Is Mathematics a Fake? No! Discussing N.Bourbaki, Theory of Sets (1968) – Introduction

eJournal: uffmm.org, ISSN 2567-6458,
6.June 2022 – 13.June 2022, 10:30h
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

SCOPE

In the uffmm review section the different papers and books are discussed from the point of view of the oksimo paradigm, which is embedded in the general view of a generalized ‘citizen science’ as a ‘computer aided sustainable applied empirical theory’ (CSAET). In the following text the author discusses the introduction of the book “Theory of Sets” from the series “Elements of Mathematics” by N.Bourbaki (1968) [1b]

CONTEXT

In the foundational post with the title “From SYSTEMS Engineering to THEORY Engineering” [3] the assumptions of the whole formalization approach in logic, mathematics and science are questioned as to narrow to allow a modern sustainable theory of science dealing explicitly with the future. To sharpen some of the arguments in that post it seems to be helpful to discuss one of the cornerstones of modern (formalized) mathematics substantiated in the book ‘Theory of sets’ from the Bourbaki group.[1a] It has to be mentioned that the question of the insufficiency of formalization has been discussed in the uffmm blog in several posts before. (cf. e.g. [2])

Formalization

preface

In the introduction to the ‘Set Theory Book’ the bourbaki group reveals a little bit of their meta-mathematical point of view, which finally belongs to the perspective of philosophy. At the one hand they try to be ‘radically formal’, but doing this they notice themselves that this is — by several reasons — only a ‘regulative idea’, somehow important for our thinking, but not completely feasible. This ‘practical impossibility’ is not necessarily a problem as long as one is conscious about this. The Bourbaki group is conscious about this problem, but different to their ‘rigor’ with the specialized formalization of mathematical ideas, they leave it widely ‘undefined’ what follows from the practical impossibility of being ‘completely rigorous’. In the following text it will be tried to describe the Bourbaki position with both dimensions: the idea of ‘formalization’ and the reality of ‘non-formalized realities’ which give the ‘ground’ for everything, even for the formalization. Doing this it will — hopefully — become clear that the idea of formalization was a great achievement in the philosophical and scientific thinking but it did not really solve our problems of understanding the world. The most important aspects of knowledge are ‘outside’ of this formalization approach, and many ‘problems’ which seem to bother our actual thinking are perhaps only ‘artifacts’ of this simplified formalization approach (somehow similar to the problems which have been induced by the metaphysical thinking of the older philosophy). To say it flatly: to introduce new names for old problems does not necessarily solve problems. It enables new ways of speaking and perhaps some new kinds of knowledge, but it does not really solve the big problems of knowledge. And the biggest problem of knowledge is — perhaps — the primary ‘knowledge machine’ itself: the biological actors which have brains to transform ‘reality’ in ‘virtual models’ in their brains and communication tools to ‘communicate’ these virtual models to enable a ‘collective intelligence’ as well as a ‘collective cooperation’. As long as we do not understand this we do not really understand the ‘process of knowing’.

before formalization

With the advent of the homo sapiens population on the planet earth about 300.000 years ago [4] it became possible that biological systems could transform their perceptions of the reality around their brains into ‘internal’, ‘virtual’ models, which enabled ‘reference points’ for ‘acting’ and a ‘cooperation’ which was synchronized by a ‘symbolic communication’. Those properties of the internal virtual models which have no clear ‘correspondence’ to the ‘reality between the brains’ are difficult to communicate.

Everyday symbolic communication refers to parts of the reality by certain types of expressions, which are ‘combined’ in manners which encode different types of ‘relations’ or even ‘changes’. Expressions which ‘refer’ to ‘concrete’ properties can be ‘overloaded’ by expressions which refer to other expressions, which in turn refer either again to expressions or to ‘concrete meanings’. Those objects which are the targets of a referring relation — concrete objects or other expressions — are here called ‘the meaning’ of the expressions. Thus the ‘meaning space’ is populated by either expressions related to ‘concrete’ properties or by ‘expressions pointing forward’ to other expressions and these ‘pointing-forward’ expressions are here called ‘abstract meaning’. While concrete meanings are usually ‘decidable’ in the everyday world situations as being ‘given’ (being ‘true’) or as ‘not being given’ (‘being false’), abstract meanings are as expressions ‘undefined’: they can lead to some concrete property which in turn perhaps can be decided or not.

The availability of ‘abstract expressions’ in ordinary language can be seen as a ‘problem’ or as a ‘blessing’. Being able to generate and use abstract terms manifests a great flexibility in talking — and thinking! — about possible realities which allow to overcome the dictatorship of the ‘now’ and the ‘individual single’. Without abstraction thinking would indeed be impossible. Thus if one understands that ‘thinking’ is a real process with sequences of different states which reveal eventually more abstract classes, structures, and changes, then abstraction is the ‘opener’ for more reality, the ‘enabler’ for a more broader and flexible knowledge. Only by ‘transcending’ the eternal ‘Now’ we get an access to phenomena like time, changes, all kinds of dynamics, and only thereby are ‘pictures of some possible future’ feasible!

Clearly, the potential of abstraction can also be a source of ‘non-real’ ideas, of ‘fantastic’ pictures, of ‘fake news’ and the like.

But these possible ‘failures’ — if they will be ‘recognized’ as failures! — are inevitable if one wants to dig out some ‘truth’ in the nearly infinite space of the unknown. Before the ‘knowledge that something is true’ one has to master a ‘path of trial and error’ consuming ‘time’ and ‘resources’.

This process of creating new abstract ideas to guide a search in the space of the unknown is the only key to find besides ‘errors’ sometimes some ‘truth’.

Thus the ‘problem’ with abstract ideas is an unavoidable condition to find necessary ‘truths’. Stepping back in the face of possible problems is no option to survive in the unknown future.

the formal view of the world according to bourbaki

Figure 1: Graphical interpretation of N.Bourbaki, Set Theory (1968), Introduction, ‘liberal version’
Language, object language, meta language

Talking about mathematical objects with their properties within an ordinary language is not simple because the expressions of an ordinary language are as such usually part of a network of meanings, which can overlap, which can be fuzzy, which are giving space for many interpretations. Additionally, that which is called a ‘mathematical object’ is not a kind of an object wich is given in the everyday world experience. What can be done in such a situation?

Bourbaki proposes to introduce a ‘specialized language’ constructed out of a finite set of elements constituting the ‘alphabet’ of a new language, together with ‘syntactical rules’, which describe how to construct with the elements of the alphabet chains of elements called ‘(well formed) expressions’, which constitute the ‘language’ LO, which shall be used to talk about mathematical objects.

But because mathematics is not restricted to ‘static objects’ but deals also with ‘transformations’ (‘changes’) of objects, one needs ‘successions of objects’ (‘sequences’), which are related by ‘operations with mathematical objects’. In this case the operations are also represented by ‘expressions’ but these expressions are expressions of a ‘higher order’ which have as referenced subject those expressions which are representing objects . Thus, Bourbaki needs right from the beginning two languages: an ‘object language’ (expressions of a language LO representing mathematical objects) and a ‘meta language’ LL (expressions referring to expressions of the object language LO including certain ‘types of changes’ occurring with the object language expressions). Thus a mathematical language Lm consists in the combination of an object language LO with a meta language LL (Lm = (LO,LL)).

