You can’t have your cake and eat it too

You can’t have a fixed procedure produce a fixed result in a world where randomness or free will exists.

The Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle shows that you cannot know both a particle’s momentum and position at a given time. You can only measure a high probability for either of these.

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems tells us that no system can be both complete and consistent. You must choose; A system that is complete and inconsistent, or a system that is consistent and incomplete.

And a corollary to Gödel’s comes from the field of Systems Theory and points out that a fixed procedure will create variable results and a fixed result requires a variable procedure. You must choose – a fact very few business process managers are conscious of. Trying to implement a fixed procedure to obtain a fixed result is folly. Most often you would want a certain result – and hence you must allow for individual creativity and a loosely defined procedure. This is the basis for Adaptive Case Management.

Thinking that you can program a business like a machine will most probably lead to some interesting situations.

Realizing that you can’t have your cake and eat it too may just free up some mental stress.

13 thoughts on “You can’t have your cake and eat it too

  1. Thus the Universe, at our most basic understanding does not exist “out there” at all. It can not be exactly nailed down because it is not quite there.

    It’s existence is a fog of sensory suggestions based on an amount of agreement which determines its quantity of completeness.

    The only quality of consistency that it will ever have is in our minds and at our insistence.

    How long can you stand on one foot?

  2. Matter does not really exist, as 99,999999… % of an Atom is empty space. The atoms (matter) exists of particles which are causing an effect. Basically, the universe exists of effect particles.


  3. This trend in both physics and business seems to show that there is a much greater awareness of spirituality in these Now Modern Times. It’s heartening that free will is being validated and given prominence – at least I hope that’s the general, underlying consideration and not just something like “the mere randomness of the physical universe” or at best the non-spiritual “quirks” of human nature.

    LRH allowed for this factor of free will and randomness in a couple of ways I can think of – in Tech, when he stated “There is no substitute for understanding” and in Admin, when he gave importance to the “bright idea.”

    (Actually, in a general way, Scientology may have had an unseen and unacknowledged influence on the overall trend toward spirituality – just talking about its influence in the 50’s and 60’s, not later decades!)

    1. P.S. Not only is it “heartening” to me that free will is being validated and given prominence but – exciting! A really positive sign for the Game of LIfe. (Just wanted to express my sentiment more fully. :-))

    2. The whole idea of The Golden Age of Tech in the Church of Scientology is thus build on a false premise (a fixed procedure supposedly creating a fixed result) – the results vary more than ever, and they are frustrated and unable to understand why…

      1. Succinct and spot-on analysis. The GAT completely disregards and discounts the greater truth of “there’s no substitute for understanding.”

        The subject of the OP really puts the focus on relative importances. Love it!

        1. I should say – it puts focus on some basic facts of life. How valuable is that?!

  4. Hey, here is an interesting open-sourced “Buddhist Tech” that took over three hundred years of Anthill design to perfect after the founder started it. It’s been practiced for about 800 years and is done by some really cool Buddha nerds. Lots of parallels to your POV.

    Wikipedia Article Lojong Mind Practice:

    The 59 Lojong Proverbs Open Sourced Among 7 Uniques Translations and Commentaries:

  5. There is a developing story about a young man who is cutting new sign through physics solving old Newtonian problems with two recent papers on the dynamics of a projectile. Here is someone who may contribute mightily to the whole of us.

    I am wondering (without studying or doing my own homework, of course) how this may affect our understanding of uncertainty.

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s