main index

P00: frame around

P01: olicognography

P03: infrastructures




Graph Start

Core n°
Half complex graph








Goals & Issues

Basic Olicognograph: Action

Wholist Values, Thermoeconomical Landscapes

When considering a democratic group, behaving properly respect to neighboring ones and, in an environment enough supporter of sustainability it is to hope enough social cover of complexities. So the merit of some traditional settlments to have shown ability to reproduce humans collective sustainability. Complexities either goals or difficulties as expected, planned and build and, also ability and means to treat adverse potential effects so be the to balance or levels of scale not too reduced and uneffective. Set goals within society may look like not as complex as it seems neither as simple as pretended, for many reasons:

  1. Some utilities are well related to their achievement (a bridge is useful almost only when fully build, but it can be scaled). Work hard soon and in the short term can mimic too essential communities and make more easy for the hard goals be accepted (like, in the past, project of survival that send communities in 'promised lands' - really adverse: frontiers pionners, if it did not resulted in mass killings).
  2. Larger the times delays, easier the adaptations but goals may dilute among diversity of environment and communities (including transformations) which may be right but so the fixed goals at the origin turn less important than the ways, the transformations that allows majority in the community to create, evolve and have some benefits to go on.
  3. Social utility can be the maximum absorbable by the community or society of the sustainable benefit produced; having in the same process produced and diffused at the maximum (appropriable) learning, training and knowledge between members and others.
  4. It is not to prejudge that any social construction like communities or institutions should be definitive. They should support dynamics and show their usefulness along time and need to be tested. Neither they should be definitive, meanwhile a model, especially a social one will find easier to preserve the unity or existence of the construction; meanwhile a project promoted from outside, to the contrary has consciously or unconsciously often promoted cultural destruction (essential, because enacting identity is cognitive) .

Details on (above) 2. could need to be provided (for example it is strategic within firms) but anyhow are debatable in any consulting process/ licitations/ consultation. The negociation and debate is both on the prices' definitions as, in some facilities, especially when it cannot be easilly valued by money (do not miss the anchoring). Some ratio of fairness between 2. and 1. if calculable. All this makes a 'public expression of interest' (having already clear the thermoeconomic ground of process, proposal and the planning liable. This would practically defined some (2 - 4) viable options. Sort of value would be something like logbase(Eentropy), logbase(Eexergy), unit price of Eentropy and unit value of Eexergy.

These would turn the universal kind of prices and could need exchange rate be 'transduced' into local money values. Universal kinds of price would require specification operator specific to the environment (iaccording what this can (or not) carry of the burden of a given project. Note that a more pragmatic view on price-value would consider, at least, a trio (trial ?) of prices (for financing): 1) social value (price + commited value), 2) relative price weight (ratio concerning ecosystem common energetic flows on to energetics flow involved by anthropic transformations) and, 3) may be (intuitivelly) optimum characteristic exponent composed as a ratio of neguentropy/entropy.

Details on (above) 3. It applies to the details of 1. and hypothesis on 2. the criteria of social public expression of interest. This is not just a formal application of procedure. More information can emerge from 1. & 2., if hard to monetize (money is information's maximum laziness so those that do not calculate it as well as those pretended, when to deliver there is moral hazard in both sides for comparison between competitive prices. Value provided, specifications, conditions and criteria are barelly well informative on how to compete fairly (so the self-ethics with moral value importance). Have regulation authorities agreed with their potential subsidies like taxes exemptions (or the contrary firmly oppose) and other socio-political arbitrations. Be this item concept (above 3;) expressed as a minus or a plus assigned, more or less negociated from point 2.

Fourth step (4.) confirms (or infirm - socially never definitivelly): recall the commitment and work of all, thus set or regulate the rules of game(s) of given project(s) at best in a soft and open way to ease any potential social benefits. If we consider complexities - which implies also to take into account rigidities made by the needs of shape/ structure/ functional concentrations; concentrations and densities in many modern overspecialized commitments - It is to pave the way for alternative and optional considerations about social utilities and sustainabilities; which means also to considerfor example;

