White paper eu complexity research-an integrated approach-the peoples toolkit v13


Published on

WHITE PAPER discussion on:
Governance, Policy, Standards: Support for Complexity in the Real World
EU Research – Integrating our way out of silos: purposeful Federation
Complexity Science & Society; EU Calls: CAPS; FI Science/FInES/FIRE; Global Systems;
(also COSI‐ICT; DyM‐CS; FOCAS; FuturICT)
Society: people, purpose & complex behaviour modelling (simulation & dissimulation)
The Peoples' Toolkit: Computational Socio‐Geonomics/Metaloger (CSG/M)
ICT ‐ A new Kondratiev Shift: On Computable Society

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

White paper eu complexity research-an integrated approach-the peoples toolkit v13

  1. 1. White Paper-EU Complexity Research-an integrated approach-THE PEOPLES TOOLKIT draft V11 “Towards a sustainable World: holistic, symbiotic, creative and survivable” WHITE PAPER discussion on: Governance, Policy, Standards: Support for Complexity in the Real World EU Research – Integrating our way out of silos: purposeful Federation Complexity Science & Society; EU Calls: CAPS; FI Science/FInES/FIRE; Global Systems; (also COSI‐ICT; DyM‐CS; FOCAS; FuturICT) Society: people, purpose & complex behaviour modelling (simulation & dissimulation) The Peoples’ Toolkit: Computational Socio‐Geonomics/Metaloger (CSG/M) ICT ‐ A new Kondratiev Shift: On Computable Society SOCIO‐TECHNOLOGY .Author John Sutcliffe-Braithwaite, PublicComputing BVEmail john.sutcli@btconnect.comTel: +44 (0)7973 31-51-77Author: John Sutcliffe‐Braithwaite, PublicComputing BV                         Page 1                                               © S‐GAIA Consortium 
  2. 2. White Paper-EU Complexity Research-an integrated approach-THE PEOPLES TOOLKIT draft V11  Computational Socio‐geonomics and GAIA  Wikipedia:  James Lovelock: GAIA Theory “an ecological hypothesis proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of  the Earth are closely  integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on  Earth in a preferred homeostasis”.  Except that society perturbs that homeostasis beyond its adaptive range.  DISORDERED COMPLEXITY ORGANISES AT THE POINT OF MAXIMUM ENTROPY   Society’s role is to be purposeful,  active, and productive and chooses its  Pending the bleak hypothetical end to our  end‐goals:  it cannot avoid the GAIA  world and life implied by the above, our    Mission is to prevent waste:       “Taguchi quality is inversely proportional to the  sum total of the loss ...”  FLUX    FLUX  The objective is to keep recycling energy and work to fulfil our destiny  expressed as optimum development of our World.  The metaphysical  question of destiny is outside the scope of this.  All other choices, actions and  responsibility for them are imperatives for FuturIcT. (But not The Tragedy of the  Commons – a misnamed metaphor leading to simplistic/erroneous ‘solutions’)  The WORLD SOCIETY MODELLER (S‐GAIA) is a computer‐human confluent modelling environment used to model  Society including its relationship to the World ecology.  It is the applied socio‐geonomics computational  platform.  It will be pervasive across society’s systems in use, processing their dynamics and thus giving the  capacity to model and build a joined‐up GAIA view of the World, from a Society perspective. Frontispiece: Global Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS) is about SMART SOCIETY heeding the Gaia hypothesisAuthor: John Sutcliffe‐Braithwaite, PublicComputing BV                         Page 2                                               © S‐GAIA Consortium 
  3. 3. White Paper-EU Complexity Research-an integrated approach-THE PEOPLES TOOLKIT draft V11 CONTENTS 1  White Paper-EU Complexity Research-an integrated approach-THE PEOPLES TOOLKIT ........................................... 5  1.1  Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5  1.2  Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................... 5  1.3  THESIS ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6  1.3.1  Governance, Policy, Standards (GPS): Support for Complexity in the Real World (CRW) ....................................... 6  1.3.2  EU Research – Integrating our way out of silos: purposeful Federation ................................................................... 9  1.3.3  Complexity Science & Society; EU Calls: CAPS; FI Science/FInES/FIRE; Global Systems; (also COSI- ICT; DyM-CS; FOCAS; FuturICT) ........................................................................................................................................ 10  1.3.4  Society: people, purpose & complex behaviour modelling (simulation & dissimulation) ......................................... 12  1.3.5  The Peoples’ Toolkit: Computational Socio-Geonomics/Metaloger (CSG/M) ......................................................... 13  1.3.6  ICT - A new Kondratiev Shift: On Computable Society ........................................................................................... 15  1.4  SOCIO-TECHNOLOGY .............................................................................................................................................. 17  1.4.1  Scope ...................................................................................................................................................................... 17  1.4.2  Outline Computable Society Systems Requirements ............................................................................................. 17  1.4.3  Dimensioning The Problem ‘space’ - micro level ................................................................................................... 17  1.4.4  Dimensioning The Problem ‘space’ - macro level .................................................................................................. 18  1.4.5  Dimensioning The Solution ‘space’ - a meso level enquiry .................................................................................... 19  1.4.6  Dimensioning The Solution ‘space’ - the micro level.............................................................................................. 20  1.5  Disruptive Change, tipping points, decision & action: Closing the ‘Gap’ ..................................................................... 21  1.6  Core Concepts of the People’s Toolkit Socio-Technology Engineering ...................................................................... 22  1.7  Summary: Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 25 2  ANNEXES............................................................................................................................................................................ 34  2.1  Extended extract from the DYM-CS Submission......................................................................................................... 35  2.2  An R & D Perspective for Computational Socio-Geonomics/Metaloger(CSG/M) ...................................................... 43 FIGURES Frontispiece: Global Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS) is about SMART SOCIETY heeding the Gaia hypothesisFig.1 Complexity Theory: Information-process-Structure-Perturbation-MorphogenesisFig 2 The Science Computational Socio-Geonomics, the platform for World Society ModellerFig.3 The (CAS)2 World of Problem Solving, Optimisation, Purpose, Decision-making & Action – Assemblages of people, things,ideas, happenings, meaningful patternsFigure 4 FOCAS WORK PACKAGE STRUCTUREFigure 5 “The Social Group Paradigm” points to personal psychological factors driving social groups & needing to be part of theSocionomeFigure 6 – S-GAIA Strategic FuturICT Federation to build the Paradigm Change called ‘Computable Society’Author: John Sutcliffe‐Braithwaite, PublicComputing BV                         Page 3                                               © S‐GAIA Consortium 
  4. 4. White Paper-EU Complexity Research-an integrated approach-THE PEOPLES TOOLKIT draft V11 Figure Zero Abstract a proposal for federation between Future Internet Science/FInES & (STEeP) CAPS to design, deliver, and deploy an affordance called THE PEOPLES’ TOOLKIT whose rationale is: Science of complex systems + SocioTechnology + Emergence + ecologies + People: IS ‘SMART SOCIETY’ DYNAMICS VALUES ARE THE NEW GAME IN TOWN The science is Computational Socio-Geonomics SMART SOCIETY sustainable world ecology The dynamics of society are the result of Abstract values perturbing the CAS called Society SMART SOCIETY is the continuous Living Lab of life, an in-vivo expression of the complex game of living using the entire range of tools that we can devise to generate a better world Author: John Sutcliffe‐Braithwaite, PublicComputing BV                         Page 4                                               © S‐GAIA Consortium 
  5. 5. White Paper-EU Complexity Research-an integrated approach-THE PEOPLES TOOLKIT draft V11 1 White Paper‐EU Complexity Research‐an integrated approach‐THE PEOPLES TOOLKIT 1.1 Abstract The proposition of this White Paper is shown in about 100 words in Figure zero, Abstract, above. The seven topics of this Paperare all crucially interconnected in achieving EU Complexity Research-an integrated approach-THE PEOPLES TOOLKIT.1.2 Introduction This White Paper follows on from the ECCS’12 Policy Satellite, (or Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS) Workshop, as I willrefer to it in this Paper), addressing the wider agenda of EU Complexity research. Complexity research is a Big Topic,embracing such a wide field of scientific enquiry, of technology and methodology, of experts, players and practitioners that it itseems to disappear into a black-hole of the un-doable. Dialogue is needed with a view to sharing our thinking and getting it tothe stage (sic) of a coherent field of enquiry and action – so that complexity seems as natural as Darwinian evolution doestoday. The starting position is a hypothesis that ‘complexity’ is entirely a man-made concept and phenomenon, that bridges the‘old’ sciences, and the humanities; more startlingly and significantly it is a discipline that is the first theoretical framework ableto give a coherent and actionable basis for study of the human condition (up to now the province of culture, the Arts, and play).Ironically the aspect of complexity that seemingly involves the natural world is simply the result of man-made interference withthat world (as it has been since homo-sapiens ‘emerged’ as a distinct species). New formalisms mean it is becoming possible tomodel the above. This is ‘On Computable Society’. It has enormous potential to change society.We are sceptical that this proposition can make headway against the powers of the establishment (a dominant theme ofComputable Society). The plain fact is that Homo Sapiens, as Professor Dawkins has pointed out, is a selfish animal and hisbig brain is simply his unique weapon in an armoury for furthering self-interest, a synonym for ‘(the) establishment’. Fortunatelythe same set of affordances can be brought into play in pursuit of ‘higher aims’ than mere dominance; but ultimately thetechniques are the same: ‘my dominance is more significant than yours, buster’. Bringing this thesis into play will further theEU Agenda of Horizon 2020. It is a third dimension in the Two Cultures world of C.P.Snow that our Author grew up with. Theagenda for this White Paper includes the seven Topics on the title page and these are only a start for a discussion of how tousefully integrate different strands of EU research that have a commonality termed Complex Society. The need for anintegrated approach to complexity in the real world is generally agreed, the difficulty is in what this means and how to action it.This Paper takes a pragmatic, people oriented view, roughly that it is an ideal that can only be attained by what we call ‘local’action because generally something is better than nothing and what matters is to constantly seek ways to link these up so as tofurther the integration principle. We propose a method for this that advances the state of the art though never permanently. Todo so requires a concerted effort to fit the topics together; they are not necessarily easy bed-fellows, but that is the nature ofcomplexity. Computable Society is more than intellectual ontologies; it is how we are as complex human animals.A White Paper sets out some possible new ideas for discussion or trial when the prevailing climate is one of uncertainty. Itsagenda is part challenge to the old order, always change. In the complexity world this is about perturbation, morphogenesisand emergence. All the themes on the title page share this agenda, stability is attractive but we have to work in an uncertainworld; certainty is usually flawed however attractive1. This is the world of human complexity that is both the crowningopportunity for us, the human species, and also concomitantly our Achilles Heel. The radical hypothesis of this White Paper isthat all progress towards saving our planet, our future, and the well-being of us all, depends on our handling of complexity,simplistically defined as “which way will the interacting systems go and how can we influence the outcome”. We argue that thishas always been part of our existence, new tools are now needed because countervailing forces (themselves part of thecomplexity scenario) act against the common-good, sometimes accidentally, sometimes deliberately2. The other surrogate forcewe need to be aware of is that of modernity that perceives the answer to mankind’s problems in false prophets such as things,spurious systems, consumerism, and other such chimeras. Neither the ‘new’ nor the ‘old’ has pre-eminence. Any interventionwe design becomes part of the overall dynamics and influenced by all the other dynamics The proposition of this White Paper isthat The Peoples’ Toolkit enables us to process these emergent dynamics, categorise those that matter (for now), and dosomething about it3. The new game in town is Meta-modelling. The above points to the new driving force that is core tocomplexity of the human condition: ultimately we are all driven by systems of values. These have been identified by thinkers ofall Ages, but only now, with the work on CSG/M has this been rendered computable. It will result in the new order. The themeof ‘values’ stands out as oft-emphasised, but rarely understood as a scientific concept, the nature of abstract thought, andpossibly ultimately quanta (I speculate). But firstly we must ponder this startling claim in the light of the seven topics of theWhite Paper that are a topical agenda, core to The Peoples’, and the aim of SMART SOCIETY.1  “It is a truth, universally acknowledged that a young man in possession of a modest fortune, must be in need of a wife” Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice 22  “The world is out of joint, Oh cursed spite, that ever I was born to set it right” Hamlet 3  “Minister, we need to do something”; “Sir Humphrey:  this is ‘something’;  “Then we must do it, Minister!”:  Peter Jay: “Yes Minister”, BBC Satirical comedy. Author: John Sutcliffe‐Braithwaite, PublicComputing BV                         Page 5                                               © S‐GAIA Consortium 
  6. 6. White Paper-EU Complexity Research-an integrated approach-THE PEOPLES TOOLKIT draft V11 1.3 THESIS This section tries to identify the commonality in the seven representative themes of this White Paper – representative of aholistic reality rather than just unconnected research domains. It would be hubris to pretend we know the answers – indeed anyanswer to life’s imponderable challenges; we do, in the application of complexity science to ourselves, cla.im a small step formankind (no reference needed for that!):  In each section we assert that understanding of societal complexity is in an early perturbation stage; trials at shaking up the current status quo are only fitfully leading to real change  The response of the research world is mostly to continue BAU which means not engaging with complexity but only what one Professor called pseudo complexity4  Perhaps the real illusion is to seek any form of stability or final morphogenesis: what is needed is to engage totally and continually with ‘change’; this imperative is a different kind of stability, defined in the current CAPS Call as sustainability  Although all the stated topics can claim to have made progress in understanding the nature of complexity in our world; (perhaps too easily by setting the boundaries so that their experiment will reveal the bit of complexity they like best); the challenge is to continually cross the boundaries and examine the real complex phenomena that arise. The theory then that everything is interconnected will be gradually elucidated and shown to be the fundamental nature of all our being; what is then the final strange attractor is the ultimate question, by definition unanswerable. We consider all local complexity research initiatives need to be shown to be consistent with a gradually emerging super experimental framework, itself only a larger stage of local initiative. The paradox of holism is everything is local.1.3.1 Governance, Policy, Standards (GPS): Support for Complexity in the Real World (CRW) In the ECCS2012 Satellite Workshop on Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS)/CRW, the Keynote address by Dr Ralph Dum(EU) set out a view of another kind of social space in which engagement with the swirling set of interacting complex systems(whatever they are!) could take place. It is a world of continual live modelling, informatics driven, people engaged, a new kindof social space, serviced by the Web. I liked his elegant portrayal of history: the web as: Alexandrian Repository (the completeand definitive collection of all extant knowledge, aka ‘information’, it duly failed, struck down by a cataclysmic event....); Agora(the classical democratic forum); as a modern social lab (the setting for modelling methods); and a new modern concept as‘Polis’ (the living working out of the classic dialogue between the people and their Rulers, aka Governance/Policy/Standards(GPS) authorities?. Only such a vision requires an answer to the new informatics concern: how can the dynamic people worldbe represented in synchronisation with the dominant model of ‘people’ – we just get on with it. As professor Sylvie Occelliexpressed it in her comment, it is living people who all the time contribute the decision data that drives the dynamics, (‘things’are not really as eloquent as their designers like to portray). The Peoples’ Toolkit combines the above insight and classicalPolis, only it delivers the in-vivo dynamic not by setting foot personally in the forum, but by the new paradigm called ‘OnComputable Society’. It will move beyond ‘things’ that reify often key ideas, to direct action as people deliver all the time – whenengaged, empowered and enabled. It will reveal the ultimate dynamic that is the human mind, deciding what matters, capturingit in every separate computer system/app/decision tool/social modelling/social computing platform that exists, i.e.socio-technology. It is a new epistemology as far as informatics is concerned, but as old as philosophy since the dawn of thinking.It removes the distinction Dr Dum pointed out between models that drive prediction and complexity that simply describes ‘whatis’; CSG/M models it all to: make sense of the world; reach understanding(s) of ‘what matters’; and make better decisions on‘what next’. Because there is no prediction in a complex world, only change and intervention(s). The distinction is notsignificant: every intervention is action in pursuit of a future benefit. The future is merely a stochastic outcome, trial-and-error,even a statistical conclusion to the matters in-hand - unless one accepts some absolute Frame of Reference (as in Religions) 5.CRW involves contention between global vision and local action; the former identifies scales of problem not tractable by localaction alone, requiring at least coordinated action, and additionally radical intervention and change in the status-quo, amountingto no less than a coherent working complexity paradigm. The paradigm we identify (along with others) is that CRW is part of anevolutionary ecology that parallels the existing dominant ecology that is Darwinian evolution by natural selection, commonlycalled ‘Survival of the fittest’. Our extension of this is to the ecology of human purpose, whose mantra is ‘Fitness for Purpose’.This idea is not new, its realisation is both novel and like most innovations foreshadowed by much patient thinking that perturbsthe idea until a workable solution emerges. CRW is defined as the practical application of complexity understanding to solveproblems that involve people, i.e. all of them! In systems terms, how does complexity map onto real-world problem solving; whatis a problem-area ( ‘one man’s metier is another man’s posture’). A generalisation is they map with difficulty:4  Von Ammon, quoting the originator of the phenomenon of Ubiquitous Complex Event Processing (U‐CEP) 5  “ (speaking as a Classical Greek Chorus: ...and whether in Argos or in England, there are certain Laws, unalterable, in the nature of Music, there is nothing we can do about it – there is nothing we can do about anything: ....(back to being ordinary Dinner Party guests)...and now it is nearly nine o’clock, time for The News, we must listen to the Weather Forecast and the International Catastrophes....”  T.S.Eliot, The Family Reunion. Author: John Sutcliffe‐Braithwaite, PublicComputing BV                         Page 6                                               © S‐GAIA Consortium 
  7. 7. White Paper-EU Complexity Research-an integrated approach-THE PEOPLES TOOLKIT draft V11   There are as many definitions of CRW as people, though some are more persuasive than others o Complexity science, defined as ‘systems of systems that constantly interact and perturb each other’ needs a fundamental epistemology that can be shown to encompass the myriad of individual interactions, and how these lead to change, i.e. morphogenesis. The basis of this in CRW is a mix of sciences with a relevant structure and operation of the primitive forces that perturb the complex social-systems structure (the interesting dimension for the social sciences), in extreme cases producing the so-called Lorenz strange attractor effect, but more generally a range of emergent outcomes that are not solving a particular problem but equipping the system to handle such problems when encountered. The nature of this, called emergent behaviour, is constant change in the context of decision and action, or environment (what can be influenced), or method (resources, competences, tools, effort) – a pragmatic definition of ‘change’. It is also, as will be seen later, the basis of Meta-modelling. The science is embryonic still o In contrast, the richness (or messiness) of human discourse and understanding means interpersonal engagement supplies the necessary complex ontology, method, way through the Deleusian maze, and a sufficity of acceptable choices to satisfy the actors. Local answers and research point up valuable aspects but end up as self-fulfilling experiments (particularly when they control the data); this is a general problem of all science, but particularly complexity where s/he who defines the boundaries of the complexity world determines the outcome. Local action is always subject to complex meta-levels of influence, whether scientifically or subjectively o A range of human behaviours attempt to circumvent awkward discussions of who is right: power, persuasion, authority (e.g. falling back on the chimera of expertise/science/technology/evidence as proof of superior know-how), attempts to apply CRW end up modelling a subset enabled by the experimental/investigation apparatus; this can rarely be applied in real-life and the disconnects continue with each successive interpretation and trial of it. The real problem is that the subset of the real world is always atypical, (and actually unique). Even ‘just getting on with it’ is a model, albeit most people would regard it is pretty poor (it fails the ‘fit for purpose’ test that we will show is core to new-thinking)  Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS) determination seek to navigate the above terrain by well-tried control and management of the complexity; the most successful system is bureaucracy (control of method before substance): o The Old-Boys-Network exists in every power based political system; it is good fun and successful – if you are an insider; it applies in every sphere of human activity – down to the Mafia o It is challenged as a system by opposing forces of the masses; chief is the media and its current flowering in social computing and the internet o Current moves seek a rapprochement by bringing the two closer together, as in democratisation and the Big Society, but a question remains as to whether any power-shift is truly taking place  All the Papers at the recent (at least two years) Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS) Workshops seek to introduce a range of different approaches that introduce into the Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS) World a richness of ideas from science to sensitivity to the interpersonal dimensions: o They all seek to introduce change into the system and demonstrate experimentally that it helps solve a specific problem in the real (complex) world; the experiment involves how human behaviour comes into play on top of some theoretical framework o On top of varying degrees of success in solving a specific ‘local’ problem, the question they usually pose is how far might they go in offering a generalised answer to complexity o The workshops, as real life, reveal the difficulty and challenge of generalising to a huge canvas from local perspective(s); complexity science is the complete answer to this but itself lacks any proven master system mapping its theory to human behaviour in the real world where the Frames of Reference do not align and hardly map onto each other  A number of Papers stepped back from direct intervention in a real world messy (even wicked) problem area to examine Frames of Reference that seek to define some generalised method for getting behind the complexity, the ‘un- do-able’ nature, to a more manageable problem/method. In essence these all seem to seek the simple approach to reduce pain and even effort – we are all lazy animals. Alas such methods may obscure the essence of the problem, the solution, or just the senses, even for ulterior reasons – back to ‘values’ again: o ‘context’ can be defined as those selection of presenting circumstances and evidence that focus most precisely on the ‘real’ problem. Not all aspects of complexity matter, the art is identifying which. The essential aspect of the context approach is to get more skilled in isolating what matters and testing it for completeness: it is a method for ‘sufficity’ (Simon, again). We put such methods into the class of ‘Fitness for Purpose’, a whole industry of which is Standards and Quality. Context is Meta-modelling by a more homely name. o The lab simulation method tests often elegant theoretical frameworks and even more elegant computational algorithms. Their Achilles Heel is the extent of over-simplification needed to becomeAuthor: John Sutcliffe‐Braithwaite, PublicComputing BV                         Page 7                                               © S‐GAIA Consortium 
  8. 8. White Paper-EU Complexity Research-an integrated approach-THE PEOPLES TOOLKIT draft V11  manageable as an experiment, that does not enjoy the almost unlimited canvas that real-life enjoys (almost). The permanent risk is of believing one’s own PR and insisting on immediate translation into real world action. o The narrative story movement falls back on chumminess – let’s all agree how well this fits, eh? Its Achilles Heel is that it suits some people, but action affects all. Its strength is that it engages with a fuller range of ‘people’ dynamics, but are they real or propaganda/persuasion. As a basis for serious change it requires a different form of validation from the empirical method, and not just numbers of followers (sic) o A number of Papers described approaches that build up over often long periods repositories of evidence, and some actionable framework to apply it on-going to relevant areas of concern. Their strength is alliance with some established organ of action; their Achilles Heel Is getting too close such that any independent perspective is contaminated by the sponsoring area. o A subset of the above area is reconstructive tools that support extraction of historically valid scenarios from more or less sparse data; their limitation is how much invention has to be used (the success depends on systems of cross reference to establish plausibility). This area also connects with historical alternative academic theories that might have current relevance even though they ‘fell out of fashion’  We can summarise the richness of ideas, methods and work generally in the field of understanding life as ‘nothing is really ever out of date’, only the current fads and fashions vary and even become topical again sometimes  The ‘area of tentative solution’ we will discuss later is to find a way of processing abstracted solutions (or context of solutions) as if they were the real problem and had objective reality (which they did) to gradually identify what we call Metaloger Tapestries of formative recurrent bits of reality even though they could not exist independently of their presenting real-life ‘sponsor’. Surprisingly the Systems Analysis world of the last half-century has built up the technology and methods for mapping Frames of Reference in order to ‘computerise’ human systems in the real world: o Extending this to embrace complexity, defined as multiple interacting Frames of Reference seems rather obvious; it usually fails by seeing the answer as a ‘master systems of systems’ which is the usual erroneous charge levelled at Metaloger, i.e. Metaloger is the servant of the presenting systems and not their master o The core challenge is reconciling multiple Frames of Reference, interacting asynchronously, where the asynchronicity is much more than mere time: it is itself a multi-level set of interaction aspects, called Meta- modelling (themselves a crucial extension of the original Dublin Core Meta-data)  Continuing to explain this thinking takes us into the world of the solution…. This challenges the prevailing Frames of Reference by incorporating them in the CRW ontology(ies) and making them subject to a new kind of validation and verification based on meta-values. This will be shown to be the basis of CRW, new-methods, and how people do things. This becomes ‘Computable Society’; it does not exist yet as more than a formative idea: o So the current job that CRW has to do is to monitor the meta-structure of the real-world and intervene when evidence of change points to deleterious outcomes rather than progress towards a coherent new scientific method. I would describe this interim approach as pragmatic sufficity; it is prone to manipulation, of which the usual kind is it pleases someone which is not necessarily a definition of scientific: it is simply the pre-complexity world of rather less scientific exercise of authority and power. o On the positive side, all experimentation worlds usually contribute to building up a coherent picture of the problem area, directions of promising investigation; progress towards a solution. This in turn leads to the meta-problem of rationalising different Frames of Reference in order to cross-relate findings (i.e. reach agreement in the real world). . The only way such a body of knowledge can aspire to a true science is when it builds into an empirical, repeatable experimental method; this is not the same as the way social behaviour reaches consensus  Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS) are the definitive aspect of CSG/M and the on-going work of the Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS) Workshops community is to validate this statement of intent taking it to its generalised conclusion as the support of human purposeful endeavour in all its forms, within a global canvas of systems political, and including the control of negative alternatives that seek to undermine society and dominate it with corrupt regimes. It does not exist without the actions of the masses, the People, the rest is the support and enabling infrastructure, as is the Toolkit: o So also are such current emphases as IoTS o Another important initiative that is close to Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS) is the CAPS Call (see EU Calls sub-section 1.2.3) o The NoE in Internet Science JRA4 addresses Governance/Regulation/Standards (& Policy?) o The key modelling aspect of CSG/M embraces probably any and every ‘local’ modelling experiment; includes the key ‘Lab of Life, element, which seems to tie in with EnOLL et al.  The paradigm of human purpose does not eliminate any of the action and artefacts that emanate from reflection, decision and action; they are ephemeral, local, experiments, they are Requisite Variety, a corrective to the hubris of ‘being right’, steps towards a better world, well-being, sustainability. All require integrated purposeful action.Author: John Sutcliffe‐Braithwaite, PublicComputing BV                         Page 8                                               © S‐GAIA Consortium 
  9. 9. White Paper-EU Complexity Research-an integrated approach-THE PEOPLES TOOLKIT draft V11 1.3.2 EU Research – Integrating our way out of silos: purposeful Federation The idea of an inclusive society is not new, from the remaining tribes portrayed as coming under threat by Ralph Dum, to thepioneering work of Elinor Ostrum referred to at the Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS) Workshop, to the Paradiso consortiumand more, as governments seek for a new democratic partnership; the underlying dynamic is set out in Horizon 2020, but thechange needs to be at the grass roots level of involvement, caught in the term federated: what this means is a new socialmodel of research and not just rearranging the same old set of components. It is truly a complexity challenge and theconsortium behind The Peoples’ Toolkit will respond, starting with setting out the scale of change needed. The challenge ofmoving from science to society is not well taken up; research looks to forge reputations before it serves mankind, the world ofserious research seeks the grandiose and competes for publicity, even though in the end it is the ordinary person in the streetthat pays. Where is the principle of the public good and how is it defined? Current fads like consumerism, wealth, reputationdrive life; the social computing scene is, frankly and virtually meaningless yet has captivated research itself; we are moving in aworld that has lost its hold on reality in favour of the exotic. Science only comes out of the closet when it has a story that cancapture headlines. This does not argue for abandoning new science, but for sharing the arguments with society and acceptingwider accountability. We argue that society engaged, empowered and enabled will back research; this is not arguing againstthe expert, the specialist, the innovator/entrepreneur, the Academic Lab, Big Business, or excellence of any kind, but proposinga re-look at how it all fits together in a universally interconnected world:  Complexity science has an important part in integrating what seems a disconnected world at best, but dangerously greedy or just self-centred at worst. The alternative is a structure of control that amplifies delivery of the common good. In complexity terms the ‘old’ system is closed, lacks requisite variety, is positive feedback controlled (procedural based) and does not meet the criteria of Fitness for Purpose. The issue is what can change this now global gravy train? Again in complexity terms, a system of cybernetic control is needed so that what should direct and control ‘the system’ gives way to a complex system of systems directing mankind’s pursuit of what is worthwhile. This is set out in the Horizon 2020 vision; it needs enabling; it needs the EU research world to take its own medicine  This Paper proposes that a societal system of systems meets this agenda. Only it is more fundamental than just a further overlay of systems control: it is based on a radical change in approach called The Peoples’ Toolkit that processes the strategic agenda, all local initiatives, and Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS) – not as a Big Brother initiative (most PPPs’ are that) but as a fundamental re-orientation of society that we call a PPPPP (Public Private Partnership of People and Purpose). Its basis in a new direction for a complex science of society does not fully convey its fundamental paradigm change, its new technology basis, and most importantly it is run by people, empowered, engaged, and enabled  The most transformative feature is it does not itself change anything! It is an enabling science that is new; it works within what exists now and it changes itself from within. We talk about change in the EU Research world, but what we really mean is the power of complexity science to bring about transformative new models of everything. The Dutch proverb applies: we first eat ourselves what we serve to others; everyone wants the same happiness (Anna Karenina).  The challenge of us all collaborating (federating is the EU terminology) has to start with a methodology; we think The Peoples’ Toolkit is worth considering as a trial without suggesting we have a prescriptive answer. We are ready for a dialogue from which we will benefit as much as we hope to do the same: o We look at Calls we are considering and intend to start our federating at the Open Days o We are looking into Coordinating actions whether specific to our interests or others that could have possible synergy with what we have to offer o We will open up a new form of Community of Practice dedicated to the Theory, Technology and Societal aspects of CSG/M  Have we missed anything out? The main practical suggestion at the conclusion of the Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS) Workshop is to coordinate activities – a kind of federation of research into Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS): o Building up a Centre of Excellence in the meaning, methods, infrastructures, technologies of Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS) o Institute the regime of validation and verification of Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS)-in-action o Defining the new area of societal involvement and its associated enabling framework o Tackling the underlying Achilles Heel of all Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS) which is its basis in power and associated structures o Cataloguing experimental work and matching to areas of lacunae in practice o Liaising with expert bodies in relevant areas impacting Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS) o Maintaining communications and promulgating findings in the Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS) field o Support work, EU Calls, formal journals, education o Actively work with the European Complex Systems Society and other such world-wide bodies.  All the above can be actively helped by The Peoples’ Toolkit, a proposition that needs exploration and detailed work  A Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS) research and Professional Body needs to be promoted.Author: John Sutcliffe‐Braithwaite, PublicComputing BV                         Page 9                                               © S‐GAIA Consortium 
  10. 10. White Paper-EU Complexity Research-an integrated approach-THE PEOPLES TOOLKIT draft V11 1.3.3 Complexity Science & Society; EU Calls: CAPS; FI Science/FInES/FIRE; Global Systems; (also COSI‐ICT; DyM‐CS; FOCAS; FuturICT) The juxtaposition of all the above Calls commences our aim to be seen as setting out a way forward according to Horizon 2020.We are exploring the scale of federation as defined by DG Connect (Mario Campolargo, opening the FIRE Workshop). We arenot the only SMART outfit in town but need to show our proposition is more inclusive and supports albeit critically current ‘local’directions. The significant use of CSG/M is direct support of new federated research (as we have long argued).The Peoples’ Toolkit models the world according to a new paradigm Computational Socio-Geonomics, and an in-vivo/in-silicocomputational infrastructure called Metaloger. It is an overlay on real-world decision and action driven by human purposeconceived in the mind – as all human activity is. The lacuna we note is the absence of this key perspective in all current socialmodelling. [Technically every scientist who conceives of a ‘model’, or any aspect of its realisation, must think-out its design, butthis is external to the key driver that is the subject of this Paper, namely how complexity comes about and is factored into thepicture.] The key word in the paradigm is in-vivo.An early warning: we will argue that not all types of social modelling are the same (obvious!), and probably some will not ‘fit’with the core premise of CSG/M, namely its driver, in ‘people’ terms and as the central ICT paradigm, is the complex systemthat drives all other systems in the human world, namely the human mind. To be more specific, the paradigm specificallycontrasts the basic Darwinian evolutionary mechanism with its corresponding mechanism in the human mind. (This leads to abasic suspicion of all forms of modelling that treat humans as more elegant ants, bees, termites or any other instinct-drivencreature; we recognise crowd behaviour and other such Darwinian throw-backs, but only as vestigial and undesirable relics ofour animal species heritage. Sometimes this is specifically exploited; it is a corruption of human behaviour.Every EU Call seems to put an emphasis on Society, e.g. benefit to society, expanding our understanding of society, improvingon reification. We seek is to reverse the above perspective and define society as itself the exemplar of complexity and seek tomake it work better. In this perspective society will define what complexity is all about and ‘do it’ in every scientific field. Thedirection we propose will be as formative as the prescient warning of The Two Cultures by Professor C. P. Snow, in Cambridgein the fifties and sixties; only our two worlds are Science and Society (where science is equally pure & applied, i.e. technology).  We will seek to show CAPS (Collective Awareness Platforms for Sustainability & Social Innovation) is completely a societal complexity matter, pointing to the need for society to understand its complex nature and everyone to become engaged, empowered and enabled in this radical new direction. We will propose the outcome as society reappraising its role as guardian of our world future because it is our own. This is GAIA (see frontispiece). It is an agenda for the next century and even millennium; this Paper defines CAPS as the core driver of Computable Society: o We like the emphasis on: Governance, and even on styles of living; in general the Call is ambitious, however, it then picks as examples the usual set of BAU Topics, actually ‘topical’, such as collecting data from IoTS, Big Data, and even mobile phones o None of the above are necessarily right or wrong in their emphasis; the question is what strategic goals, plans and approaches are there, and how might specific areas of enquiry and experimentation ‘fit’ with the Big Picture, strategies, and methodology(ies)? position on ‘sustainability’, viewing this as a long-term strategic quest whose solution depends on complexity science and on societal visions and goals (in which people will be instrumental). To cherry-pick frankly trivial moves such as mobile phones to counter poor eating habits is non-sensical – except as cheap publicity: we are against even quick wins that are not strategic or even seriously tactical o The problem with the CAPS Call in the short term is it is short term – it does have a synergy with FI Science and we should promote a more in depth social agenda for CAPS Science as Future Internet  FI Science is already bracketed with CAPS and this points to an immediate federation with the FI Science Network of Excellence. o JRAI towards a Theory of Internet Science aligns with CSG/M (as a GOMS); o JAR2 Emergence Theories & Design aligns with CSG/M o JAR3 Evidence & Experimentation aligns with CSG/M o FI hints at its role as a driver of society, but this needs more precise definition that we would base around Computable Society. Future Internet is not merely topical, a microcosm for all overloaded systems or resources (it is that); it is an example of an incredible technology that is at risk of losing its early vision as ‘for the people’, behind the big-business technology (that it is also); it is being commandeered to be the utility for delivery of many worthy new directions in the associated worlds of business, government, communication, entertainment but so far has not sought or found any fundamental realignment around the current ‘complexity’ imperative, especially as this pertains to society o It has also become a vehicle for directing and enabling the life-style of society, from the legal to the dubious, to the illegal; in this respect it is a technology of propaganda and manipulation, masquerading behind instant gratification, sense-stimulus without reality, substitute for responsible consumptionAuthor: John Sutcliffe‐Braithwaite, PublicComputing BV                         Page 10                                               © S‐GAIA Consortium 
  11. 11. White Paper-EU Complexity Research-an integrated approach-THE PEOPLES TOOLKIT draft V11  o The alternative is to redefine FI as the society backbone defined as ‘how we exist as the sentient species in a complex world’ and therefore how we play our part as has been the case in every age, culture, society and family. In this definition FI does become the social computing of choice but centred round a new paradigm of Computable Society o The other current confused message is to mix up the word ‘backbone’ with that term as a technology component/layer in the delivery technology; we will argue for a reappraisal of the technology infrastructure around a new societal paradigm (that goes beyond the current ‘data package’ dimension); this itself will herald a new definition of ‘data and traffic’ but more so of ‘what for’ in support of society. THIS IS TO REDEFINE WHAT FI SCIENCE IS ABOUT: it is also a core driver of Computable Society o FInES is already deeply engaged in wrestling with new paradigms for enterprise information and a focus of research will be how to extend its scope to a new societal paradigm; we can expect this to centre around world resources and sustainability to take enterprises beyond their current delivery/logistics mandate. It too is a core driver of Computable Society o FIRE seems to us to need to turn round its focus from current infrastructure to what totally new infrastructures can be foreseen; for this the FIRE Community has to engage with FI Science and FInES as well as others to anticipate and support new FI paradigms (this was anticipated at the recent FIRE workshop, but no discussion of possible new paradigms was possible in the timescale available). The significance of Computable Society will require an infrastructure of intrinsic experimentation which is the given-role of all mankind: FIRE redefined as ‘Socio-technology infrastructure’ is a core driver of Computable Society.  Global Systems is still in its conceptual phase and we intend to go directly for pitching this as the vehicle for a new societal paradigm  The early Calls (COSI-ICT, DyM-CS and FOCAS) all sought to find complexity in Man-made constructs; this is only possible if actually designed-in; all the Calls point to important ideas for human exploitation of complexity (in our conception, they are natural for a virtual model of how human purpose designs a model in the mind of society that is the basis of ‘what exists’.) The rejection of this radical hypothesis in favour of reifyng complexity as a property of ‘the natural world probably lies behind the disappointing outcome in which no change has come from these calls except to show we can model reality in any way we choose but that is only a game). o COSI-ICT proposes intelligence lies in ICT, instead of enhancing ICT as a tool to leverage human intelligence; the former is a chimera o DYM-CS looks for a natural phenomena when such can only be of interest to us if we wish to change the natural world; the only dynamics of interest to us are those that are man-made; there is no system displaying complex dynamics that is not designed by human intelligence o FOCAS makes the same error.  Until we accept that all societal phenomena is a man-made construct and the process of construction is complex and can be modelled, we will continue to absolve ourselves from our responsibility and seek to find ‘natural causes’. Accepting our role is much more interesting and ultimately fruitful: o The games of the British Civil Service can be modelled (Yes Minister parodied them and was great entertainment) but sophisticated games are a well known way to block real change; our modelling will harness the same tricks but to elucidate real life, not block it o There were several key Papers at the recent Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS) Workshop that explored the range of complexity modelling that could embrace real-people striving for real change; we propose that a complexity toolkit must be a compiler of all such initiatives: variety of human life is a match of perceived human complexity and neither has a unique perception of some superior truth  We hope to learn an idea or two from FuturICT with whom we have been a supporter since the beginning. It may be that we are small fry swimming in the global pond they have so expertly sailed across; we think we have a crucial complementary scientific direction to offer FuturICT: o FuturICT has stated they are not directing their efforts on the bottom-up/grass-roots dynamics as these are manifest in individual action; we will therefore seek to find and fill that lacunae o Correspondingly we will find The Peoples’ Toolkit needs to engage with the FuturICT Big World. o But it is too early to start and speculate on the direction of federation and cooperation with the FuturICT Consortium, they are proposing a working framework that fits with the Horizon 2020 vision.  The S-GAIA Consortium advocates a strategic coordination framework for all EU Societal research, with many of the same focii as ‘Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS) outlined earlier. Much of this could usefully follow the directions set out on the FuturICT Web Site; it fits with the Horizon 2020 vision. Such a framework would not exclude any of what we term ‘local’ initiatives; nor does it imply any moratorium whilst a strategic pathway is mapped out. Author: John Sutcliffe‐Braithwaite, PublicComputing BV                         Page 11                                               © S‐GAIA Consortium 
  12. 12. White Paper-EU Complexity Research-an integrated approach-THE PEOPLES TOOLKIT draft V11 1.3.4 Society: people, purpose & complex behaviour modelling (simulation & dissimulation) The core scientific issue to be considered by this White Paper is the locus of ‘complexity’. Currently, systems of values do notform the agenda of scientific research, being handed over to philosophers, religion, or (most dangerously) those holding politicalpower. Their output becomes the Statement of Requirements for research; paradoxically this needs to change because ‘oneman’s metier is another man’s posture’6. This Paper asserts it is a societal phenomenon.Discussion of Complexity science from the perspective of society and the real world is in an interim stage of development fromthe many Papers on General Systems Theory, the learned academic studies and the seminal Ilya Prigogine Nobel Paper onPerturbation and Morphogenesis, to current experimental techniques and trials, especially Agent Based Modelling7. Academicstudies process data in sophisticated ways to reveal new insights; no one yet has succeeded in applying the same to dynamichuman behaviour (some partial understanding is derived from post-hoc analysis of consequences).How we behave is the most basic of the primitive forces driving complex outcomes in children, families, social entities and everyaspect of society. It would seem essential to bring these forces into a modelling environment driven by human will andwilfulness. But this does not figure significantly yet outside of the medical sciences which is surprising given the power of theindividual to display the heights of creativity and also of depravity. It is too simple an explanation to say that ethics are outsidescience. Concomitantly research does not automatically follow ethics, (and indeed can be hi-jacked for ulterior motives). Ingeneral research tends to assume the intelligent human mind proceeds in one direction (simplistically called ‘the general good’)and not in the other direction called immoral, criminal, selfish, or simply wicked. Alas this is neither simple nor true; the samecapacity for directing human thought and action towards the common good is equally directed in the opposite direction. Inbetween these polar opposites is the spectrum of behaviours that are neither one nor the other but simply disagreed-on.In human systems terms the recognition that this is contested features in all philosophical systems; at best it leads to some newand valued consensus that re-orders our systems of values. In Ross Ashby’s seminal work on Control Systems it is termedRequisite Variety. In the real world the process of deciding which is simply the power game (irrespective of what systems ofvalues, tools of persuasion, or set of compulsion methods, are brought to bear). Structures of human values drive everythingfrom the inter-personal level through the entire world of enterprises, up to Governance, and sanction systems: all are humanconstructs that can be modelled; they drive complex emergence.The key difference between our approach to modelling and that of all EU Calls and systems up to now, is we do not let thedecisions regarding Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS), the ‘truth’, or even EU Authorities be taken as a given. The Agendais itself continually perturbed and the final morphogenesis is arrived at on a much more inclusive basis and is never fixed andfirm: it is evolutionary. Letting go of traditional power is possibly the final frontier in saving our world; the commonlyunderstood basis of power structures are simply evolving society. Why is this approach not anarchy by another name?The secret to our model is it does not interfere with real-life ‘complex events’ but makes the basis of complex interaction the setof purpose/decision/action ‘moves’ made by the protagonists in life’s march. These are virtual moves until instantiated into‘events’ that change something, but more important is these virtual moves interact in the network of complex systems co-existing. They trigger evolutionary changes by being the foresight from which the evolution is determined. This rather over-simplified story is that of human thought as the designer of our complex existence (or existences).Whatever conclusions the workings of the model of human purpose derive this is not the same as action; the toolkit is neutral;action is never neutral. The toolkit however does provide the means to experiment with different directions of human purposeand thus simulate possible different ‘worlds’. It is experiments in the mind acted out in an in-vitro environment (where this termdenotes the virtual world of Metaloger and not the petri-dish). It is role-playing taken to a different dimension.This capability to model real-life in-vivo and do so without the real-world consequences (unless the switch occurs) is possiblythe most significant feature of CSG/M. An observation that is hypothetical at this stage of our development is that the mostsignificant Lorenz-type effects are those conceived in the mind and shared without necessarily acting-them-out. The strange-attractor is not an event but an idea. Get the message? We think and therefore we exist (cogito ergo sum) is not as substantialas “We think and action becomes possible with each other”. The power of the mind beats that of muscle every time.We assert that all EU societal research needs to be based on active, dynamic processing of complex value systems. This willbe a service The Peoples’ Toolkit provides to the World, in-vivo, everybody, everything, everywhere, everyday, fuelled bypeople, enabled, engaged, and empowered. Of course human behaviour is wider than this; systems of values can also beexercised instinctively via our animal genetic heritage; what we alliteratively term dissimulation identifies the world of corruptvalues. Values are built into our real world: processing them as complex systems is new and the foundation of society.6 JSB Thesis 1999, Metaloger 7 See the Brian Castelini Chart reproduced in the OU Introductory Survey of EU thinking behind the 2011/2012 EU Calls Author: John Sutcliffe‐Braithwaite, PublicComputing BV                         Page 12                                               © S‐GAIA Consortium 
  13. 13. White Paper-EU Complexity Research-an integrated approach-THE PEOPLES TOOLKIT draft V11 1.3.5 The Peoples’ Toolkit: Computational Socio‐Geonomics/Metaloger (CSG/M) Infinite variety of human action coupled with total inter-connectedness are synonymous in The Peoples’ Toolkit. The world asmodelled is a symbiotic, holistic, totally interconnected representation. Such terms need careful definition in the toolkit todouble check they mean the same to everyone: the reality is there are different flavours according to the dynamics of themoment – as everyone knows from their moods, let alone other peoples, or even the quantum dimensions. This rich reality isessential if costly; it is Requisite Variety8.We can view CSG/M together with FI as a common experimental infrastructure and methodology for Society. The Science ofthis needs elaboration, together with the Technology(ies), and the ‘people’ engagement (we use that term rather than theobsolete one of human interface, or human factors as we called it in the sixties). The terms ‘experimental’ and ‘methodologies’have rather well understood meanings to researchers, to prototype designers, but they are also part of the human condition, asevery parent knows from observing their baby(ies) at play. (We note that the same also operates in the terrible ‘two’s’ and teen-years). CSG/M simulates this ‘play’ as the on-going way things work. The big scene is infinitely richer and it may seem totrivialise global problems to see them and everything in-between as extensions of basic human behaviour; the richnessconsists in how we as humans bolt things together and make bigger things (more than objects, or even ideas, we interefere withthe natural world, as CAPS/FIRE states, we fail to ensure the sustainability of our world – or actually destroy it and each other.Rather than lecture on History or ethics, however, this paper places the locus of ‘complexity science’ in society, made up of usall, forming a huge Complex Adaptive System (CAS) – the largest one in existence. The Peoples’ Toolkit is about what drivesthis complexity and how this underpins everything, everyday, everybody, everywhere. This definition drives the term‘Geonomic’ in the scientific basis of CSG/M: the driver is systems of values (including all abstract entities devised by mankind).  Computational Socio-geonomics/Metaloger (CSG/M) is a simulator of complexity across the systems of the world; the simulations are in real-time, in-vivo, processed in Metaloger Labs; the design of the simulator is at the conceptual stage with a consortium from academia, industry, and society involved. Our aim is for involvement to be open, free, ubiquitous and pervasive across society, globally: o S-GAIA is the consortium of interested parties involved in CSG/M development, that comprises: development of the infrastructure for CSG/M and its deployment across society; it comprises society, its governance, and scientists in: the social sciences, enterprise systems, communications, Future Internet,plus computational scientists and engineers developing the new paradigm through its formative years o The application of CSG/M is a huge new industrial opportunity exceeding the scale of all current commercial enterprise systems, of social-computing, and of the scientific community outlined in this Paper;  CSG is a designed solution to processing complexity in any societal setting, involving a new ‘science of values’; the man-made structures of values comprise a huge, dynamic system of complex interacting forces that operate to perturb the entire structure of society and mankind’s workings within it, it is called, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, SOCIONOME; the activity of compiling Socionome is called Meta-modelling (it is a new overlay on systems): o they are evolutionary, as highly differentiated as their counterpart, the genome, on which the modelling ideas are based, but evolution is entirely in real-time (in-vivo in fact) o real-time, real-life human action, most of which is represented already in computer systems, has a further level of evolution as people break the rules, driven by the exigencies of the real world o both of the above drive complex change in the systems of the world as social transactions take place; we are only interested in the meta-level changes o indirectly the transaction instances are a trace of world-wide systems activity at the level of SOCIONOME and its associated phenoytypical behaviours in real-world instances of socionome behaviour o the ‘phenotypes’ mirror real-world systems and are a tapestry of their complex activity according to designed, evolutionary and accidental change in world systems; we call them METALOGER instantiations (NB the Peoples’ Toolkit has no direct interest in the business of real people and systems) o a set of principles, rules, and real-life operational realities will evolve out of the research into CSG/M  METALOGER9 is the platform and operational infrastructure for the Socio-technology that underpins CSG/M; it comprises an overlay on the participating systems of the world, paralleling IoTS in many ways; its operation is a new sort of meta-ERM system extending through all levels of society from top to bottom: o Metaloger-Labs do the day-by-day operational business, both individual instantiations and their compilation into the infrastructure of living complexity o Components are billions of interacting Meta Frames of Reference (MetaFoRs), synonymous with ubiquitous Metaphors!)8  Ross Ashby, Psychologist, Control engineer, cybernetician 99    Metaloger is a neologism from meta‐ ‘over‐arching’  and ‐catalogue ‘ordering a set of resources’, only the set is societal‐models‐in‐use.  To this can be added the process‐control meaning of the term ‘loger’: a device that records signals for feedback and control of the process and analysis of its outcomes. Author: John Sutcliffe‐Braithwaite, PublicComputing BV                         Page 13                                               © S‐GAIA Consortium 
