Aim of this chapter is to introduce a wiser philosophy of complexity in a sort of common sense of complexity into popular economics. Extraordinary ambition, probably called to fail before discussed. This should stay modest and popular despite mixing many strong concepts and, more subtle than imagined by endless prosateurs of "complexity". Having well in mind the impossibility of the task, like trying to fix or set the exact definitions and vanity of intents to demonstrate all what we imagine, we will try to stay as short, aphorical, as "disarming" as possible. This may produce on you weird feelings, but we will try too to anchor our speculations to simple evidences of formal methods.
Of course if indemonstrable, non complete, undecidable and impossible to solve by mathematical means (in the logic's sense of this words) what stays anyhow must be democratic procedures and computed programs supporting practical real democratic communities which we are sorry not to provide already, because also with some limits but they also require some different sorts of concepts of management from the ones already used with some efficiency by pyramidal structures of high complex artificial determinism like from private firms (simplified by lone aim of shareholders'profits at all costs) and all mad copycats of bureaucracies wanting to tame reasons at any costs in any details.
Complex Manageable Intuitions of Popular Economics
One time, convinced that the complexity of the world, you face require reductions not induced since your only self prejudged opinion about a unique conviction on your ability to determine arrangements just around your egocentric individualistic perspective. Even when, for the unsafe pleasure of our mind, these arrangements are not determined as simply as thought, you may have so some smaller modest ambition: to be anonymously influential with intents to bias flows of processes, toward humane issues. You can be convinced that it can be important, when involved in transforming networks (social, work teams, communities' ones), to make all possible actors able to identify where, how, and when to analyze, interfere and cooperate. For people well intentioned toward their surroundings, olicognography can help to imagine transient systems of representation, make them socially and circumstantially structured, and finally help anyone to self-inscribe in social sustainability of a common program of self-governance where freedom takes sense.
Here is the premises of these introductory lessons on complex popular economics:
- Stay introductions to documents, most of them simply extracted from the web.
- Have some explanations on how to design your own frames of use of concepts, since the complexities of realities toward what could be some qualitative logical frame of concepts, up to you to adapt them to your own problems (mainly with the use of oliconographs still too static and too determinist. We insist on that you can adapt and transform them as freely and responsibly you want, to your reality.
- Unable you to approach your own economical problems, especially as a group or community, obtain an informative overview, clear your options and strategies of decisions and enhance your follow up (trying also to provide with documents of essential knowledge meanwhile not excluding too many conventional ones already existing.
- intent to avoid the most reductive incredible assumptions that ground many pseudo-scientific social sciences (abusing nevertheless of what they suggest, taking them then as a ground frame, and not taking care of their author - so as not hamper them).
- Do not take formal exercises for reasons or demonstrations (logical demonstration being often not enough identified within local reality but more respect to a logical system of first order logic).
- Provide nevertheless economists with some reasons to hope that they could be more useful, if more simply involved in social affairs (not narrow-minded as ferocious managers).
- Open some new perspectives of modelling with the ambition to articulate better essential criteria of humane goodwill and the sustainability of our uses of our environmental.
- Suggest more comprehensive platforms (or dis-plays) for "simplexify"complexity (may be complexities' care is be not as complicated as imagined but a way of behaving with ideas).
- Intent to give some new tracks to better shaping local democratic games.
- Promote more believable formalisms with a back to basic formulation closer to realities, proceedings blurred but not so unrespectful for many ideas emerged with the hyperinflation of mathematical formalism.
Diversities and heterogeneities are essential expressions of complexity. They should be so, basic to any kinds of analysis. So as to have some understanding on how and where you can use formal tools, experimental ones, logical and intuitive means with complex units. Diversity is a hard practical problem of decision. First, because of humans' capricious mood, volatility of minds, diversity of aspirations and, eventually volatility, prevail over the exact specifications of programs and goals. Even the mere satisfaction of basic human needs is not easy. Meanwhile, humans also require unity in its basic integrity, for being able to adapt and follow other special needs. Possibilities of such kinds of multi-level perspectives, applied to the concepts of reproductions or information. The development of complex organisms requires the ability to copy information, and this, along with the properties of nucleic acid systems, has established the biological world. Copying informations must allow re-copying, repair, and reproduction.
