Formal sciences are right with automatic programming, but are much less convincing with complex, human and humanistic ways of doing democratic management. Within society, integration of scales is managed by individuals: their mobility and flexibility, having rigidities and categories or classes. Social mobility is good but not always well and enough observed in many societies. It often takes plenty of times to put right and get back to cleaner theories.
A simple machine follows a very specific program, ignores general openess, diversity emergence and most of environment; if it has no specific instructions at the respect of complex situations which are both incomplete and undecidable and, without multiple detections on the states of close environment. Non specifically programed it will remain unconcerned about its fate, neither would it react if there is no program at the respect. No machine's module operates according to some spontaneous sense of self-utility. Meanwhile, complex bodies maintain minimal identity at their highest level of complexity, as a first concern. There is, in all that, a sort of formal diversity or complexity. Combinations of quantitative and qualitative characterization of diversity meaning are formalists’ nightmares. Modern formalism looks more easily at objects immersed in the same regular quantified space (or must convert at best to one); generally, the infinite real numbers set with the stable properties of regularity, commutativity, and so on. This is an algebra that does not like irregularities. It uses norms or metrics (which are most regular norms). Meanwhile, thanks to Gödel’s theorem of incompleteness, logic has already demonstrated that formal algebraic system of real is not complete, meaning at least that it is not self-justifiable. Church's undecidability, Turing automata all come as Godel's theorem (on incompleteness with infinite iteration processes, so this should question this sort of perfect abstract logical truth as used in phenomenologically finite reality.
These basic asumptions that have already many decades, did not prevent users of formal science from behaving like if their individualist completeness and fake continuity was safe; supporting their demonstrations, so as to dedicate themselves almost all separately in investigating systems of abstract truth; and to be surrounded by disciples agressively promoting their system of truth, meanwhile hardly understanding politicians dediced themselves to the "re-curse" of their common sense.
From a complex and shared perspective, the simple optimum of perfect calculus is not simply given, neither clearing for practical path, simplification and reducing meanwhile staying open to choice between options and to alternatives heuristics. Individually, this may prevent many to do our best to balance anthropization (environment humans’ restructuration), for a sustainable positive social benefit, with the lowest ecological loss. Wiyth precautionary principle, it is to make adverse effects as minimum as possible. In many cases, this coincides with conservation or promotes wisdom of disequilibrium, to stabilize somehow into potentially well-developing biodiversity. Biodiversity promotion being something difficult to reach in a sustainable way. Wiser to have a management of downgraded ecological dimensions that stay.
Many modern social difficulties come from ignoring complexity and from focusing too much on unique phenomena or maximal highly destabilizing predation or exhaustion of narrowly profitable resources, extracted from the environment in a way that destroy most other thing. All focused views are overloaded with ignorance; they do not respect complexity, diversity, long-term, or large-scale adverse effects.
With the suggestion to have complexity in mind, we set as a minimum a dual sense. It lays on constraints of our own (short) human limits, as well as in our degree of inescapable ignorance. This ignorance or such kind of difficulties of management are due to our limited capacities of treatment of knowledge, lack of smartness in registers articulations and obliged interference in processeses of coordination. So in practical situations there are also economical limits of information's collections and of treatments, when processing and acting.
Community may reach, but not for sure, a wise sense of modest popular expectations. At least, considering complexity it tries to be an efficient scale of care. Different cultures or disciplines use different diverging maps of applied values (not necessarilly so different in abstract) and variety of pathways (possibly with some convergence). This makes the need to work with some sense of community, like in the philosophy of the Ethernet. At the minimum, it is to care the essential integrity of any interlocutor and at best to promote his/her freedom.
Human eco-sustainable communities differ in many ways but also often show common respect of essential values (despite diversity of cultural expressions and of sorts of rites. So ethical questions are about how communities are coherent according general characteristics: time, space, functions, patterns and extensions; like: formal/informal, general/specified, endogenous / exogenous relations. With diversity, freedom together with unity and solidarity, coherent communities cope more easily.
Complexity for Management
You may believe (or not) that economy has to be fair and cooperative. One essential purpose of community is to share information on kinds of individualistic practices and better diffuse potential practical solutions or opportunities. Rules regulate best when everyone is concerned (fairness) rather because of bureaucratic structures. Social issues supposed to be sciences have very partial and distorting tools; which are not very realistic restect to common humane problems and their forms cannot be taken for very scientific. The device for measure mediate and provide data and theoretical comprehension, models almost perfectly: qualitatively, quantitatively time; subjecting all behavioral possibilities of system under observations but staying quite non practical to irrational animals; whom can do better just at ignoring lessons, when and worse because effectively wanting to do again them. With social issues, this is almost impossible. First, the relations of principles of the kind (social level) are almost formally and honestly impossible to relate to fundamental physical principles. Perfect identification followed by formulation is more often an illusory, mechanicist formalism, abusively applied to social issues.
