CONTINUOUS -- DISCONTINUOUS
| Collection | International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics |
|---|---|
| Year | 2004 |
| Vol. (num.) | 2(1) |
| ID | ◀ 676 ▶ |
| Object type | Epistemology, ontology or semantics, Methodology or model |
To discriminate basic continuity or discontinuity in nature is one of the most difficult — and even irritative — riddle in science and philosophy. According to R. THOM, this is a metaphysical problem. Curiously enough, this mathematician who created catastrophe theory, a topological theory of discontinuities, states that “the essence of catastrophe theory is precisely to reduce appearent discontinuities to a manifestation of a slow subjacent evolution”! (1991, p.62). For him, “the discrete character of a transformation is a simplification brought about by our perceptive system” (p.63). He adds: “We are made essentially to see discontinuities. Only these are significant. For an animal, it is essential to recognize preys and to localize them” (Ibid). As a result, our nervous system is organized toward the perception of the appearent objects outlines.
This is also true in language: “… we discretize phonemes” (p.64)… in order to become able to distinguish them. All in all, THOM's arguments do not seem conclusive. We have no definitive way to decide the matter.
It is even possible that this dichotomy is a perceptive artifact, in relation to mega-, macro- and micro-levels of perceptions.
Systemists should remain careful when postulating continuity or discontinuity in models and constructs.