The N-Dimensional Real World

A brief theory about what is the opposite of a stupid assertion.


I was discussing with my mother about intelligence, geniality and stupidity when I asked my mother about what was the opposite assertion of a stupid assertion. My mother (85 yo) answered to me: "It is obvious: it is an intelligent assertion!". I was so sorry, but I had to confute this assertion as a naive assertion - I could not obviously say: "it is a stupid assertion" to my mother! When we discuss about philosophical matter I have great respect for her! -. I said her that we are never sure that the OPPOSITE OF A STUPID ASSERTION is not another stupid assertion. The opposite of a stupid assertion can be another stupid assertion! And that is not so trivial!

WE ARE LIVING IN THE REALITY!
Indeed we are living in the Reality and our discussion was thought into that.
The Reality, when it is analyzed, has a particularity: it has a so huge number of facets that we cannot take into account of everything discussing of it.
Better: Reality has a multidimensional model and every time we argue on Reality, we are able to take into account of a limited amount of variables.

MANICHEISM
When colloquially we - my mother and me - were using the term "the opposite" I was deliberately permitting us to use a typical approach like that in disputes are currently set in Italy: "is it either fault to Corporation or to Trade-Unions?" or maybe "Is it either fault to Government or to General Economical situation?".
Typical Italian approach is to set the two things onto two opposite ends of a line just to split Good Guys Vs Bad Guys; so, apparently, Co and Trade-Unions, Government and General Economical situation appear to be on the same line as opponents: we, Italians, are all Manicheans, we love to put ourselves amongst good guys. So we absolutely need Bad Guys somewhere in front of us!
Avoiding and refusing for a while my breed's instincts, I guess that the correct approach to it, is to place the two concepts on independent dimensions instead, having, this way, two independent responsibilities impacting the Reality. This way we avoid a pretended opposition of good and bad guys that belongs to policy and not to a serious approach to the Reality.
Indeed, when we speak about Reality every person has his own approach: which one is the best one? I guess that higher is the number of variables we are able to gather about the problem and more the model is precise (or less erratic/random is its behavior).

QUANTUM THEORY OR ZENO'S PARADOX?
Collecting all those variables is not a simple task. We can find them in a small amount if we simply are focusing on the problem (without disturbing New-Age theories about Quantum physics on "everything is resonating" which is a charming though impossible to use theory).
Yet, when we assume as a base of our theories a limited number of variables, we are normally able to easily cope with them.
We can artificialy and suitably reduce the number of, so we can demonstrate almost everything (Zeno's Paradox of "Achilles and tortoise" is one of the most famous), but our goal here should be a better perception of the Reality and its rules, to have a better forecasts.

INVESTIGATING PERTURBATIONS IS STILL THE BEST WAY?

To gather more variables we have to investigate on anything is a perturbation of the standard process carried on with the known variables: the way was used in Quantum theory. Differences between expected behavior and resulting behavior give us evidence of unknown perturbing variables. In this way we can maybe find new informations but we spoil a lot of time and efforts also.

An help can come from perception of different persons working together (brainstorming is one of the most famous activities to gather variables): that yields a better harvest. Every person, indeed, focuses on his own particular facets of a problem and more person cover a wider range of facets.
But the tricky thing (or think?) is to find them in a more effective or maybe predictable way.

EMPIRISM or PREDICTABLE FINDINGS?

A problem can be considered complete when the distance between expected and resulting variables narrows sufficiently. There is no guarantee that a sufficient number of persons find the necessary amount of variables when they act in a freewheeling way. There are other means to discover them in a more predictable way: using different exploring ways for Problems, Mind and Thinking: a true methodic wandering in the problem.

Ask me for it

The failure of geniality

(a paradoxal theory about the impossibility for the geniality to be useful)



APPARENTLY there are no chances for the geniality to be recognized. Then in any kind of environment and in sensitive ones also, only standard solutions are taken.
APPARENTLY no way to understand geniality before decades: a lot of wasted time and opportunities!


The ancient history and the most recent too is full of great and genial ideas: from Edison’s bulbs to Relativity, again to the Babbage calculator and so on.
At least one Genius is working somewhere now!

