AUSTRIAN ACADEMIC: : Conjectures about "Y2k-effects turned out to be mostly misguided"greenspun.com : LUSENET : Poole's Roost II : One Thread |
AUSTRIAN ACADEMIC WHO DEMOLISHED GWU's so-called "ideas".http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/categories/doublebind.doc
Y2k-effects turned out to be mostly misguided Y2K - “TEN MONTHS AFTER”: TWO “DOUBLE BINDS” AND A “DOUBLE BLINDNESS” Karl H. Müller Head of the Departments for Political Science and Sociology Institute for Advanced Studies, Stumpergasse 56, A-1060 Vienna, Austria OVERVIEW This paper is devoted to a detailed ex post analysis of the y2k-problem as well as to new ways of risk-assessments for contemporary knowledge societies in general. Basically, the paper tries to establish three main points. First, a large number of essential y2k-propositions which have been put forward by the author throughout the period from 1997 to 1999, can be validated by their ex post outcomes. Most notably, core characterizations of y2k as the first “global challenge”, of a new type of “knowledge society”, exhibiting new forms of “co-ordination problems” and entirely new “knowledge-based” “risk potentials”, can and should be upheld despite the almost universal marginality of y2k-induced disruptions and discontinuities. Second, two important groups of ex ante expectations on potential y2k-effects turned out to be mostly misguided. In both cases however, the reason for the misjudgment lay in a homogeneous set of “alarmist” empirical assessments with respect to the high potential for regional y2k-failures and their subsequent global “repercussions”. Third, the scientific “y2k-learning curve”, in sharp contrast to the societal “learning curves”, has followed a constant path along the “bottom line”. It will be argued that the ex ante as well as the ex post attitude on part of the scientific system was an almost unanimous lack of interest which, by itself, counts as a new risk potential, inherent in today’s “knowledge societies”. DIMENSIONS OF THE Y2K-PROBLEM: TEN ASSESSMENTS ex ante and ex post At the outset, ten basic propositions both from an ex ante and an ex post perspective can be put forward which characterize essential dimensions of y2k-problems[1] and their impact for societal development in general before and after the roll-over date. Table 1 summarizes the central assertions which incorporate, additionally, new types of societal risk assessments beyond the y2k-problem as well. Table 1: Ten Basic y2k-Assessments (ex ante and ex post) Validated ex ante-Assessments (1) The y2k problem can be considered as the first major challenge of modern knowledge societies or, alternatively, of contemporary “Turing societies”.[2] The challenge has been global and has run throughout all “Turing societies” around the world. Moreover, the challenge was universal and affected industrial enterprises, the service sector, utilities and infra-structure, private households or local and state administrations. Thus, y2k should be viewed as the first universal and global coordination problem for “Turing societies”. (2) The challenge posed a new type of societal coordination problem which is characteristic for “Turing societies” and which has not been encountered in previous societal formations. (3) The y2k-problem resulted from an erroneous “encoding” or “embedding” of time-measurements and time-coordination into the basic architecture of “Turing societies”. More specifically, y2k was the outcome from codifying time as a relatively short ”cycle” within the new machine code bases. (4) The y2k-failure was a self-inflicted and self-propagated ”error” in the machine code. This ”error” can be qualified as a typical ”frame problem error” in which available knowledge components with respect to the “trivial” operations of Turing programs and Turing machines have been completely “discounted”. (5) The y2k-challenge belongs to the class of most complex and most densely coupled socio-technological problems. It affects the machine code bases and their embedded hardware components, i.e., chips throughout the socio-technical systems and infrastructures of contemporary Turing societies. In this sense, y2k must be considered as a rare challenge across the actor networks and the knowledge bases of contemporary “Turing societies”. Non-Validated ex ante-Assessments (6) Evaluated in terms of risk potentials, y2k has been viewed by most empirical ex ante accounts as the first coordination problem of the type SPt < t(s) < RPt < t(s). This inequality states, quite generally, that the available societal substitution power (SP) for the very short (one month) or short run (one year) (t < t(s)) is smaller than the y2k-induced risk potential (RP) or, alternatively, the expected risk incidence. As it turned out, this inequality has to be completely reversed into SPt < t(s) > RPt < t(s) for all points in time prior to December 31, 1999. (7) The y2k-failure has been qualified as potentially "central" both to the exchanges and to the transfers of actor networks and of knowledge pools within contemporary “Turing societies”. Moreover, due to the shortage of time left, the potentially “central error” has been characterized as ” intractable”. While y2k was an “intractable” problem, the y2k-induced damages were sufficiently far away from becoming a potentially “central problem” for contemporary “Turing