is what I meant by "each".

10ren 18y ago
Oh, you mean they aren't individually designed (without commenting on whether the process that generates them is designed or not); and the variations in each one (that snowflakes are the canonical example of) are just random fluctuations. The beauty comes from the process, not the randomness. I see what you mean. I think taking a personal God point of view, one would say that those random fluctuations are not random, but designed; just as each individual person is a real textured thing. Every individual is more than a mere variation on a platonic theme. My own tendency is think that when we don't understand something, it's easiest to model it as random; but whether it really is random is something we don't know. So I'm with Einstein in the "god does not play dice with the universe" on this one. BTW: on a separate note, I'm concerned about you. Having a project canceled is very distressing. The last time I heard someone talking like this (an editor at my publisher, who just had an important proposal knocked back), they committed suicide a couple of weeks later. I sensed something was a little odd, but I didn't do anything. Please, if you are feeling low, ring one of those suicide helplines. I'll be very relieved if you do (or if I'm ridiculously off-base, even more so).