  1. Specific goals of project may be ... but not with no less overall democracy (more efficient) or less social utility (infrastructure projects have often been made with too bright anticipations of positive effects - for example major dams. This has many implications on the metrology (measurology: metrics is hard)) of results of projects. On one side results should be objective and effective on essential issues. Essential issues would be like mortaliy rates reductions in sanitary projects. Responsabilities must be assumed, direct ones of course, but indirect ones too must may be examined (especially if this is the way to make emerged important informal-unformed concern). Systems of indicators should better 'meetmatchfit' with social interfaces, social triggers, positive switches and 'transducers' but; must also serve the virtuous-not-vicious 'loops of management' and 'enhance cycles of social work' . Dedications of common resources to transformations projects should not be wasted or profit be reserved to few, especially by side of common or public means. [collections of 'tautol-dumby-ut-topics'],
  2. Planning or anticipating is to share - since, what everyone can do for social-community: good commitment of social utilities - the maps of sources of means, opportunites and networks of relative minimum harms expressed, at best, in terms of entropic risks and probabilities of 'attacks rates hazards' (social or ecological) distributed over the visual maps (cognitive if not geographic); together with potentials of transformations and movements; distribution of roles in the most socially diffused and involving ways possible (often highly spatially distributed when considering ecological criteria). Maximum social distribution of utilities: up to zero; but not with too unsustainable negative balances, that is minimum & maximum entropy's allowed discharges (remind that within operations entropy have negative signs). Not miss, inside ecosystem, Sun's inputs in the equations since it makes positive (through solar, wind, thermal, vegetal production) overall equations, and allows neguentropy (which constructions thanks to transformations allow more complicated systems) (hypothetically: entropy and assymetric spatial breakings - transformations - allow more complexity to open systems, neguentropies uses all the previous with times' partial local reversibilities - local units maintaining),
  3. Neither miss that, even if we are far from having a good 'management' of complexity (because of paradigmatic rigidities) and not even having set the proper formal methodological priorities, increased complexities preserving softness and smoothness of humane democratic management means more difficulties of management. So we are far from wise management: like for preventing any end of any civilization. The most problable of our fate is that humanity's wisdom will come too late to make common the evidence of consciousness, so as to humanelly prevent enough of local crunches, neither probably of the bigs humane ones of globalization (whole entropy accelerates risk of non linear entropy-disorder high release (big 'crunch' may not be so slow) [thermoeconomical version of Malthus' argument?],
  4. If the steps of wisdom can freely seek the way to humbleness and ganddhian austerity (last looks like the best way to preserve Nature) hypocrisy and inconsistency in the respect is everywhere (at least ignorance) and everyone can prefer to see a world of opportunities at any costs. Poors need to extract the sustain of their hard life: the choice of a life, even imperfect, may be rightfully not consists in forcing neighbors,
  5. Better care and share of essential knowledge (without geting stuck in sort of ergodic wastful heating, up to burst into disaster(s) (but the overthrow of dictators would be of a positive kindif not to replace it by the dictature of 'pensée-unique' and imperialist). Also better to approximate real complexities rather than be illusioned by artfull speculations (Ponzi's be only the perfect achieved expression of them), when these are costly in ecological consumptions, burning existing energetic stocks without reserve and preventing sustainable development of societies (with hypocrite goodfaith),
  6. Practice and implement more conscioussly the thermoeconomical environmental costs implied by transformations.

To compare to thermoenergetics cost obtained elsewhere, for using pre-standart cost, anticipation of a project will contemplate models filled with experimental cases, geographic thermal system of information and so on. Some criteria from thermodynamics expressions would be:

  1. Energetics balances: chose projects the most socially difusing and potentially thresholding ones (toward social concer) with low asignations and energetic with minimum costs (Hamilton's principle of least action ?),
  2. Exergies productions (this is about heat and thermal effects as produced by (sub)systems and delivered to the environment). To assess according the capacity of management of socio-technological environment: avoid white elephants in deserts (especially full of dead carcass, shells and people searching for ivories) ... prefer camels awared of their water needs (and do not miss that they drink a lot when they are not riding - no more then 2 weeks),
  3. Minimum of risks of entropy's potentially huge release, because probably non controllable negative effects (some entropy release, because easily caught, can have positive profits). So: Entropy , Exergy , Entropy,/All- energy involved, Exergy/All energy - involved and characterization: place (latitud, longitud, altitud), time (life expectancy, subtimes-cycle(s), complexity information, ecological (ee) environment and socio-technical environment.
  4. Consider those calculii in existing flows (your project does not start with nor from nothing) and design for simulations the transformations promoted by the project, if possible either conceive, a practical design of networks / grids / complex web of scaled gauges since the frames / patterns / matrix of your project onto sites / roads / landscape where it takes place; to measure your thermoeconomical impacts (estimated / projected / predicted) and on which you can anchor / link / organized / open democratic process of information / vote / distribution / commitment to tasks. This is not as difficult as you may read it, but it needs more reality of anchoring /legitimacy involvement / openmind into fairness.