societies”. Ex post Assessments of the Science-System: (8) The scientific system in general has acted ex ante in a perfect “double bind”. Since y2k did not appear as a major societal “risk factor”, it would have been necessary to deal with it on a new platform ot in an inter- or transdisciplinary fashion. But there was no ex ante need for a comprehensive inter- or transdisciplinary analysis since y2k did not show up as a major “risk element” within the established disciplinary boundaries. (9) For the ex post period, the scientific system has followed another “double-bind”, this time with a seemingly better empirical justification. Since y2k did not appear as a major societal “risk factor” within the established “disciplinary matrices” after January 1, 2000, it would have been necessary to deal with it in an inter- or transdisciplinary. But there was no ex post need for an inter- or transdisciplinary analysis since y2k did not exhibit even minor disruptions within the “metabolism” of a globalized economy and a globalized “world society”. (10) Contemporary “Turing societies” must be considered as exceptionally weak in terms of the scientific monitoring and the scientific observation of the new knowledge infrastructures. The relevant empirical ex ante data for the international or the global y2k-status have been collected by non-scientific bodies and turned out to be misleading in at least two core aspects, namely with respect to their potential impact assessments and with respect to their rankings and hierarchies. Ex post, the almost perfect “roll-over” as well as the almost perfect transition from February 29 to March 1, 2000 has effectively stopped any data production on y2k induced failures both from the scientific and from the non-scientific world. Within the next pages, these ten crucial y2k-propositions will be further substantiated and justified. In doing so, a new type of societal risk analysis will gradually emerge which should be implemented within the next years in order to lift the “veil of ignorance” (John Rawls) from the actual risk profiles of the knowledge infrastructure and of the information and communication technology within today’s “Turing societies”. Five Validated Ex ante-Assessments The starting point for the first part lies in a short re-assessment of major y2k-propositions which can be upheld despite a spectacularly unspectacular “roll over” from December 31, 1999 to January 1, 2000 and from January 1 up to the present day. At the outset, the first proposition is devoted to the scope and to the dimensions of the y2k problem.[3] Y2k has had its origins in the machine codes or, alternatively, in “Turing programs”[4]. Due to the embeddedness of Turing programs in steering and electronic control processes, the y2k challenge had been situated at the hardware level as well. Moreover, due to the high degree of diffusion of Turing programs and embedded chips across the socio-technical systems in agriculture, industry and services around the world, the y2k problem had affected the fundamental metabolic exchanges and transformations within global market networks and other global societal network formations. (Assessment 1) Second, y2k must still be viewed as a new type of societal coordination problem which re-combines three separated features, namely complete predictability, a necessity for effective problem-solutions and a universal and global threat or involution potential. In a morphological manner, Table 2 highlights different groups of societal coordination problems. From Table 2, the notion of ”transferability in time” requires some additional comments. In general, a societal coordination problem is to be qualified as “time-transferable” if it can be delayed or reproduced in time without specific temporal boundary conditions or limits. Take unemployment as reference case, then a substantial unemployment reduction is one trajectory among many possible national pathways only. In principle, unemployment may persist in time indefinitely, sometimes at high levels, sometimes at lower ones, sometimes rising, sometimes falling. In this manner, consumption of heavy drugs, fatal traffic accidents, violent crimes and many other societal phenomena are to be qualified as time-transferable coordination problems since they are reproduced anew from year to year without any temporal limit imposed on their effective reduction or abolition. Consequently, y2k has belonged to the rare occurrences of non-transferable coordination problems, having an exact and insurmountable ”expiration date”, namely the time interval from 23.59 p.m. on December 31, 1999 to 0.00 a.m. on January 1, 2000. Table 2: Major Types of Societal Coordination Problems Predictability Yes No Local Global Local Global Transferable in Time Problem I Problem II Problem III Problem IV Non-Transferable in Time Problem V Problem VI Problem VII Problem VIII Moreover, y2k-solutions had to be of an effective nature, too. An ”effective problem solution” is to be understood as a substantial reduction or dissolution of a specific problem. To be more concrete, an effective solution of unemployment implies a radical reduction to frictional unemployment or even a dissolution of the number of involuntarily unemployed persons. An effective solution of heavy traffic accidents lies in the radical reduction of accidents below a marginal and irreducible