And, what becomes clear by this procedure, to introduce such a kind of mathematical language Lm one needs another language talking about the mathematical language Lm, and this is either the everyday (normal) language L, which is assumed to be a language which everybody can ‘understand’ and ‘apply correctly’, or it is a third specialized language LLL, which can talk with special expressions about the mathematical language Lm. Independent of the decision which solution one prefers, finally the ordinary language L will become the meta language for all other thinkable meta languages.

Translating(?) math objects into formal expressions

If the formalized expressions of the mathematical language (Lm = (LO,LL)) would be the mathematical objects themselves, then mathematics would consist only of those expressions. And, because there would be no other criteria available, whatever expressions one would introduce, every expression would claim to be a relevant mathematical expression. This situation would be a ‘maximum of non-sense’ construct: nothing could be ‘false’.

Thus, the introduction of formal expressions of some language alone seems to be not enough to establish a language which is called a ‘mathematical’ language Lm different from other languages which talk about other kinds of objects. But what could it be which relates to ‘specific math objects’ which are not yet the expressions used to ‘refer’ to these specific math objects?

Everybody knows that the main reason for to ‘speak’ (or ‘write’) about math specific objects are humans which are claiming to be ‘mathematicians’ and which are claiming to have some ‘knowledge’ about specific objects called ‘math objects’ which are the ‘content’ which they ‘translate’ into the expressions of a certain language call ‘mathematical language’.[5] Thus, if the ‘math objects’ are not the used expressions themselves then these ‘math objects’ have to be located ‘inside of these talking humans’. According to modern science one would specify this ‘inside’ as ‘brain’, which is connected in complex ways to a body which in turn is connected to the ‘outside world of the body’. Until today it is not possible to ‘observe’ directly math objects assumed to be in the brain of the body of someone which claims to be a mathematician. Thus one mathematician A can not decide what another mathematician B has ‘available in his brain’ at some point of time.

Bourbaki is using some formulations in his introduction which gives some ‘flavor’ of this ‘being not able to translate it into a formalized mathematical language’. Thus at one position in the text Bourbaki is recurring to the “common sense” of the mathematicians [6] or to the “reader’s intuition”. [7] Other phrases refer to the “modes of reasoning” which cannot be formalized [8], or simply to the “experience” on which “the opinion rests”. [9] Expressions like ‘common sense’, ‘intuition’, ‘modes of reasoning’, and ‘experience’ are difficult to interpret. All these expressions describe something ‘inside’ the brains which cannot be observed directly. Thus, how can mathematician A know what mathematician B ‘means’ if he is uttering some statement or writes it down? Does it make a difference whether a mathematician is a man or a woman or is belonging to some other kind of a ‘gender’? Does it make a difference which ‘age’ the mathematician has? How ‘big’ he is? Which ‘weight’ he has?

Thus, from a philosophical point of view the question to the specific criteria which classify a language as a ‘mathematical language’ and not some other language leads us into a completely unsatisfying situation: there are no ‘hard facts’ which can give us a hint what ‘mathematical objects’ could be. What did we ‘overlook’ here? What is the key to the specific mathematical objects which inspired the brains of many many thousand people through centuries and centuries? Is mathematics a ‘big fake’ or is there more than this?

A mathematician as an ‘actor’?
Figure 2: Graphical interpretation of N.Bourbaki, Set Theory (1968), Introduction, ‘Actor view’

This last question “Is mathematics a ‘big fake’ or is there more than this?” can lead o the assumption, that it is not enough to talk about ‘mathematics’ by not including the mathematician itself. Only the mathematician is that ‘mysterious source’ of knowledge, which seems to trigger the production of ‘mathematical expressions’ in speaking or writing (or drawing). Thus a meta-mathematical — and thereby philosophical’ — ‘description’ of mathematics should have at least the ‘components’ (MA, LO,LL,L) with ‘MA’ as abbreviation for the set of actors where each element of the set MA is a mathematician, and — this is decisive ! — it is this math actor MA which is in possession of those ‘criteria’ which decide whether an expression E belongs the ‘mathematical language Lm‘ or not.

The phrase of the ‘mathematician’ as a ‘mysterious source of knowledge’ is justified by an ’empirical observational point of view’: nobody can directly look into the brain of a mathematician. Thus the question of what an expression called ‘mathematical expression’ can ‘mean’ is in such an empirical view not decidable and appears to be a ‘mystery’.

But in the reality of everyday life we can observe, that every human actor — not only mathematicians — seems to be able to use expressions of the everyday language with referring to ‘internal states’ of the brain in a way which seems to ‘work’. If we are talking about ‘pain with my teeth’ or about ‘being hungry or thirsty’ or ‘having an idea’ etc. then usually other human actors seem to ‘understand’ what one is uttering. The ‘evidence’ of a ‘working understanding’ is growing up by the ‘confirmation of expectations’: if oneself is hungry, then one has a certain kind of ‘feeling’ and usually this feeling leads — depending from the cultural patterns one is living in — to a certain kind of ‘behavior’, which has — usually — the ‘felt effect’ of being again ‘not hungry’. This functional relation of ‘feeling to be hungry’, ‘behavior of consuming something’, ‘feeling of being not hungry again’ is an association between ‘bodily functions’ common to all human actors and additionally it is a certain kind of observable behavior, which is common to all human actors too. And it seems to work that human actors are able to associate ‘common internal states’ with ‘common observable behavior’ and associate this observable behavior with the ‘presupposed internal states’ with certain kinds of ‘expressions’. Thus although the internal states are directly not observable, they can become ‘communicated by expressions’ because these internal states are — usually — ‘common to the internal experience of every human actor’.

From this follows the ‘assumption’ that we should extend the necessary elements for ‘inter-actor communication’ with the factor of ‘common human actor HA experience’ abbreviated as ‘HAX‘ (HA, HAX, MA, LO,LL,L), which is usually accompanied by certain kinds of observable behavior ‘BX‘, which can be used as point of reference for certain expressions ‘LX‘, which ‘point to’ the associated intern al states HAX, which are not directly observable. This yields the structure (HA, HAX, MA, BX, LO,LL,LX,L).

Having reached this state of assumptions, there arises an other assumption regarding the relationship between ‘expressions of a language’ — like (LO,LL,LX,L) — and those properties which are constituting the ‘meaning’ of these expressions. In this context ‘meaning’ is not a kind of an ‘object’ but a ‘relation’ between two different things, the expressions at one side and the properties ‘referred to’ on the other side. Moreover this ‘meaning relation’ seems not to be a ‘static’ relation but a ‘dynamic’ one, associating two different kinds of properties one to another. This reminds to that what mathematicians call a ‘mapping, a function’, and the engineers a ‘process, an operation’. If we abbreviate this ‘dynamic meaning relation’ with the sign ‘μ’, then we could agree to the convention ‘μX : LX <—> (BX,HAX)’ saying that there exists a meaning function μX which maps the special expressions of LX to the special internal experience HAX, which in turn is associated with the special behavior BX. Thus, we extend our hypothetical structure to the format (HA, HAX, MA, BX, LO,LL,LX,L,μX).

