Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From Elementary Pragmatic Model (EPM) to Evolutive Elementary Pragmatic Model (E2PM)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Towards a Post-Bertalanffy Systemics

Part of the book series: Contemporary Systems Thinking ((CST))

Abstract

The Elementary Pragmatic Model (EPM) is a high operative and didactic, versatile tool and new application areas are envisaged continuously. Recently, EPM contributed to find a solution to the double-bind problem in classic information and algorithmic theory. This new awareness allowed to enlarge our panorama for neurocognitive system behavior understanding. To cope with ontological uncertainty, it is possible to use two coupled irreducible information subsystems, based on an ideal asymptotic dichotomy: Information Reliable Predictability and Information Reliable Unpredictability. A natural operating point can emerge as a new Trans-disciplinary Reality Level, out of the Interaction of Two Complementary Irreducible Management Subsystems. It is possible to envisage an Evolutive Elementary Pragmatic Model (E2PM) able to profit by both classic EPM Self-Reflexive Functional Logical Closure and new evolutive Self-Reflective Functional Logical Aperture. This paper presents a relevant contribute to models and simulations offering an example of new forms of evolutive behavior inter- and trans-disciplinarity modeling.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Bateson, G. (1991). Men are grass: Metaphor and the world of mental process. In R. E. Donaldson (Ed.), A Sacred Unity: Further steps to an ecology of mind (pp. 235–242). New York: A Cornelia and Michael Bessie Book.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Blackwell, A. (2001). Thinking with diagrams. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Chang, G., Weiss, A. P., Orav, E. J., Smallwood, J. A., Gonzalez, S., & Kosowsky, J. M., et al. (2012). Bottlenecks in the emergency department: The psychiatric clinicians’ perspective. General Hospital Psychiatry, 34(4), 403–409.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cheng, P., & Holyoak, K. (1985). Pragmatic reasoning schemas. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 391–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen, P. J. (1966). Set theory and the continuum hypothesis. Boston: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Collins, A. M., & Quillian, M. R. (1969). Retrieval time from semantic memory. Journal of Verbal Behavior and Verbal Learning, 8, 240–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cook, S. A. (1971). The complexity of theorem proving procedures. In Proceedings of 3rd Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (pp. 151–158). New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/800157.805047.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Davey, B., & Priestley, H. (2002). Introduction to lattices and order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. De Giacomo, P., Silvestri, A., Corfiati, L., Lefons, E., Pierri, G., Pazienza, M. T., et al. (1981). Versuch einer interaktiven “logischen” Therapie. Ein theorisches Modell fuer Therapie und Bevertung der Veraenderung. Familiendynamik, 2, 148–157.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Demey, L., & Smessaert, H. (2014). The relationship between Aristotelian and Hasse diagrams. Diagrammatic Representation and Inference, 8578, 213–227.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Denis, M. (1979). Les images mentales. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Eshach, H., & Bitterman, H. (2003). From case-based reasoning to problem-based learning. Academic Medicine, 78, 491–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fiorini, R. A. (2014). How random is your tomographic noise? A Number Theoretic Transform (NTT) approach. Fundamenta Informaticae, 135, 135–170.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fiorini, R. A., De Giacomo, P., Marconi, P. L., & L’Abate, L. (2014). Quality of care as an emergent phenomenon out of a small-world network of relational actors. In J. Mantas (Ed.), Proceedings of 12th International Conference on Informatics, Management and Technology in Healthcare, Athens, 10–13 July 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fiorini, R. A., & Laguteta, G. (2013). Discrete tomography data footprint reduction by information conservation. Fundamenta Informaticae, 125, 261–272.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Fiorini, R. A., & Santacroce, G. F. (2014). A post-Bertalanffy systemics healthcare competitive framework proposal. In J. Mantas (Ed.), Proceedings of 12th ICIMTH International Conference on Informatics, Management, and Technology in Healthcare, Athens, 10–13 July 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fiorini, R. A., & Santacroce, G. F. (2014). Safety and effectiveness health systemic governance by HICT natural framework. In F. Pinciroli (Ed.), Proceedings of International Conference on Biomedical Informatics. Milano, 8–9 May 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Adaptive thinking: Rationality in the real world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Goleman, D. J. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York: Bantam Books.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Grzegorczyk, A. (1951). Undecidability of some topological theories. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 38, 137–152.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hanks, T. C., & Cornell, C. A. (1994). Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: A beginner’s guide. In Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on Current Issues Related to Nuclear Power Plant Structures, Equipment and Piping (pp. I/1-1–I/1-17). Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hillard, R., & Zitek, B. (2004). Emergency psychiatry. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Høglend, P. (2014). Exploration of the patient-therapist relationship in psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychiatry. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.14010121 [Epub ahead of print]