Genial Ideas: an endangered specie
In any size of corporation, a lot of money is spent for nothing and in many cases the R&D department just touches many Eldorado to quit them at once or, in the best cases, it produces standard solutions with just a hint of geniality.
Indeed, if you go to see the history of many corporations, you can normally see innovative ideas as the starting point. Then they prefer to buy revolutionary novelties around than developing their own, limiting their innovative actions just to improve older ones.
Corporation are full of intelligent peoples that have to cope with money and roles assignment, with distribution of management and so on, yet you can perceive as strange the fact that revolutionary technologies have ever been developed inside those kind of hobbles and finally asking yourself how could Co's survive for long and producing high-tech: they all have complex systems to budget new programs and development.
Again, why that happens? Because the structure of big corporations, for organizational purposes, fills up with peoples that belong to positions that are high in the scale of Geniality but afar from vertex. Having roles where they decide for others to be accredited or not for budgets and money to be used they have to be prudent and cautious.

Genius environment
Now we move away from budgets and we try to guess how a genius’s environment is structured and works. We can imagine that everywhere a Super Genius is, he shares his life with other peoples. Normally with geniuses or very intelligent persons. So every Super Genius normally shares his live with four or five Geniuses and many more very intelligent persons.
Every time a Super Genius shares his knowledge and achievements with others Geniuses, he has to discuss his theory with them. If anything in his theory is achievable just to Super Geniuses, std Geniuses cannot get the right point. So they start a criticizing process against the Super Genial Idea by the cause of their limited understanding. The super genius, having great opinion of his colleagues and having no way to determine either if he is right or they are, accepts the criticism and Super Genial Idea is quit (and the world for at least 10 years will fail this step ahead in the knowledge/technology).


The same happens again between Geniuses and Super Intelligent Persons: every Genius shares his knowledge with four or five super intelligent persons and again the problem arises: no way to determine who is right then genial ideas (which could make the world a jump only one year ahead!) are lost. Genial ideas are many more than Super Genial Ideas, we guess at least four or five times, easier to produce and finally with higher economical impact and big incomes!


The Pyramid 
We repeat the same process again and again down the scale of Geniality: we can represent it as a Pyramid, whose vertex has a Super Genius and lower layers have peoples occupying lower and lower positions in this scale.
Damned by our instinct to the democracy, we tend to have impelling the need for comparison with others and for the assessment of our ideas in public arenas. If the time is too early, long before we figure out the whole sketch, the most of the times the project aborts as the sole effect.

So, the sad news is: for geniality, there is no way to produce great effects in the real life!
The fault is not to the Geniuses or skilled persons, but to the organizations that are not able to understand which one is the best idea and who has the control over the Genial project: who is the best amongst the group they have devoted to solve problems and who is less. Voila because solutions are normally a mix of std solutions with just a hint of geniality!


How to adopt and develop genial Ideas? If we go back in the history we can observe that super genial ideas like Einstein's or Turing's or others, where achieved in a strong solitude and in some sort of detachedness. Yet that form of loneliness was an independent choice; better: in many cases was a kind of suicide, a fight against the whole world.


What in standard life?

If a genial idea happens into a company, the needed solitude is impossible and recognition of geniality neither. What about new genial theories or products? Unfortunately there is APPARENTLY no measuring mean to help decisions to be taken when the field where organizational peoples have to operate and decide is out of their reach. So although they can choose in a proper and polite way, this seldom is the best way, i.e. the genial solution a company needs: they commit their decisions to a democratic system: the majority in the staff makes the project version good enough. This way every risk is avoided and, in the same time, never the most intriguing solution is taken.
Exceptions to such a general rule? Yes! Companies ruled by a Visionary Geniuses!
How to protect and exploit genial ideas in braking systems where no visionary leaders are at hand?


Is Frustration the only one option?
I can definitely affirm that, in a specific field, there is APPARENTLY no way to determine if there is a Genius at work amongst the many persons belonging to the team. This way big corporation have troubles to recognize and get the best idea, reward and preserve the deserving member of the team, produce the best, getting a lot of money: failure to protect and exploit Geniality is a big damage and frustration!

Yet, there is a way to measure the Geniality in project alternatives and an efficient mean to decide what idea can be considered viable and the best available for the production to be taken.

Yes, I affirm that the previous “there is no way” is just APPARENTLY right, because there is a way to determine what can be considered a true Genial Idea born from a real genial person or team..


The way is to mesure…
(ask me!)


A Step back in the recent past
This new theory calls back to someone's mind, the L. Peter's theory about Bureaucracy. In one way they agree: the system hangs again in the same well structured manner!