Our survival is permanently managed at the
razor’s edge...
Is existence sisyphic?! Absurdus/absurda?! (Camus)
Existence is indissociable from experience:
experience of oneself, experience of the others, experience of the world, of
the cosmos...
Existence is always conditioned by
experience and by the initial formative systemic conditions, which means that
the systemic growth and development structurally depend upon imposed anticipatory
determinating rules, rules of integrity.
Of course, the systems can rewrite and do
rewrite their initial conditions, but it is exactly that: to (re)write, to
(re)write from what is there, and what is there will always remain, as initial
formative condition.
Experience is always, the experience of some
thing, of ourselves, of the others…, experience incorporates limits, conditions
with conditioning intersubjective phenotypic effects: the judgments that we
produce, the choices we make, what we are, is always conditioned by
(co)existence and the (co)experience of our (co)existence.
How does freedom fit here?! The question of
autonomy?! The question of the arbitriu?! There are always some things that we
cannot escape, we can choose between various paths available, but those paths
must be previously available, and sometimes there are no paths, it is we who
have to enact our way through. Perhaps our freedom is reduced to that. If we
can, or not, enact the paths is not the point, the point is our
self-determination, our effort, only there are we free. In this sense, Sisyphus
was free.
Esse in re… esse in intellectu…, reality is that which resists to all the forms of negation…
Such
as any other systems, all the systems said to be alive, follow an
organizing genetics, conditioned by laws of structure that depend upon the initial formative systemic conditions, which means that the systemic growth and development structurally depend upon imposed anticipatory determinating rules, upon which the respective systems depend, in terms of integrity.
But
what is a rule? What is the nature of a rule? What can be the
ontological status of a rule? How can rules, that a system is unaware of
and that, obviously, didn’t choose, condition all its life? All its
choices? Its actions? Its paths? Because even if the system can rewrite
its initial conditions, that rewriting will, still, be conditioned by
its vital laws of structure.
In this context, what pertinence can there have the projection of scenarios, configured by pre-figurated degrees of freedom? Within what parameters would it be possible to consider planes of systemic transcendence?
Transcendence involves the concept of limit,
to transcend is the act by which someone, or some thing surpasses or
“escapes” the limits imposed by the immanence. An act of transcendence
is an act of projective opening by which the system launches itself, or jumps, towards outside of itself in itself, in that
which, with pertinence, can be designated by systemic jump, that is, the jump that installs in the systemic identity the ontological dyad,
conceptually synthesizable as the other of itself, that which, in the
system, is exterior and heterogeneous to the plane of immanence that
determines it physically.
The
capitalist mode of production has attained its Imperium phase, the
sustainability in the causes is very difficult, when the “catastrophe points”
are more active, precisely at causality levels. In this phase, the nonlocality
became, itself, a locality by (onto)synthesis, the risk exposure is tremendous, like
a “god” trying to escape himself.
The system
closed itself. How can a “god” escape himself?! By negation?! By disaggregation?!
By suicide?! By extension to other “gods”?! Other “gods” by the excess produced
by a “god” in trouble?! By hyperconsumption in trouble?!
The system
entered in a systemic looping. Will it commit suicide as the solution?! Or will
it continue grabbing on to the hyperconsumption dynamics, enacting an excess of
itself as resource of sustainability, waiting for the evaporation of its BlackHoleness?!
It is in the flux of the PresentNow that we, as integrated systems, must guarantee, in the FutureNow, the sustainability that guarantees our permanence as living systems. But what is this FutureNow?! What does it mean?! We are always a to be(ing) (verb). We must guarantee in the immediate future our conditions of (onto)presence, otherwise, we cannot survive.
The “future” is our position in the “flux” of permanence: we have to be before ourselves to be in ourselves, we must anticipate in the “flux” our presence in the permanence of ourselves, and this is our “afterness”: we, each of us, are after ourselves. Indeed, while, in terms of chronological ordering, the future comes after the present, in ontological terms, the FutureNow comes before the PresentNow, it is about permanence and sustainability as PresenceThere.
We must enact ourselves, we must enact the permanence of ourselves in ourselves: that is self-sustainability, that is autopoiesis.
