The Research of Adaptive Systems

The unicist ontological research was developed to study the functionality of complex adaptive systems. Researching complex adaptive systems necessitates the implementation of real actions in the field being studied. Artificial experiences or simulations lead to fallacious conclusions.

Adaptive systems evolve, and their research requires establishing fixed points to validate the functionality of solutions.

These fixed points are, on one hand, the structure of the functionalist principles and the binary actions of the functions involved, and on the other hand, the emergence of the functions that define their functionality.

In other terms, the fixed points comprise the functionalist principles and the results that are generated.

Some application fields of unicist ontological research include:

• Physics: Based on the unicist ontological research of applied physics experiments.
• Biology: Based on problem-solving, e.g., drug development.
• Engineering and Technology: Based on solution building.
• Social, economic, and market behavior: Based on future scenario building and their confirmation.
• Businesses: Based on problem-solving.
• Human behavior: Based on behavioral forecasts and their confirmation.

Positive science research implicitly focuses on environments where the speed of adaptability is so low that it can be disregarded. Falsification (Popper and others) is its natural validation process.

The unicist ontological research was developed to handle complex adaptive environments where replicating applications is not possible due to the evolving nature of functionality and operationality. Therefore, falsification had to be replaced by unicist destructive tests to confirm the limits of functionality in an evolving environment.

Introduction to Unicist Ontology

The purpose of developing the unicist ontology was to define the nature of things based on their functionality to generate a bridge between science and metaphysics that allows managing the principles of the functionality of things based on a scientific approach. This development was led by Peter Belohlavek at The Unicist Research Institute.

The unicist ontology describes the functionalist principles of facts, ideas, individuals, and things. The unicist ontology gave birth to functionalist knowledge which is the bridge between science and metaphysics and integrates functionality with operationality. The research of the unicist ontology of things is based on using unicist ontological reverse engineering that begins with the operational facts and ends with the discovery of their functionalist principles that define the unicist ontology.

The unicist ontology is a universalization of the discovery of the ontogenetic intelligence of nature that defines the nature and functionality of an entity. The ontogenetic intelligence of nature is defined by a purpose, an active and entropic principle, and an energy conservation principle that are integrated in their oneness defining the functionality of the entity. The active principle drives the evolution while the energy conservation principle sustains the purpose. The ontogenetic intelligence of an entity in nature defines its intrinsic functionalist principle that regulates its evolution.

The unicist ontology describes the nature and functionality of reality by emulating the ontogenetic intelligence of nature. Therefore, there is an ontological logic to understand the nature of reality. Nature is not a question of opinion. From a functional point of view, the nature of a specific reality is unique. That is why there can only be “one” unicist ontology of the functionality of something, which has been named its functionalist principle.

The functionalist principle defines that there is nothing in the universe, which is part of a system, that does not work with a purpose, an active and entropic function, and an energy conservation function. Their interaction defines the functionality of the binary actions that make the functionalist principles work. These functionalist principles integrate the unified field of things. There are two different unicist ontological structures of things, the intrinsic structure that describes the functionality of something in itself, and the extrinsic structure that describes the functional use of things.

The unicist ontology defines and describes the functionality of things. Its knowledge is needed to define the functionalist principles and the synchronized binary actions that make things work. A metaphor clarifies this: 

The cost of a glass is in its solid;
its value is in its hollow.
Its cost has no value.
Its value has no cost.
But both of them are within the glass.

The cost of a process is given by its operation;
its value is given by its functionality.
Operation has no value.
Functionality has no cost.
But both of them are within the process.

Unicist Ontological Research on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Functionalities

Unicist ontological research can focus on the intrinsic functionality of things or their use, explaining their extrinsic functionality. The intrinsic functionality is researched by identifying the functionalist principle that enables an entity to work, while the extrinsic functionality is researched by identifying the functionalist principles of their use value.

Approaching the intrinsic functionality of things is complex, but understanding and validating the extrinsic functionality is more complex. It requires time to validate hypotheses while using palliatives to solve problems.