Simulations may afterthen follow the traditional steps: calibrate data - deduce formula - make numerical analysis - apply formula - run aleatory sampling - iterate - think on practical experience(s) (and compare norms or to empirics ) estimates - test models without experimental device - care black-box assumptions - extract potential lessons and prepare - phase diagram & flows - data mines / document / design aids.

Limits of simulations are: Humane complexity (non asymptotic, non continuous, lability and switches) - Misspecification of models (at least when not preparing well 'to be not too surprised' by strange things (they are very common and often necessary) - Power of calculus - Limits of modeling (& of specification) - Non mathematical model or - Unappropriate for modelling..


Truth is something like a dictatorial assumption. Out of this and out of formally complete(d) (and short) systems of logic and mathematics, truth in human issues, is not absolute at all. The way to establish something that looks like so, is not easy. It has to be implemented in any logics (and they are plural) as a system of values or criteria, to set hierarchical systems, which are not properly democratic. Finding truth in practice is more a question made after beliefs after having followed one so called proper scientific procedure(s) or tree. In any system of social values, truth is made after an economically designed set of criteria applied onto a supposed scientific asumption, special partial combination of generally accepted principles, since some pool of knowledge and/or referring to more fundamental principles based on physical laws.

Mathematical definition of probability is now somehow clear, but relation to real world are still discussed with 2 broad views: 1) Objectiviste or frequencists consider that probability is provided by ideal behavior of frequencies, that can be (re)produced by results of experiments operated in conditions relativelly stable (or ruled). Pretending them to be "more scientific". That has been the ground of statistics inference theories. 2) Subjectivists think that probability is a degree of trust about any uncertain events, including the frequency and other situations. A mix of both, may somehow be seen in pragmatic subjection, as using their tools and pretending this 'that' to be the best truth. Meanwhile either bayesian methods (could be extended to management of complex patterns) could be a more proper way with some complex units (submitted to simple change), or could be a better use of network of relations, between families of 'laws' of distributions of probabilities, following a matrix of social choice and their implications and probably some need of fuzzy logic or artificial neural networks.

Subjective probabilities have various ambiguities:

  1. Partial belief logic on products of probabilities techniques and options (in the processes used), but normative theory as belief logic.
  2. Probabilities as techniques which use may be individual or, rised in terms of frequencies up to groups or collective, since a hypothesis or collections of hypothesis, under conditions of uncertainty. Remind our concept of complex program.
  3. Sort of derivations can be classes of estimations, judgments, believes and inferences, subjectivities; not necessarilly tightened, rigorously nor logically consistent. So out only one special type of measure. Observe that subjection is made of brain's activities, not emerging as products of automatic applications of simple logic, but of complexes processes. So not all explicit and not necessarilly only subjective.
  4. Commonly, the first unachieved step calls for previously defined mathematical and, repeated (iterated) physical events consistent with experiments (but these experiment may vary).
  5. Coincidence investigation between calculated estimations or predictions and registered observations, especially frequencies.
  6. Relations to measures are setting subjective probabilities because assessing the amount of information, the subject has or thinks to need (to get out his/her uncertainty).
  7. When with no information on an event, the suject makes his/her judgment she/he is refering to the "principle of indifference".
  8. Subjective probability are often evoqued by the idea of "luck" or "chance" carrying the possibility of a game (more or less ruled) and gain or loss from bet(s) with strategies (and in the hard-smooth complex realities with tactics).
  9. There is so a concept of "risk to take / taking / taken" (after the contrary / other or adverse issue) and of commitment to play as.
  10. It implies possibly a risk and/or a hazard (that could be prevented or avoided)and other operative constraints.
  11. With issues for an individual there is so both a process of judgement (check and asssess, judge, commit).
  12. Belief implies an abstract on chance, the feeling to be lucky, in a more or less strong way; coherent and even compulsory if not addictive (especially when not evidenced in most intents: 'next time will be the good one'),
  13. Process of decision under uncertainty, carries risk(s), can be conditioned and even forced but in the process of assuming imperfection information or knowledge.
  14. Normative theory of decision refer especiallly to the review of advantages and inconvenients. If the actors are conditioned, there is the ressources to think about what to do, but not always with the obligation to get it. Which is not necessarilly good and fine.

