main index

P00: frame around

P01: olicognography

P02: addictions




Graph Start

Core n
Half complex graph








Not Just Yes or No

Binarity not Just It

Binarity or linearity is just 2 options at once; eventually iterated, that is "repeated in the following". For example, yes & and or, before & after or, positive & negative. Main defect of that is to uncare intermediate position, which are basically what we are, if possible: intermediate, share, wait, suspend, see and think, etc. Binary minded people truncate from the start problems and impulse poor questionning. This basic of unique mindedness does not let enough place to doubt. Not being so, makes people said to be irrational. Since reality is more complex, reduction paradoxically produce artificial confusion by lacking of sense of cautious approach. Reductionism ignore alternative an care what they do want (often something to grab at whatever cost).

Of course, there is natural complexity which pose problem not so easy to cope. Divisions made by individual disparities could have smoothed that. If globalization would have not promoted so hegemonic unique-mindedness and fake incorrect "solutions". Artificial complications have disturbed a lot landscapes of humain affairs, helped by extraordinary technological means (not positivelly neither well shared); creating more herds' sensibility (like to speculation bubbles) and sensitive to negative catastrophic instabilities.

Boolean logic is binary logic and how most digital or modern softwares proceed. Indeed the enormous development of computer systems shawn that this can go very far into artificial complexity. But the "artificial" term stays for confusing what to do and how to do properly; meanwhile with poor at setting heuristics, priorities and policies. Decreasing social ground despite enormous inflation of expertise. Much expertise is wasted in fakeness and rituals dedicated to provide with an infinity of coherent dressings of incommensurable "stuff". Binary systems of thinking (more or less manured) induced rigidity on one side, ask for exhausting flexibility to many and on the other, unadapted new situations.

Other formal perspectives, alternative to linearity or binarity are emerging. It is to mind and review them for better prospect. Societies are affected by crisis, perturbations, systemic mispecifications and distorsions but all together common in their tradition to make prevail what solve (un)humanely our mistakes using violence, conflicts and crimes. All have met too a huge potential of development under the "Big Bad Bag Bang of Globalization".

By side of formal approaches mathematicians have shown that ternary systems, three valued ones could be better than boolean ones even in numbers. Quantic information and computing, based on multivalued logic also are seen as very promising; once its hardware and software mastered. Parrallel computing also tend to suggest that, using especially what is called time's logic. But all this is still quite hard to common users of systems of information. Neither it has started to exist conciously in commons citizens' world, in a sense of a balance between advances and pratices. Indeed marginally many alternative curiosities have started to emerged but, with a dialectic and rhetoretic perfectly included in the reductions of "binantic" system of thoughts.

Why more than 2 options ?

May I presume? that perfect demonstrations will still need linearity.The sense of purpose, of decision, reductions are still required, they just need to be more modestly managed and better mastered. We need to make a difference between axiomatic logic or mathematical first order demonstrations (but avoid it especially in social sciences avatars). Should axiomatic logic and first order of logic demonstration be properly applied to complex problems they would impossibly extend too largelly to coincide well with real complexity. For example mind the difference of growth between logarithm and exponend curves and understand that information process tending more to logarithm increases lower than exponent complexity. Nevertheless axiomatic method it is the proper way to scientific demonstrations and can still inspire a better understanding of our limits; together with our difficulties of identification (between a formal model and a reality's complex unit). But too many mediatic discursive "demonstrations" are just fallacious demonstrations, more or less elegant with more or less good looking individualistic manipulators ("I know better than you: trust & obey me"), whomever they are: politicians, experts, counter-experts. Always there will be few imposing their prediction to plenty others to support neither democratic, neither scientific oligarchies. Hard ways weakening democracy and dysstructuring society. Any citizen has responsabilites o assume and best ways for a society to develop have to do with anyone contribution and care from all.

So, even when there is at end of many processes, conclusions or cycling duals required as "yes" or "no" configuration; the previous stages, steps, present and future development of anything human "problematology" is not just of the reduced sort. Other reasons why to not care exclusivelly the hegemonic maniquiestic binary-lineary dogma are the situations where we have to consider too artificial complexity, unique solution calculus and time's pressure of constraining things to be done fast. Because of emergencies, natural complexities, limits of knowledge and uncertainties, this does not justify the cost of enormous ressources of calculus but better applied sense of precautionnary principle. Technological devices show that good resources of calculus can provide solutions, but "past century state of the art of formal system of speculation" have revealed, in financial and social crisis, quite improper ones. We can provide lot of numbers with pocket calculators or computer or huge models, those numbers may not be really "waterproofed" from mistakes and specified identifications enough close reality to react properly. They should not be managed as general deterministic theories.

Finally one last argument is intuitive or inspired by cybernetics (imitation of Nature's reality). Human mind still produces extraordinary results that machines cannot deliver. Differenciation has shown that machine skills do better in many automated sorts of processes while human wisdom can catch better natural complexities, adaptat and innovate. So to think about how to combine both in a more balanced way: computers' reductions have risks too and will not crash just the machine. Revolution of Information have made very easy to have at your desk powerfull computers. Logicians now use forms of non "universal simple logics" that can open mind. For example Fuzzy logics (logics of yes - no - may be) now have many applications in industrial regulations. The problem which remain essential is a proper art and balance between, communities involvement and to master humanelly uses of ressources.

More than 2 values is the start of questions, doubt, risk, democracy and shared intelligence. We have to find human machine interfaces and steps toward ones to the others and, at the reverse: that could give shape and consistency to approaches. Social issues have stayed too far behind, may be because too efforts have been developped there: in social sciences, as well as in "sciences of execution", abusing of science to uncare complexity of natural operations, to set too soon biased reductions.

Not too Many

We have to precise our intermediate position. It is not our purpose to specify so completely our own philosophic system (or antisystem), for coping better with natural and artificial complexities. We seek the benefits to introduce different mixtures of options. Enough for all members of a team or a community feel to master something of their common problem(s) and variables, more economically and more properly when collaborating altogether.

Calculable also, at best where the machine could apply algorithms of general heuristic for various but manageable solutions. That is why we are pointing to cardinal or number of options not far from between 3 and 5; the basic dimensions of reality, of degree dimensions with general solutions, and so on. More than 5, if there are sort of properties that could simplify, like 8 - 12 which could simplify in to 3 - 5. Especially if these properties can support criteria interpretable in a humane way: balance, symmetry, equity, democracy. These may have also already been formalized. Different perspectives around not with too high cardinals (the reason why of "oli" in olicognography (something inspired by "oligo") and "holism" (or "wholism") addressing to levels, layers, numbers of variables, parameters or concepts at each levels, eventually expanded in a modular way..

At the same time it is to introduce some curious effects to take complexities into account: strange simple expressions of complexity. Not to explain here everything (see complex tips page) like fractals, constructal, strange attractors, cellular automata, pictchfork and bifurcations. But these strange reduction of complex tips (or sticky-ties) are now well explored in scientific simulations. In our more pragmatic perspective, strange effects may be included in hazard, and simulations with these may help us to be not too surprised by unexpected dramatic evolutions. A way to prepare our mind to unexpectable events and better coping..

... follow