threshold value. In this sense, y2k required effective problem solutions for each network actor which had to be in operation prior to a non-transferable point in time. Likewise, non-transferable societal coordination problems with a threatening global impact had been, so far, of an unpredictable nature only. Take fatal high-technology accidents, earthquakes, floods or other catastrophic events as ”paradigmatic cases”, then one recognizes immediately that in all these instances the element of non-predictability plays a significant role. An unpredictable high technology disaster like Seveso or Three Miles Island imposes a large amount of immediate and non-transferable coordination problems like rescue operations, safeguarding the social and natural environment and the like. In fact, advanced societies are equipped with a sufficiently developed protective capacities which safeguard their normal functioning in the case of minor or even medium disruptions. Viewed in this light, y2k still must be considered as an entirely new type of coordination problem, being totally predictable, requiring effective solutions and being non-transferable at the same time. Additionally, due to its machine code base, y2k has posed a new coordination problem both for the actor networks and for the knowledge bases of contemporary “Turing societies” (Assessment 2) Furthermore, the core of the y2k-problem has consisted of a highly revealing inversion of the traditional modes of time-encodings and time-measurements. More specifically, time has been structured or, alternatively, ”structurated” (Anthony Giddens) towards the end of the so-called “Piaget societies”[5] around circles of minutes (60 seconds), hours (60 minutes), days (24 hours), years (365 days) and a linear ordering of years, relying on a scale with a strange reference point (transition between - 1 B.C and + 1 A.C.) Despite this heterogeneous set of counting devices with their origins in Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Greek and Roman time cultures, the basic units of time measurement have been set, towards the transition from Piaget to Turing societies, in an exact and uniform manner. The definition for a second was "9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" (Barnett 1998:157), and the day has been defined "bottom up" as 86.400 atomic seconds. In this way, a sound and, above all, failure-free basis for measuring time has been established. Moreover, the introduction of radioactive clocks has enabled to determine the age of the earth itself in a sufficiently precise and consistent manner in the magnitude of 4,5 billion years (± 100 million years). In this way, a heterogeneous mix of circular-linear encodings as well as of administrative synchronizations like the global agreement on 24 time zones[6] has led to a uniform and successfully embedded "world-time" for Piaget societies. While by the end of the 1960's, time has been successfully encoded in a circular-linear fashion, the machine-code programs started to implement a relatively short two digit (99 year) and a relatively long four digit (9999 years) linear-circular version. Thus, the encoding of "real time clocks" within the Turing program bases has been undertaken both in both the long and the short version as a linear sequence of seconds/minutes/hours/days/months/years within a two digit year counter and thus a one hundred year circle (the short version with the imminent y2k-problem) or within a four digit and, thus, ten thousand year circle (the long version with a far away y10k-problem). In both cases, a circle repeats itself indefinitely into the future. In addition, the in-built temporal machine code circle was strictly ”memory-free”, having no additional ”counter” at its disposal for the number of circles. Thus, time differences within a single circle were recorded in the traditional and well-established ways of Piaget-societies, while time-differences between two circles posed all kinds of anomalies. The single second jump from 23:59:59 on December 31, 99 (circle I) to 00:00:00 on January 1, 00 (circle II) became the maximum time interval for this type of temporal encodings and the long interval between 00:00:00 on January 1, 00 (circle I) and 00:00:01 on January 1, 00 (circle II) was recorded as a single second jump only. It must be added that the y2k-paradoxes with respect to time-differences were structurally similar to the ”Goodman paradox” on induction, which had been generated via the introduction of new time-dependent predicates. [7] (Assessment 3) With respect to the fourth assessment, the type of error underlying y2k, qualified as ”frame problem”, requires a substantial amount of justification and commenting. ”Frame problems” (see e.g., Dennett 1986, Lormand 1991) are encountered, very generally speaking, in all those instances where two ”knowledge domains” K1 and K2 are both relevant for a decision configuration D. By a cognitive integration failure, K1 is used for the actual decision procedure, neglecting K2 entirely either by "forgetting" it or by "discounting" it as irrelevant. To provide a concrete example of the "forgetful" variety, suppose someone wants to go shopping either tomorrow (A1) or the day after (A2). One thinks about the possible advantages and disadvantages associated with these two alternatives, utilizing relevant knowledge components K1. Finally