Of course, we are all physical bodies, but the sort of physics at our social level is almost impossible to put into open formulas (incommensurable or incommensurate). Meanwhile qualitative enunciates are hardly operative. Too, this level of complexity is increased by humans' ambitions to be different from biological world, up for social or blessed issues. Even if the sets of moral values (meaningful weak abstract enunciates) could not be so different from one culture to another, there look like different and require good interpretations and practical situations. In fact, all this, is necessarily managed by ambiguities and paradoxes, and this could be liberating: fix them sincerely, at least do not ignore. All that does not make “social principles” very physical. There are no miraculous identifications; there is no mathematical or logical formula that can secure truth. Even perfect formal systems of algebraic operations of mathematics have been demonstrated incomplete.
Some practical issues to take into account for approach of complexity are:
- Divide and delegate tasks and make responsible whenever possible, be responsible where correct,
- Limit the levels of differentiation, stay robust and liable be cooperativelly driven not just for your profit,
- Maintain reserve on looking like easy simple arguments (especially when far from essential issues),
- Respect the freedom to do and have a margin of flexibility, so that initiatives could be responsibly assumed,
- Make social programs with good intentions and fair commitments before goals and narrow results,
- Have systemic approach since a human close dimensioned, like with of a close in space, community,
- Put quantification everywhere you can, be it scientific and calculable (have enough culture of "strange mechanisms"
- Set algebra social and as democratically accepted, where values can be conventioned (care that such algebra are probably networked, complex, partial, modular, multiscaled, etc. rather than infinitelly continuous and ideal),
- Find local democratic consensus and democratic respect of realistic physical laws,
- Work hard on social results, well done tasks, even if not as you wish, sometimes primary goals are not so essentials,
- Make your own needs as essential as others and modest, care minimum common ones,
- Seek the systemic development of skills and virtues (do not pretend to be the best one so for setting the rules, the criteria and the judgments all at the same time,
- Imagine that community will fulfill with what they can and do not miss that achievment is there, not just a private thing,
- Be privatelly honnest with your dedication and socially fair (and anonymous) in your care of people,
- Do not take the given for sure and care the ways to make it,
- Stay sensible and sensitive to options (wherever coming from ), especially if it appropriated to community.
The aim is to be variably rigorous, according to social contingencies and issues, essential with the ceriteria of social utility. Sometimes goals may have to be fuzzy and general despite supposed to be rigorous; since comprehensive anticipation may turn meaningless or reveals wrong.
Diversity for Developing
Complexity is enough to turn vain any specific rigid intention without a main global purpose of social satisfaction or the fuzzy general goal of the project. In such circumstances, it is more important to use flexible frames in perspective, promote responsibility and commit more efficiently. Mind it also means in a complex way. With competition transposed to complex reality. Forsee the diversity of goals and types of successes. Give social value to these. Think that interesting competition is when between a group (team, task force, community, society) where everyone can gain better reasons for doing well and make it well. When all have done their best and when all allowed to stay in the games, achieved pleasantly or qualifying for next play without beeing too dimished: fair participation. All the previous in a world of kindness but not as sweet and effortless as you may think. Reality places "non sweet" hard balances required by sustainability. Monolithic rigid strength is often of least use. You may make you life out strict sense of mathematics axiomatic demonstrations, but should help them to be socially useful rather than let them be only usefull to 'LeviaTitanic' technocracies.*
Systematically it is to find socially useful appropriations to serve as far as you and individually also the utility of each one. Much information is not neutral so weigh the possible social impacts. Too much information is useless, like the one taking people for primary school childish players and giving general lessons on fashionable concepts pretended to have been fairly applied. It is hard to judge inputs of soft information and predicate exactly the ones that can be useful. *"Self-organizing (autopoietic) systems or how organizations bootstrap themselves to live, established cybernetics as the study of the functions and processes of systems which participate in circular and causal chains that move from action to sense of comparison with desired goals and again to action". Help frame your infrastructures projects into complex systems.
To make complex behaviors with simple rules: discover and report in collective mass intelligence best places, for humane investments."By compounding emphasis, the favorite sites get more visitors, thus increasing further visitors. As per the law of increasing returns, them that has get more votes, the have-nots get less. Gradually, one large, snowballing finale dominates the dance-off. The biggest crowd wins. It's an election hall of idiots, for idiots, and by idiots, and it works marvelously. This is the true nature of democracy and of all distributed governance. It behaves as a unitary whole, maintaining its identity in space, resisting dissolution...neither a thing nor a concept, but a continual flux or process". Try intelligence, not against the process or the democracy but with what you can do for everyone with what you have to do, not what you have to say, which should inform.
