Before getting to the juice of this brain dump, I feel like I need to summarise, and probably revisit, a couple of thoughts I shared here and there in other posts. Also, I feel compelled to share a consideration that is probably worth keeping as a reference until the end of this brain dump, and potentially longer, until proven otherwise. In the post “ Confusion and velocity ” there is a reference to the fact that “ human systems are open ”. For the sake of my brain dumps, I tend to consider systems as follows: Open: they can exchange both energy and mass across their boundaries; Closed: they can exchange energy but not mass across their boundaries; Isolated: they do not exchange either energy or mass across their boundaries. In that post, I hinted that " entropy - or state of disorder - remains stable only in a closed (isolated?) system ". I think I can clear that question mark now because my understanding is that entropy can remain constant only in a theoretical scenario, where neither energy nor mass is exchanged (i.e. isolated system) and the processes occurring inside that system are perfectly reversible. "Human systems are open" but sometimes I would argue that they can exhibit the behavior of a closed system, at least from an entropic point of view: until that specific system exists, the total entropy always increases. Also, although only theoretically, I would argue that sometimes human systems can be isolated, again from an entropic point of view: until that system exists, the entropy remains constant. As I hinted in the post “ System dynamics and the strive for harmonious balance ”, such a system would probably only lead to boredom and lack of purpose, since the energy is used solely to maintain the status quo. While writing this, I realized that there is much more, so I might come back to this concept in the future. The consideration to be shared instead is the following. There seems to be some overlap between Complexity Theor y and Systems Theory approaches because, sometimes, Systems Theory approaches, Cybernetics being one example, are used on open systems [1]. However, this might work only if the level of complexity in the system is relatively low. After this long premise, the main part of this brain dump is the following. I became aware of a dynamic that gives me some hints about why sometimes my brain goes “too fast” and gets overwhelmed (cognitive overload) to the point that I need to dump thoughts. The dynamic is the following: I am preparing mentally to enter a state where I can simply “enjoy the moment” for a bit and relax; Right before entering this state, I am asked something that makes me think about what needs to come next; My brain has to re-activate some cognitive workload to think of an answer. Most of the energy is probably spent on transitioning back into thinking mode. If this dynamic is triggered too often and too fast, I quickly need to put in place some inhibitory mechanism and, even when I successfully manage to do so, all of this usually physically hurts afterward. Triggered by this “epiphany”, I started to think about feedback loops and what cybernetics and system dynamics say about the “length” ( time ) of a feedback loop and what the impact on the system (or the environment, for that matter) is when the length is too short. This touches also on the frequency of the brain dumps on this blog as opposed to other platforms where “brain dumps" might happen more frequently. I hinted briefly in the post “ Confusion and velocity ” about the “speed” ( frequency ) of the brain dumps and how this might be looked at together with their “reach”, since both these dimensions affect the “length” ( time ) and “intensity” ( energy ) of the feedback. Focusing only on the time of the feedback loops (alternatively, the frequency of the brain dumps) the following general considerations are relevant: Short feedback loops (aka faster responses) might be beneficial in rapidly changing environments but if loops are too short they might lead to instability, if not adequate time is left for the system to adjust; Shorter loops can also help create a regulatory mechanism, essential for maintaining a desired state. The effectiveness of such mechanisms, however, also depends on the accuracy and relevance of the feedback; In terms of learning, and perhaps relevant for Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS), shorter feedback loops can enable faster learning and adaptation but only if the system can process, and act on, the received information without becoming overwhelmed; Longer loops might mean more “stages” inside the loop: this means higher complexity and therefore higher risks; Longer loops can help make the system more stable but at the cost of its responsiveness. In the context of brain dumps, finding a good "length" ( time ) for a feedback loop involves balancing the response time with the capacity to process and react to new information. This trade-off is greatly influenced by the environment but a key “metric” to be considered is that “ the system should not become overwhelmed ”. As hinted again in the post “ Confusion and velocity ”, a necessary condition for this is to have relatively high awareness in the system. I think this is an extremely important consideration: The higher the awareness, the greater the balance. I spent enough energy on this brain dump and I know it can be expanded further; I hope nonetheless, that something good comes out of it. References [1] John Turner, Nigel Thurlow, Brian Rivera. “The Flow System: The Evolution of Agile and Lean Thinking in an Age of Complexity”.  2020. Picture created by the author using GenAI