From the complex sciences’ scientific basis, quantum complex systems science may offer new conceptual and modeling tools to address risk in complex systems, including human societies and economies.
In order to be effective, quantum complex systems science must generalize formalisms, tools and methodologies to be able to apply them effectively in different settings. Thus, from the underlying formalism of quantum mechanics, one may develop interdisciplinary work and apply it to different problems which are of concern to the complex systems sciences and to risk science.
A few examples of research centers directly concerned with complex quantum systems include:
The above-quoted first research center works within the Brussels-Austin school for complexity, mainly influenced by Prigogine’s work and has a theoretical background that is strongly integrated with the conceptual basis of risk science.
Combining the Brussels-Austin approach with risk science, the dynamics of complex systems can be approached as a game of survival, such that complex systems need to expose themselves to risk situations, consuming resources and enacting adaptive dynamics towards the systemic sustainability, dynamics which are, themselves, generative of risk situations.
This conceptual basis for risk and complex systems’ dynamics results from the notion of dissipative structure, introduced by Prigogine, within thermodynamics: a dissipative structure is an open system that feeds on energy and matter from the environment and dissipates heat as a way to sustain its systemic activity.
Conceptually, the notion of dissipative structure synthesizes a dynamics of survival, linked to processes of (eco)systemic management towards an adaptive sustainability in a permanent game of aggregation and disaggregation.
Combining the systemic thinking of Varela with Prigogine’s, one can address the notion of dissipative structure as a system whose autopoietic dynamics leads it to the survival far from a systemic regime of structural dissolution in a disaggregating flux (self-organization far from the thermodynamic equilibrium).
From the standpoint of risk science, a dissipative structure can be addressed in terms of a notion of risking structure, such that complex systems, worked from this notion, can be considered as enactors of systemic risk as an adaptive survival response when placed before permanent threats of disaggregating dissolution.
The dissipative structures/risking structures’ self-organizing processes constitute examples of adaptive processes related to a systemic struggle for survival, approached, within the Brussels-Austin School, from a notion of sustainability against a disaggregating flux, thus, these structures constitute examples of the notion of complex adaptive system, worked upon the Santa Fe Institute.
Quantum complex systems science can help address a general approach to risk and dynamics of complex adaptive systems whenever a mathematical approach is needed to incorporate the following elements:
a) Discrete state variables and continuous state averages with complex dynamical behavior (including (noisy) chaos);
b) Adaptive computation of risk;
c) Multiple intercoupled dynamics with different degrees of freedom;
d) Fluctuating population numbers;
e) Interacting adaptive fields on networks with quantized state variables.
The above elements make effective the usage of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics made available to interdisciplinary work through quantum game theory and, in the case of economics, through econophysics.
Application to Economics
In the video below is an example of a model from a work that implements an application of quantum complex systems science and risk science to complex economic dynamics modeling.
The model, also available at Netlogo Commons (http://bit.ly/wyiWYc), is introduced in the article "Chaos and Nonlinear Dynamics in a Quantum Artificial Economy" arXiv:1202.6647v1[nlin.CD] (http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.6647) and it constitutes an example of how quantum complex systems science can be applied to economics.
In most businesses, one deals with discrete business volumes (or in the case of companies that supply goods: discrete quantities), thus, to address economic chaotic dynamics one may, effectively, assume some quantization scheme of fundamental economic variables and economic equilibrium conditions, working with a business game process, in which the quantum averages, from transaction round to transaction roundm follow the continuous state classical chaotic dynamics of some (coupled) nonlinear map.
The work builds up on such a proposal, introducing a quantum artificial economy with (quantum) chaotic dynamics, by combining quantum game theory, quantum chaos theory and coherent state lattice field solutions.
At each transaction round, each company is characterized by a coherent state solution for the business volume (measured in quantities), which corresponds to a quantum business game equilibrium condition.
The nonlinear map introduces an adaptive walk on a hypercubic lattice, implementing a business' quantum economics version of Kaneko's self-organizing genetic algorithms. In this way, each company's binary string code corresponds to a core business strategic profile, where each bit of the binary string is a core business dimension (among core business dimensions one can include the mission statement and business concept).