With these assumptions we are getting a first idea how human actors in general can communicate about internal, directly not observable states, with other human actors by using external language expressions. We have to notice that the assumed dynamic meaning relation μX itself has to be located ‘inside’ the body, inside’ the brain. This triggers the further assumption to have ‘internal counterparts’ of the external observable behavior as well as external expressions. From this follows the further assumption that there must exists some ‘translation/ transformation’ ‘τ’ which ‘maps’ the internal ‘counterparts’ of the observable behavior and the observable expressions into the external behavior.(cf. figure 2) Thus, we are reaching the further extended format: (HA, HAX, MA, BX, LO,LL,LX,L,μX,τ).

Mathematical objects

Accepting the basic assumptions about an internal meaning function μX as well an internal translation function τ narrows the space of possible answers about the nature of ‘math objects’ a little bit, but as such this is possibly not yet a satisfying answer. Or, have we nevertheless yet to assume that ‘math objects’ and related ‘modes of reasoning’ are also rooted in internal properties and dynamics of the brain which are ‘common to all humans’?

If one sees that every aspect of the human world view is encoded in some internal states of the brain, and that what we call ‘world’ is only given as a constructed virtual structure in the brains of bodies including all the different kinds of ‘memories’, then there is no real alternative to the assumption that ‘math objects’ and related ‘modes of reasoning’ have to be located in these — yet not completely decoded — inner structures and dynamics of the brain.

From the everyday experience — additionally enlightened by different scientific disciplines, e.g. experimental (neuro) psychology — we know that the brain is — completely automatic — producing all kinds of ‘abstractions’ from concrete ‘perceptions’, can produce any kinds of ‘abstractions of abstractions’, can ‘associate’ abstractions with other abstractions, can arrange many different kinds of memories to ‘arrangements’ representing ‘states’/ ‘situations’, ‘transformations of states’, ‘sequences of states’ and the like. Thus everything which a ‘mathematical reasoning’ HAm needs seems to be available as concrete brain state or brain activity, and this is not only ‘special’ for an individual person alone, it is the common structure of all brains.

Therefore one has to assume that the set of mathematicians MA is a ‘subset’ of the set of human actors HA in general. From this one can further assume that the ‘mathematical reasoning’ HAm is a subset of the general human everyday experience HAX. And, saying this, the meaning function μX as well as the translation function τ should be applicable also to the mathematical reasoning and the mathematical objects as well: (HA, MA, HAX, HAm, BX, LO,LL,LX,L,μX,τ).

These assumptions would explain why it is not only possible but ‘inevitable’ to use the everyday language L to introduce and to use a mathematical language Lm with different kinds of sub-languages (LO,LL, LLL, …). Thus in analogy to the ‘feeling’ ‘to be hungry’ with a cultural encoded kind of accompanying behavior BX we have to assume that the different kinds of internal states and transformations in the case of mathematical reasoning can be associated with an observable kind of ‘behavior’ by using ‘expressions’ embedded (encoded) in certain kinds of ‘behavior’ accepted as ‘typical mathematical’. Introducing expressions like ‘0’, ‘1’, ‘2’, …, ’10’, … (belonging to a language Lo) for certain kinds of ‘objects’ and expressions like ‘+’, ‘-‘ … for certain kinds of operations with these before introduced objects (belonging to a language LL) one can construct combined expressions like ‘1+2=3’ (belonging to a mathematical language Lm). To introduce ‘more abstract objects’ like ‘sets’, ‘relations’, ‘functions’ etc. which have no direct counterpart in the everyday world does not break the assumptions. The everyday language L operates already only with abstract objects like ‘cup’, ‘dog’, ‘house’ etc. The expression ‘cup’ is an abstract concept, which can easily be associated with any kind of concrete phenomena provided by perceptions introducing ‘sets of different properties’, which allow the construction of ‘subsets of properties’ constituting a kind of ‘signature’ for a certain abstract ‘class’ which only exists in the dynamics of the brain. Thus having a set C named ‘cup’ introduces ‘possible elements’, whose ‘interpretation’ can be realized by associating different kinds of sets of properties provided by ‘sensory perception’. But the ‘memory’ as well as the ‘thinking’ can also provide other kinds of properties which can be used too to construct other ‘classes’.

In this outlined perspective of brain dynamics mathematics appears to be a science which is using these brain dynamics in a most direct way without to recur to the the huge amount of everyday experiences. Thus, mathematical languages (today summarized in that language, which enables the so called ‘set theory’) and mathematical thinking in general seems to reflect the basic machinery of the brain processing directly across all different cultures. Engineers worldwide speaking hundreds of different ‘everyday languages’ can work together by using mathematics as their ‘common language’ because this is their ‘common thinking’ underlying all those different everyday languages.

Being a human means being able to think mathematically … besides many other things which characterizes a human actor.

Epiloge

Basically every ordinary language offers all elements which are necessary for mathematics (mathematics is the kernel of every language). But history illustrates that it can be helpful to ‘extend’ an ordinary language with additional expressions (Lo, LL, LLL, …). But the development of modern mathematics and especially computer science shows increasing difficulties by ‘cutting away’ everyday experience in case of elaborating structures, models, theories in a purely formal manner, and to use these formal structures afterwards to interpret the everyday world. This separates the formal productions from the main part of users, of citizens, leading into a situation where only a few specialist have some ‘understanding’ (usually only partially because the formalization goes beyond the individual capacity of understanding), but all others have no more an understanding at all. This has he flavor of a ‘cultural self-destruction’.

In the mentioned oksimo software as part of a new paradigm of a more advanced citizen science this problem of ‘cultural self-destruction’ is avoided because in the format of a ‘computer aided sustainable applied empirical theory (CSAET) the basic language for investigating possible futures is the ordinary language which can be extend as needed with quantifying properties. The computer is not any more needed for ‘understanding’ but only for ‘supporting’ the ‘usage’ of everyday language expressions. This enables the best of both worlds: human thinking as well as machine operations.

COMMENTS

Def: wkp := Wikipedia; en := English

[1a] Bourbaki Group, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki

[1b] Theory of Sets with a chapter about structures, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89l%C3%A9ments_de_math%C3%A9matique

[2] Gerd Doeben-Henisch, “Extended Concept for Meaning Based Inferences, Version 1”, August 2020, see: https://www.uffmm.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/TruthTheoryExtended-v1.pdf

[3] Gerd Doeben-Henisch, “From SYSTEMS Engineering to THEORY Engineering”, June 2022, see: https://www.uffmm.org/2022/05/26/from-systems-engineering-to-theory-engineering/

[4] Humans, How many years ago?, see: wkp (en): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#:~:text=Homo%20sapiens,-Linnaeus%2C%201758&text=Anatomically%20modern%20humans%20emerged%20around,local%20populations%20of%20archaic%20humans.

