This is the gold standard.
Not the standard defined by academics or engineers.

music: from ‘A Beautiful Mind’ OST by James Horner (excerpt)

This system behavior is described in objective terms down to its elementary functional units. Therefore, the system can be expressed as a collection of cellular automata.

You can not only describe the physical processing units as such but also there are functional automata that emerge from the activity and interactions of the former.

In general, any system behaviour can be reduced to the rules of individual cellular automata. This agrees in part with some of the advocacies of Stephen Wolfram.
But unfortunately this knowledge is useless because we can only derive those rules as the outcome of a relational computation. That is, by the time you get to be able to describe the automata you are already able to describe the system.
We can go from there to the most simple automata rules but not the inverse. We cannot directly translate system behaviours into cellular automata behaviours.

The identity is the only object in the domain of an inversion that is invariant to it.

In a continuous, universal inversion, the whole system is the identity.

The blueprint of something (Plato’s “idea”) precedes that thing retroactively in time.

This is another formulation of the concept of causal resonance that determines the course of possible events.

I was surprised to watch this and come to suspect that an isomorphism can be established between my view of Nothing as a “reality generator” in its quality of a universal “inversor”, and Jakob Boehme’s nature of the Holy Spirit.

But unlike him, I am an advocate of the supremacy of pure and simple logic instead of faith through intrincate mazes in which you are more likely to get lost and believe whatever you want to believe, than otherwise to actually develop your understanding. It is good to believe in good things, but even better to believe and to understand them.

The following link points to the relevant part I am addressing: https://youtu.be/83rZ_8aWSXw?t=1236

Quote from Peter Senge.

Here there is a rectangular patch of land with dense trees.

On this day there was strong wind parallel to that pach of land, so there was a section with little wind covered by the trees between two wind corridors.

A number of small birds was there. They were slighlty bigger than the usual little birds we see in urban parks and that I feed at my house balcony. They seemed much more aerodynamic, geared for high speeds and agility.

For more than an hour, I witnessed as those birds were doing laps between the two wind corridors.

They would speed by themselves along the windless part or the circuit and when they reached the wind section after leaving the cover of the trees they would spend a few seconds almost still in the air, sustained by the strong wind, and then they were shot like arrows back to where they came from as they caught the force of the wind.

They were using the wind wall as slingshot and doing round trips for over an hour, occasionally resting in a fence at the other edge of the tree wall.

As there was no obvious benefit from this behavior, I can only conclude that they were doing it as a play, they were enjoying it. They were playing like our kids do.

And that seemed a very interesting thing in itself, compounded by many of its implications.

I felt happy for them. I reminded of some bigger birds I have seen when surfing in the sea, that pierced waves consecutively when they could just fly above them.

Nothing, as an object, is a universal point of inversion.

Therefore, it acts as a reality generator.

If you turn a hollow sphere inside-out, you have to make its surface go through its center, at that instance everything is one single thing.

Alone.

Nothing else.

But the process continues and when unfolding, that single thing generates its entirety again.

From one thing, every thing.

Refer also to this post.

In the organization of the future there are only two groups of people: those who create value and those who coach into value creation.
In the organization of the future there is no place for “managers” because the psychological mechanism that justifies them is made redundant.
The need for a “manager” is a symptom that you need investment in either of those two groups of people. Therefore instead of spending money on proxies you spend on addressing the real needs of your organization.
The only investment that makes economic sense is the investment in value creation.

The fact that we separate subjects of scientific study (“management” in this case) and consider them isolated from everything else is a scientific mistake as Descartes himself pointed out in his “Rules for the Direction of the Mind”. Its what PMI terms a “reduccionist approach” to understanding systems. But we compound that error with another one which is to apply the same approach to the application of those principles. That is why we pay people just to “manage” instead of investing in a unified evolving semi-autonomous and lightly-governed value creation structure — the organization of the future.

Jack Dorsey (former CEO of Twitter) recently claimed that he can dismiss all middle managers and have direct access to his workers. He is correct in doing so not exactly because of his argument (based on automation technology) but because of the principle stated above.

Donald Reinertsen in his book “The Principles of Product Development Flow, 2nd Generation Lean Product Development” applies principles from network engineering, manufacturing, the military and others, to the approaches for managing complex systems under variability conditions. It is aligned with the principle stated by Descartes. Its proper science.