Sunday, September 2, 2012

...in res cum res… tocatta and fugue...




…"aisthesis"… perception/sensation,…, "aistheton"… res of the senses/the perceived thing.

The determination of an ontological interval expresses, in the cognitive dynamics of the agents, the relation of presence and alterity of presence in the cognitive act, necessarily rhythmated by the constitutive difference, displaced in the fields of sustainability, by the rotativity of the reticularity of relation and diversity, weaved by the ondulatory ontologic signalization of permanence by the difference in the immanence, available to rhythmic rotativities of abstraction, such as: the constitutivity of entity, to dynamics of abstraction and generalization, depends upon the (co)ontological resending of presence, alterity and reciprocity of permanence in the immanence.

Life is rhythms, we are rhythms, our thoughts are rhythms, our feelings are rhythms, our discourse, our will. Where are we?! Where are our rhythms?! What emerged?! We emerged and then our rhythms?! No! We are and our rhythms are simultaneously, they are proper of the system, proper of the nature of the things, proper of our nature. Without rhythms there is no symphony, without rhythms there is no toccata and fugue.

The systemic nonlocality is a systemic emergence sustained by the system’s rhythms, towards survival effects. The nonlocality of each system is never outside the system, it is always in the system.

The nonlocality is a flux that contains all the information of the system in what regards its growth and development…, its life…, the nonlocality is vital for the systemic integrity, because of that the systems make it emerge, it is a matter of survival, otherwise the systems would lose all the references of life, of survival, all the strategic references, all their history.

The nonlocality is proper of the systems as a dispositional systemic information gathering available for the survival of the systems in what regards their integrity, it is a field in the system with the system (in res cum res).

This is not a matter of a system being greater than the sum of its parts is, it is not a matter of simple “sum”, it is a matter of complexity, and that has to do with the relations that the system establishes with itself and the others and the cognitive growth of the system itself.

If the locality disappears, the nonlocality also disappears. The system’s nonlocality emerges as a complexification (pli) of the system itself. The nonlocality emerges when the system computes itself as an identity, this is the first relation, the first rinkle, the first fold (pli). Many other pli’s will come with the growth and development of the system.

The nonlocality is phenotypic, it does not exhibit rhythms because it is in the system with the system (in res cum res), it is the system’s rhythms that maintain it...

 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Auklet_flock_Shumagins_1986.jpg/640px-Auklet_flock_Shumagins_1986.jpg



 

Saturday, August 18, 2012

...absurdus...


File:Tenniel red queen with alice.jpg



File:Extinction Intensity.svg



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.

 File:Punishment sisyph.jpg

 

Esse in re… esse in intellectu...

By: Maria Odete Madeira (Originally placed in this blog at 13/12/2009 but the guiling (?) singularity seems to have erased it:
 
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.pt%2Fgroup%2Ffilosofia-matematica-conhecimento%2Fbrowse_thread%2Fthread%2F1d3615509f6b5e1d&ei=QmsvULq_BoiXhQf72oCwDA&usg=AFQjCNFyG96oni3N-2uBciWpyin3M8rmhA&sig2=uoiEpEccig575Gkifi4-3Q&cad=rja)

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 arbitrary act of projective opening that gifts the system with the ability to launch itself, or jump, towards outside of 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.

... experior haec exterior

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Capitalism: the Imperium Phase



File:Jean Dodal Tarot trump 13.jpg



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 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?!

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Autopoiesis...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/DAPIMitoTrackerRedAlexaFluor488BPAE.jpg/320px-DAPIMitoTrackerRedAlexaFluor488BPAE.jpg


It is in the flux of the PresentNow that our cells must guarantee, in the FutureNow, the sustainability that guarantees our permanence as living systems. But what is this FutureNow?! What does it mean, as a word?! We are always a to being (verb). We must “replicate” in the future our “material” conditions of presence, if we do not guarantee that, 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.

We must enact ourselves, we must enact the permanence of ourselves in ourselves: that is self-sustainability, that is autopoietics.

There is always dissipation, because of that we must manage(ing) the losses of integrity to maintain ourselves as presence, but all this is a (co)simultaneity, because the future is a “tag”, because all these are dynamics and rhythms that take place simultaneously.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Campo12Foto_2.JPG/320px-Campo12Foto_2.JPG


Friday, March 9, 2012

Quantum Complex Systems Science, Risk Science and Econophysics


BY: Carlos Pedro Gonçalves


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 Center for Complex Quantum Systems” ( http://order.ph.utexas.edu/), 

“Complex Quantum Systems Research Group” ( http://www.physik.uni-regensburg.de/forschung/richter/richter/), 

“The Dahlem Center for Complex Quantum Systems” (http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/en/einrichtungen/dahlem_center_cqs/),



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.


Sunday, March 4, 2012

...probabilities...


File:Hisstationand4aces-coolidge.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hisstationand4aces-coolidge.jpg


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.



File:HAtomOrbitals.png


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HAtomOrbitals.png


Thursday, February 2, 2012

...the human system...



“...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 non-locality 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 in critical systemic frontiers, permanently threatened by the porous rotativity of the points of catastrophe, enacted 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.