I think where your thinking has gone wrong is that you are trying to pull apart the mathematical or drafted plan of your model and the physical processes that go in to producing the finished product. There are variations in process everywhere -- in the materials used, in the level and evenness of heating, the quality of manufacture, etc. You're right that with your mathematical model someone can produce the same object 1,000 years from now, but variation will creep into the physical actual process of creating an actual object.
You're entirely correct, though that in turn leads me to a sort of linked pair of conclusions: if imperfections leak in, either the mathematical model is insufficiently precise, or the person doing the creation is. So clearly the solution is to perfect both, and so avoid the production of errors and variances along the way.
You can perfect your mathematical model to take into account the chaotic variations in production of an object. It will take a vast amount of time to study, catalogue, and model the imperfections but you likely could.
It is less likely you can perfect the person doing the creation without doing something awful to the person in question.
"Awful" is such a terrible way of describing the Something involved without having seen it done to anyone yet. Wouldn't making someone better at a type of item-creation they already wish to be skilled in be a marvelous thing?
Or perhaps it's simpler to create a machine that translates mathematics to items, and then perfect the machine. Imperfections must be removed somewhere along the way, but it needn't necessarily be among the people.
Comments 37
Reply
Reply
It is less likely you can perfect the person doing the creation without doing something awful to the person in question.
Reply
Or perhaps it's simpler to create a machine that translates mathematics to items, and then perfect the machine. Imperfections must be removed somewhere along the way, but it needn't necessarily be among the people.
Reply
Leave a comment