This brain dump feels somehow like a small, but necessary, digression before I follow again the “direction” I hinted at in “ The Natural Flow of Energy ”. I often say that I might go back to the concepts I touch in my posts but this one specifically feels to me only like a necessary decluttering step; I need to make up for some space in my brain. In the closing part of the post “ The search for identity ” I mentioned that, at least in my own experience, “ needs ” and “ desires ” define an individual. Although I am relatively sure that this concept can be generalized to some extent, I am realizing that searching for a few - discrete - characteristics that define an “identity” is the wrong approach, since I think that identity is mostly interactional . Desires are a big drive for individuals and they carry interesting considerations. We might often not get what we want, even if we plan for it and invest a lot of energy; yet, some individuals continue to chase desires and this tells a lot about a person's identity. Needs I think must be discussed in the context of self-awareness (I am not surprised we are back again to this). Leaving for the moment needs and desires apart, I still want to focus on “ choices ”. At a very high level, I think that choices are taken with inputs from: stimuli, i.e. sensory data, whether internal or external → perception memories, i.e. a priori knowledge Although this brain dump is more centered on identity , there are a couple of references to “ choices ” and decision-making that I share here because interesting and potentially relevant in a later stage: Complexity and sense-making . Data is collected through perception (i.e. senses); we do a conceptual blending of emergent memories and thoughts ( and feelings? ); the first matching pattern is applied (i.e. we tend to satisfy rather than optimize). Human-centric design . Awareness is a key input to decision-making, although I can’t entirely agree with some of the points shared in the article, one example being, that the "filter passes along patterns". The model described is a good starting point, even though I think some blocks are misplaced: when no memory is available, I would claim that some can only be generated through sensory data, therefore I do not see perception as a subset of working  memory. I am unsure this fits well here, but I cannot help but think that another feedback I received in the context of identity was about how dreams and subconsciousness shape it. If little is known about cognition and consciousness, stepping into the subconscious is a delicate step (potentially opens also many doors to ethics) . One key differentiation I feel like making is between unconsciousness and subconsciousness. In the first case, there is no awareness but there are still (automatic) actions (i.e. breathing during the REM phase); on the other hand, subconsciousness is potentially related to faster decision-making driven by instincts and (distributed-)memories. To this point, the link above about human-centered principles might provide a reference, related to the differentiation in decision-making between experts and novices. There is no doubt however, that subconsciousness is still part of one's identity, along with dreaming, although I think that decision-making while dreaming could be an entire domain by itself (i.e. lucid dreaming ). One closing note worth making about the “ distributed ” memories. To some extent, this touches on something I heard a long time ago from a Yogi , and that is that every cell in our body has memories embodied in it . Sadhguru often refers to this concept in his “Inner Engineering” program and it is certainly worth learning what that is all about. I understand that spirituality or, better, the soul , is an important part of our identity and existence, but this is not a direction I want to follow. This does not disregard for me in any way a "spiritual" dimension (we are body , mind, and soul ); it is just for me a focalizing effort towards the direction that suits me best, and that is the natural flow of energy . Is it the easiest one? I wish it were. In the end, perhaps, “ choices ” shape one’s identity more profoundly than I thought. Picture created by the author using GenAI