[5] The difference between ‘talking’ about math objects and ‘writing’ is usually not thematised in the philosophy of mathematics. Because the ordinary language is the most general ‘meta language’ for all kinds of specialized languages and the primary source of the ordinary language then ‘speaking’ is perhaps not really a ‘trivial’ aspect in understanding the ‘meaning’ of any kind of language.

[6] “But formalized mathematics cannot in practice be written down in full, and therefore we must have confidence in what might be called the common sense of the mathematician …”. (p.11)

[7] “Sometimes we shall use ordinary language more loosely … and by indications which cannot be translated into formalized language and which are designed to help the reader to reconstruct the whole text. Other passages, equally untranslatable into formalized language, are introduced in order to clarify the ideas involved, if necessary by appealing to the reader’s intuition …”(p.11)

[8] “It may happen at some future date that mathematicians will agree to use modes of reasoning which cannot be formalized in the language described here : it would then be necessary, if not to change the language completely, at least to enlarge its rules of syntax.”(p.9)

[9] “To sum up, we believe that mathematics is destined to survive … but we cannot pretend that this opinion rests on anything more than experience.”(p.13)

OKSIMO APPLICATIONS – Simple Examples – Citizens of a County

eJournal: uffmm.org ISSN 2567-6458

27.March 2022 – 27.March 2022
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

BLOG-CONTEXT

This post is part of the Oksimo Application theme which is part of the uffmm blog.

PREFACE

This post shows a simple simulation example with the beta-version of the new Version 2 of the oksimo programming environment. This example shall illustrate the concept of an ‘Everyday Empirical Theory‘ as described in this blog 11 days before. It is intentionally as ‘simple as possible’. Probably some more examples will be shown.

FROM THEORY TO AN APPLICATION

To apply a theory concept in an everyday world there are many formats possible. In this text it will be shown how such an application would look like if one is applying the oksimo programming environment. Until now there exists only a German Blog (oksimo.org) describing the oksimo paradigm a little bit. But the examples there are written with oksimo version 1, which didn’t allow to use math. In version 2 this is possible, accompanied by some visual graph features.

Everyday Experts – Basic Ideas

This figure shows a simple outline of the basic assumptions of the oksimo programming environment constituting the oksimo paradigm: (i) Every human person is assumed to be a ‘natural expert’ being member of a bigger population which shares the same ‘everyday language’ including basic math. (ii) An actor is embedded in some empirical environment including the own body and other human actors. (iii) Human actors are capable of elaborating as inner states different kinds of ‘mental (cognitive) models’ based on their experience of the environment and their own body. (iv) Human actors are further capable to use symbolic languages to ‘represent’ properties of these mental models encoded in symbolic expressions. Such symbolic encoding presupposes an ‘inner meaning function’ which has to be learned. (v) In the oksimo programming environment one needs for the description of a ‘given state’ two kinds of symbolic expressions: (v.1) Language expressions to describe general properties and relations which are assumed to be ‘given’ (= ‘valid by experience’); (v.2) Language expressions to name concrete quantitative properties (simple math expressions).

This figure shows the idea how to change a given state (situation) by so-called ‘change rules’. A change rule encodes experience from the everyday world under which conditions some properties of a given situation S can be ‘changed’ in a way, that a ‘new situation’ S* comes into being. Generally a given state can change if either language expression is ‘deleted’ from the description or ‘contributed’. Another possibility is realized if one of the given quantitative expressions changes its value. In the above simple situation the only change happens by changing the number of citizens by some growth effect. But, as other examples will demonstrate, everything is possible what is possible in the empirical world.

SOME MORE FEATURES

The basic schema of the oksimo paradigm assumes the following components:

  1. The description of a ‘given situation’ as a ‘start state’.
  2. The description of a ‘vision’ functioning as a ‘goal’ which allows a basic ‘Benchmarking’.
  3. A list of ‘change rules’ which describe the assumed possible changes
  4. An ‘inference engine’ called ‘simulator’: Depending from the number of wanted ‘simulation cycles’ (‘inferences’) the simulator applies the change rules onto a given state S and thereby it is producing a ‘follow up state’ S*, which becomes the new given state. The series of generated states represents the ‘history’ of a simulation. Every follow up state is an ‘inference’ and by definition also a ‘forecast’.

All these features (1) – (4) together constitute a full empirical theory in the sense of the mentioned theory post before.

Let us look to a real simulation.

A REAL SIMULATION

The following example has been run with Oksimo v2.0 (Pre-Release) (353e5). Hopefully we can finish the pre-release to a full release the next few weeks.

A VISION

Name: v2026

Expressions:

The Main-Kinzig County exists.

Math expressions:

YEAR>2025 and YEAR<2027

This simple goal assumes the existence of the Main-Kinzig County for the year 2026.

GIVEN START STATE

Name: StartSimple1

Expressions:

The Main-Kinzig County exists.

The number of citizens is known.

Comparing the number of different years one has computed a growth rate.

Math expressions:

YEAR=2018Number

CITIZENS=418950Amount

GROWTH=0.0023Percentage

The start state makes some simple statements which are assumed to be ‘valid’ in a ‘real given situation’ by the participating natural experts.

CHANGE RULES

In this example there is only one change rules (In principle there can be as many change rules as wanted).

Rule name: Growth1

Probability: 1.0

Conditions:

The Main-Kinzig County exists.

Math conditions:

CITIZENS < 450000

Effects plus:

Effects minus:

Effects math:

CITIZENS=CITIZENS+(CITIZENS*GROWTH)

YEAR=YEAR+1

This change rules is rather simple. It looks only to the fact whether the Main-Kinzig County exists and wether the number of citizens is still below 450000. If this is the case, then the year will be incremented and the number of citizens will be incremented according to an extremely simple formula.

