Re: serializing the facts

[Ludwik Kowalski <KowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

John Denker wrote:

> .... As an example, conflicting requirements manifest themselves
> in the endless "physics first" discussion on this list.  The discussion
>  is guaranteed to be endless, because there cannot possibly be a
> good answer.  There are good reasons to put physics before X, Y,
> and Z. There are also good reasons to put physics after X, Y, and Z.

Here is another example of "natural order".

1) Physics first, it does not need chemistry or biology
    to support it (except brains).
2) Chemistry is physics plus other things. It does
    not need biology to support it. So it is next.
3) Biology is chemistry and physics plus other
    things. That is why it is #3 in my sequence.
4) Psychology is biology plus other things.
5) Economics depends on psychology of many
    and on other things. Therefore it is more
    complex than 1, 2, 3, and 4.
6) Political "science" is next; it is more than
    economics.
7) etc. etc. And where are languages, logic and
   math? They are # 0, below physics.
8) And where is philosophy? It at the top and
    at the bottom, at the same time.

But this does not mean one has to study 1, 2 and 3,
for example, before studying #4. Each discipline
has its own starting points (taking some words and
some facts for granted). Likewise, one can learn 3
(classifying flora and fauna as it used to be) without
1 and 2. But this can not be very productive. The
"law of supply and demand" does not care about
what motivates individuals; it is a starting point in 5.

> Another type of conflict is the arch-builder's dilemma:
> You know that the finished arch is stable.  You know
> that the higher blocks rest on the lower blocks.  But
> each block is also held in place by higher blocks in a
> nontrivial way.  In many cases, if you just add a block
> in the "natural order" it will fall off before you can get
> any additional blocks in place. .....