> . . . “no matter how sophisticated the
> employment and extrapolation of a standard of
> measurement is, the nature of that standard is
> more often than not purely arbitrary.”
> Indeed! . .A typical example: Note how arbitrary
> and simple the binary system is, yet it yields the
> sophistication and computation of digits in a
> different way with some extraordinary results –
> It even allows access to Graham’s web page. And
> yet, like politics, it’s a local phenomenon,
> subject to change where some folks might call it a
> form of negotiating a “standard of
> measurement” to suit specific goals –
> electronic computing goals – or in the case of
> this web page and forum - commentary.
> Systems of measure do seem to be tailored to the
> conditions of the time they’re used, after
> catastrophes, and for purposes that the users
> might use that system. They need to be useful and
> easily applied or are likely to be tossed aside
> – It’s not a given that they be rejected, but
> time has more patience with being stubborn than
> people have with enduring difficulties of
> supporting a useless sequence of events that no
> longer serves them adequately toward their goals.
> Architects, engineers, and stone masons usually
> find themselves agreeing on some kind of system
> they can utilize together in order to accomplish
> some construction task. Given what has stood the
> test of time and exposure it seems something of
> this cooperation took place long ago. Looking
> around, it’s safe to assert that that
> ‘something of cooperation’ is in use today.
> Symbols and representations are useful, but often
> lack the fluidity of spoken language, yet, they
> take on a new interpretation for each witness to
> them. Agreeing on the rules for interpreting those
> symbols is the tricky part as that very action
> requires something of a negotiation process and an
> acceptance from all users of those abstract
> constructs. With variations in parameters it is
> similar to what can be seen today. The key to any
> arbitrary response of a group of measurers seems
> to be their individual acceptance of those rules
> or conditions associated with that system of
The standards employed in the building of great pyramids did not need to be understood by all who worked with them.
Templates and measuring sticks would have sufficed
in the quarries approximation may have been even more common ie arms, hands, etc etc
from job to job ,over specialisation quite often leads to oversimplification
and that leads to greater efficiency
It would take 200 mechanics months to individually assemble 200 cars,from a complete set of components.
It takes 200 on the assembly line a few days.
The same systems management has been applied by military leaders throughout history.
Organisation and infrastructure is the lever that moves it all
But I digress...