Binary or boolean logic of simple "yes and no" is simple but it can look like more complicated when iterated in different ways and somehow overwhelmingly specified. This linear logic is basic to computed digital systems and of "easy first logic or axiomatic method". Despite most have not the rigourness to practice it just as it is, it is simple because reproducible and can be demonstrated. It is for making demonstrations and ideal formalism. Out the series of bits 0 and 1 and the first order logic, the ambition of any "soft" dialectic and rhetoric, like of any social science of manipulations, linear logic mimic it for looking like scientific like putting into series demonstrated deductions. Boolean logic would be for making thesis, since the point of view of perfect formalism, but in the extend thesis force definitions and accumulated instead of definitions "white-boxes and black boxes and blurred holes of tautological truisms". Pretend their demonstrations of social science safe and thesis of truth does not serve much needed society. Complexity have appeared so soon on the scale of evolution that "soft sciences", whatever exact they pretend, are more for preserving their self-interest and the reproduction of their profits.
We have to introduce doubt, uncertainty; eventually include and care contradictions and paradoxes, especially in the soft margins. Indeed a pure logic form already applies to doubt, made itself rigorous. It is based on successive approximations of comparators (better or worse, high or low, cold or warm); it is called fuzzy logic. It applies practically where decisions should be taken "after all", adjust after each step. Applications make it works well in technological processes were quantity could be qualified, not too submitted to extraordinary non linear changes. So it is also a modern ressource for decision.
Yet, it is not the purpose to pretend here that you can be able to master all modern technics that have been derived from strange (but so common) things or concepts since decades. They emerged especially as objects of artificial intelligence or simulations. They appearred while or just before the automated simulated processes, that came with the so called revolution of information. For now the practical issues are with the questionning about the real humane wealth these could bring and, the development of humane amenities treatments. An important aim is coherence, so as persons skill-prone in that coherence, whom exist in every communities, could be better involved in communities' development. Actually Globalization is marginally, under scrutiny, but plenty of overwhelming exogenous manipulators dislike critical and skillfull local thinkers.
Indeed, previous paradigms are now soon affected showing by the rollercoaster of obsolescence. But this one cares less and less about inertia, proper life-time capacity of absorption and consistency. Neither essential contradictions are free of traditional critics on their mismanagement. For example if ecologism have gained much audience and taken part in many debates of interest; compared to the attention they had thirty or forty years ago; still to observe that their directors have not advanced much in the ranks of political responsibilities and opportunism in their files; while not to put their key leaders in charge of public affairs. And in some minor government positions they have not looked like better leaders than others. At least at the scale given to those problems by medias. So, political ecology is still far behind the audience of "soap undercultural expressions of populish household entertainment".
Doubts also should adress to alternatives. Concepts of complexity, for example, are presentend and promoted in typically deterministic ways supposedly to reach better audience; when suggesting that global determinism or contextual information and lessons could be taken far away from the humane distance of theaters of practical and pragmatic reality. Managing in complexity is seriously taken into account only when it "simply" pretends to optimize your utilities. Many global type kinds of services, making their judgment at thousand of kilometers aways from where they should be designed, seem to service sort of ousiders opportunism and virtual criteria rather than the goals of communities so putting them in dead ends.
Despite the large extend of chains of cultural bias, quite systematically prone to percolate catastrophic diffusions; the idea that real processes could be more complicated, is far from good evidence of critical thinking communication. This is often scrupulously disguarded from global TV screens. There is an unscrupulous ignorance that same things seen, could be interpreted very differently, from one place to another of the World, lowering social local legitimacy.
To observe also that processes of servile imitation, mimicry of the politically correct, pave and smooth the way to catastrophic surprises. But no better do much critical thinking inscribed in the systemic critic against "whom are evil to their own point of view". It is often unpractical, disguard also alternative. Simply they are at the service of geopolitical interests. Their caricatures serve stupid globalization too.
There are many different ways to define complexity. Some are discursive and prevail in verbous kinds of philosophy. Some exhibitionism joining together, definitions, truisms, tautologies, poor use and poor development. These are able to catch any sort of non practical definitions. Other complexity's definitions are where they are managed. For example computing has simple definition: the length of the program of calculus, in time or space, required for logical solution. Out the shortcuts in or limits of iterations that could have been set for a given precision of approximation.