To seek social utilities in dialectic and rhetoric management: 1) Enhance the skills of communities to materialize their ideas in positive actions, 2) Create abilities to reach transient consensus, 3) Find diverse ways toward social opportunities, 4) Incorporate local actors, including those who have difficulties participating in debates, 5) Reach better social transparency, 6) Weigh empirical and practical issues according to the community’s yardsticks, 7) Favor the ground-based theoreticians able to design good practical heuristics, etc.
Observe about systemics' construction of this sort of visual models:
- Have a minimum complexity, like at one layer of a tree or flowering of concepts, 3 or 4 dimensions or variables,
- Such a frame with 3 to 4 layers should allow a general solution so if more than cardinal 5 simplifying properties are required (fundamental symmetries, characteristic exponents, and so on),
- Consider modularity as in multiple levels of scale (or cardinal of layers: macro, meso, micro and times' changes),
- Set in the highest level or layers criteria like the way things should like to be, better is ethical, responsible with range of reachable management of complexity (to complicated care with non salvaging determinism),
- See at mesoscale the level of maximum wholist complexity of unit (as the essential human being) so the pivot of methods and forms (or patterns) of the model,
- Put in subsystems and microscales the means, actions and praxis caring especially how they should not affect the essential unit (like leading to death or too sharp unsustainability).
Practically speaking on effects of complexity, relevant problems of human sustainable development themes are concerned:
- Why development planning has turned so often catastrophic in Third World Societies?
- Why mathematics can be so preeminent in sciences and so misunderstood in arts, abused and ignored by average social professional?
- Why computers can be so strong in specific activities and so ridiculous in other common human complicated tasks?
- What are the distinctive qualities humans have over machines?
To stay at a reasonable level of coverage and diversity of concepts, you generally have to get out of the simple two (2) values (of Boolean or linear logic). Three(3) is the start (of questions); four (4) and five (5) options are useful. More than six (6) is often a combination of previous cardinals or combinations (like 2 x 3). Between seven (7) and twelve (12), you will have to reduce or have more strata. Think also that it is about logic do not only treat each number as a number the same in different place on a scale, but with a frame of qualitative relations to detail then to quantify not purely only by the common sense of the number. At each strata numbers of options do not have to expand too much. If more than calculable with general expression of solution (overdetermined system), this can make us think that that there is an overambition of management of options and they will turn unmanageable, unless you can, ambitious dictator, divide yourself enough or overdetermined by brutality. if there is under-determination or too simplified models like less than 3 parameters then models will be also poor, inflexible, too short, too narrow to care the whole remain from which can emerge (creative) chaos. Be these cardinals of power, dimensions, number of parameters or variables, domains, valued levels of logic, options and so on.
Systems of high dimensions when scientific have often something to do with quaternions, up to octonions. May be there could be more but Nature seems to be able to reach lot of complexity like with 4-6 nucleic acids; alphabet having often between 20 and 30 letters and in the same way codons of 3 nucleic acid reach more some 3 or 4 time but basic building blocks are more of the first cardinals and larger use redundancy as means of control, as a result amino acids (as many as alphabet) are often encoded by more then one codon. Specific ideograms of ideographic written languages have much more and there the basic is with some hundred but patterns come with less. Olicognography has in mind that basic visual-cognitive building blocks could be of few tens.
