A system is software

A software is a process, a mechanic, a machine. The term logic means that we have been able to formalize in an objective way actions that, cumulatively, produce an emergence. The emergence of a system is the realization of its purpose, its raison d’être. The principle of serendipity is correct, the functionality of a system produces a value greater than the sum of its components alone. If one unit produces energy, another consumes it, and finally another uses what the previous one produces to generate fuel for the first, we have a closed-loop system that, theoretically, works forever. This machine with eternal movement (symbol of the scam), is in reality what the social system must do.

And for good reason, the planet has its limits, so the goal is self-sufficiency. Even on a small scale, dependencies are always dangerous and must be minimized.

The secret to obtaining a global system that is functional is to know how to get out of the cult of the component, where only their respective values are counted, to seek the value of what their addition produces, much more than their addition, their functionality or raison d’être. It is for these reasons that the justification for the activities (and not in the activities themselves) must be housed. If a term could be found to estimate its value, it would be considered higher than the sum of the components. In this sense, each component would no longer have the unique prerogative to seek optimal performance, but to seek optimal performance from the perspective of the system as a whole.

We know this because we learn it from life, all excesses are unfortunate. Greed as much as inconsistency, can have justifications in some components, but never in the system. As in everything, too much or too little is as bad as the other, if you drink too much you die of dehydration as much as if you never drink, if you give all your money unnecessarily it is the same as not having any at all, and these behaviours are symptomatic of an inability to incorporate in your reasons for acting those that concern the other components of a system.

Everything is a system, everything is software, nature, the human body, the brain, work, they are only cumulative sequences of “components” that serve to produce an emergence, which is defined by more or less well understood goals. It is indeed difficult to understand why humans are alive in this universe, but this question is an integral part of what it takes to design a social system for humans. And this is inevitably so much so that ignoring it can corrupt the entire system.

From this point of view, a social system is not functional when it does not meet the elementary constraints that allow its own continuity, among which is what makes humans happy.

A viable system is a sustainable system, made to last and for time works in its favour. The primitive instinct of increasing wealth is, in this perspective, only an impact of living in a world where this is what is seen everywhere around us, on many levels. We grow, we improve, the techniques improve, we learn more and more because we need to learn them, and every time we forget to take into account one or the other we are penalized.

In this sense, a correct system is able to take into account all the knowledge acquired over time, which itself is covered by this system. Thus it can be said that a system, any system, itself generates the reasons for its perpetuation.

The difficulty is to make all the knowledge that can be useful to a system formal and usable, very simply in the form of figures and in mathematical form. It is legitimate that in a primitive phase of its evolution, a system takes into account only a small amount of knowledge. This is the case for each of the components of a social system, which are as many systems or microsystems. They have defined objectives, operations that adapt to constraints, and it is not useful in each of them to go and draw all the knowledge of the universe to make them work. In short, a system that is not universal must still be made to integrate into a universal system.

However, after an evolutionary stage in which we take a close interest in technology and technology, there comes a time when we must ensure that all these disparate systems become components of a larger system, a social system, which has both expected and desirable goals and emergences, as well as, sometimes, simply pleasant. This last notion of pleasure is not in vain or innocent, it can play a very important role in comfort, ease, pleasure, happiness, and allow development, which in systemic terms translates into evolutionary freedom.

It even becomes essential when we realize that what is done happily has such virtues that they make it possible to avoid the evolutionary errors that could have been made. In this sense, conversely, bad choices are most often the result of a bad state of mind, confused, oppressed, and governed by urgency. At the same time, it is necessary to maintain a certain discipline that allows you to continue to make the right choices despite difficult conditions, and to hold on to your dreams.

This evolutionary freedom itself very quickly becomes the foundation of future systems, of the way they will mutate, and of the way they will need or want to mutate. The search for structural flexibility, the ability to ensure that the social system can achieve the same results through different channels, is a real driver for innovation. This innovation is made essential by practice and use. All notions of what has been considered "pleasant" in the past can wear out, being beaten by others who seem to be even more so. In systemic terms, this idea is formalized by a constant search for the automation of current tasks.

In any system, understood and executed by software, redundant tasks can be reduced to a single generic task. If we continue this pattern indefinitely, we get almost "something that works on its own", as is nature. Only the limits of the system, its utility or competence, are marked by processes that it still seems too useless to automate. Any system is limited within its limits by a lack of automation of tasks, and the use of older, archaic but nevertheless amply sufficient and even better adapted techniques than heavy modern processes.

That is, the evolutionary level of a system is measured by the variety of techniques used by its components, not by the most advanced one. In a system we find all the past evolutionary steps of this system. Advanced techniques cannot and should not replace the previous ones, but only make it possible to better serve them. In addition, it must always be possible to revert to an old technique in case the new one proves ineffective.

The technology of a system varies as it moves away from its core, which regulates all operations in a legislative manner. They are no less important, because they act as a protective bubble of the system against other systems, as does the atmosphere with the cold of space. And each of them can potentially, in the course of a new evolution, which responds to new needs, undergo a phenomenal complexification, and further push the limits of the system. System developments tend to produce others, which will then have to be placed under the aegis of the former, and in so doing, change their nature.