For every named quantity in this simulation (YEAR, GROWTH, CITIZENS) the values are collected for every simulation cycle and therefore can be used for evaluations. In this simple case only the quantities of YEAR and CITIZENS have changes:

Simple linear graph for the quantity named YEAR
Simple linear graph for the quantity named CITIZENS

Here the quick log of simulation cycle round 7 – 9:

Round 7

State rules:
Vision rules:
Current states: The number of citizens is known.,Comparing the number of different years one has computed a growth rate.,The Main-Kinzig County exists.
Current visions: The Main-Kinzig County exists.
Current values:
YEAR: 2025Number
CITIZENS: 425741.8149741673Amount
GROWTH: 0.0023Percentage

50.00 percent of your vision was achieved by reaching the following states:
The Main-Kinzig County exists.,
And the following math visions:
None

Round 8

State rules:
Vision rules:
Current states: The number of citizens is known.,Comparing the number of different years one has computed a growth rate.,The Main-Kinzig County exists.
Current visions: The Main-Kinzig County exists.
Current values:
YEAR: 2026Number
CITIZENS: 426721.0211486079Amount
GROWTH: 0.0023Percentage

100.00 percent of your vision was achieved by reaching the following states:
The Main-Kinzig County exists.,
And the following math visions:
YEAR>2025 and YEAR<2027,

Round 9

State rules:
Vision rules:
Current states: The number of citizens is known.,Comparing the number of different years one has computed a growth rate.,The Main-Kinzig County exists.
Current visions: The Main-Kinzig County exists.
Current values:
YEAR: 2027Number
CITIZENS: 427702.4794972497Amount
GROWTH: 0.0023Percentage

50.00 percent of your vision was achieved by reaching the following states:
The Main-Kinzig County exists.,
And the following math visions:
None

In round 8 one can see, that the simulation announces:

100.00 percent of your vision was achieved by reaching the following states: The Main-Kinzig County exists., And the following math visions: YEAR>2025 and YEAR<2027

From this the natural expert can conclude that his requirements given in the vision are ‘fulfilled’/’satisfied’.

WHAT COMES NEXT?

In a loosely order more examples will follow. Here you find the next one.

HMI Analysis for the CM:MI paradigm. Part 3. Actor Story and Theories

Integrating Engineering and the Human Factor (info@uffmm.org)
eJournal uffmm.org ISSN 2567-6458, March 2, 2021,
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

Last change: March 2, 2021 13:59h (Minor corrections)

HISTORY

As described in the uffmm eJournal  the wider context of this software project is an integrated  engineering theory called Distributed Actor-Actor Interaction [DAAI] further extended to the Collective Man-Machine Intelligence [CM:MI] paradigm.  This document is part of the Case Studies section.

HMI ANALYSIS, Part 3: Actor Story and  Theories

Context

This text is preceded by the following texts:

Introduction

Having a vision is that moment  where something really new in the whole universe is getting an initial status in some real brain which can enable other neural events which  can possibly be translated in bodily events which finally can change the body-external outside world. If this possibility is turned into reality than the outside world has been changed.

When human persons (groups of homo sapiens specimens) as experts — here acting as stakeholder and intended users as one but in different roles! — have stated a problem and a vision document, then they have to translate these inevitably more fuzzy than clear ideas into the concrete terms of an everyday world, into something which can really work.

To enable a real cooperation  the experts have to generate a symbolic description of their vision (called specification) — using an everyday language, possibly enhanced by special expressions —  in a way that  it can became clear to the whole group, which kind of real events, actions and processes are intended.

In the general case an engineering specification describes concrete forms of entanglements of human persons which enable  these human persons to cooperate   in a real situation. Thereby the translation of  the vision inside the brain  into the everyday body-external reality happens. This is the language of life in the universe.

WRITING A STORY

To elaborate a usable specification can metaphorically be understood  as the writing of a new story: which kinds of actors will do something in certain situations, what kinds of other objects, instruments etc. will be used, what kinds of intrinsic motivations and experiences are pushing individual actors, what are possible outcomes of situations with certain actors, which kind of cooperation is  helpful, and the like. Such a story is  called here  Actor Story [AS].

COULD BE REAL

An Actor Story must be written in a way, that all participating experts can understand the language of the specification in a way that   the content, the meaning of the specification is either decidable real or that it eventually can become real.  At least the starting point of the story should be classifiable as   being decidable actual real. What it means to be decidable actual real has to be defined and agreed between the participating experts before they start writing the Actor Story.

ACTOR STORY [AS]

An Actor Story assumes that the described reality is classifiable as a set of situations (states) and  a situation as part of the Actor Story — abbreviated: situationAS — is understood  as a set of expressions of some everyday language. Every expression being part of an situationAS can be decided as being real (= being true) in the understood real situation.

If the understood real situation is changing (by some event), then the describing situationAS has to be changed too; either some expressions have to be removed or have to be added.

Every kind of change in the real situation S* has to be represented in the actor story with the situationAS S symbolically in the format of a change rule:

X: If condition  C is satisfied in S then with probability π  add to S Eplus and remove from  S Eminus.

or as a formula:

S’π = S + Eplus – Eminus

This reads as follows: If there is an situationAS S and there is a change rule X, then you can apply this change rule X with probability π onto S if the condition of X is satisfied in S. In that case you have to add Eplus to S and you have to remove Eminus from S. The result of these operations is the new (successor) state S’.

The expression C is satisfied in S means, that all elements of C are elements of S too, written as C ⊆ S. The expression add Eplus to S means, that the set Eplus is unified with the set S, written as Eplus ∪ S (or here: Eplus + S). The expression remove Eminus from S means, that the set Eminus is subtracted from the set S, written as S – Eminus.

The concept of apply change rule X to a given state S resulting in S’ is logically a kind of a derivation. Given S,X you will derive by applicating X the new  S’. One can write this as S,X ⊢X S’. The ‘meaning’ of the sign ⊢  is explained above.

Because every successor state S’ can become again a given state S onto which change rules X can be applied — written shortly as X(S)=S’, X(S’)=S”, … — the repeated application of change rules X can generate a whole sequence of states, written as SQ(S,X) = <S’, S”, … Sgoal>.

To realize such a derivation in the real world outside of the thinking of the experts one needs a machine, a computer — formally an automaton — which can read S and X documents and can then can compute the derivation leading to S’. An automaton which is doing such a job is often called a simulator [SIM], abbreviated here as ∑. We could then write with more information:

S,X ⊢ S’

This will read: Given a set S of many states S and a set X of change rules we can derive by an actor story simulator ∑ a successor state S’.

A Model M=<S,X>

In this context of a set S and a set of change rules X we can speak of a model M which is defined by these two sets.

A Theory T=<M,>

Combining a model M with an actor story simulator enables a theory T which allows a set of derivations based on the model, written as SQ(S,X,⊢) = <S’, S”, … Sgoal>. Every derived final state Sgoal in such a derivation is called a theorem of T.

An Empirical Theory Temp

An empirical theory Temp is possible if there exists a theory T with a group of experts which are using this theory and where these experts can interpret the expressions used in theory T by their built-in meaning functions in a way that they always can decide whether the expressions are related to a real situation or not.

Evaluation [ε]

If one generates an Actor Story Theory [TAS] then it can be of practical importance to get some measure how good this theory is. Because measurement is always an operation of comparison between the subject x to be measured and some agreed standard s one has to clarify which kind of a standard for to be good is available. In the general case the only possible source of standards are the experts themselves. In the context of an Actor Story the experts have agreed to some vision [V] which they think to be a better state than a  given state S classified as a problem [P]. These assumptions allow a possible evaluation of a given state S in the ‘light’ of an agreed vision V as follows:

ε: V x S —> |V ⊆ S|[%]
ε(V,S) = |V ⊆ S|[%]

This reads as follows: the evaluation ε is a mapping from the sets V and S into the number of elements from the set V included in the set S converted in the percentage of the number of elements included. Thus if no  element of V is included in the set S then 0% of the vision is realized, if all elements are included then 100%, etc. As more ‘fine grained’ the set V is as more ‘fine grained’  the evaluation can be.