a decision (D) is made to choose the latter alternative (D(A2)). For the selection of (D(A2), another knowledge component (K2) would have been highly relevant, namely the fact that there is a holiday in two days from now and that shops are closed. In the instance of arriving at (D(A2), however, (K2) did not enter into the decision configuration and was ”forgotten” and ”left out”. Quite generally, ”frame problems” arise out of an insufficient or of an erroneous integration of knowledge components. As such, y2k must still be qualified as a ”frame problem” of the "conscious" type, generated through an insufficient integration of future time horizons and, more generally, of time and time-embeddedness into the present decision configuration. During the 1960’s and 1970’s, the ”knowledge” (K2) of a four digit change in dates in 1999 was trivially available and distributed throughout the entire community of programmers, technicians, business managers and the like. Nevertheless, immediate restrictions in computer storage capacities, cost-advantages and traditional cultural practices (K1) generated such a large momentum that K2 was somehow ”left out” and was apparently considered as irrelevant for the space-times being. Moreover, y2k still reveals an astonishing insight on the time horizons of human decision procedures since even knowledge with certainty about the future like the four digit change in dates in 1995, 1996, 1997 and even in 1998 could be discounted either as irrelevant or, more to the point, treated as time-transferable. Within the concrete programming settings in the 1960’s and 1970’s, y2k was to be considered as a time-transferable ”error” or ”shortcut” whose solution, due to the triviality of the y2k-conversion as an isolated problem, was postponed for the period close the millennium change. (Assessment 4) To continue the ex post validation of relevant ex ante y2k-propositions, one can shift to Table 3 which exhibits, following basically a taxonomy developed by Charles Perrow (1984), two basic dimensions for evaluating and for distributing socio-technical systems. According to Table 3, one is invited to distinguish between four different clusters of socio-technological ensembles, namely between linear/loose, linear/tight, complex/loose and complex/tight systems. Moreover, each of the attributes can be scaled according to different degrees so that one is confronted with a continuum ranging from minimally loose to maximally tight on the one hand and from minimally linear to maximally complex on the other hand. (Perrow 1984:97)
-- Anonymous, January 07, 2001
re-format:
Y2K - “TEN MONTHS AFTER”: TWO “DOUBLE BINDS” AND A “DOUBLE BLINDNESS”
Karl H. Müller
Head of the Departments for Political Science and Sociology
Institute for Advanced Studies, Stumpergasse 56,
A-1060 Vienna, Austria
OVERVIEW
This paper is devoted to a detailed ex post analysis of the y2k-problem as well as to new ways of risk-assessments for contemporary knowledge societies in general. Basically, the paper tries to establish three main points. First, a large number of essential y2k-propositions which have been put forward by the author throughout the period from 1997 to 1999, can be validated by their ex post outcomes. Most notably, core characterizations of y2k as the first “global challenge”, of a new type of “knowledge society”, exhibiting new forms of “co-ordination problems” and entirely new “knowledge-based” “risk potentials”, can and should be upheld despite the almost universal marginality of y2k-induced disruptions and discontinuities. Second, two important groups of ex ante expectations on potential y2k-effects turned out to be mostly misguided. In both cases however, the reason for the misjudgment lay in a homogeneous set of “alarmist” empirical assessments with respect to the high potential for regional y2k-failures and their subsequent global “repercussions”. Third, the scientific “y2k-learning curve”, in sharp contrast to the societal “learning curves”, has followed a constant path along the “bottom line”. It will be argued that the ex ante as well as the ex post attitude on part of the scientific system was an almost unanimous lack of interest which, by itself, counts as a new risk potential, inherent in today’s “knowledge societies”.
DIMENSIONS OF THE Y2K-PROBLEM: TEN ASSESSMENTS ex ante and ex post
At the outset, ten basic propositions both from an ex ante and an ex post perspective can be put forward which characterize essential dimensions of y2k-problems[1] and their impact for societal development in general before and after the roll-over date. Table 1 summarizes the central assertions which incorporate, additionally, new types of societal risk assessments beyond the y2k-problem as well.
Table 1: Ten Basic y2k-Assessments (ex ante and ex post)
Validated ex ante-Assessments
(1) &n bsp; The y2k problem can be considered as the first major challenge of modern knowledge societies or, alternatively, of contemporary “Turing societies”.[2] The challenge has been global and has run throughout all “Turing societies” around the world. Moreover, the challenge was universal and affected industrial enterprises, the service sector, utilities and infra-structure, private households or local and state administrations. Thus, y2k should be viewed as the first universal and global coordination problem for “Turing societies”.
