While this is a useful model, it's just a model. And just like Newtonian Physics is a great model for predicting and altering most behavior at non-relativistic speeds and energies, the model breaks down when we start looking at the "extreme" situations, and so we have to upgrade to a larger more inclusive (albeit far clumsier) model: relativistic mechanics, quantum mechanics, and so on.
In particular, subjective/objective as a model keeps you from seeing that every observation you make as a subject also influences the object to a tiny degree. In Physics, this is parallel to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. So you can't completely define a ruleset and a toolset. You can only define a toolset and ruleset that mostly work for any given system.
Keep your mind open to larger models as well, although again, you may not necessarily use them for everyday things.
-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.
In reply to •Re: The recurring model
by merlyn
in thread The recurring model
by bl0rf
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |