P2P Complexity Governance Grid
= A P2P-Complexity-Governance-Grid project is thought to ease data production on a popular P2P level
- Paper: 2014 WCC documents, Complexity Index Formula simplified. Andreu Ginestet
"A mathematical formula to evaluate social complexity in sustainable terms Author: Andreu Ginestet In September 2012, Andreu Ginestet published his book PAX, under the pseudonym Andrés Ginestet. This book contains notions on how to approach global complexity governance in a peer-to-peer perspective and in popular terms. The mathematical formula as presented is a one more piece of information com-plementing the book PAX. The same formula is being used to create policies for politics."
From the Abstract:
"In a liquid society, complexity can be mastered in a swarm intelligence concept. Basic premise for such a development is the expansion of global civil society into state structures on a peer-to-peer level. A modern society does not necessarily need traditional state forms as they were until now, authoritarian, coercive, etc. State structures were required in a specific time to convey information and prioritize infor-mation quality. Social patterns emerge out of information prioritization. Politicians are afraid to lose influence. They mostly are opposed to citizen participa-tion or autonomy and seek conservation of power. In order to preserve their factual power they use violence by all means. The use of violence by politics is to be under-stood as a tool to destabilize Global Civil Society and its competitiveness regarding information prioritization within society. A peer-to-peer (P2P) based entity dealing with complexity on a popular level does not make the situation more complex, but lesser complex. A rough estimate of the capacity of popular complexity governance points at the possibility, that a P2P Complexity-Governance-Grid manages the same tasks different state structures fulfill, with less than 30% of the resources used by state structures today. In economic terms, this is the equivalent of a total reset of society. States and economies be-come less efficient, when rising transaction costs. Transaction costs within societies rise because: - Societies tend to become more complex and the complexity coping strategies are generally neglected, except by complexity experts. Politicians do not care.
With rising complexity, control of information and its flows within society become more costly if based on authoritarian structures and not voluntarily contributed. A P2P-Complexity-Governance-Grid targets the reduction of transaction costs. A state public administration deals with complexity symptoms because not all citizens are built into the state structure (exogenous data). In this perspective, complexity is produced by all members of a society but only perceived as a symptom by state administration members. In a P2P-Complexity-Governance-Grid all citizens are par-taking and do not deal with complexity symptoms. Instead, all citizens are integrated and produce the original complexity data themselves (endogenous data). The conceptualization of data used in the mathematical formula exist already as indexes produced by many national and international agencies, be it state admin-istrations, OECD, UN or others. Single sets of data exist, but not a complete panel, because these organizations i.e. face adverse conditions, when they try to work the-se indexes: they produce exogenous data. This adds complexity to the already existing complexity. Data are not verified and authentic, not delivered by the original complexity producer. Reasons why corporate or public structures have difficulties: data are being dealt with like in earlier times feudalism dealt with goods. Public or corporate data-monopolists use data as if they were feudal rights. This makes the access to required quality data and proper complexity governance impossible. A P2P-Complexity-Governance-Grid project is thought to ease data production on a popular P2P level. The Grid does not seek a top-down approach, but a bottom-up approach."=
"Il y a sans doute de bonnes intentions là-dessous mais sur le plan mathématique, cela ne me semble pas bon du tout. Il n'y a là aucune définition rigoureuse de la "compléxité" alors qu'il en existe (Kolmogorov, Dessalles). Cela me semble être une tentative de "mathématisatison" du bon sens, sauf que lorsque l'on mathématise mal, le bon sens disparait."