(2) &n bsp; The challenge posed a new type of societal coordination problem which is characteristic for “Turing societies” and which has not been encountered in previous societal formations.
(3) The y2k-problem resulted from an erroneous “encoding” or “embedding” of time-measurements and time-coordination into the basic architecture of “Turing societies”. More specifically, y2k was the outcome from codifying time as a relatively short ”cycle” within the new machine code bases.
(4) The y2k-failure was a self-inflicted and self- propagated ”error” in the machine code. This ”error” can be qualified as a typical ”frame problem error” in which available knowledge components with respect to the “trivial” operations of Turing programs and Turing machines have been completely “discounted”.
(5) The y2k-challenge belongs to the class of most complex and most densely coupled socio-technological problems. It affects the machine code bases and their embedded hardware components, i.e., chips throughout the socio-technical systems and infrastructures of contemporary Turing societies. In this sense, y2k must be considered as a rare challenge across the actor networks and the knowledge bases of contemporary “Turing societies”.
Non-Validated ex ante-Assessments
(6) Evaluated in terms of risk potentials, y2k has been viewed by most empirical ex ante accounts as the first coordination problem of the type SPt < t(s) < RPt < t(s). This inequality states, quite generally, that the available societal substitution power (SP) for the very short (one month) or short run (one year) (t < t(s)) is smaller than the y2k-induced risk potential (RP) or, alternatively, the expected risk incidence. As it turned out, this inequality has to be completely reversed into SPt < t(s) > RPt < t(s) for all points in time prior to December 31, 1999.
(7) The y2k-failure has been qualified as potentially "central" both to the exchanges and to the transfers of actor networks and of knowledge pools within contemporary “Turing societies”. Moreover, due to the shortage of time left, the potentially “central error” has been characterized as ” intractable”. While y2k was an “intractable” problem, the y2k-induced damages were sufficiently far away from becoming a potentially “central problem” for contemporary “Turing societies”.
Ex post Assessments of the Science-System:
(8) The scientific system in general has acted ex ante in a perfect “double bind”. Since y2k did not appear as a major societal “risk factor”, it would have been necessary to deal with it on a new platform ot in an inter- or transdisciplinary fashion. But there was no ex ante need for a comprehensive inter- or transdisciplinary analysis since y2k did not show up as a major “risk element” within the established disciplinary boundaries.
(9) For the ex post period, the scientific system has followed another “double-bind”, this time with a seemingly better empirical justification. Since y2k did not appear as a major societal “risk factor” within the established “disciplinary matrices” after January 1, 2000, it would have been necessary to deal with it in an inter- or transdisciplinary. But there was no ex post need for an inter- or transdisciplinary analysis since y2k did not exhibit even minor disruptions within the “metabolism” of a globalized economy and a globalized “world society”.
(10) Contemporary “Turing societies” must be considered as exceptionally weak in terms of the scientific monitoring and the scientific observation of the new knowledge infrastructures. The relevant empirical ex ante data for the international or the global y2k-status have been collected by non- scientific bodies and turned out to be misleading in at least two core aspects, namely with respect to their potential impact assessments and with respect to their rankings and hierarchies. Ex post, the almost perfect “roll-over” as well as the almost perfect transition from February 29 to March 1, 2000 has effectively stopped any data production on y2k induced failures both from the scientific and from the non-scientific world.
Within the next pages, these ten crucial y2k-propositions will be further substantiated and justified. In doing so, a new type of societal risk analysis will gradually emerge which should be implemented within the next years in order to lift the “veil of ignorance” (John Rawls) from the actual risk profiles of the knowledge infrastructure and of the information and communication technology within today’s “Turing societies”.
Five Validated Ex ante-Assessments
The starting point for the first part lies in a short re-assessment of major y2k-propositions which can be upheld despite a spectacularly unspectacular “roll over” from December 31, 1999 to January 1, 2000 and from January 1 up to the present day.