An Evaluated Theory Tε=<M,,ε>

If one combines the concept of a  theory T with the concept of evaluation ε then one can use the evaluation in combination with the derivation in the way that every  state in a derivation SQ(S,X,⊢) = <S’, S”, … Sgoal> will additionally be evaluated, thus one gets sequences of pairs as follows:

SQ(S,X,⊢∑,ε) = <(S’,ε(V,S’)), (S”,ε(V,S”)), …, (Sgoal, ε(V,Sgoal))>

In the ideal case Sgoal is evaluated to 100% ‘good’. In real cases 100% is only an ideal value which usually will only  be approximated until some threshold.

An Evaluated Theory Tε with Algorithmic Intelligence Tε,α=<M,,ε,α>

Because every theory defines a so-called problem space which is here enhanced by some evaluation function one can add an additional operation α (realized by an algorithm) which can repeat the simulator based derivations enhanced with the evaluations to identify those sets of theorems which are qualified as the best theorems according to some criteria given. This operation α is here called algorithmic intelligence of an actor story AS]. The existence of such an algorithmic intelligence of an actor story [αAS] allows the introduction of another derivation concept:

S,X ⊢∑,ε,α S* ⊆  S’

This reads as follows: Given a set S and a set X an evaluated theory with algorithmic intelligence Tε,α can derive a subset S* of all possible theorems S’ where S* matches certain given criteria within V.

WHERE WE ARE NOW

As it should have become clear now the work of HMI analysis is the elaboration of a story which can be done in the format of different kinds of theories all of which can be simulated and evaluated. Even better, the only language you have to know is your everyday language, your mother tongue (mathematics is understood here as a sub-language of the everyday language, which in some special cases can be of some help). For this theory every human person — in all ages! — can be a valuable  colleague to help you in understanding better possible futures. Because all parts of an actor story theory are plain texts, everybody ran read and understand everything. And if different groups of experts have investigated different  aspects of a common field you can merge all texts by only ‘pressing a button’ and you will immediately see how all these texts either work together or show discrepancies. The last effect is a great opportunity  to improve learning and understanding! Together we represent some of the power of life in the universe.

CONTINUATION

See here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHY THE WORLD NEEDS ANTHROPOLOGISTS – Review Part 1

eJournal: uffmm.org, ISSN 2567-6458, 1.December  2020
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

ANTHROPOLOGY AND ENGINEERING

The starting point of view in this blog has been and still is the point of engineering, especially the perspective of man-machine interface [MMI], later as Man-Machine Interaction, then  accompanied by   human-computer interaction [HCI] or human-machine interaction [HMI]. While MMI often is discussed in isolation, not as part of engineering, this blog emphasizes a point of view where MMI is understood as an integrated part of systems engineering. The past years have shown, that this integration makes a great difference in the overall layout as well as in the details of the used methods. This integration widened the scope of MMI to the context of engineering in a way which teared down many artificial boundaries in dealing with the subject of MMI. The analysis part of MMI can take into account not only the intended users and a limited set of tasks required for the usage of a system but it can extend the scope to the different kinds of contexts of the intended users as well as the intended service/product as such: cultural patterns, sustainable perspectives, climate relevance, political implications, and more. This triggers the question, whether there are other established scientific disciplines which are sharing this scope with MMI. Traditionally experimental and cognitive psychology has always played an important role as part of the MMI analysis.  Different special disciplines like physiology or neuro-psychology, linguistics, phonetics etc. have played some role too. More recently culture and society have been brought more into the focus of MMI. What about sociology? What about anthropology? The following text discusses a possible role of anthropology in the light of the recent book Why The World Needs Anthropologists?

INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSION

This review has the addendum ‘Part 1’ pointing to the fact, that this text does not deal with the whole book first, but only with some parts, the introduction and the conclusion.

An Introduction

The introduction of the book is asking, why does the world needs anthropologists?, and the main pattern of the introduction looks back to the old picture of anthropology, and then seeks to identify, what could/is the new paradigm which should be followed.

The roots of anthropology are located in the colonial activities of the British Empire as well as in the federal activities of the USA, which both had a strong bias to serve the political power more than to evolve a really free science. And an enduring gap between the more theoretical anthropology and an applied one is thematised although there existed always  a strong inter-dependency  between both.

To leave the close connection with primarily  governmental interests and to see the relation  between the theory and the different Applications  more positive than negative anthropology is understood  as challenged to rebrand its appearance in the public and in their own practice.

The most vital forces for such a rebranding seem to be rooted in more engagements in societal problems of public interests and thereby challenging the theory to widen their concept and methods.

Besides the classical methods of anthropology (cultural relativism, ethnography, comparison, and contextual understanding)  anthropology has to show that it can make sense beyond pure data, deciphering ambiguity, complexity, and ambivalence, helping with  diversity, investigating the interface between culture, technology, and environment.

What Is Left Out

After the introduction the main chapters of the book  are left out in this text  until later. The chapters in the book are giving examples to the questions, why the world needs anthropology, what have been the motivations for active anthropologists to become one, how they have applied anthropology, and which five tips they would give for practicing and theorizing.

Conclusion

In the conclusion of the book not the five questions are the guiding principle but ‘five axis that matter greatly’, and these five axis are circumscribed as (i) navigate the ethics of change; (ii) own-it in the sense, that an anthropologist should have a self-esteem for his/ her/ x  profession and can co-create it with others; (iii) expand the skill-set; (iv) collaborate, co-create and study-up; (v) recommend as being advisors and consultants.

The stronger commitment with actual societal problems leads anthropology at the crossroads of many processes which require new views, new methods. To gain new knowledge and to do a new practice is  not always accompanied by  known ethical schemata. Doing this induces  ethical questions which have not been known before in this way.  While a new practice is challenging the old knowledge and induces a pressure for change, new versions of knowing can  trigger new forms of practice as well. Theory and application are a dynamic pair where each part learns from the other.

The long-lasting preference of academic anthropology, thinking predominantly  in the mind-setting of   white-western-man, is  more and more resolved  by extending anthropology from academia to application, from man into the diversity of genders, from western culture into all the other cultures, from single persons to assemblies of diverse gatherings living an ongoing discourse with a growing publicity.

This widening of anthropological subjects and methods calls naturally for more interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and of a constructive attitude  which looks ahead to  possible futures of processes.

Close to this are expressions like collaboration and co-creation with others. In the theory dimension this is reflected by multiperspectivity and a holistic view. In societal development processes — like urban planning — there are different driving forces acting working top-down or acting working bottom-up.

Recommending solutions based on anthropological thinking ending in a yes or no, can be of help and can be necessary because real world processes can not only wait of final answers (which are often not realistic), they need again and again decisions to proceed now.