"Benefits of Swarm Systems
Apparent Disadvantages of Swarm Systems,
"There can be no preset orders, just a virtual mirror. simulator entails long delays in feedback from lever to effect The mob decides in unison, without lateral communication, like a flock self- consciously. They responded to an overview of themselves. The flock is more than the sum. The flocking rules were discovered by Reynolds. By tuning the various forces in his simple equation a little more cohesion, a little less lag time" and there you have very complex patterns. Care to behave individually for togetherness for all. Do not put you order overall, but your care when distant to them all, and close to all them. The wise will be reminded by its silences, if things done by everyone turn unexpectedly or wrong. Highly complex thinking systems may have preset as well as postset orders. Not the ones established by just one. How common information pathways reproduce what we are, adapt to what we do. Let what we do be good and show strong adaptations, skillfully catch good sustainability in humane ways. After that may be to talk of more specific things of interests if this does not harm anyone.
"There are 4 distinct facets of distributed being that supply vivisystems their characters". Adapted to higher coordinated systems:
- "The absence of imposed centralized control". Not so: anyone are here because something afterall. We may show only one common purpose: maintain the essential highest level of self-complexity). At macro-meso level it looks like control. At micro-level it should be no centralized control. Just sharing of common processes of liability.
- "The autonomous nature of subunits". Driven by the common purpose. Their are specified for being mostly autonomous on basic sustaining functions, while coordinated for emergence of globally uniting coordinating property.
- "The high connectivity between the subunits". Better the complex program: overall, few main options (not just one, or at least modulated and plenty of sensible connexions).
- "The webby nonlinear causality of peers influencing peers". Humans pretending also to need humane influencing criteria, but look carefully to ressources assigned.
"Emergent properties within the superorganism superseding the resident properties of the collective". "The emergent step, though it may seem more or less saltatory (a leap), can be regarded as a qualitative change of direction, or critical turning-point, in the course of events. At a high level of connectivity and a high number of members, the dynamics of mobs takes hold". Have a careful look at local issues. "Parallel distributed computing excels in perception, visualization, and simulation. Parallelism handles complexity better than traditional supercomputers made of one huge, incredibly fast serial computer. But in a parallel supercomputer with a sparse, distributed memory, the distinction between memory and processing fades". Processes reproduce, creating or recreating. From one hill to another: jumping rather than running alone, all along the valley between. Jumping, just at least let some good information, material or energy, from one valley to another, may be different effects. Why not ?
"Our consciousness creates the present, just as it recreates the past, from many distributed clues scattered in our mind. Mind may have never before seen such, but it compiles all the associations creating the visual image. The act of perceiving and the act of remembering are same. Both assemble an emergent wholeness from many distributed pieces. In a sparse distributed network, memory is a type of perception. But because of the nonlinear nature of a network, when it does fail we can expect glitches". Be the infrastructuring frames the most simply accessible, the less forcing the scale, the more allowing the right flows of masses . If rightness exists this is another solved story: we pretend it a memory.
"2 poles of the organization of moreness exist only in theory because all systems in real life are mixtures of these two extremes. Some large systems lean to the sequential model (the factory); others lean to the web model (the telephone system). Whereas the Atom represents clean simplicity, the Net channels the messy power of complexity". The real network signifies the needed individuality within crowd either the needed gregarity for individuals. "Model of how complex organisms of any type work:
- Incremental construction, grows complexity, don't install it,
- Tight coupling of sensors to actuators, reflexes, not thinking,
- Modular independent layers, the system decomposes into viable subunits,
- Decentralized control, no central planning out suggestions,
- Sparse communication, watch results in the world, not wires.
"Organization that holds a genuine plurality of shapes is the grand mesh. In fact, a plurality of truly divergent components can only remain coherent in a network. No other arrangement -- chain, pyramid, tree, circle, hub; can contain true diversity working as a whole". Distributed control has to be grown from simple local control. Complexity must be grown from simple functions that already work.
"Hwang and Zhu Du proved that the best savings a system might enjoy from introducing new points into a network would peak at about 13 percent. More is different"." Think also to Braess's Paradox about networked roads: adding routes (street roads) to an already congested network may only slow it down". "Increasing the gain, the responsivity, of individual neurons does not increase their individual signal detection performance, but it do increases the performance of the whole network to detect signals": these are pieces of networks economics.
You may try Create innovation:
- If you have a Complex Mind intent to do simple things first. If you have simple mind try to cope with complexities,
- Learn to do complex things flawlessly". Learn by varying simple things.
- Add new layers of activity over the results of the simple tasks. Clean and simplify up preserving invovlement.
- Respect the simple things that worked for all and change yours simple things, preserving dignity appearances.
- Make the new layer works almost the same but make it useful for future situations.
- Repeat, no further than you can, go on for all, end when overall do not need more then recreate.
Methodologically review synthesis can look at:
- The lessons of synthesis, reductions or abstracts,
- Input them in contextual feasibility,
- Broad to real situations and complex understanding,
- Examine the advances of actions, activities of the program,
- Requalify these activities, actions and may be the program,
- Switch levels, allow improvments, support achievments
- Set landmarks for future activities, connexities and synergies,
- Clean, reshape or restructur unsatisfactions,
- Program next review, set soon questions of next meeting,
- Complete information and communications on the moment.