Estimators are measures of a: value, parameter, property or characteristic. Good properties of an estimator should be:

  1. Without biais, that is to say its mathematical hope should equal to the true value of parameter,
  2. Convergent in probability of quadratic average when parameters tend to infinity,
  3. Minimum variance (or efficient estimator). There are different kinds of class of estimators as maximum likelihood, least square and son on. There purpose is to mediate, more safely ? estimation related to probabilities' calculus

Probability or statistics care uncertainty. Risk may quantify uncertainty and receive a probabilist treatment. The constrains and limits set by applications of probabilities are often missed. For example they are often formally valid only with ergodic theorem or elementary event managed into independent (random) processes of iteration, sorting or simulation. That is each components behaving indepentently, neutrallity. Ideal condition hard to believe in an evolved universe preciselly developped against these principles and where interesting objects or situations have appeared preciselly at the margins of perfect gas, clouds, crystal (perfect structures) and so on.

Estimation of what to do (after estimators infered by same project of transformations) in the perspective of determinism, commonly resolves the uncertainty of its' philosophy, by saying that positive planning, needs anyhow to take a decision, after the results of a treatment rise provable risks. Uniqueness distort, makes prejudge, infere on wrong statistics, bias operations. Diversity of issues, better uses of data, weird scientific establishment or oversized ambitions of being scientific, in registers not really scientifc, lead to mistakes, ignores the good lessons of instruments (precautions) and miss goals. It is more than common that ideologies of leadership and other abuses of tools for their convenience. Issues of estimation can start with the values of trust worthyness and observations of reality all the way, and coincidentally false. Estimators often look backward (statistically established) ann are given the ambition to look forward: qualify prediction. Issues of prediction start with precautions and should make better things with. Estimators and predictors may better overlap. That the ideas of bayesian estimators.

Quite often, be more consistent does not just consist in following the prediction or focusing on the estimates (ignoring their properties and conditions), because positive, they are to prepare. Because opposite or paradoxic effects are reality's common. For so, our primal-dual sets of a complex program (which is often implicit in 'all other things equals'. Mind that logic(s) of belief may gives some frame to this sort of game.

Second, also to consider the measurability or non comeasurability or the degree(s) between object(s) and subject(s). Figurativelly sort of 2 extremes of effects. The one of too explosive (or to implosive) like of chaotic or catastrophic non linear effects, adding effects of partial dimensions: scale up (emergence) or scale down (fractal). The other being of non uniqueness of solutions to derivations or inflexions (left and right different derivates) or trajectories observing bifurcations or some box with more than one value.

A distribution that shows some homogeneity can be characterized in a simple way relativelly to a distribution characterisitic of a “regular” one and can be summarized in four type of moments:

  1. First (central tendency), which answer to the question of where is the closest value to every ones,
  2. Second (deviation), which give the mean distance of deviation compared central tendency (it is often called term of error but should have in multiscale complexities a quite different meaning),
  3. Third (flatness) where for the other axis, is the mean height,
  4. Fourth (skewness) which precise the unsymmetries of the curve.

Money dual commonly hopes to be the summary of all values: a reduction of information of complexities so cannot carry all the information and the communication of all something including any something traded. Could it be in honnest intention well managed the abstract marginal value of a next estimate of what to do with compared to other what to do, not distorting when reflecting thermoeconomic value, but also reflecting in the margins of speculation the share of conflicting interest. As a result such price should reflect 3 terms:

  1. A minimum reflecting all reasonable thermoeconomic costs (money valued),
  2. A mean depending on a minimum and the arbitrage of all marginal subjective interest of actors,
  3. A maximum depending on social alternatives en priorities including in the previous 1. and 2. the social (alternatives priorities which can be expression of regulations, net of subsidies and regulatory overheads).

Practically and for example, construction of price estimate will be so:

  1. Ground, absolute minimum part of price: thermoeconomics priced valued information provided on a given process of accounting of all and any on the cost of the good or process (manufacturers-actors with their knowledge and technical processes expectations; state or society with the standards of thermoeconomics; implying all that: standards catalogues of economic costs for the 'absolute' ground of value of something (good or service),
  2. Private interest sujective part of price: private interests since the 1. Any should provide all information they can have on 1. Hence providing an aggregate of their subjective summary of interests they do not have to detail if respecting rules (right to syndicate, etc.); price is an added also positive (costly) part of 1.
  3. Social subjective price: positive of negative part of price considering all social interest being them negative (subvention, subsidies, if in the democratic interest) or positive (externalities compensations, taxes, special taxes, etc.) of social concern.

All and any provide technical information of price since this ground is shared. Within industrial processes it is not to unveil how all gains are obtain, but to consideer that fair information makes acountability (especially for energetic diagnosis, etc.). This thermoeconomical information is also a contribution to standart values statistics applied in technological processes. All this makes the preparatory work, the supply of information, eventually essencial training. Concept of value could be like thermoenergetics cost all other meanings caught by the community.