NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enrahim" data-source="post: 9707136" data-attributes="member: 7025577">This is interesting. We indeed have very common backgrounds. I absolutely see your point. It actually in a way strikes me as more humanity-optimistic than my own instincts. My major was in general relativity, but I got pretty deep in quantum mechanics as well. And I can see these theories as the absolute triumph they are in human kinds ability to cooperate to produce a simulation ruleset that produces results with an accuracy way beyond any expert intuition.However one major thing that might be coloring my view in this matter was that I left academia much because I got disillusioned about the aplicability of said theories. We got a ruleset that in theory could simulate anything at micro scale, but where we even in my course about subatomic particles needed to use severe simplifications to produce any results at all.I absolutely get your point about inviting critisism though! I shifted career to software engineering, and I am absolutely in love with the systems allowing/requiring other people to review any code before it get into the common codebase. Every time anyone are just accepting any code I have written without any points of critisism I get nervous they might have taken too lightly on the task. Mind you, this is after the code already have passed the formidable suite of automated rules based checks we have in place.I think the two paragraphs above suggest is that while I also recognise keenly the fallibility of a human, I also have been personally burned by the limitation of (human-made) rules.I really like this hypotesis! If I read it correctly this would if true explain why the K/FK conundrum is indeed seemingly unresolvable. If both expert and ruleset always can reach any desireable ceiling then there will not be any way to distinguish their optimal performance from a practical standpoint.In one way this is a really neat resolution of the associated design conundrum. It appear to justify several schools of design as equivalent as far as SRs go. On one hand we have the fixed mechanics design as you point out. On the other hand we have the "educate the referee to expert status" school of design. And then we have the more hybrid: "Provide rules support to elevate referee performance" school.</blockquote>

Verification