REFLECTIONS FOLLOWING THE INTRODUCTION AND THE CONCLUSION

The just referred texts making a fresh impression of a discipline in a dynamic movement.

General Knowledge Architecture

For the point of view of MMI (Man-Machine Interface, later HMI Human-Machine Interaction, in my theory extended to DAAI Distributed Actor-Actor Interaction) embedded in systems engineering with an openness for the whole context of society and culture arises the question whether such a dynamic anthropology can be of help.

To clarify this question let us have a short look to the general architecture of knowledge.

Within the everyday world philosophy can be understood as the most general point of view of knowing  and thinking.  Traditionally logic and mathematics can be understood as part of philosophy although today this has been changed. But there are no real reasons for this departure: logic and mathematics are not empirical sciences and they are not engineering.

Empirical science can be understood as specialized extension of philosophical thinking with identifiable characteristics which allow to  differentiate to some extend different  disciplines.  Traditionally all the different disciplines of empirical science have a more theoretical part and a more applied part. But systematically they depend from each other. A theory is only an empirical one, if there exists a clear relationship to the everyday world, and certain aspects of the everyday world are only theoretical entities (data) if there exists a relationship to an explicit theory which gives a formal explanation.

Asking for a  systematic place for engineering it is often said, that it belongs to the applied dimension of empirical science.  But engineering has realized processes, buildings, machines long before there was a scientific framework for to do this, and engineering uses in its engineering processes lots of knowledge which is not part of science. On the other side, yes, engineering is using scientific knowledge as far as it is usable and it is also giving back many questions to science which are not yet solved sufficiently. Therefore it is sound to locate engineering besides science, but   being  part of philosophy dealing with the practical dimensions of life.

What About Anthropology?

While philosophy (with logic and mathematics) is ‘on top’ of empirical science and engineering, it is an interesting question where to place anthropology?

While empirical science as well as engineering are inheriting all what philosophy provides remains the question whether  anthropology is more an empirical science or more engineering or some kind of a hybrid system with roots in empirical science as well as in engineering?

Looking back into history it could arise the impression that anthropology is more a kind of an empirical science with strong roots in academia, but doing  fieldwork to feed the theories.

Looking to the new book it could support the image that anthropology should be more like engineering: identifying  open problems in society and trying to transform these problems — like engineers — into satisfying solutions, at least on the level of counseling.

Because in our societies the universities have traditionally a higher esteem then the engineers — although the engineers  are all  trained by highly demanding university courses — it could be a bias in the thinking of  anthropologist not to think of their discipline   as engineering.

If one looks to the real world than everything which  makes human societies livable is realized by engineers. Yes, without science many of the today solutions wouldn’t be possible, but no single scientific theory has ever enabled directly some practical stuff.  And without the engineers there would not exist any of the modern machines used for measurements and experiments for science. Thus both are intimately  interrelated: science inspires engineering and engineering inspires and enables science, but both are genuinely different and science and engineering play their own fundamental role.

Thus if I am reading the new book as engineer (attention: I am also a philosopher and I am trained in the Humanities too!) then I think there are more arguments to understand anthropology  as engineering than as a pure empirical science. In the light of my distributed actor-actor interaction paradigm, which is a ‘spinoff’ of engineering and societal thinking it seems very ‘naturally’ to think of anthropology as a kind of social engineering.

Let us discuss both perspectives a bit more, thereby not excluding the hybrid version.

1) Anthropology as Engineering

The basic idea of engineering is to enable a change process which is completely transparent in all respects: Why, Who, Where, When, How etc. The process starts with explicit preferences turning some known reality into a problem on account of some visions which have been imagined and which have become ranked higher than the given known reality. And then the engineers try to organized an appropriate change process which will lead from the given situation to a new situation until some date in the future where the then given situation — the envisioned goal state — has become real and the situation from the beginning, which has been ranked down, has disappeared, or is at least weakened in a way that one can say, yes, it has changed.

Usually engineers are known to enable change processes which enable the production of everyday things (tools, products, machines, houses, plants, ships, airplanes, …), but to the extend that the engineering is touching the everyday life deeper and deeper (e.g. the global digital revolution absorbing more and more from the real life processes by transforming them into digital realities forcing human persons to act digitally and not any more with their bodies in the everyday world) the sharp boundary between engineering products and the societal life of human persons is vanishing. In such a context engineering is becoming social engineering even if the majority of traditional engineers this doesn’t see yet in this way. As the traditional discipline MMI Man-Machine Interface and then  expanded to HMI Human-Machine Interaction and further morphed into DAAI Distributed Actor-Actor Interaction this  already manifests, that the realm of human persons, yes  the whole of society is already included in engineering.  The border between machines and human actors is already at least fuzzy and the mixing of technical devices and human actors (as well as all other biological actors) has already gained a degree which does not allow any longer a separation.

These ideas would argue for the option to see anthropology as social engineering: thematizing all the important visions which seem to be helpful or important for a good future of modern mankind, and to help to organize change processes, which will support approaching this better future. That these visions can fail, can be wrong is part of the ever lasting battle of the homo sapiens to gain the right knowledge.

2) Anthropology as  an Empirical Science

… to be continued …

3) Anthropology as a Hybrid Couple of Science and Engineering

… to be continued …

 

 

KOMEGA REQUIREMENTS: Start with a Political Program

Integrating Engineering and the Human Factor (info@uffmm.org) eJournal uffmm.org ISSN 2567-6458, Nov 23-28, 2020
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

CONTEXT

As described in the uffmm eJournal  the wider context of this software project is a generative theory of cultural anthropology [GCA] which is an extension of the engineering theory called Distributed Actor-Actor Interaction [DAAI]. In  the section Case Studies of the uffmm eJournal there is also a section about Python co-learning – mainly
dealing with python programming – and a section about a web-server with
Dragon. This document is part of the Case Studies section.

CONTENT

Applying the original P-V-Pref Document structure to real cases it became clear that the everyday logic behind the classification of facts into problems [P] or  visions [V] follows a kind of logic hidden in the semantic space of the used expressions. This text explains this hidden logic and what this means for our application.

PDF DOCUMENT

VIDEO [DE]

REMARK

(After first presentations of this video)

(Last change: November 28, 2020)

Confusion by different meanings

While the general view of the whole process is quite clear there arose some hot debate about the everyday situation of the experts (here: citizens)  and the concepts ‘reality [R]‘, ‘vision [V] (imagination of a  state which is not yet real)’, ‘problem [P]‘, and ‘preference [Pref]‘. The members of my zevedi-working group (located at the INM (Frankfurt, Hessen, Germany) as well as a citizen from Dieburg (Hessen, Germany) associated with ‘reality’ also the different kinds of emotions being active in a person and they classified an imagination about a future state also as being real in a concrete person. With such a setting of the concepts it became difficult to motivate the logic illustrated in the video. The video — based on the preceding paper — talks about  a vision v, which can turn a reality r into a problem p, and thereby generating a preference Pref = (v,r). A preference can possibly become a trigger of  some change process.

