A small study and proof of my own understanding more than anything else as I have been doing some reading on the topic of Macy Cybernetics in relation to some thinking about powerscaling Batman.
Cybernetic reasoning can basically be explained in the following way, which made sense to me per Grok:
"Grok:
R ──(+)── E ──-> Controller ── U ──-> Plant ── C (output)
−↑ │
└──────────── Feedback (B) ───────┘
(usually B ≈ C)
-
Let R = Reference input — the desired value.
-
Let D = Disturbances / environmental factors — everything that tries to push the system off target.
-
Let C = Controlled output — what the system actually produces.
-
Let E = Error = R − B (where B is the feedback signal, usually a measured version of C.)
The loop does not change R directly in most simple cases. Instead, the controller uses the error E to generate a corrective action U that drives the plant so that C tracks R as closely as possible, despite D.
In steady state (after transients die out), a well-designed negative feedback system achieves: C ≈ R even while D (your Y) is varying. The system continuously “modulates its effort” (adjusts U) to cancel out the effect of D."
So in my own words:
R, which is initial input, never changes. R is only ever modified by a continually added U, U is modulating the effects of D which impacts C. We add U so that C achieves R, which can mostly closely be identified as an intent and therefore cannot be the same as C which is output, they aren’t the same class of thing even if you can equate their values in some simulated situation.
So in my head the way I was able to shake this fruit out of the proverbial tree was thinking that this was basically representative of the methodology of Sherlock Holmes, whose major caveat is that he simply never actually publishes or verbally subscribes to any R to Watson or his clients, he considers it a capital error to make assumptions without evidence as it perverts the workings of the deductive methodology he employs. Holmes is a supergenius in the Cybernetic examination because he allows R to be something as ethereal as “The Case being Solved” instead of a certain value (which is itself philosophically real as fuck because it establishes that C must exist consanguineous with R in the example of a murder suspect thus far unidentified but who necessarily must have an identity) which is classically the error of Lestrade and his gang of bandits who look for the first R that presents itself and are happy to execute the Cybernetic equation ad nauseum to achieve their R of choice. If Holmes can be considered Cybernetic at all I suppose it is in that his process is a highly efficient achievement of recognizing and compartmentalizing D in order to examine what the best U is in quick order.
attached is a good snip of the equation in case the copy/paste distorts it massively.