Modelling and simulations, more of less systemics, put in evidence phenomena or objects of simulations that can be seen as complex and their universality suggest that complexity is everywhere in simple life. Such patterns can be simulated by quite simple formalism.
In our case we will for practical reasons mixe or confuse concepts relevant to above mentionned registers. In another page we mention that our "deterministic problem" is that our problem is more a primal-dual complex relation: how a not excessive simplification or a model ? - can reflect the complex nature of reality and: how to managed it ? - both specifically and carefully with enough diversity, but not too much.
Cognitive management of olicognographic frames is uncertain and plastic, meanwhile these frames are by themselves quite uncomplete. The reasons why no closure and our precautions is consistency: they should be anchored in proceedings of consistent practical situations. Limit them in space and time. Think that details, hard things, could be better covered by pro-active communities, aware of their specific complexities or appropriate pathways they found. Communities adressed are also delimited in space, time, environment and culture. Care of their (your?) conditions explains why we include blurredness in our designs, helps to mind flexibility and how to manage artfully open concepts, under influence, balance and so on. A principle to let much to be decided by local definitions, consensus, choice of methods as the right of real actors, since the beginning of constructions, even if you can be more used to be told what you should do.
This also make us use patterns, forms and concepts, relevant to simulated explorations of complexity (that you may have eared of but did not experienced any in your practice). It is to preserve a sufficient margin or residual of potentially strange effects in the computed models, as well as in your mind - even if this may make you suggest: "what the hell he could have wanted to say there?" our point is more your natural sense of logic, extended to your cognition. Strange morphema could be tools and used to introduce some degree of unexpected effects. This also is a pathway to simplifications. Because reality is not perfectly tightened, neither formally neither perfectly deterministic (at our will) as would like mathematics and first degree logic. Strange phenomena can be formaly like bifurcations, non linearities (or catastrophes), perturbations, stochastic percolation and so on and under an uncommensurable umbrella. This allows more of less natural-like explorations. To find fruitfull diversities and dynamics; not thermodynamically impossible but in physics' essential principles.
By side of diversity of formal ressources, and the 5 or 6 main quantified behaviors we identified; we make working hypothesis about the flexibility and plasticity or robustness of methods. Observing on one side that cognitive and natural processes do not care about purity of formal ressouces and may mixe relativelly different types at the same time, in a more or less ordered way. As an effect, it could be to imagine within the "unsure but significant" umbrella of potential limits, a sort of superconfused or supermixed behavior that would make the formal behavior of any phenomena, plays differently and simultaneously all possible formal roles. Giving that a situation of maximum mixed possible reference(s), something between full randomness (that is an object behaving as a perfect gas: infinity of particles, all the same but all behaving in an independent way) and complete unique determinism solution of perfect analytic solutions of a system of differentiel equations fully solvable.
Both, all stochastic and all determined figures are really impossible. As intermediate could make essential to approach in some mechanical structures. While we are still in the hope that perfect fluid liquid state could have its general solution. What we have in sight is the different discrete and no too abundant states that could exist between extreme, probably of quantic physics kinds and may be, for consistent regular ghostly unit of maximum-minimum complexity. In the hope that they could be explored with the sort of mixed formal complexity we suggested (and indeed better quantic computing in the future).
Practically this could be like making the different terms of identifying equation, on a objective modulus or monoids play its terms simultaneously as scale, variable, coeffficient or exponent. Trying to identify characteristic values in these models.
All this is, indeed, intuitive and not in our range of ability. Just a call for help in the exploration. However we have to mind anyone including good logicians and mathematicians. To recall that if Voltaire said, during the "Enlightened Century", when science was desperately needing to disconnect from esoteric exegesis, dogmatic natural systems and mercantilist religious wars: " ce qui se conçoit bien, s' énonce clairement" ("What iswell conceived is clearly enunciated"). We are now at a transitionnal period where vocal oversimplifications have created much harm. New or renewed pathways are to explore. Tools are already here. Humane management have not properly followed technological advances. May be the new paradigm could be "no more paradigms". History always find its way to elegant exact definitions, but what we do must care is humane management, uncorrelated to the fake precision of pseudo scientist enunciates. So in modern days suspiction: "Nature is fed up with our elegancies at its cost"