Think Hard, more Complete, Accept and Involve contradictions. 2>
Mathematics education traditionally concentrates on technicalities, that is, solving exercises and problems already formulated. Today, this can often be made with small calculators or be helped with good identifications and computers, almost automatically. Because the development of modern societies has increased formal complexity, main problems with teaching of formal methods are to understand how to qualify and quantify and how to understand what you can expect from them. That is, the formulation of the problem, the design of one heuristic and the management of methods in reality. We can add too of methods in which you are not necessarily an expert. The acceleration of the discoveries in formal sciences is turning ridiculous (at least as specialists pretend), any honest citizen with the ambition to be comprehensive. But comprehension is increasingly needed in real practices and should be given more value and strength rather than for feeding more an more red tapes or blue ribbons to superb thinkers of determinist reasonings.
Practitioners often ignore fundamental difficulties and create virtual complexities or simple specialists' bias. Sophisticated methods turn fallacious justifications of social theories. Theories often based on mechanistic views and far from the flexibility of thinking of common individual and unduly far from communities' practices. Theories as promoted by professional disciples can disqualify modest democratic good uses and local fields right users of quantification. Theorists produce well, but when not very needed. That is when processes are regular and positive by themselves. And models turn much less effective when really required in very uncertain situations. There are plenty of intents to improve what can only stay wrong. Scientific deductive diagnostics accumulate contradictory information. They often share in a poor way, more for supporting their own few hypotheses and for servicing their pretended to be comprehensive thesis rather than helping the processes of information required by an environment of transformation. Even when concerned by the social utility of their services, social scientists waste time in theoretical studies and fake thesis when not embezzling local intelligentsia in unrealistic responsibilities.
Many difficulties come from the gap between natural complexity and how methods and speech are used in macroscale spheres of superior decision. Discourse can have huge effects especially when financially backed, or stay in systems of geopolitical relations: negatively powerful, counterproductive with humane ambitions; inappropriate with the frameworks required by humane real and substantial economy. These relations are nearly impossible to prejudge in a deterministic positive way. Beneficiaries like local selected communities are invited to cheer these shows on their fictitious development, for receiving in exchange small rewards and some humanitarian tourists. Then, closed the short projects they soon have to face the deceiving back-bouncing of adverse effects. Despite that, we think that with other goals in other political environments, with other practices, forms of general diagnostic can eventually have some social utility.
Olicognography tries to be a bit more inductive and to suggest theoretical complements in practical activities. Indirectly it expects that more realistic commitments can promote meaningful theories.
Why complexity makes illusory or inconsistent the relations between macro social formal schemes and micro social economy? Complex subjects quantitatively behave in a confused, mixed, and often strange form. Solid, crystal-like physical world can use simple Euclidian-Galilean-Cartesian static formalism. In those cases, it applies well. But this kind of application is very specific. Many complex subjects can bear only quite specific and partial quantification, not infinite iteration driven comprehensive ones. Too many unsafe assumptions make determinism hard to believe. An example is with ergodic principle, which introduces all probabilistic methods. Statistics become more of a filter to analyze numbers and simple mathematical relations. This is not for turning the lone support of any physical phenomena.
Scientists waste time in theoretical studies and fake thesis when not embezzling local intelligentsia in non realistic responsibilities. Many difficulties in management come from the gap between natural complexity and how methods and speech are used in macro scale spheres of superior decision. Discourse can have huge effects especially when financially backed, and stay in systems of geopolitical relations negatively powerful; inappropriate with the frameworks required by humane real and substantial economy.
With the limits of accounting in mind, at relevant levels of aggregation, this sort of tools would be liable and realistic but they still require communities, local governments, and enterprises commitment. That is primarily managed in essence, and pedagogically presented, the structure of financial accounts can be a source for good and sincere practices. Accountants should commit to support community learning, like in the teaching principles of accountancy in a transparent way separated from details and low technicalities.
What lacks is the conviction of elementary economic actors so that they can help collect and understand how to cautiously manage information. It is important to show the interest of everyone’s perspective. Not just the obligation for control of many and unpleasant registers with no more use than bother fields’ operators depending on higher financing diverted from essential work. Liability could be easier to reach in communities if the benefit of accounting was not overrated nor presented as a panacea, in a scholarly way, to all problems.*