Often it is necessary for a system to be bi-hemispheric, i.e. there must be two main nuclei, one that deals with the most frequent tasks, and the other that deals with the many less frequent tasks, with a proportion of 80/20: 20% of tasks that make up 80% of the results, and 80% of tasks that produce 20% of the results, the two blocks being governed by separate systems. In this way we can have two specialized processes, which do not have a negative influence on each other, so that the whole system is not half-masted when a minor modification is made in a minor subsystem, or on the contrary it is not paralyzed in its evolution by the inertia of its subsystems. This design can be repeated at any scale.

Because in any system, what matters more than the components is how they are connected to each other. This is the reason for serendipity, i. e. it is also necessary to account for the wiring. With the same components and other cabling, two different systems can produce very different results and fulfill functionalities that may be contradictory. In any system, as soon as this wiring is broken or modified, the entire nature, goals and emergences of the system are modified. Imagine the scope of this on a universe scale.

The way in which the components are connected to each other is governed by system legislation. That is, what is called the social system, is a purely informative, psychological entity, consisting of a structure of functioning, and a rule of the game. It weighs zero grams, and takes about 0.26 seconds to be completely rewritten (the time of an idea). The relationships between the components can and must be carefully studied. In complex systems, feedback loops can influence mechanisms, as well as damping or interference effects can distort the understanding of the causes of malfunctions.

In a system as in any network, if a wiring is broken, obviously the whole system in its entirety stops suddenly. This is not the case in uncomplicated systems where the earthworm cut in half can regenerate, but the more sophisticated an organism is, the more sensitive it is to cable breakage. One of the most precious systems of life on earth is the food chain, and its high degree of complexity allows it to continue to function despite the fact that there are large notches in its chains of consequences. But beyond a certain limit, the whole system suddenly stops.

Components, like the humans in a work group, cannot produce work that has only the value of intelligence in the way they are connected to each other, much more than the value of their respective skills. Thus, depending on the groups, the same person may assume both a minor role in which he or she is not very effective and a major role in which he or she excels. The (complementary) skill sets make it possible to produce, and formalize, the most important notion of all systems: its harmony.

It can be described by optimizing each other’s roles, the fluidity of information exchange, the synchronization of activities, and a providential ability to anticipate each other’s reactions as long as they all pursue the same objectives. In this sense, what makes a system is mainly in the understanding, what everyone agrees on, and what unites them.

Since systems can be other than mechanical and physical, when they are ideological we can imagine the damage caused by a simple evolution. This is why developments are very slowed down by psychologies, so that they must, in a way, prove their efficiency in a theoretical way in people’s brains, before applying themselves to reality. This is also why the evolution of a social system depends only on the cultural and technical level of the populations.

Similarly, I say this in a funny way, in a rhetorical demonstration we can examine both the components, which are perfectly accurate and indisputable, as well as the way they are wired, and this in a way that is rarely debatable, and most often confided to false evidence, or the simple fact of laughing, when precisely to do so completely misses the truth, or even as we have seen, can completely reverse the meaning of what we are doing. This is the case of the school of secularism, literally turned against itself when the good of all is substituted by the comfort of a few, who want to be dominant: the whole demonstration remains functional whatever the point of view, and the debates drag on, run in circles, and people get angry.

Having a mind trained to objectively formalize, in any system, the components and wiring, the operations and operating possibilities, the structure of the wiring and the usual pitfalls in the design of software that malfunctions, allows to have a clear and fleeting vision of an infinite number of processes, among the most obscure or philosophical. This allows us to quickly unmask the illogicalities in the demonstrations that are supposed to convince us to act in a way that we would not have done naturally.

As I often say, no programmer can be sensitive to rhetoric, persuasion or intimidation. A logical conception of things simply allows us to see that where there are excesses, there is suffering. And practice very often shows that the sole defence of fools becomes the first characteristic that denounces them as such, consists precisely in blurring or making them impossible, or deterring or overwhelming, with the sole aim of protecting oneself against a logical and simple argument that would call into question an entire objectively fallacious building. They spend their lives preparing and strengthening their brains by thwarting considerations in their blind spots.

Both the cultural level of the populations and their respective balance are major conditions for the balance of a social system. The harmonization of brains makes it possible to substantially reduce the amount of unnecessary discussions and thus the energy loss of the system as a whole. Software culture, which is stupidly opposed by holders of specialized knowledge who do not need it, should be a priority in education, especially since its modus operandi consists, for everything, in wondering “how it works”. Not doing so opens the way to acceptance without understanding, to the impossibility of contributing to the system as a whole, to the rejection of freedom, and in the end there are only careless users, whose only question is to ask themselves “how to benefit from it”, without ever being aware of the consequences, by replication or reciprocity, of their actions.

The world is a system, a system is a process, a process is a mechanics, a mechanics is a system, all these are the same terms. The only notion that is worthwhile is that of logic, of how things are made to fit together, in order to produce harmony, in which is housed the mastery of the system.

Related posts:

bibit kelapa gading kuning buah tanaman cepat berbuah Official Resmi bibit tanaman buah Pusat bibit hijau MOHON DIBACA SEBELUM MEMBELI : 1.Asal bibit : Langusung Dari Petani 2.Iklim Tumbuh Optimal …

Think about a busy application and the messages each object passes. At first, the traffic might seem overwhelming. However, if you take a step back and look at the bigger picture, you can start to…

If you have a business, you may want to consider printing your own logo or digitizing embroidery for merchandise. Printed logos are not as preferred as embroidered logos as the print may be damaged…