  14. 14. White Paper-EU Complexity Research-an integrated approach-THE PEOPLES TOOLKIT draft V11  o Metaloger Tapestries form a living compilation of the complex events of the world and their emergent properties; they can be viewed as a stochastic, living record of complexity in action. They are the equivalent of Big Data, available in perpetuity to re-run simulations  The NPD10 of The Peoples’ Toolkit can be viewed as a conventional exercise in bringing a new technology to market, with several aspects that make it unique: o The technology is radical in that it does not interface with ‘users’ (the old paradigm of ‘information; it is Socio-technology; the entire concept of information processing changes to human cognitive, social, and cultural interaction; this presents as a new paradigm as it becomes embedded in the way ICT is experienced o The operational dynamics are not determined by levels of transactions processed, but by the stochastic outcomes of interactions across a structure of dynamic meta-levels (complexity-in-action); the interactions are social in nature, recorded and indexed by social characteristics (related to the Meta-FoR ‘behaviour’) o Societal interest and involvement with CSG/M is unpredictable, even seven billion world population is a crude measure; the interest in complexity will determine the traffic. o There will be a new industry of ‘Metaloging’, professionally, engineering, applications, support, equipment’. The nearest parallels are FI and the telecommunications industry o The science basis will evolve rapidly, from our understanding of the significance of Meta-modelling at every level in society,. To a totally new basis of ‘engagement’ with Metaloger; we define this as cognitive, cultural, entirely inter-personal, experiential, modelling and role-playing, and based on holistic experience recording  The biggest change from introduction of The Peoples’ Toolkit will be in the extent of impact on people and society of a radical new Socio-technology: o The experience of the mobile communications industry together with first generation social computing is an indication, and although the true outcome cannot be readily foreseen, experience shows people adopt new ICT very readily; how much will depend on the penetration of the complexity paradigm into everyday life o Social commercial penetration and new apps is likely to be huge, especially in the area of marrying up true social experiencing and engagement; this will include new entertainment and educational fields. But it is all a bit speculative at this stage o Enterprise and organisational penetration is difficult to predict as current capability is relatively mature and sophisticated: o Indirect societal impact will be a spin-off from opening up the sustainability ticket, dependent on complexity and involving major attitude changes across society; there is a huge potential, from quantification of resource impacts (optimisation and threats); long term life-style impacts will (in our view) occur not from ceasing exploitative behaviour, but growing belief and commitment to alternatives – not foreseeable yet o Lastly there is the area of improvement in Governance and we anticipate (probably some wishful thinking here) that considerable progress can be made in moving towards a science based system and away from a personality-based system.Perhaps the greatest impact of CSG/M will come from its perceived relevance as a generalised processor of complexity. This isentirely dependent on take-up of the core idea that all complexity is societally driven and the old paradigm of looking for it inhistorical data, lab simulation and artificial societal engagement is simply out-of-date and basically incorrect and ineffective:  An interesting turf war is possible as the new ideas perturb the old: o We think cooperation in devising tools for use within the Toolkit concept are the best way forward o Gaining traction within the complexity community is important  We conjecture there is enough news-worthy potential in CSG/M for it to gain support  The biggest supporters club will probably come from outside the current commercial players o This aspect is in the realm of opportunism, PR, and finding one excited partner (we are working on it).There is one further dimension to take-up, support, commercialisation and application of CSG/M: it concerns the forensic world,i.e. the recognition that modelling values, behaviour and socio-technology is equally relevant to the bad as to the good. We donot discuss this side of our work in this Paper; at a top-level it concerns:  Modelling society that tries to keep under the radar, i.e. does not ‘join in’  Simulating society that does join in - in the hope they can exploit it (conventional criminals)  Simulating societies-within-societies.The long term relevance of The Peoples’ Toolkit lies in profound social change; we hypothesise this will accompany the EUprogramme for sustainability, generating an unstoppable movement for wide change. We hope so.10  New Product Development (NPD) is a serious professional framework for design, construction, roll‐out and usage of new products through their whole‐life cycle Author: John Sutcliffe‐Braithwaite, PublicComputing BV                         Page 14                                               © S‐GAIA Consortium 
  15. 15. White Paper-EU Complexity Research-an integrated approach-THE PEOPLES TOOLKIT draft V11 1.3.6 ICT ‐ A new Kondratiev Shift: On Computable Society The theory of complex change embraces long waves of perturbation and morphogenesis in society; today’s society alsodisplays pervasive short waves, whose source is people and mobile phones. We think this can be better served by new ICT.Economists have argued about the waves of societal development since the middle ages and broadly agreed with the dominantforces giving rise to them; there is a clear development from agrarian to industrialised society; that this shows no sign ofstopping; its economic and social results are profound; and that this has fuelled the current wave called The Age of Information.This section discusses why ‘On Computable Society’ is potentially the next Kondratiev Shift, an apparent paradox since bothare driven by ICT. though that should not be equated with either BAU or more and more: the information deluge is clear andthe illusion of this generating understanding does not need arguing. What can be demonstrated is the ability of ICT to enablesuch volumes to be organised and processed so that the task of deriving useful meaning can take place. The question is Whatmeaning? The answer is the meaning contained in societal complexity whose origin is people thinking about life.Our world is dominated by the forces that broadly have been at work through all the identified waves of ‘progress’; againstscientific criteria, technological efficiency, economic benefit they stand proud. That is the positive picture; the negativeconcerns the criteria identified by the latest EU Calls, such as threat to our world from resource depletion, and in general whatthe Call calls ‘sustainability’, but we call by the Lovelock term the GAIA hypothesis. The other side of all this World change isthe impact on people, society, well-being and the sustainability of society itself – such concepts as fairness, the common good,progress (however defined). One of the obvious new waves is the focus on people and the associated new ICT exciting aglobal opening up of society(ies) to wholesale ‘people’ involvement. What is less clear is what are the roots of all this changeand is it more of the same? The Thesis of this Paper is that the signs of societal change are not fundamental but BAU and theonly difference is ICT cannot prevent enterprising people making use of it in ways not planned or even anticipated; asperturbation of the system the evidence is clear; what is emerging is not planned change; what outcomes there will be isunclear. It all comes into the category of random disruption, we assert a deeper understanding of complex systems can offerhope for greater control of the directions of change.The unstoppable movement that started with European revolutions that spread globally, that focussed on individual rights andresponsibilities, has reached a tipping point where power cannot contain and channel it (the BAU model). But we assert it canbe channelled by the new paradigm of People Power. This is the paradigm behind the new ICT processing systems of values,because where we recognise these in ‘things’ – science, technology, innovation – they are all products of people in society, notjust doing things but thinking about what they want to be doing. We need to process this huge force, the basis of the CAScalled society, present in GPS, Quality, ethics, protest, solidarity, and ordinary life when empowered, engaged, and enabled.We have identified strong forces concerning the future of society and the world - resource depletion is the key one; similarlylogistics is a mature and effective discipline for moving resources globally; but the most important resource, and it is unlimited,is people. Together we can save our world, enhance its viability and sustainability, increase its fairness, make it moreworthwhile not just in material terms but the wider context of well-being. Science, technology, engineering fuel this societalambition identified in this Paper as Socio-technology, and in the sciences as the most important complexity phenomenon yet tobe recognised. It is not just a complexity phenomenon but concerns in complexity terms abstract ideas/concepts, and hence itforms the new Information paradigm. Getting this out to the People so everyone can experiment with the meaning and conductof Life’ is our scientific quest, though we prefer to call it socio-technology at this stage. The most modern forms of ICT excite and attract followers because they give the illusion of deep involvement, and already thatis being questioned. We want to see this new wave of ICT mature into a new information paradigm of society. The paradigm ofmeaning is gathering pace all the time; the Kondratiev wave is simply the way we choose to go:  ‘Computable Society seeks a symbiosis of ICT and society as profound as any change in how we live since time began: how do we process the world around us to establish its ‘meaning’ for us as the human species and beyond that to our world and its continued existence (the GAIA imperative) o We will argue that ICT thus far has simply followed the traditional route of experts exercising their authority to tell the populace what meaning is, what to do with it, deliberately offer exciting ways of achieving a spurious human-computer confluence, and sometimes how to become involved in it; the mechanisms can be attractive, often are seductive, may well pay rewards - and so on. The new question is what can ICT do for ‘people’ that is truly life-changing o The deep question(s) are those of every major societal shift, of each Kondratiev Shift, of the total dominance of society by ICT, in every way as dangerous as all previous paradigm changes, even as they each promise untold benefit to mankind. This Paper does not in any way seek to make a popular critique of ICT but to challenge its very basis as complexity science and society impacts on this last frontier of Information o This analysis concludes with the same message as all the six topics: people have the creativity, insights, will and motivation to change our world; its is all about local action supported by specialists (and notAuthor: John Sutcliffe‐Braithwaite, PublicComputing BV                         Page 15                                               © S‐GAIA Consortium 