At the outset, the first proposition is devoted to the scope and to the dimensions of the y2k problem.[3] Y2k has had its origins in the machine codes or, alternatively, in “Turing programs”[4]. Due to the embeddedness of Turing programs in steering and electronic control processes, the y2k challenge had been situated at the hardware level as well. Moreover, due to the high degree of diffusion of Turing programs and embedded chips across the socio-technical systems in agriculture, industry and services around the world, the y2k problem had affected the fundamental metabolic exchanges and transformations within global market networks and other global societal network formations. (Assessment 1)
Second, y2k must still be viewed as a new type of societal coordination problem which re-combines three separated features, namely complete predictability, a necessity for effective problem-solutions and a universal and global threat or involution potential. In a morphological manner, Table 2 highlights different groups of societal coordination problems.
From Table 2, the notion of ”transferability in time” requires some additional comments. In general, a societal coordination problem is to be qualified as “time-transferable” if it can be delayed or reproduced in time without specific temporal boundary conditions or limits. Take unemployment as reference case, then a substantial unemployment reduction is one trajectory among many possible national pathways only. In principle, unemployment may persist in time indefinitely, sometimes at high levels, sometimes at lower ones, sometimes rising, sometimes falling. In this manner, consumption of heavy drugs, fatal traffic accidents, violent crimes and many other societal phenomena are to be qualified as time-transferable coordination problems since they are reproduced anew from year to year without any temporal limit imposed on their effective reduction or abolition. Consequently, y2k has belonged to the rare occurrences of non-transferable coordination problems, having an exact and insurmountable ”expiration date”, namely the time interval from 23.59 p.m. on December 31, 1999 to 0.00 a.m. on January 1, 2000.
Table 2: Major Types of Societal Coordination Problems
&nbs p; &n bsp; &nbs p; &n bsp; &nbs p; &n bsp; Predictability
Yes &nbs p; &n bsp; &nbs p; &n bsp; No
Local & nbsp; Global & nbsp; ; Local & nbsp; ; Global
Transferable in Time & nbsp; Problem I & nbsp; Problem II & nbsp; Problem III Problem IV
Non- Transferable
in Time & nbsp; ; &nb sp; Problem V Problem VI & nbsp; ; Problem VII Problem VIII
Moreover, y2k-solutions had to be of an effective nature, too. An ”effective problem solution” is to be understood as a substantial reduction or dissolution of a specific problem. To be more concrete, an effective solution of unemployment implies a radical reduction to frictional unemployment or even a dissolution of the number of involuntarily unemployed persons. An effective solution of heavy traffic accidents lies in the radical reduction of accidents below a marginal and irreducible threshold value. In this sense, y2k required effective problem solutions for each network actor which had to be in operation prior to a non-transferable point in time.
Likewise, non-transferable societal coordination problems with a threatening global impact had been, so far, of an unpredictable nature only. Take fatal high- technology accidents, earthquakes, floods or other catastrophic events as ”paradigmatic cases”, then one recognizes immediately that in all these instances the element of non-predictability plays a significant role. An unpredictable high technology disaster like Seveso or Three Miles Island imposes a large amount of immediate and non-transferable coordination problems like rescue operations, safeguarding the social and natural environment and the like. In fact, advanced societies are equipped with a sufficiently developed protective capacities which safeguard their normal functioning in the case of minor or even medium disruptions.
