Robert K. wrote:
perspective, isn’t it against some basic nature laws to leave it like
There are no nature laws in IT.
Thanks for your kind reply.
I was, of course, referring to your proposition, and not to you. My
evaluation is supported (I would hope) by the rest of my statement -
again referring to ideas, not person. The “Absolute” is, of course,
hyperbole, and also an attempt at humorous irony, since the argument
which followed I then made was an appeal to the relative world of real
probability, in which absolutes (“laws”) are not likely to exist.
With that argument the statement “there are nature laws in X” becomes
a tautology because they influence every aspect of reality.
Law of IT need not have relevance outside of that domain. There IS no
to keep the distinction because this allows me to make more
interesting (i.e. non tautological) statements.
Clever, but…um…unfortunately wrong, if you reread my stipulated
definition of “law”. It’s critical.
To put it differently: the brain behaves in patterned ways, which are
describable by stochastic statements, the strongest of which approximate
what in philosophically (and scientifically) simpler times were referred
to as “laws”. If this non-chaotic behavior be granted, and if you grant
that IT must work in the context of this same brain, else it be
irrelevant, then IT must also be non-chaotic, which is to say ‘something
akin to law-like’ - not inherently but functionally. Chaotic IT
certainly could (and in some quarters likely does) exist. But USEFUL IT
cannot be structured this way, because, as I said, it must pass through
the filter of the brain.
I think you are having trouble abandoning the idealist view of law. I
certainly grasp that concept, but it seems useful to me only in study of
the history of philosophy. Two words: quatum mechanics (which I believe
IS supposed to “influence” all of nature). I rest my case.
Did it every surprise you before this thread? If not, I don’t see any
issue with POLS.
So, the falling tree in the forest makes no noise until I hear it? OK.
But, pragmatically, if this sort of syntactic nonsense (the parenthesis
thing - not the tree) exists in this case in Ruby, I become fearful
about where else it might exist. Simply a practical concern. Otherwise,
it is, as you point out, likely to be of so little import as to deserve
no further attention.
Keep it simple, when at all possible.
Exactly. Having a feature that makes the language simple which is not
used by anyone (or only rarely) does not justify complicating the
parser more than necessary.
A pragmatic question, and you may well be right.
Let’s hope so. Of course, the next time my Ruby program fails (and I’m
good at that), I WILL have to wonder if I’m hearing a distant tree
Tom C., MS MA, LMHC
Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< [email protected] >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website & psychotherapy weblog)
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health issues weblog)
<< directpathdesign.com >> (web site design & consultation)