The analysis of the main application scenario revealed that classical
logical inference concepts are insufficient for the assistance of human ac-
tors during shared planning. It turned out that the simulator has to be
understood as a real learning artificial actor which has to gain the required
knowledge during the process.
Changes: July 20.2019 (Rewriting the introduction)
This Philosophy Lab section of the uffmm science blog is the last extension of the uffmm blog, happening July 2019. It has been provoked by the meta reflections about the AAI engineering approach.
SCOPE OF SECTION
This section deals with the following topics:
How can we talk about science including the scientist (and engineer!) as the main actors? In a certain sense one can say that science is mainly a specific way how to communicate and to verify the communication content. This presupposes that there is something called knowledge located in the heads of the actors.
The presupposed knowledge usually is targeting different scopes encoded in different languages. The language enables or delimits meaning and meaning objects can either enable or delimit a certain language. As part of the society and as exemplars of the homo sapiens species scientists participate in the main behavior tendencies to assimilate majority behavior and majority meanings. This can reduce the realm of knowledge in many ways. Biological life in general is the opposite to physical entropy by generating auotopoietically during the course of time more and more complexity. This is due to a built-in creativity and the freedom to select. Thus life is always oscillating between conformity and experiment.
The survival of modern societies depends highly on the ability to communicate with maximal sharing of experience by exploring fast and extensively possible state spaces with their pros and cons. Knowledge must be round the clock visible to all, computable, modular, constructive, in the format of interactive games with transparent rules. Machines should be re-formatted as primarily helping humans, not otherwise around.
To enable such new open and dynamic knowledge spaces one has to redefine computing machines extending the Turing machine (TM) concept to a world machine (WM) concept which offers several new services for social groups, whole cities or countries. In the future there is no distinction between man and machine because there is a complete symbiotic unification because the machines have become an integral part of a personality, the extension of the body in some new way; probably far beyond the cyborg paradigm.
The basic creativity and freedom of biological life has been further developed in a fundamental all embracing spirituality of life in the universe which is targeting a re-creation of the whole universe by using the universe for the universe.
On the cover page of this blog you find a first general view on the subject matter of an integrated engineering approach for the future. Here we give a short description of the main idea of the analysis phase of systems engineering how this will be realized within the actor-actor interaction paradigm as described in this text.
As you can see in figure Nr.1 there are the following main topics within the Actor-Actor Interaction (AAI) paradigm as used in this text (Comment: The more traditional formula is known as Human-Machine Interaction (HMI)):
Triggered by a problem document D_p from the problem phase (P) of the engineering process the AAI-experts have to analyze, what are the potential requirements following from this document, all the time also communicating with the stakeholder to keep in touch with the hidden intentions of the stakeholder.
The idea is to identify at least one task (T) with at least one goal state (G) which shall be arrived after running a task.
A task is assumed to represent a sequence of states (at least a start state and a goal state) which can have more than one option in every state, not excluding repetitions.
Every task presupposes some context (C) which gives the environment for the task.
The number of tasks and their length is in principle not limited, but their can be certain constraints (CS) given which have to be fulfilled required by the stakeholder or by some other important rules/ laws. Such constraints will probably limit the number of tasks as well as their length.
Every task as a sequence of states can be viewed as a story which describes a process. A story is a text (TXT) which is static and hides the implicit meaning in the brains of the participating actors. Only if an actor has some (learned) understanding of the used language then the actor is able to translate the perceptions of the process in an appropriate text and vice versa the text into corresponding perceptions or equivalently ‘thoughts’ representing the perceptions.
In this text it is assumed that a story is describing only the observable behavior of the participating actors, not their possible internal states (IS). For to describe the internal states (IS) it is further assumed that one describes the internal states in a new text called actor model (AM). The usual story is called an actor story (AS). Thus the actor story (AS) is the environment for the actor models (AM).
In this text three main modes of actor stories are distinguished:
An actor story written in some everyday language L_0 called AS_L0 .
A translation of the everyday language L_0 into a mathematical language L_math which can represent graphs, called AS_Lmath.
A translation of the hidden meaning which resides in the brains of the AAI-experts into a pictorial language L_pict (like a comic strip), called AS_Lpict.