The generic method to validate hypotheses on the extrinsic functionality of entities is as follows:

1. Develop the hypothetical structure of the unicist ontology.
2. Analyze the unicist ontology and divide it into sub-ontologies following the laws of complementation and supplementation (only when necessary and possible).
3. Define the observable results (emergences) needed to validate the ontology.
4. Define the application fields of the ontology to validate its functionality.
5. Develop applications, starting with destructive and non-destructive pilot tests to forecast reality.
6. Conduct at least five completely different experiences in the application field (neither analogous nor homologous).
7. Develop forecasts for at least three periods with full certainty.
8. Restart the research process whenever a deviation occurs.

Unicist Ontological Research Protocols

The unicist ontological research is based on a comprehensive set of protocols tailored to the functions under investigation. Four basic protocols are essential for researching the functionality of the real world: Unicist Reverse Engineering, Unicist Conceptual Engineering, the Unicist “Q” Method, and Unicist Destructive Testing.

1) Unicist Ontological Reverse Engineering Method

The unicist ontological reverse engineering approach was developed to discover the concepts and fundamentals that underlie “things”. It is used to build the conceptual structures that define the fundamentals of the functions and processes involved. It requires using backward-chaining thinking to transform operational knowledge into functional and conceptual knowledge.

This method is necessary to discover the underlying concepts of new fields of action and to understand the feedback of destructive pilot tests

The Functionality of the Method

Ontological reverse engineering is the process of discovering the ontological principles of an object, system or reality through the analysis of its ontological structure, function, and operation.

Ontological reverse engineering is the unicist mechanical process to discover or rediscover the nature of an object of reality that is being researched. It is a technological approach that becomes necessary when dealing with the nature of problems.

It is the basic tool for complex problem-solving. Without being able to deal with the reverse engineering process the nature of problems cannot be approached. This is the real limit of the problems an individual can solve.

Everyone can use this approach at some level. The question is to accept it and to learn it to expand the boundaries of its application.

The Ontological Reverse Engineering Process

Backward thinking implies being able to think from the end to the beginning. Consider a mounting line. It is the capacity of an individual to decompose the final “product” into its components.

When we are talking about ontological reverse engineering it means that in this process the individual is able to find the nature of a specific reality. To do so, an individual has to be able to discover the structure of the nature of that reality.

The ontological reverse engineering process is the basic approach to rediscover the concepts of reality. To do this, individuals need to discover the components of the “mounting line” that define the final reality until they have found the objects that integrate that reality.

The Structure of Ontological Reverse Engineering

The four segments that define the structure are:

1. Backward Creative
2. Backward Constructive
3. Forward Analytical
4. Forward Operational

Backward Creative

It is the segment that has the necessary creativity to think with a backward chaining thinking approach but opens the boundaries of the object that is being researched to find a functional analogy that obtains the same result in a wider field. An example of this is the metaphor that is used in Extreme Programming methodologies. This segment is put into action by the capacity to develop operational solutions and is sustained by the analytical capacity.

Backward Constructive

It is the segment that deals naturally with the finding of the idea of the concept of the reality under research. Although those in this segment of reverse engineering consider the functional analogy, they need to clarify the idea of the concept that explains what a particular reality is for, how it works, and what it is intrinsically. This segment is put into action by analytical process thinking and is sustained by operational thinking.

Forward Analytical

This is the segment that deals with the building of processes for the existing objects. It uses cause-effect thinking to build functional efficient processes. It is a segment that considers the need for quality assurance in order to sustain the added value defined by the objects that have been built. This segment is put into action by backward constructive thinking and sustained by backward creative thinking.

Forward Operational

This segment deals with the building of objects to generate added value. It is the basic segment that develops the necessary solutions to ensure that objects work. It is based on cause-effect thinking to build the objects that are necessary to add value. The main goal of this segment is to ensure results in every object that has to be built. This segment is put into action by backward creative thinking and sustained by backward constructive thinking.

Steps of the Ontological Reverse Engineering Process

Step 1 – Definition of the value to be added

Step 2 – Approach the nature of the problem in its oneness

Step 3 – Find a functional analogy that is managed by the researcher/s

Step 4 – Develop the idea of the concept integrating: what for, how, and what it is

Step 5 – Describe the nature of the problem to develop the necessary objects

Step 6 – Define the idea of a process to put the objects into action

Step 7 – Build the necessary objects to produce the required results

Step 8 – Build the process with the necessary quality assurance

Step 9 – Define the process to be used to develop the added value

Step 10- Develop the pilot tests and recycle

2) Unicist Conceptual Engineering Method

The unicist conceptual engineering method was developed to use the conceptual structures of adaptive functions and processes to define their operational strategies and transform them into operational plans and actions.