  16. 16. White Paper-EU Complexity Research-an integrated approach-THE PEOPLES TOOLKIT draft V11  the other way round). However one single track has pointed the way: the information systems of the world already define how society has progressed and are a continued living repository of societal change; they will continue this role only embracing the new dimension of complexcity (sic). The key step will be to base this on the fundamental dynamic of how we function as sentient people: o It is not data/information/meaning that changes the world but peoples’ engagement, empowerment, and enablement to bring their will to bear on what we do with our world, today, tomorrow, everyday, everything, everywhere, everybody..... o This emphasis on human will as the driver of computable society has also to keep a focus on reality: it is also about human wilfulness (it always has been) o We are discussing a world where ICT does not any more fuel our preferences (or anything else) but our values and how we implement them (to use the current paradigm terminology)  The new paradigm will, like all previous, evolve as research accelerates, as conditions dictate or even thwart it; nor does this Paper suggest we can know in advance how far it will go or even whether it will be overtaken by that other technological imperative - built in obsolescence. Huge fields of opportunity are open to further research: o The merging of data processing and the human activity of turning information into meaning, decision, and action is far more complex and profound than current routine information processing; this is the cycle of purposes, values and intention, that we have called human will and wilfulness. This is the Frame of Reference dimension, itself the basis of any system realisation, and the basis of complexity in human affairs and society o Unlike the definition of a ‘piece of data’, or an ‘object’, or a java applet, a piece of complexity is a rich holistic pattern of significance derived from continual and changing interaction with all the worlds it comes into contact with. It is the living enactment of ‘the sum is greater than the parts’. Meaning derives from the purposes that fuel it and ultimately derive significance for ’I’ and for ‘society’. Since this is in continual flux, multiple meanings are the norm (and the stamping of such meanings is the new indexing) o Information becomes a record of behaviours, based on cognition through to action; research is in its infancy regarding how this relates to the human senses, the constructions in the mind/brain that embody feelings, emotions, understandings; closely allied is the most obvious human attribute of forming pictures, representations, symbols and ultimately language to communicate and share understanding; the old concept of data becomes subsumed by a completely human/societal new type of meaning called a ‘social enactment’; this is the unit of complexity – literally a perturbation in a MetaFoR that is part of a complex system o These are complex events, where ‘event’ does not indicate an instance in an algorithmic chain, especially not one that comes to an end (in the Turing sense), but some further accretion of meaning in the sense of an unfolding drama (that is the continual set of perturbations building up and possibly leading to some emergent change  The Kondratiev wave of change is the post-hoc label that will be placed on the new handling of complex society if we get it right; we can discuss it in ICT terminology; ditto complexity; and increasingly in terms of specific societal change in dealing with the affairs that concern us: EU Research foci; all the Future Internet actions underway; Governance, Policy, Standards (GPS); etc. We will not talk about the data deluge any more, but the permanent richness of the Tapestry of Life;  Early ICT processed calculations, from simulating weapon trajectories, to esoteric computational conundrums, to processing governmental statistics. The development over the second half of the twentieth-century to what was seen as ‘’Business Data Processing’ abstracted the human and societal element in the form of processes to be fulfilled to deliver routine efficiency similar to mass-production in factories: o The human element was irrelevant or signalled errors to be sorted out outside the system; the ‘people’ interface was managed out as far as possible o The real-world was excluded to achieve efficiency; this produced the inevitable backlash o Awareness that complex life and its potential was being thwarted by ICT’s limitations remained a lonely and futile complaint by the sociologists. We would describe the resulting world as one of missed opportunity; The necessary correction to the system has been slow in building momentum, but enough interested people are now around to start to bring about real change and not just workrounds  We consider we are the pioneers as much as Jo Lyons did in their ‘Lyons Electronic Office’ (the LEO Computer project in the UK in the fifties); the real pioneers were the General Systems Theory (GST) thinkers; today’s band of researchers seek to bring social simulation out of the Lab to being a mainstream concern of ‘the People’11. On Computable Society will be the outcome.11  Front page of Metaloger Thesis, JSB 2000, quoting Addison, Volume 1 of The Spectator:  “It was said of Socrates that he brought philosophy down from the Gods to dwell amongst Men;  I am desirous of having its said of me that I brought it out of the closet to dwell in the coffee house and at the dinner table.” Author: John Sutcliffe‐Braithwaite, PublicComputing BV                         Page 16                                               © S‐GAIA Consortium 
  17. 17. White Paper-EU Complexity Research-an integrated approach-THE PEOPLES TOOLKIT draft V11 1.4 SOCIO‐TECHNOLOGY 1.4.1 Scope This section sets out the Systems Analysis project that is needed to design, build and deploy a starter ICT solution forComputable Society. It follows a schema set out for EU Calls, though that is unlikely to be the correct way to deliver the earlyprototype CSG/M solution. This is now the Agenda for our dialogue with a range of up-coming EU Calls.1.4.2 Outline Computable Society Systems Requirements This submission discusses Computational Socio-Geonomics and Metaloger (CSG/M), called "On Computable Society", apotential paradigm shift 75 years after "On Computable Numbers", or a century after Wallace and Darwin12. The frontispieceshows its value proposition: to optimise and arguably prevent waste. It computerises how we intercommunicate as socialhigher animals. This is purposeful (wo)mankind, now striving towards a sustainable future.This Paper defines ‘complexity’ for SMART SOCIETY (Governance/Policy/Standards (GPS) to grass-roots functioning) as howa necessary level of control is attained in an uncontrollable environment. That paradox is resolved by sufficity13,: the toolkit is ameans to this – considering the pragmatics as actionable, goal oriented means to achieve a desired end-result in a contextranging from cooperation, through co-petition, to outright hostility. We are all players in this environment, it is a world of Meta-modelling. The new toolkit is embedded in society to handle its ubiquitous and pervasive complexity. The project combinesNew Product Development (NPD) and Action Research into this new communication paradigm and how to apply it. It does notitself provide specific real-world ‘solutions’. It interfaces with these to process their interconnections with everything else. The People’s Toolkit extends the current ABM concept to model any instance (theoretically all) of societal complexity viewed asa Complex Adaptive System (CAS). It is an in-vivo virtual meta-world overlaying the entirety of ‘how we do things here’. It isrealised as a post-Darwinian set of evolutionary ecologies; its radical feature is to model human abstract values – as speciesroaming the meta-world and triggering the entirety of what we observe as complexity. Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ isreplaced by ‘Fitness for Purpose’. There are as many genus/ family …domains of this concept as there are human solutions to‘life’. The toolkit models them all whether someone approves or rejects them (ultimately by waging war).The model is neutral: the world is not; SMART SOCIETY is not. SMART SOCIETY processes complexity and elucidates itsmeaning; the project merely constructs the affordance for this. The workshop examines how this toolkit can be realised anddeployed in any domain of SMART SOCIETY.1.4.3 Dimensioning The Problem ‘space’ ‐ micro level In any SMART SOCIETY domain, there is a context of sub-objectives enabled by a strategic infrastructure that drives theenterprise forward. This generates an operational framework that itself will work within other constraining and enablingframeworks, all comprising the larger complex system that needs to exist as a viable ecology.There is a general understanding of the idea of an ecology, but not yet a consensus on what it means as a solution to thecomplexity of society. Ecologies are the collection of entities forming a complex society: “Complexity is the interaction ofsystems of purposeful behaviour thought out in the human mind”. This is proposed as the design paradigm for The Peoples’Toolkit in its quest to factor complexity into all its domains. Computational Socio-Geonomics/Metaloger (CSG/M) processes thesocietal behaviours that uniquely generate the observable complexity in human affairs, and asserts these must be understoodto address complexity. However, bringing complexity, social science, and the ICT world together has always beenproblematical.The Peoples Toolkit bolts together tried and tested ideas chiefly from General Systems Theory, with innovations regarding howcomplexity is experienced, how this relates to our cognitive world, and how this in turn forms new perceptions about what thatworld is made up of. SMART SOCIETY modelling in a complex world requires a special kind of joined-up approach involving:Meta-modelling; how people in the field engage with the process; the kind of tools that are necessary to support the process;and most crucial, how the findings are translated into new decisions and actions. All these are at the heart of what ‘complexity’means in society, from the individual, through all organisation, enterprise and government structures up to supra-governmentlevels. The toolkit processes the practicality of a CAS called SMART SOCIETY. The EU has to master change to make sureany new paradigm is not stifled before birth by reactionary forces.12  Huxley/Kettlewell “Charles Darwin and his World” (1965), p91, quoted Wallace (contemporary formulator of the Theory of Evolution) who concluded in 1864 that ‘further evolution of the body was unnecessary – specialised tools and machines were more efficient than any bodily organ’. ... as a result, Man possesses ... a second  mechanism of heredity ... he can transmit culture ...changes in ideas, techniques, social organisation and artistic expression .. Man has embarked on a new psycho‐social phase of evolution  ... in which he has responsibility for the whole planet ... for this task he must  learn the rules of this ... the mechanisms by which it operates. [i.e the brain/mind is special!] 13 Simon Author: John Sutcliffe‐Braithwaite, PublicComputing BV                         Page 17                                               © S‐GAIA Consortium