Finally! I was working on this piece for a while. Check out this #Cynefin Framework article (by @snowded) if you are interested to learn how to handle #business situations of different #complexity efficiently.https://link.medium.com/cPpwXaSRbX
-
-
Can you really move from the complex to the simple? A complex system is a complex system. That's not the same as something being complex because we, as yet, don't understand it, "apparent complexity".
4 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Is complexity truly inherent? Or is experienced complexity interactive with perspective and framing?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @antlerboy @design4services and
I think the point I want to make is that - just as Geoff Elliott always says 'the first of the 31 principles of systems thinking is: systems don't exist', we should always be mindful that our identification of a 'domain' is context, perspective, and rationality-dependent.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Don’t agree with that; we’ve found ways to make aspects of epistemology independent of perception
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Yes - the meta-rational point would perhaps be that that works as long as it works. When true, trivially true, but always subject to paradigm shift and not usually the points where the interesting thinking and work takes place.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @antlerboy @snowded and
Isn’t that all we have? There’s no logic independent proof of logic and if there was you’d only be faced with the problem of proving that was correct giving an infinite regression
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jtowers100 @snowded and
Say more, James? Sounds interesting. I'd say that
@Meaningness has some persuasive stuff that rationality always relies on extra-rational support. Logic, doubly so, and twice after lunch!1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @antlerboy @snowded and
Ha! Well arguments that logic has foundations on something else usually end up with that something else being supernatural, but that just begs the question, what validates the supernatural? As you say our confidence is based on it’s continued reliability
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Totally mundane, non-supernatural example and explanation:https://meaningness.com/eggplant/pebbles …
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @antlerboy and
Interesting. So I agree that ‘representation’ is ‘overlaid’ (my word) on the set of stones the Shepard has. But it also has the property of cardinality, as does the passer-by’s set and the set of sheep, which may or may not be equal irrespective of any intention of representation
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jtowers100 @Meaningness and
The examination of real stones is vital for any practical implementation, but it wouldn’t matter unless the underlying set theory worked, if every time the Shepard looked in his bucket the number of stones was different (without anyone adding or subtracting any) what then?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.