I stumbled across a resteem on my feed about your post.
In the last two days I have dealt with the topics "complexity" and "quality" and read some scientific contributions. As a balance, I read those of philosophers, historians, systemists and people working on environmental issues.
From the respective perspective of these people and views, there are urgent and important topics that all want to be dealt with and observed.
When I focus on complexity theory and what mathematicians and computer scientists say, I read that ...
The complex interdependencies of computational ecologies violate the traditional requirements for a hierarchical decomposition into technical, industrial, or administrative modules as used in traditional management. Modern technical communication networks are growing open systems which must be used without central control, synchronicity, or consistent data from other agents like machines or humans.
Thus, the dynamic theory of informational and computational ecologies, which incorporates the features of incomplete knowledge and delayed information, will provide well known evolutionary patterns like fixed points, oscillations, or chaos.
Under the conditions of complexity more and more control functions and human activities must be ceded and replaced by artificial intelligent systems. Human responsibility is not abolished, but restricted by collective and nonlinear effects of complex systems which cannot be forecast or controlled in the long run. Thus, we do not promote any kind of biologism or reductionism. But, under the conditions of complexity, it is not enough to have good individual intentions. We have to consider the nonlinear dynamic effects of computer technology, Artificial Life, and Artificial Intelligence for the future of human society.
source: https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v4n1/pdf/MAINZER.PDF
You're talking about Avoiding Turing completeness and
a self-defining and decidable non-Turing-complete meta-language based on FO[PFP] with PSPACE-complexity that will support an internet of languages; thus enabling the scaling of discussions, consensus, collaboration, and production of knowledge worldwide.
I looked up the definitions, but I can't make sense of them. Can you explain a little more? I am a systemic consultant by profession and have been a supporter of the systemic view of life and interaction of systems.
Do you think that future human communities will no longer be able to cope with the tasks that await us according to the theory of complexity? If I understand it correctly, the conclusion is that we cannot predict the machine-controlled work, i.e. the communication from machine to man and machine to machine.
I had anxieties when reading and I'm afraid of this kind of technology. Do you have an opinion on that?
In any case, I read your article with interest. It's good to see that you give some of your personal thoughts on your decision.