The coupled quadratic map implements four types of evolutionary dynamics:
(A) - Local competition dynamics between companies that are close to each other in their core business strategic dimensions (local hypercubic lattice one-bit mutant neighors' coupling as per Kaneko's proposal of self-organizing genetic algorithms);
(B) - Global competitiveness' industry-wide evolutionary race;
(C) - Market share feedback effects upon a business fitness (this leads to a coupling between the quadratic map and the previous transaction round's company's market share, such that the previous round's quantum fluctuations affect the company's fitness dynamics).
(D) - Local fitness dynamics given by the quadratic map with nonlinearity parameter b.
Quantum chaos is a third approach to modeling economic nonlinear dynamics that can be added to the nonlinear deterministic and nonlinear deterministic plus noise modeling family of economic chaos. By addressing evolutionary quantum strategies one is not dealing with a plus noise approach but, instead, with an evolutionary systemic dynamics where probability distributions and chaotic dynamics are interconnected with risk cognition and business adaptive processes, thus, deepening the conceptual grounding on complex adaptive systems science and quantum complex systems science.
Probabilis, probatio, probo are three Latin words that form a judicative entanglement committed, always, with a sense of judgment, plausibility, proof, verification and argumentation.
Probability, as a notion, is an evaluative cognitive synthesis about events, facts, situations, processes, contexts, future(s)...
The probability does not have an ontologically postulable algorithmic nature, the probability depends, always, upon the data, supplied by the systemic sustainability towards the event, the fact, the situation, etc...,
There is no such thing as a probabilistic dynamics, that is nonsense, the referent is the cognitive dynamics: in fundamental terms, the so-called “probabilistic dynamics” is a cognitive dynamics, depending upon the cognitive processing of the data supplied by the intensity of the systemic sustainability for an event to take place, sustainability which, in turn, depends upon some kairosean coincidence, that is, depends upon, until the last moment, there not taking place something unexpected that makes the system deviate itself from that which would become its trajective choice.
The sustainability is enacted by the system, from its own game of survival, a game that involves a web of players..., and just when the game wins such a sustainability that makes visible to all the players what the outcome will be, (oh no!‼) one of the players chokes, the cards are all exposed for everyone to see and the game ends not as it would.
The probability is not an operator of anything. The sustainability of the systems is the operator that guarantees, in the FutureNow, the flux that sustains the present moment that follows the present moment,..., and we, humans, with a very precarious desiring cognitive device, will have to make a serious effort to, in a here and now, guarantee the projective sustainability, so that a FutureNow guarantees us the next present moment. What is the role of the probability in this case?! Just a valorative cognitive synthesis that helps us decide.
In the end, the greater game is between the system’s sustainability and the systemic spontaneity itself. The Latin has, for the term spontaneity, a very interesting cognitive support: spontaneous is primitively radiculated in sponte from spons, mea/tua/sua sponte, which means: by my/your/its will/arbitriu.
No one imposes the system anything, no probabilistic delirium imposes whatever. The system, each system, has its own spontaneous/immediate survival responses in the evolutionary game of survival.
There is no ProbabilityField, there is survival, there are games..., also games of power: to can be, to can do, in the end, to can to survive, either competing, either cooperating. The probability judgment always depends upon the processing of data and it is always subjective/intersubjective.
The system does not show everything, the system does not show all its cards, and it waits for the opportunities to emerge, always hoping that the IntersystemicClinamenic does not become unfavorable..., and this is about risk, and this is about living, dying, and also about dignity, of course.
“...uma horda de animais; na floresta dos meus próprios signos e nas memórias da minha memória...” (Derrida, L’Animal que donc je suis.)
“...a hoard of animals; in the forest of my own signs and in the memories of my memory...”
The human system is formatted, in terms of fundamental causality, by a pathos of biological entanglement of survival that follows rules/laws of structure that are ontologically radiculated in a cosmos (our cosmos) which conditions the intersystemic game of evolutionary sustainability.
The systems are integrated wholes dynamically enacted by the interdependent relations of the parts. The human system, as any other system, depends upon the self-sustained entanglement of the respective parts.
In this sense, what can be done/what each of us can do is always conditioned by the adequability of what must be done. There is always some “thing” that conditions us: our initial formative conditions, the initial formative conditions of the others, the initial formative conditions of our cosmos, that “originated” us: each individual’s self-determination is permanently played in an atribulated survival patchwork of difficult management.
Thus, the operative use of practices and pragmatics, oriented by criteria of “control” towards strategies of power, are, such as the Laplacian daimon postulate, not very intelligent. That which, in HumanAnimal language, is designated by “power” depends upon an operative dynamics, configured by an entanglement of interactive “forces”, systemically enacted, characterized by a nonlocality and constituted by crossovers of rhythms, conditioned by the stories, the trajects, the unstable and heterogeneous individual/collective techniques and tactics, sustained from the mobile points that orbit critical systemic borders permanently threatened by the porous rotativity of the points of catastrophe enacted, in turn, by the systems in survival interface.
“Control” is an egophagic notion. We can and we must, intelligently, manage and coordinate projectively, but we are insane when we invest in a protoplasm of delirant control, responsible for the practices of desiring egotistical greed that dragged/drag us to the situation of catastrophe in which we, human system, inhabit.
We are prisoners in the technological Doppler effect, formatted by the EgoNarcissic isotopy: I-am-therefore-I am, therefore I am-therefore-am...; we are the inhabitants of an ondulatory of “naked singularity”, in which the system, in a survival despair, seems to have (re)written its initial conditions without having been able to enact the rules/laws of structure, responsible for the sustainability of its integrity.
We are the prisoners in the technological Doppler effect, formatted by the EgoNarcissistic isotopy: I-am-therefore-I-am, therefore I-am-therefore-am…; we are the inhabitants of an ondulatory of “naked singularity”.
Borrowing from Cioran: only suffering is ubiquitous, not God; had Noah possessed the gift of foreseeing the future, there is no doubt that he would have sank the Ark.
«Does today's dominant economic and financial thinking violate the laws of physics?»
«low probability high impact risks and unknown unknowns or black swans»
«New Model of Economics based on Physics (...) A new model of economics ought to aim to contribute to the development of the scientific understanding of the way our economic systems work holistically (…)»
There are rules/laws of structure that necessarily follow the evolving dynamics of life/death and that, therefore, necessarily change at the rhythms of the things, in their evolving entanglement in survival interface, from the imminent FutureNow to the sustainability flux of the PresentNow.
The so-called “black swans”, that Taleb worked from Popper, are necessary to the autopoietic/systemic sustainability, there are always “black swans” out there, they are only unexpected to human cognitive schemes that are unreasonably focused upon “monstrative” situations of control, incompatible with the dynamics of survival: control of the others, of other species, control of life, of the differences, control of evolution itself by part of a single species: the human.
The crossing-over of different disciplinary areas is desirable, more, necessary to the general entangled pathos of survival, because of that, not only a dialogue with Physics is needed, but also with the Life Sciences and all the other sciences, which Economics, necessarily, has to deal with/coordinate itself with/relate itself with/dialogue with...
...but, above all, it is necessary to make a cognitive effort to think things beyond the models' conditioning. It is necessary to free ourselves from a certain obsession with control.
Things can only be perceived in their cognitive completeness, if we are able to think ourselves in relation to ourselves and in relation to the things, without disconnecting ourselves from the projective rotative pathos that operates at the level of the dynamics of systemic sustainability.
By pathos one should understand its primitive sense, of some thing that happens, both in reference to what happens as well as in reference to what is affected by what happens.
Monopole?! What is that?!
-
Monopole?! What is that?!
It’s all about vibrations, rhythms, intensities,…,
When one speaks of a monopole one is addressing a very precise ontological ...
...on aleatorial...,
-
*That which introduces a systemic discontinuity is, comfortably, called
aleatorial. Aleatorial is that which is not in conformity with the rules of
the d...
Topos: o lugar das coisas, o lugar de cada coisa.
-
Por: Maria Odete Madeira
Topos é o termo primitivo grego para lugar, não um lugar para as coisas mas
o lugar das coisas, de cada coisa, a saber: a sua ex...
Posts