The method is based on adapting universal functional definitions into specific definitions that allow building the necessary actions and catalysts to ensure and accelerate processes. The final stage transforms maximal and minimum strategies into segmented actions.

The Functionality of the Method

Unicist conceptual engineering allows managing the dynamics and evolution of adaptive systems and environments by managing the unified field of the functions involved. 

This is based on the unicist evolutionary approach, which is a conceptual approach that manages the root causes of the functions involved in adaptive systems, which have open boundaries.

Conceptual Engineering to Manage Adaptive Systems

The discovery of concepts

The discovery of the essential conceptual structure of adaptive systems and environments requires using the unicist research methodology. The first stage implies using the “unicist ontological reverse engineering method” to discover the root causes of the operational aspects of functions to define the underlying essential concepts.

The rediscovery of concepts

The use of essential concepts that have been discovered requires rediscovering them. This rediscovery process requires using conceptual benchmarking, which allows learning from previous experiences.

The discovery of universal or specific metaphors helps to apprehend the concepts without rationalizing them. This process allows storing the knowledge of essential concepts in long-term memory.

The use of conceptual engineering

The management of complex adaptive systems requires the use of concepts that have been discovered or rediscovered. This requires the use of conceptual engineering that ends when the destructive pilot tests have been completed.

The conceptual engineering process is simplified using unicist expert systems that allow people, who have experience in managing specific functions, to deal with the root causes of adaptive environments without needing to manage the underlying concepts.

This requires using a strict testing system, which begins by developing “Japanese park” experiences and ends with the destructive and non-destructive testing processes of the solutions defined.

The Basics of Unicist Conceptual Engineering

Conceptual Engineering was developed to manage the unified field of social, institutional, and business functions. It allows transforming the conceptual structures of these environments into roles, processes, objects, and actions that allow managing maximal strategies to grow and minimum strategies to ensure results.

The example of the structure of specific strategies will provide the guiding idea of what needs to be done in the conceptual engineering process.

The method goes from the essential concepts, defined by their ontogenetic maps, to the operational concepts and the definition of roles, processes, and objects.

Unicist conceptual engineering is based on a three-step method:

Step 1: Transforming essential concepts into systemic functions

Transform essential concepts into systemic functions, which have closed boundaries. The validation of this step is based on a logical confirmation using the complementation and supplementation laws.

Step 2: Defining Maximal and Minimum Strategies

Transform the systemic functions into maximal and minimum strategies that allow defining these two differentiated roles.

It is necessary that each of the fundamentals of the concept included in the function be transformed into actions that allow their inclusion in the alternative strategies that need to be defined. The nature of the actions defines their functionality in the alternative operational strategies. The validation of this step is based on the use of conceptual benchmarking.

Step 3: Defining Segmented Actions

Transform maximal and minimum strategies into processes, objects, actions, and UBAs (unicist binary actions). Each of the strategies that are used is defined by the actions that are implemented, which depend on what is needed to be achieved and the actions that occur in the environment. The validation of this step is based on the use of destructive tests.

Synthesis

Actions depend on what needs to be done and not what can be done. What needs to be done depends on having confirmed what is possible to be achieved.

A strategy should not be implemented if the actions that can be done do not fulfill the definition of what needs to be done.

The use of this method ensures the management of complex adaptive systems and environments by managing the concepts and fundamentals that define the root causes of their functionality.

You can access an example of the use of the unicist conceptual engineering method applied to marketing strategy at: www.unicist.net/engineering/marketing-strategy-method

3) Unicist “Q” Method to Solve Contradictions

The unicist “Q” method was developed for two different but compatible purposes. On the one hand, it was developed to solve the problem of dealing with apparent incompatible solutions, because it integrates them at a superior level.

On the other hand, it is a method to empower intelligence by integrating incompatibilities. It drives to a superior level of intelligence by driving towards superior ethical intelligence, which generates the complementation of thinking processes.

The Functionality of the Method

Complex problem-solving sometimes drives to opposite and incompatible positions.

These opposite positions provoke three possible behaviors:

1. Denying the problem
2. Using analysis to seek solutions
3. The integration of the opposite positions at a superior level

1) The denial of the problem

Avoiding conflicts drives naturally towards inaction. Therefore denial is a conflictive way to destroy businesses in the short or long run.

Confronting at an operational level is a sophisticated way of denial; it provides a natural way to avoid responsibility.

2) Analytical solutions for the problem

Analyzing problems is functional when some of the parts involved are wrong. This implies that in fact there is no confrontation: one is right and the other is wrong. If that is the case, the division of the problem into parts allows for defining what is right.

When both parts are right and the difference is given by a non-compatible and not evident final purpose, analysis drives towards discussing the parts instead of solving the problem in its oneness. In this case, the solution is necessarily a downgraded compromise.

3) Integration of the opposite

Integrating the opposite positions into a superior solution requires having knowledge of the fundamentals of the solution.

At least one of the parts needs to have the conceptual knowledge but both parts need to consider that the other position might be right. This approach upgrades the solution developed.

Problem-solving in teamwork requires both competition and cooperation.

Cooperation necessarily follows competition: “If cooperation is the starting point utopias will be the end”.

If competition prevails, inaction or degradation are the consequence but the personal risk of the competitors is not endangered.

Cooperation in diversity implies being able to integrate the evolution conflicts with power conflicts and with involution conflicts in order to transform them into actions to produce solutions for the parts involved.

Framework of the Unicist “Q” Method

The use of this method requires having a cooperative attitude while focusing on solutions until they have been found and having the necessary technical-analytical and fundamental knowledge in order to be able to decide how to upgrade the preexisting solutions.

Competitive environments inhibit or hinder the building of integrative solutions. In these environments, the improvement of solutions is based on the existence of superior knowledge without considering the integration of the existing solutions. These solutions naturally generate change or innovation blindness or resistance.

The Unicist “Q” Method

1. Use the “5 Why Method” to understand the foundations of both opposite positions.
2. Develop a destructive test of one’s position to find the limits of its validity.
3. Develop a non-destructive test of the controversial position to understand its validity.
4. Define the field in which both positions are compatible and find the concept that underlies this field.
5. Based on the concept previously found, discover the context that is ruled by it that includes both positions.
6. Develop the necessary destructive and non-destructive tests to confirm that both positions have been integrated.

At the end of this process, both parts will have learned about each other and an upgraded solution will have been produced.

4) Unicist Destructive Testing Method

The final objective of the unicist destructive testing method is to ensure the reliability of decision-making by avoiding threads and managing risks. This method is based on confirming the knowledge functionality based on the use of an inductive approach applied to non-analogous and non-homologous cases.

It expands the functional knowledge that has been achieved by developing clinics to test substitutes and succedaneous alternatives and by using complexity research methods to expand the level of applicability of the solutions.

The Functionality of the Method

Destructive testing allows defining the limits of the validity of knowledge considering that there are always, on the one hand, conceptual limits and, on the other, operational limits.

There are different models of destructive tests:

Step 1: Substitute Clinics

This approach implies developing a real solution, comparing this solution with its substitutes, and finding out the SWOT they both generate and the response of the environment.

Step 2: Research of Complex Systems

It implies finding the limits of the validity of substitutes based on experience, using acceptable preexisting knowledge, and comparing it with the knowledge that is being tested. It includes the use of multiple conceptual benchmarks.

Step 3: Succedaneum Clinics

This is the final stage before real application. It requires developing a real solution for a real problem and allowing the context to choose between the succedaneum solutions and the one that has been developed. It implies finding the SWOT that the solution generates and the response of the environment.

Step 4: Ontological Reverse Engineering

This implies using the technology of reverse-engineering comparing succedaneum solutions with the solution that is being tested and redefining their conceptual structure.

Step 5: Real Operation

The real operation is what defines the final limits of the knowledge that is being tested.

Conclusion

The Unicist Approach to the research of complex adaptive systems and environments introduced a breakthrough that is at the same time a back-to-basics. It expanded the frontiers of sciences by emulating the triadic intelligence of nature and making the scientific approach to complex adaptive systems possible without needing to use palliatives to transform complex systems into systemic systems in order to be able to research them.