    Google Scholar 

  24. Indurkhya, B. (2006). Emergent representations, interaction theory, and the cognitive force of metaphor. New Ideas in Psychology, 24, 133–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2001). Mental models and deduction. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 434–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Johnstone, P. T. (1982). Stone spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Judson, T. (2013). Abstract algebra: Theory and applications. GNU Free License Document (7th ed.). Accessed 30 July 2014. http://abstract.pugetsound.edu

  28. Kripke, S. A. (1965). Semantical analysis of intuitionistic logic I. In J. N. Crossley & M. A. E. Dummett (Eds.), Formal systems and recursive functions (pp. 92–130). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Kusraev, A. G., & Kutateladze, S. S. (1999). Boolean valued analysis. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Lane, D. A., & Maxfield, R. R. (2005). Ontological uncertainty and innovation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 15, 3–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lefons, E., Pazienza, M. T., Silvestri, A., Tangorra, F., Corfiati, L., & De Giacomo, P. (1977). An algebraic model for systems of psychically interacting subjects. In Ination and Systems. Proceeding of I.F.A.C. Workshop, Compiègne, France. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Moretti, A. (2009). The geometry of logical opposition. Ph.D. thesis, University of Neuchatel, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Morineau, T. (2012). Hypercube algebra: A diagrammatic and sentential notation to support inferences in logic. In Proceedings of the 30th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, ECCE ’12 (pp. 100–104).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pólya, G. (1940). Sur les types des propositions composées. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 5, 98–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rouse, W. B. (1978). Human problem solving performance in a fault diagnosis task. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC, 8, 258–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sanderson, P. M., & Murtagh, J. M. (1989). Troubleshooting with an inaccurate mental model. In Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (pp.1238–1243).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Silvestri, A., & De Giacomo, P. (1979). A computerized laboratory for approach to relational psychotherapy. In Proceedings of Congress on Medical Informatics, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Statman, R. (1979). Intuitionistic propositional logic is polynomial-space complete. Theoretical Computer Science, 9, 67–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Taleb, N. N. (2005). Fooled by randomness (2nd ed.). New York: Random House & Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Taleb, N. N., & Goldstein, D. G. (2012). The problem is beyond psychology: The real world is more random than regression analyses. International Journal of Forecasting, 28(3), 715–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Tarski, A. (1986). In S. R. Givant & R. N. McKenzie (Eds.), The collected papers of Alfred Tarski (4 Vols.) Berlin: Birkauser.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Troelstra, A. S. (Ed.). (1973). Metamathematical investigation of intuitionistic arithmetic and analysis. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus logic-philosophicus. New York: Keagan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurological and Psychiatric Sciences, University of Bari, Bari, Italy

    Piero De Giacomo

  2. Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering (DEIB), Politecnico di Milano University, 32, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci, 20133, Milano, Italy

    Rodolfo A. Fiorini

  3. BV-Tech (S.p.A), Milano, Italy

    Giulia F. Santacroce

Authors
  1. Piero De Giacomo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rodolfo A. Fiorini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giulia F. Santacroce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rodolfo A. Fiorini .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. AIRS / Italian Systems Society, Milano, Italy

    Gianfranco Minati

  2. AIRS / Italian Systems Society, Milano, Italy

    Mario R. Abram

  3. University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy

    Eliano Pessa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

De Giacomo, P., Fiorini, R.A., Santacroce, G.F. (2016). From Elementary Pragmatic Model (EPM) to Evolutive Elementary Pragmatic Model (E2PM). In: Minati, G., Abram, M., Pessa, E. (eds) Towards a Post-Bertalanffy Systemics. Contemporary Systems Thinking. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24391-7_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation