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.
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.