Things exist or are created. We discover an existing thing or its application.
Discovery is principally a learning process (that may entail creative effort).
Invention is principally a creative process (that may entail learning effort).
The first statement is either wholehearted agreement with my remark or a rejection of Gödel numbering.
The second statement is similar but highlights the problematic distinction of the terms, since in such a framing they ascribe meaning solely and specifically to human intellectual processes, so one must also show either that we are alone in the universe, or (perhaps equally) that all cognitive entities share the same processes. This is of course merely dancing around questions of the universality of truth. Alas, only Wittgenstein knew the answer.
With Gödel, there is the space of the possible, the invention indeed being the axiomatic foundation that engenders the space of possibilities. If the space of possibilities is disconnected, intuitive jumps are required to arrived at unreacheable truths. So yes, here we are 'discovering' -- learning the membership set of true statements -- but these are existing things only in the context of the invention, which is why it is correct to say they are discovered in a relative sense.
This is hiding the assumption in plain sight in a different form. The question then would be: was x an existing thing that we "uncovered"/discovered (it has merely hidden) or we created it by thinking it into existence?
At least in terms of Mathematics, I do not think there is an objective answer for this question.
The definitions you provided are, IMO, just moving the problem to further concepts, that are also ill-defined. "Discovery mainly a learning process, Invention mainly a creative process", could mean almost anything. Also, as a rigorous definition, "mainly" does not cut it. It needs to be 100%.
Instead of pretending I know it is my opinion to accept they are merely two ways of looking at the same thing. At least, this is my position for now, until a proper argument emerges.
P.S. I see it as arguing which of 0.5 or 1/2 is the "true" number.
I think the trend we see is there will be a generalized engineering-category of LLMs and people maintaining them will just feed new frameworks/libraries/languages etc. documentations to training sets and those models will then happily answer questions about "new stuff"
I'd wager that 2/3 of software industry jobs market (number of positions and compensation figures) are built on online advertising industry. Now you tell me what is good or what is bad
I really liked the show for its light-heartedness and it's non-PC oriented comedy (which faded away as seasons went by), but there are also other interesting themes there, such as subtle hints from writers that Michael Scott putting up an act to actually make the most out of employees of Dunder Mifflin.
I'm not sure if there are other episodes, but there's a big hint in an episode in season 4 that Michael is much more astute than he lets on:
During the episode where Michael goes out to do a "survival show" in the woods (ala Bear Grylls). Jim is the temporary manager while Michael is gone, and he tries to combine several staff birthdays which are close together into one big celebration. It backfires terribly.
When Michael returns and Jim expresses his relief, Michael explains that he made the same mistake Jim did once and explains that the decision to celebrate the close birthdays separately is a very deliberate one. He also implies that Jim is very much on the same trajectory as him.
He then makes a "That's what she said" joke randomly, and Jim basically replies "Uh, what?" and Michael explains that he makes dumb jokes often to just break the tension.
It's a pretty lucid moment for an otherwise often opaque character, but does imply that Michael's quirks are a result of his staff and not in spite of them.
That shows he's learned from a few mistakes, and it's well established in show that he was always pretty good at being a bullshitting salesman to close deals for mundane purchases like corporate paper (perhaps before his mind went a bit foggier with age). It doesn't outweigh the 10 times per season his bad choices did damage to the company, morale, or someone's life.
Honestly, that’s pretty out of character for Michael Scott. For a character who otherwise repeatedly makes the same mistakes over and over again, to show even that tiny bit of insight is a pretty big plot twist that maybe he’s not completely the bumbling oaf he lets on.
I’m not saying he’s secretly a Machiavellian genius, but his stupid antics belie what seems to be a pretty high emotional IQ at times (in sales and management, at least).
Yeah, I mean of course that’s a possibility. I looked it up, and apparently Steve Carrell wrote the episode in question. It’s not too wild to imagine that he used the opportunity to present his own character as more than just a bumbling oaf.
But then again, Michael having an inconsistently high emotional IQ is a recurring theme. When he’s in “sales mode”, he’s really good at making an emotional connection with people and making them feel like they’re buying from a friend.
I dunno. It’s an interesting conundrum the series presents and obviously doesn’t dig into too deeply since it’s a sitcom. Michael is sometimes unnaturally attuned to someone’s feelings and other times extremely oblivious to them.
- Whole company going downhill and when Jim as co-manager got nervous about another Michael's "brilliant" idea of distracting people from work, he stuns him and audience with "They need this game. Let them have this stupid little game"
- Another dialogue with Jim implying that "That's what she said" lines are more self-conscious than everybody in the office thinks.
Scranton branch having one of or lone best finance numbers across whole company just makes me think Michael knew along what is he doing. This plot was never expanded in the show for obvious reasons.
Still, it’s definitely not “all an act”. Yes, Michael has a few good moments, but more often than not, he’s doing stupid shit. GPS incident, the management class, etc.
I think these moments are there to show us that Michael tries his best to be a good manager, and that he sometimes does have good ideas.
As for the numbers, I think that’s all thanks to his employees - he just gets carried along for the ride.
Well, it's a show anyway, but in moments I described writers definitely had sth more in mind than just "Michael having a few good moments"
I can agree that if you look at the storyline as a whole, this theory doesn't make much sense, but these little hints here and there are always giving me second thoughts. Goes to show that art, even such low-key one as TV comedy, can really shine when you keep your head open to more interpretations than just the silver-plattered one.