To make the relationship between the graph-version AS_Lmath and the pictorial version AS_Lpict visible one needs an explicit mapping Int from one version into the other one, like: Int : AS_Lmath <—> AS_Lpict. This mapping Int works like a lexicon from one language into another one.
From a philosophy of science point of view one has to consider that the different kinds of actor stories have a meaning which is rooted in the intended processes assumed to be necessary for the realization of the different tasks. The processes as such are dynamic, but the stories as such are static. Thus a stakeholder (SH) or an AAI-expert who wants to get some understanding of the intended processes has to rely on his internal brain simulations associated with the meaning of these stories. Because every actor has its own internal simulation which can not be perceived from the other actors there is some probability that the simulations of the different actors can be different. This can cause misunderstandings, errors, and frustrations.(Comment: This problem has been discussed in [DHW07])
One remedy to minimize such errors is the construction of automata (AT) derived from the math mode AS_Lmath of the actor stories. Because the math mode represents a graph one can derive Der from this version directly (and automatically) the description of an automaton which can completely simulate the actor story, thus one can assume Der(AS_Lmath) = AT_AS_Lmath.
But, from the point of view of Philosophy of science this derived automaton AT_AS_Lmath is still only a static text. This text describes the potential behavior of an automaton AT. Taking a real computer (COMP) one can feed this real computer with the description of the automaton AT AT_AS_Lmath and make the real computer behave like the described automaton. If we did this then we have a real simulation (SIM) of the theoretical behavior of the theoretical automaton AT realized by the real computer COMP. Thus we have SIM = COMP(AT_AS_Lmath). (Comment: These ideas have been discussed in [EDH11].)
Such a real simulation is dynamic and visible for everybody. All participating actors can see the same simulation and if there is some deviation from the intention of the stakeholder then this can become perceivable for everybody immediately.
As mentioned above the actor story (AS) describes only the observable behavior of some actor, but not possible internal states (IS) which could be responsible for the observable behavior.
If necessary it is possible to define for every actor an individual actor model; indeed one can define more than one model to explore the possibilities of different internal structures to enable a certain behavior.
The general pattern of actor models follows in this text the concept of input-output systems (IOSYS), which are in principle able to learn. What the term ‘learning’ designates concretely will be explained in later sections. The same holds of the term ‘intelligent’ and ‘intelligence’.
The basic assumptions about input-output systems used here reads a follows:
Def: Input-Output System (IOSYS)
IOSYS(x) iff x=< I, O, IS, phi>
phi : I x IS —> IS x O
I := Input
O := Output
IS := Internal
As in the case of the actor story (AS) the primary descriptions of actor models (AM) are static texts. To make the hidden meanings of these descriptions ‘explicit’, ‘visible’ one has again to convert the static texts into descriptions of automata, which can be feed into real computers which in turn then simulate the behavior of these theoretical automata as a real process.
Combining the real simulation of an actor story with the real simulations of all the participating actors described in the actor models can show a dynamic, impressive process which is full visible to all collaborating stakeholders and AAI-experts.
Having all actor stories and actor models at hand, ideally implemented as real simulations, one has to test the interaction of the elaborated actors with real actors, which are intended to work within these explorative stories and models. This is done by actor tests (former: usability tests) where (i) real actors are confronted with real tasks and have to perform in the intended way; (ii) real actors are interviewed with questionnaires about their subjective feelings during their task completion.
Every such test will yield some new insights how to change the settings a bit to gain eventually some improvements. Repeating these cycles of designing, testing, and modifying can generate a finite set of test-results T where possibly one subset is the ‘best’ compared to all the others. This can give some security that this design is probably the ‘relative best design’ with regards to T.
[DHW07] G. Doeben-Henisch and M. Wagner. Validation within safety critical systems engineering from a computation semiotics point of view.
Proceedings of the IEEE Africon2007 Conference, pages Pages: 1 – 7, 2007.
[EDH11] Louwrence Erasmus and Gerd Doeben-Henisch. A theory of the
system engineering process. In ISEM 2011 International Conference. IEEE, 2011.
Last Update June-22, 2018, 15:32 CET. See below: Case Studies — Templates – AASE Micro Edition – and Scheduling 2018 —
This is a complete new restart of the old uffmm-site. It is intended as a working place for those people who are interested in an integrated engineering of the future.
A widely known and useful concept for a general approach to the engineering of problems is systems engineering (SE).
