2 Not just, 3 Brings doubt - Openings Reasons
2 but not Just
2 and what? - yes or no, there should be something more around. With only 2 arguments: I have not enough to think about, nothing to compare, its already done and opposed. At least I need a previous enunciate: first make the question then answer it. Yes - no - question - answer that is already 4. I need something complex around, be it the analytical object.
2 is linear or cut lets 2 as extremes, so the middle is implicit in complex mind. Say positive and negative, a direction so there should be a middle, where both or where none. Let 2 a base like with a zero (0) and a unit (one), complexity added. Is an absolute zero relevant ? - no if we do not trust spontaneous generation or cannot mind that we can do. Join comparators like very small or very large. Very small close to zero but a something unexisting may be at the level of smaller unit, or something negative to unit but positive otherwise. There is a one (1) and a higher limit. A very large or an infinite one ? - Useless thoughts ? - this is the basis. So why such headache about limits? - The point is do we share all always the same limits? - and if no should it be bad?. So should we apply the same accounting ? For example when ones' lives are so hard with their children or others so wrong with their money?
Yes, well and "no" ? - like "yes" but the sign ((-)yes = no). Not so easy. Even logicians have problem with negation. The yes of contrary (- no = yes) could be a positive definition: a [no Peter] could be [Paul] but [] should exist [0]: Paul can have the fish soup of Peter, but 0 keeps the soup for Peter or for Paul. Imperfect definitions, not necesarilly comeasurable but if I identify a "yes" any other, in the same conditions will almost certainly, at least agree, that there is a subject but not necesarilly the same prospect or object: its interpretation of the subject, like seeing it, as good or bad: this is that. But what is "no" ? - Sometimes it is the no contrary or the no inverse: defined by the operation or definided by itself?: a relative no or a contextualized no. It could be seen as an absolute, a nothing, a zero. That is a bit confusing but this confusion is quite meaningful of "no" even in accounting, that we may have not cared.
So for negation, there are places or moments where I could never do anything with no. There are other places or moment where I could do something just to revert the perspective, doubling the no and obtain a yes: (no&no: yes, like -.- = +) that is that: a house there or no but where could exist one or a floating-house. If my sense of value provides me with negative result, should I do the contrary? - to turn it positive.
If the present world observed (out of context?) that my virtual economy did not push well my real economy, whom should I save ? - the first or the later one? Which structures care? - and which function sacrifice ? Which program ? - in a complex world, see the sort of complex primal - dual program mentioned: that is always say no but yes to (alternative) or yes but not (criterion). Never say yes - yes, you will be surprised (oh no) neither no - no (respect freedom).
3 Brings the Doubt
So we often prefer to start considering since three (3), should with ? - can start the human logic? like 1 + 1 (if you see now the + as us, or any other operation : you have 3). Animals doubt too, but they will not make a fuss against 3. May be animal could show regret, when reconsidering their previous decision. They will not make any speculation and theory, about why they did not put their fang or claw in this piece of meat or another: hunger no stock option, take or not the risk to be hurt - by a hard hoof, other business. Out zoomorphic analogies, make an analytical object of some third, be it eventually virtual makes the interest. Indeed quite commonly using a double axis reference: a map which has 3 too: the object, its defined abscissa and its ordinate. That is where start the problems, the questions or the 3 dimensions of reality.
See in basic physics. We have the matter and the energy. Further more, mind the entropy, could be the relative shape of energy and matter respective distributions. Some in communication have identified entropy to information. Information has been diffused by social science confusing the concept. Physicists or thermodynamician too, at the beginning (with Clausius and then) . They were not at ease with the formulation as a spontaneous trend toward disorder. It was necessary to consider open systems, and that one loosing its order to equilibrate the energetic balance, could be caught by another taking advantage to get against it own entropy higher with more complexity.
So information or entropy can also be a measure of complexity. But is calculated as an energetic balance you need to get in to understand it. Get in take sense considering the pathway. The pathway that able the development of a structure. That is also its history. If globally no matter the detail, but yes because we are intermediate and the other intermediate are of our interest. Construction needs to take the relative opposite ot entropy: neguentropy (?) so able to get up along the "scale" of complexification: shape, structure, renew (to counterbalance entropy), change (because renew os transformations are never perfect but also this helps adaptation).
Economy too: I will not care all my piece of meat just burned. Neither this piece of meat in its perfect original state (not so easy to catch a cow with teeth). Caring for the pathway? - at least the cow not crush me, and the place: not to fight against brother wolf for "my" cow. (Anyhow, thermodynamically, better to be vegeterian - except at the middle of a prairy or a steppe with only grass, for thousand of kilometers)
May be: in a complex World mind energy is not just for itself (only to burn your face), universe has cooled and energy turned more manageable. It comes from combustion of matter. Matter is not like that, for most it has been transformed in complicated forms, including forms prone to release energy, thank to the strength of return of entropy. Complex matter have taken advantage of surrounding energy, available in the environment or by recycling its own, to make its structures get functions complicate more and do or reproduce some things better, thus increasing its entropy's strength like if tending a rubber band (the problem is not to slash it back on you or pretend to break it, but to oscillated around your position of essential complexity unit (stay alive and vivid). So entropy reflects information of the matter, where some matter is also used for energy needs.
Now what makes the highest complicated unit somehow stable and reproducible: is how pathway entropy's shape and memories has been divided and stay keen not to free all its energy at once when transformation(s): this makes it functional. That is how simplifying "combustion" from outside and partly from within, provide enough energy that can incorporate and engine matter, function, renewal and building, especially during when period of growth of the body.
Intersting subpart of entropy when set as a 3rd part between energy and matter, despite composed to of both them. - Third
See a more social review like considering Social - technics - politics. Set social the most complicated object (of analysis). Then technics and politics as instrumental. Have a look to "omega tip". You understand why 2 is not enough. Now mind too that should permeate with the accounting concepts, and there should be intuitive things somewhere.
Ternary has also been explored epistemologically for computing. Not to consider also that basc of reality applies to volumic - 3D objects.
Once 3 develop. Both in the form or within, like combining 2 by 2, think to an intermediate concept. Further then you can also add layer and give, together, meaning to your geometric logic.
In Summary
Start anything analytic with 3. 3 equal or different, co-measurable may be 2 upon 2. Start from the whole, at least the doubt that one issue over 2 is non complete. Consider 3 whenever questionning, or doubting, or minimum positionning, a volume or consistency (position any concept in 3 perspectives). At some moment, when decision, when reduction will come 2, as a closure, or a line, or a sequence. Time is not just 2. A balance may be 2.. 2 simple of equal value, or complex, a complex primal-dual, a dual perspective and so on.
