The collective work that produced this book is based on the claim that today's destructive development model is reaching its ultimate limits, and that its toxicity is generated above all by the fact that the current industrial economy is based on an obsolete physical model.
Abstract
Bifurcating means: reconstituting a political economy that reconnects local knowledge and practices with macroeconomic circulation and rethinks territoriality at its different scales of locality; developing an economy of contribution on the basis of a contributory income no longer tied to employment and once again valuing work as a knowledge activity; overhauling law, and government and corporate accounting, via economic and social experiments, including in laboratory territories, and in relation to cooperative, local market economies formed into networks and linked to international trade; revaluing research from a long-term perspective, independent of the short-term interests of political and economic powers; reorienting digital technology in the service of territories and territorial cooperation. <br> The collective work that produced this book is based on the claim that today’s destructive development model is reaching its ultimate limits, and that its toxicity, which is increasingly massive, manifest and multidimensional (medical, environmental, mental, epistemological, economic – accumulating pockets of insolvency, which become veritable oceans), is generated above all by the fact that the current industrial economy is based in every sector on an obsolete physical model – a mechanism that ignores the constraints of locality in biology and the entropic tendency in reticulated computational information. In these gravely perilous times, we must bifurcate: there is no alternative.
Two models dominate reflection on causality, namely mechanisms and physics. The former focuses on very local processes, while the latter focuses on ahistorical systems. We argue that neither is a sufficient framework for biology. Instead, in biology, parts of a system collectively maintain each other, which enables us to understand how biological systems maintain themselves. This perspective corresponds notably to autopoiesis and closure of constraints, and is sometimes called organization. In this view, the part maintain each other, leading to circularities. It implies that a systemic mode of thinking is critical to understand these phenomena. However, they are also historical: the organization they maintain is the singular result of evolution, and they change over time. It follows that causality in biology has two distinct features. First, it has a circular dimension: how do singular organizations maintain themselves? Second, it has to include historical changes: how do we understand the appearance of novelty?
Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-neuve
There is a lack of theoretical elaboration in biology, particularly in the study of organisms' life cycles. The underlying problem is the emergence of an episteme that structurally neglects these questions. In the case of biology, certain issues need to be addressed with precision, notably the articulation between systemic (physicalist or organicist) and historical (evolutionary but also developmental) reasoning. As an example of application, we will present the question of what disruption means in theoretical biology.
This Satellite Meeting takes the form of a workshop aiming to stimulate the discussion and the collaborative co-construction of new ideas about the nature and state of development of the modes of thinking in and for Complexity Studies. It aims at identifying key challenges and questions that call to be addressed, including those regarding the development of more complex modes of thinking. It will focus the discussion on the identification of key theoretical, empirical, methodological, technical and practical challenges and/or ways of addressing them. The workshop will aim to identify and explore how these key questions and challenges relate to the development or adaptation of tools and strategies to support the practice of particular modes of thinking in research and practice and to guide real-world interventions and educational activities (formal and informal). Through a transdisciplinary approach, this meeting aims at constructing and stimulating productive and generative dialogues for the development of more complex modes of thinking (in) Complexity. A Reflecting Team Intervention with Invited Keynote Commentators will support a critical exploration of the keynote addressed and set questions for debate. Contributed talks will be welcomed that add new perspectives, raise questions or share experiences that can stimulate further discussion.
A new look at theoretical computer sciences by changing perspective with a biological approach.
Abstract
The analogy between living beings and computers was introduced with circumspection by Schrödinger and has been widely propagated since, rarely with a precise technical meaning. Critics of this perspective are numerous. We emphasize that this perspective is mobilized to justify what may be called a regressive reductionism by comparison with physics or the Cartesian method. <br> Other views on the living are possible, and we focus on an epistemological and theoretical framework where historicity is central, and the regularities susceptible to mathematization are constraints whose existence is fundamentally precarious and historically contingent. <br> We then propose to reinterpret the computer, no longer as a Turing machine but as constituted by constraints. This move allows us to understand that computation in the sense of Church-Turing is only a part of the theoretical determination of what actually happens in a computer when considering them in their larger theoretical context where historicity is also central.
What do mainstream scientists acknowledge as original scientific contributions, that is, what is the current épistémè in natural sciences?
Abstract
What do mainstream scientists acknowledge as original scientific contributions? In other words, what is the current épistémè in natural sciences? This essay attempts to characterize this épistémè as computational empiricism. Scientific works are primarily empirical, generating data and computational, to analyze them and reproduce them with models. This épistémè values primarily the investigation of specific phenomena and thus leads to the fragmentation of sciences. It also promotes attention-catching results showing limits of earlier theories. However, it consumes these theories since it does not renew them, leading more and more fields to be in a state of theory disruption.
The notion of disruption is used broadly in the scientific literature to describe anthropogenic, detrimental effects on living beings, from organisms to ecosystems. However, this notion is missing a proper theoretical and conceptual elaboration. Why do living beings display specific vulnerabilities to some perturbations that are described as triggering disruptions? In particular, what distinguishes endocrine disruptions from mere perturbations? We discuss the notion of disruption in the case of endocrine disruptors by first building on examples. We contend that disruptions are the randomization of natural history outcomes that contribute to viability. In the case of endocrine disruptions, development complexifies the picture, and it was the first argument for the specificity of this phenomenon. Another critical aspect of the analysis is the technological lineages leading to new molecules from the disrupted biological lineages' perspective. By conceptualizing and theorizing disruptions further, we hope to contribute to the scientific knowledge of these phenomena, build bridges between different fields studying different kinds of biological disruptions, and facilitate their understanding by the general public.
Le vivant comporte bon nombre de rythmes, des rythmes ayant une origine externe, comme les rythmes circadiens ou circannuels, et des rythmes internes comme les cycles cardiaques ou respiratoires. Quel est le lien entre ces rythmes, le maintien des organisations biologiques face à la croissance tendancielle de l'entropie, mais aussi leur rôle dans des changements d'organisation. Plus précisément, l'anti-entropie correspond aux organisations biologique, prises comme résultat singulier de l'histoire biologique, évolutive et développementale, et parvenant à durer du fait même de cette singularité, par le maintient actif des composants d'un organisme. La production d'anti-entropie, elle, correspond à l'approfondissement de cette singularité, par l'apparition de nouveautés fonctionnelle. Nous discuterons en particulier le cas du sommeil, typiquement associé à un rythme externe et du développement correspondant à un rythme interne au prisme de la question de l'anti-entropie et de la production d'anti-entropie.