Open for nearly every kind of a possible problem does a systems engineering process (SEP) organize the process how to analyze the problem, and turn this analysis into a possible design for a solution. This proposed solution will be examined by important criteria and, if it reaches an optimal version, it will be implemented as a real working system. After final evaluations this solution will start its carrier in the real world.
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
In a meta-scientific point of view the systems engineering process can become itself the object of an analysis. This is usually done by a discipline called philosophy of science (PoS). Philosophy of science is asking, e.g., what the ‘ingredients’ of an systems-engineering process are, or how these ingredients do interact? How can such a process ‘fail’? ‘How can such a process be optimized’? Therefore a philosophy of science perspective can help to make a systems engineering process more transparent and thereby supports an optimization of these processes.
A core idea of the philosophy of science perspective followed in this text is the assumption, that a systems engineering process is primarily based on different kinds of actors (AC) whose interactions enable and direct the whole process. These assumptions are also valid in that case, where the actors are not any more only biological systems like human persons and non-biological systems called machines, but also in that case where the traditional machines (M) are increasingly replaced by ‘intelligent machines (IM)‘. Therefore the well know paradigm of human-machine interaction (HMI) — or earlier ‘human-computer interaction (HCI)’ will be replaced in this text by the new paradigm of Actor-Actor Interaction (AAI). In this new version the main perspective is not the difference of man on one side and machines on the other but the kind of interactions between actors of all kind which are necessary and possible.
The concept of intelligent machines (IM) is understood here as a special case of the general Actor (A) concept which includes as other sub-cases biological systems, predominantly humans as instantiations of the species Homo Sapiens. While until today the question of biological intelligence and machine intelligence is usually treated separately and differently it is intended in this text to use one general concept of intelligence for all actors. This allows then more direct comparisons and evaluations. Whether biological actors are in some sense better than the non-biological actors or vice versa can seriously only be discussed when the used concept of intelligence is the same.
ACTOR STORY AND ACTOR MODELS
And, as it will be explained in the following sections, the used paradigm of actor-actor interactions uses the two main concepts of actor story (AS) as well as actor model (AM). Actor models are embedded in the actor stories. Whether an actor model describes biological or non-biological actors does not matter. Independent of the inner structures of an actor model (which can be completely different) the actor story is always completely described in terms of observable behavior which are the same for all kinds of actors (Comment: The major scientific disciplines for the analysis of behavior are biology, psychology, and sociology).
In analogy to the so-called ‘Object-Oriented (OO) approach in Software-Engineering (SWE)’ we campaign here the ‘Actor-Actor (AA) Systems Engineering (SE)’ approach. This takes the systems Engineering approach as a base concepts and re-works the whole framework from the point of view of the actor-actor paradigm. AASE is seen here as a theory as well as an domain of applications.
To understand the different perspectives of the used theory it can help to the figure ‘AASE-Paradigm Ontologies’. Within the systems engineering process (SEP) we have AAI-experts as acting actors. To describe these we need a ‘meta-level’ realized by a ‘philosophy of the actor’. The AAI-experts themselves are elaborating within an AAI-analysis an actor story (AS) as framework for different kinds of intended actors. To describe the inner structures of these intended actors one needs different kinds of ‘actor models’. The domain of actor-model structures overlaps with the domain of ‘machine learning (ML)’ and with ‘artificial intelligence (AI)’.
What will be described and developed separated from these theoretical considerations is an appropriate software environment which allows the construction of solutions within the AASE approach including e.g. the construction of intelligent machines too. This software environment is called in this text emerging-mind lab (EML) and it will be another public blog as well.
THEORY MICRO EDITION & CASE STUDIES
How we proceed
Because the overall framework of the intended integrated theory is too large to write it down in one condensed text with all the necessary illustrating examples we decided in Dec 2017 to follow a bottom-up approach by writing primarily case studies from different fields. While doing this we can introduce stepwise the general theory by developing a Micro Edition of the Theory in parallel to the case studies. Because the Theory Micro Edition has gained a sufficient minimal completeness already in April 2018 we do not need anymore a separate template for case studies. We will use the Theory Micro Edition as ‘template’ instead.
To keep the case studies readable as far as possible all needed mathematical concepts and formulas will be explained in a separate appendix section which is central for all case studies. This allows an evolutionary increase in the formal apparatus used for the integrated theory.