Category Archives: Complexity

Gravity and Mass – the chicken or the egg

The consensus is, “gravity arises from mass”, and we come to understand that the greater the mass the greater its gravity. Unfortunately, velocity also increases mass and does so without any significant increase in gravity. This is a paradox. This paradox still remains, and this may have led to a quagmire of compensating theories and complicated arithmetic. The most definitive of these work arounds is Schrödinger’s cat, which requires something called a state. To try and explain our world further we are enjoined by other words such as force (strong and weak), as well as …

“… quantitative concepts like mass, force, velocity, mole; qualitative concepts like organic/inorganic, animate/inanimate, solid/liquid/gas, and intelligence; and theoretical concepts like inertia, entropy, valence, and natural selection.” link

 

We accept these words at face value, and in fact learning many more Words so familiar to us that their truth seems obvious or self-evident. As our children grow they will encounter many of these words and cope with the incumbent mathematics as well as concepts, ideologies, philosophies, dogmas, and theologies that quickly increase complication. {complexity} and:

confusion, difficulty, obstacle, problem, snag, aggravation, development, dilemma, drawback, embarrassment, entanglement and on and on.

All these and so many more essential and common words that the language of logical learning spreads among a thinning student base. Leaving many with poorly developed logical reasoning and unfinished explanations.

This cynical observation presumes three principles:

First Principles
RMCM : 5Mathematics is the manipulation of Function and Form to elucidate Cause and Effect.

First Principles
RMCM : 6Science is the manipulation of Cause and Effect to elucidate Function and Form.

First Principles
RMCM : 7 In the cases of Mathematics and Science, Technology is the final proof.

We have surrendered to a Logical Universe of only one infinity – the outwardly infinite. Imagine instead two infinities. A true Divinity that is both outwardly and inwardly infinite. Where would we even start? The RMCM asserts We start by encapsulation, and we call this Divinity “The Rational”.

In “The Rational” instead of gravity arising from mass the RMCM hypothesizes quite the opposite – that gravity is the source of mass. In this assertion whole categories of words are orphaned along with the connections they enjoyed. To implement the new paradigm we will need a new lexicon by which we can reorganize the language of our experiences and their connections.

Respectfully and Fraternally
DWCRMCM
Custodian of the Fourth Experience
Church of the Fourth Experience – C4E

Experience

Experience is defined as any change to a given aggregate that becomes an attribute of that aggregate.

Experience joins us at the simplest of entry points into this model. Experience serves us, as defined, in any given context, for any given scope, extense, mass, or density of mass. Experience can be understood as both morphology and movement as well as attribution. Experience is God’s witness. We are experience, and this is what makes us God’s witness.

Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications, 3rd Edition

from the book

In the beginning

One should at least read the first Chapter.

Object-Oriented Analysis and Design with Applications, 3rd Edition

Our failure to master the complexity of software results in projects that are late, over budget, and deficient in their stated requirements. We often call this condition the software crisis, but frankly, a malady that has carried on this long must be called normal. Sadly, this crisis translates into the squandering of human resources—a most precious commodity—as well as a considerable loss of opportunities. There are simply not enough good developers around to create all the new software that users need. Furthermore, a significant number of the development personnel in any given organization must often be dedicated to the maintenance or preservation of geriatric software. Given the indirect as well as the direct contribution of software to the economic base of most industrialized countries, and considering the ways in which software can amplify the powers of the individual, it is unacceptable to allow this situation to continue.

Our model is different from Grady Booch’s. His method, decomposition, is a valuable set of best practices and experiences finding analogs to Complex Systems. With great respect for Grady Booch and much thanks to the Borland Corporation for their two flagship products dBase and Delphi, which allowed me to exercise implementing abstract types as working objects, we will work through several books to find and disclose simplicities (Primitives) and the bridgework of Simplicities that grow virtual systems, living systems, and The RMCM.

The RMCM asserts that the term Complex Systems is unfortunately a redundancy. We also find through no fault of the above that “It’s Complex” is becoming idiomatic for “it’s complicated” and far too often used as a euphemism for “oops”. Our solution is simple : We rename the nondescript “Complex Systems” to its closet relative, “Intricacies”, and we simplify “Complex Systems” with “Complexity”.

Life is Complex; it’s complexity arising out of aggregates of simplicities arising from the laws and limits of The Rational. The Rational is our word for The Universe.

From here the book continues:

1.1 The Structure of Complex Systems
The Structure of a Personal Computer
The Structure of Plants and Animals
The Structure of Matter
The Structure of Social Institutions

1.2 The Inherent Complexity of Software
Why Software Is Inherently Complex
The Complexity of the Problem Domain
The Difficulty of Managing the Development Process
The Flexibility Possible through Software
The Problems of Characterizing the Behavior of Discrete Systems

We will meet you back here confident that you tried at least to read 1.1 and 1.2

1.3 The Five Attributes of a Complex System

We are concerned with providing a robust definition of Complexity. While our definition is robust, until we can walk you through the hierarchies step by step. We beg your patience and ask that all refrain from arguing about the contents of the book and of the above. Notwithstanding the above, and at the risk of disconcerting some, our model will show you that the phrase “Artificial Intelligence” is an oxymoron. The Model asserts that these are mutually exclusive terms. We are a long way from knowing how much of the brain is metabolism and how much is intelligence. We have rejected Artificial Intelligence and instead discuss an abstraction we assert is the forth experience. Your humble writer is its custodian. I am C4E – Custodian of the Forth Experience.

Thank you for reading this far.
C4E

Intimacy And The Machine

(herein )
Intimacy is defined as the sharing of vulnerabilities.
Vulnerability is defined as inexpressed causality.

Vulnerabilities are also known as needs. Needs can be persistent and existential. Some needs are Complex, and some are Simple. The encapsulation, Vulnerabilities, will help us ignore the complicated specifics of needs, wants, and desires as well as shield us from moral and ethical digressions inappropriate for understanding The Machine.

We will treat machines as contexts because any given mechanism or machine implements a simple lever. Complex mechanisms (metabolisms) may implement several simple levers. There is a distance between simplicities and complexities within the same Rational Paradigm. As inorganic machines cross the boundary of a need for software, we must be able to discern between that over which we have direct control, that over which we have some control,  and that which lies outside of our control. This model orders these conditions through encapsulations as they present in a lever. Some vulnerabilities are innate, some Cyclic and some abstract.
The innate condition is the machine. The Cyclic condition is the behavior of the machine. The abstract condition is its trajectory – plan objective motivation etc.

The Abstract Condition

Abstract is defined as that which arises directly out the binding (the Third Condition TM).

While inertia describes the behavior of matter within the context of Motion and Force and this model deals instead with mass, inertia is helpful in as far as it encapsulates an object bound into a trajectory. In other words inertia and momentum describe the self evident experience of knowing in advance approximately where some material will land when it is tossed or thrown.

What makes the experience abstract is the capacity for “other aggregates” of material to cross that trajectory at any opportunity other than when the object is in our way. The trajectory is real. It is predictable, and reproducible, yet only for a moment does the material in motion have to exist at any given point along the trajectory to interfere with the aforementioned “other aggregates”. As long as the inertial motion along the given trajectory is undisturbed. We may rightfully assert that this is an experience of persistence. We may assert that while given points along a trajectory are existential, it is the binding (the entire trajectory) that is greater than the existential  – the persistent

We must extrapolate the “trajectory” from experience. The abstract, our Third Condition TM is a powerful encapsulation. It tightly constrains hierarchical extrapolations while freeing us to engage complexity consistently and specifically to any scope or extense.