Viewed in this light, y2k still must be considered as an entirely new type of coordination problem, being totally predictable, requiring effective solutions and being non-transferable at the same time. Additionally, due to its machine code base, y2k has posed a new coordination problem both for the actor networks and for the knowledge bases of contemporary “Turing societies” (Assessment 2)
Furthermore, the core of the y2k-problem has consisted of a highly revealing inversion of the traditional modes of time-encodings and time-measurements. More specifically, time has been structured or, alternatively, ”structurated” (Anthony Giddens) towards the end of the so-called “Piaget societies”[5] around circles of minutes (60 seconds), hours (60 minutes), days (24 hours), years (365 days) and a linear ordering of years, relying on a scale with a strange reference point (transition between - 1 B.C and + 1 A.C.) Despite this heterogeneous set of counting devices with their origins in Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Greek and Roman time cultures, the basic units of time measurement have been set, towards the transition from Piaget to Turing societies, in an exact and uniform manner. The definition for a second was "9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" (Barnett 1998:157), and the day has been defined "bottom up" as 86.400 atomic seconds. In this way, a sound and, above all, failure-free basis for measuring time has been established. Moreover, the introduction of radioactive clocks has enabled to determine the age of the earth itself in a sufficiently precise and consistent manner in the magnitude of 4,5 billion years (± 100 million years). In this way, a heterogeneous mix of circular- linear encodings as well as of administrative synchronizations like the global agreement on 24 time zones[6] has led to a uniform and successfully embedded "world-time" for Piaget societies. While by the end of the 1960's, time has been successfully encoded in a circular-linear fashion, the machine-code programs started to implement a relatively short two digit (99 year) and a relatively long four digit (9999 years) linear- circular version. Thus, the encoding of "real time clocks" within the Turing program bases has been undertaken both in both the long and the short version as a linear sequence of seconds/minutes/hours/days/months/years within a two digit year counter and thus a one hundred year circle (the short version with the imminent y2k-problem) or within a four digit and, thus, ten thousand year circle (the long version with a far away y10k-problem). In both cases, a circle repeats itself indefinitely into the future. In addition, the in-built temporal machine code circle was strictly ”memory-free”, having no additional ”counter” at its disposal for the number of circles. Thus, time differences within a single circle were recorded in the traditional and well-established ways of Piaget-societies, while time-differences between two circles posed all kinds of anomalies. The single second jump from 23:59:59 on December 31, 99 (circle I) to 00:00:00 on January 1, 00 (circle II) became the maximum time interval for this type of temporal encodings and the long interval between 00:00:00 on January 1, 00 (circle I) and 00:00:01 on January 1, 00 (circle II) was recorded as a single second jump only. It must be added that the y2k-paradoxes with respect to time-differences were structurally similar to the ”Goodman paradox” on induction, which had been generated via the introduction of new time- dependent predicates. [7] (Assessment 3)
With respect to the fourth assessment, the type of error underlying y2k, qualified as ”frame problem”, requires a substantial amount of justification and commenting. ”Frame problems” (see e.g., Dennett 1986, Lormand 1991) are encountered, very generally speaking, in all those instances where two ”knowledge domains” K1 and K2 are both relevant for a decision configuration D. By a cognitive integration failure, K1 is used for the actual decision procedure, neglecting K2 entirely either by "forgetting" it or by "discounting" it as irrelevant. To provide a concrete example of the "forgetful" variety, suppose someone wants to go shopping either tomorrow (A1) or the day after (A2). One thinks about the possible advantages and disadvantages associated with these two alternatives, utilizing relevant knowledge components K1. Finally a decision (D) is made to choose the latter alternative (D(A2)). For the selection of (D(A2), another knowledge component (K2) would have been highly relevant, namely the fact that there is a holiday in two days from now and that shops are closed. In the instance of arriving at (D(A2), however, (K2) did not enter into the decision configuration and was ”forgotten” and ”left out”. Quite generally, ”frame problems” arise out of an insufficient or of an erroneous integration of knowledge components. As such, y2k must still be qualified as a ”frame problem” of the "conscious" type, generated through an insufficient integration of future time horizons and, more generally, of time and time-embeddedness into the present decision configuration. During the 1960’s and 1970’s, the ”knowledge” (K2) of a four digit change in dates in 1999 was trivially available and distributed throughout the entire community of programmers, technicians, business managers and the like. Nevertheless, immediate restrictions in computer storage capacities, cost- advantages and traditional cultural practices (K1) generated such a large momentum that K2 was somehow ”left out” and was apparently considered as irrelevant for the space-times being. Moreover, y2k still reveals an astonishing insight on the time horizons of human decision procedures since even knowledge with certainty about the future like the four digit change in dates in 1995, 1996, 1997 and even in 1998 could be discounted either as irrelevant or, more to the point, treated as time-transferable. Within the concrete programming settings in the 1960’s and 1970’s, y2k was to be considered as a time-transferable ”error” or ”shortcut” whose solution, due to the triviality of the y2k-conversion as an isolated problem, was postponed for the period close the millennium change. (Assessment 4)
To continue the ex post validation of relevant ex ante y2k-propositions, one can shift to Table 3 which exhibits, following basically a taxonomy developed by Charles Perrow (1984), two basic dimensions for evaluating and for distributing socio-technical systems. According to Table 3, one is invited to distinguish between four different clusters of socio-technological ensembles, namely between linear/loose, linear/tight, complex/loose and complex/tight systems. Moreover, each of the attributes can be scaled according to different degrees so that one is confronted with a continuum ranging from minimally loose to maximally tight on the one hand and
-- Anonymous, January 07, 2001