Perhaps it’s just the terminolgoy of the story but are tools modeled as physical objects or are they more general than that? For example, I often think of things like government and markets (and other social institutions) as tools which exists at a social level problem space.
With footnote 4, is the point that there is not tight problem-tool mapping, in the sense that we will have problems/subprobles that are solved without the use of a tool (as you have them modeled/defined)? Or is it better understood as saying we will have gaps we have not yet solved, or not yet solved in some way that has converged to some widely shared conception of a tool that solves the problem?
Perhaps it’s just the terminolgoy of the story but are tools modeled as physical objects or are they more general than that?
I was trying to be agnostic about that. I think the cognitive characterization works well for a fairly broad notion of tool, including thought-tools, mathematical proof techniques, or your examples of governments and markets.
With footnote 4, is the point that...
There may be subproblems which don’t fit any cluster well, there may be clusters which don’t have any standard tool, some of those subproblem-clusters may be “solved” by a tool later but maybe some never will be… there’s a lot of possibilities.
Perhaps it’s just the terminolgoy of the story but are tools modeled as physical objects or are they more general than that? For example, I often think of things like government and markets (and other social institutions) as tools which exists at a social level problem space.
With footnote 4, is the point that there is not tight problem-tool mapping, in the sense that we will have problems/subprobles that are solved without the use of a tool (as you have them modeled/defined)? Or is it better understood as saying we will have gaps we have not yet solved, or not yet solved in some way that has converged to some widely shared conception of a tool that solves the problem?
I was trying to be agnostic about that. I think the cognitive characterization works well for a fairly broad notion of tool, including thought-tools, mathematical proof techniques, or your examples of governments and markets.
There may be subproblems which don’t fit any cluster well, there may be clusters which don’t have any standard tool, some of those subproblem-clusters may be “solved” by a tool later but maybe some never will be… there’s a lot of possibilities.