Looking ahead

Before clarifying this discussion let as have a look ahead to the overall change process which constitutes the heart of the komega-software.  Beginning with October 18, 2020 the idea of this overall change process has been described in this blog. Having some given situation S, the komega software allows the construction of change rules X,  which can be applied onto a given situation S and a builtin simulator [sim] will generate a follow up situation S’ like sim(X,S)=S’ — or short: X(S) = S’ –, a process which can be repeated by using the output S’ as new input for a new cycle. At any time of this cyclic process one can ask whether the actual output S’ can be classified as successful. What is called ‘successful’ depends from the applied criteria. For the komega software at least two criteria are used. The most basic one looks to the ectual end state S’ of the simulation and computes the difference between the occurences of vision statements V in S’ and the occurrences of real statements R having been declared at the beginning as problems P as part of the  start situation S. Ideally the real statements classified as problems should have been disappeared and the vision statements should be present.  If the difference is bigger than some before agreed threshold theta  than the actual end state S’ will be classified as a success, as a goal state in the light of the visions of the preferences, which triggered the change process.

Vision statement

In the context of the whole change process a vision statement is an expression e associated with some everyday language L and which describes in the understanding of the experts a state, which is in our mindes conceivable, imaginable, which is not given as a real state, but can eventually  become a real state in some future. This disctinction presupposes that the expert can distinguish between an idea in his consciousness which is associated with some real state outside his consciousness — associated with a real state — and an idea, which is only inside his consciousness — associated with an imaginated state –.  Looking from a second person to the expert this second person can observe the body of the expert and the world surrounding the body and can speak of the real world and the real body of the expert, but the inner states of the expert are hidden for this second person. Thus from the point of view of this second person there are no real imaginations, no real future states. But the expert can utter some expression e which has a meaning describing some state, which as such is not yet real, but which possibly could become real if one would change the actual reality (the actual everyday life, the actual city …) accordingly.  Thus a vision statement is understood here as an expression e from the everyday language L uttered by some expert having a meaning which can be understood by the other persons describing some imginated state, which is not yet real but could eventually become real in some future ahead.

Creating problems, composing preferences

If at least one vision statement v is known by some experts, then it can happen, that an expert does relate this vision with some given reality r as part of the everyday life or with some absent reality r. Example: if an expert classifies some part of the city as having too much traffic (r1) and he has the vision of changing this into a situation where the traffic is lowered down by X% (v1), then this vision statement v1 can help to understand other experts to interpret the reality r1 in the light of the visiin v1 as a problem v1(r1) = p1. Classifying some reality r1 into a problem p1 is understood in the context of the komega software as making the reality r1 a candidate for a possible change in the sense that r1 should be replaced by v1. Having taken this stance — seeing the reality r1 as a problem p1 by the vision v1 –, than the experts  have created a so-called preference Pref = (v1, p1) saying that the experts are preferring the imaginated possibly future state v1 more than the actual problem p1.

There is the special case, that an expert has uttered a vision statement v but there is no given reality which can be stated in a real statement r. Example: A company thinks that it can produce some vaccine against the  disease Y in two years from now, like  v2=’there is a vaccine against disease Y in yy’. Actually there exists no vaccine, but a disease is attacking the people. Because it is known, that the people can be made immune against the disease by an appropriate vaccine it makes sense to state r2=’There is no vaccine against the disease Y available’. Having the vision v2 this can turn the reality r2 into a problem p2 allowing the preference Pref=(v2,p2).

Triggering actions

If a group of experts generated a vision v — by several and different reaons (including emotions) –, having  associated this with some given eality r, and they decided to generate by v(r)=p  a preference Pr =(v,p),  then it can happen , that these experts decide to start a change process beginning now with the given problem p and ending up with a situation in some future where the problem p disappeared and the vision has become real.

Summing up

The komega software allows the planning and testing of change processes  if the acting experts have at least one preference Pref based on at least one  vision statement v and at least one real statement r.

BITS OF PHILOSOPHY

Shows the framework for the used concepts from the point of view of philosophy
Philosophical point of view

The above video (in German, DE) and the following  lengthy remark after the video how to understand the basic concepts vision statement [v],  real statement [r], problem statement [p], as well as preference [Pref] presuppose both a certain kind of philosophy. This philosophical point of view is outlined above in a simple drawing.

Basically there is a real human person (an actor) with a real brain embedded in some everyday world. The person can perceive parts of the every day world at every point of time. The most important reference point  in time is the actual moment called NOW.

Inside the brain the human person can generate some cognitive structure triggered by perception, by  memory and by some thinking.  Having learned some everyday language L the human person can map the cognitive structure into an expression E associated with the language L. If the cognitive structure correlates with some real situation outside the body then the meaning of the expression E is classified as being a real statement, here named E1.  But the brain can generate also cognitive structures and mapping these in expressions E without being actually correlated with some real situation outside. Such a statement is here called a vision statement, here named E2. A vision statement can eventually become correlated with some real situation outside in some future. In that case the vision statement transforms into a real statement E2, while the before mentioned real statement E1 can lose its correlation with a real situation.

FURTHER DISCUSSIONS

For further discussions have a look to this page too.

 

KOMEGA REQUIREMENTS No.1. Basic Application Scenario

KOMEGA REQUIREMENTS No.1. Basic Application Scenario

ISSN 2567-6458, 26.July – 11.August 2020
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

CONTEXT

As described in the uffmm eJournal  the wider context of this software project is a generative theory of cultural anthropology [GCA] which is an extension of the engineering theory called Distributed Actor-Actor Interaction [DAAI]. In  the section Case Studies of the uffmm eJournal there is also a section about Python co-learning – mainly
dealing with python programming – and a section about a web-server with
Dragon. This document will be part of the Case Studies section.

PDF TEXT:

requirements-no1-v3-11Aug2020 (published: Aug-11, 2020; this version replaces the version from 7.August 2020)

requirements-no1-v2-2-7Aug2020 (published: Aug-7, 2020; this version replaces the version from 6.August 2020)

requirements-no1-v2-6Aug2020 (published: Aug-6, 2020; this version replaces the version from 25.July 2020)

requirements-no1-25july2020-v1-pub (published: July-26, 2020)

The Observer-World Framework. Part of Case-Studies Phase 1

Observer-World Framework. Part of Case-Studies Phase 1

ISSN 2567-6458, 16.July 2020
Email: info@uffmm.org
Author: Gerd Doeben-Henisch
Email: gerd@doeben-henisch.de

CONTEXT

To work within the Generative Cultural Anthropology [GCA] Theory one needs a practical tool which allows the construction of dynamic world models, the storage of these models, their usage within a simulation game environment together with an evaluation tool. Basic requirements for such
a tool will be described here with the example called a Hybrid Simulation Game Environment [HSGE]. To prepare a simulation game one needs an iterative development process which follows some general assumptions. In this paper the subject of discussion is the observer-world-framework.

PDF:observer-world-framework-v3 (Corrected Version UTC 08:40 + 2 for the author)

Go back to the Case-Study Collection.