This brain dump has been in the pipeline for a long, I guess I do not have enough clarity. At the time of writing, I know its form is not exactly what I desire. On the other hand, I feel that I need to find a compromise between: performing a brain dump as thoughts come into mind, even if thoughts have little coherence (related to “ Confusion and velocity “); spending too much time to refine the brain dump, with the risk of losing focus as the scope increases (related to “ Impact of feedback loops on cognitive overload “). In the past, I suggested that finding a good cadence between consecutive brain dumps requires “balancing the response time with the capacity to process and react to new information“ . This “principle” applies when some (external-)feedback is present unless enough internal awareness is available so that the system does not become overwhelmed, effectively creating a feedback loop on a self-regulating and autonomous system. From my understanding, the only necessary component  for this is an external memory with a high enough degree of coherence, such that a dynamic growth process can be initiated and sustained (this process is non-linear ). I still note, however, that having enough self-awareness is a necessary pre-condition to this. I am digressing from the main topic of this brain dump, which initially started from a very confused and weirdly expressed idea. What if having empathy fundamentally means having a tremendous memory for things people said and actions people took (i.e. changes in behavior) so that such memory would make an empathetic individual realize that the only explanation for a phenomenon or observation thereof can be given by “meeting” the other individual on a particular emotion, even if such emotion was not explicitly outspoken? Emotions are universally recognized, they transcend cultural and language barriers. To reach a common understanding with someone, the emotion needs to be properly expressed. This requires profound awareness and knowledge: awareness about the emotion of the self and knowledge about the other person's “world”, which is often, if not always, unreachable. Everything discussed thus far cannot be communicated and described solely with language; art is probably also insufficient. Ideally, a shared experience is needed, since the human experience can only be communicated holistically, if the experience can be communicated at all. Conversely, it (the emotion) should just be "experienced or lived”. The following are a couple of references I gathered that I think are worth sharing: Skin aging can be described in terms of dying cells passing onto new cells the markers containing the information about the major risk factors that have been experienced ( ref , minute 12:00). I am unsure whether the reference is related to epigenetics ; unfortunately, I could not find the specific study that was mentioned. If correct, this can be an example of “distributed” memory, not necessarily in the brain. Also, complexity science describes most of our decision-making as being not cognitive-based; CT fibers in the skin are sensitive to light stroking. It has been suggested that they subserve an affective component of touch, engaging areas of the brain involved in the processing of emotions – the limbic system. This concept was cited in the video referenced in the previous point. Here is a potentially related publication; Perception is influenced by memory. A distorted audio which is seemingly incomprehensible becomes clearer after the memory of a meaningful message is instantiated ( ref ). A closing note on memory comes from Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and a possible definition in such context ( ref ): Memory is the tendency of agents to respond using rules based on past conditions; the overall tendency of the system to continue along a trajectory based on past conditions. Parallel concepts: hysteresis, path dependency. One conceptual remark to be made about hysteresis ( ref ) is that it is common in different systems (incl. biological) and reflects processes' irreversibility, a property often described only in terms of thermodynamics laws and entropy. I am not particularly satisfied with this brain dump, since it took too long to reach a state that, I think, is not clear and coherent. Perhaps it will become useful later or, if anything, it helped declutter my internal memory. Picture created by the author using GenAI

As I wrote in “ The natural flow of energy ”, I strongly believe that the outcome is greater when energy flows naturally. I am aware that there seems to be a contradiction with the fact that success comes from hard work and perseverance: some would say this is nothing like a natural flow because it involves some fighting. However, according to my reasoning, the relevant point is that in “ The natural flow of energy, ” I also mentioned that “ it takes a huge amount of personal work to go peacefully this way .” I think a key differentiation here is “awareness” (and here we are again on awareness). Having self-awareness of where the energy flows better and more naturally has tremendous value because it builds sustainability into the process. When something is sustainable it has more chances of running for a longer time, thus continuously delivering value. Perhaps less intuitive, more solutions are allowed to emerge in case of very complex problems. A “ natural flow of energy ” is not simple: it takes a lot of work to develop enough awareness so that eventually the natural flow emerges. On the other hand, this work should never resemble a “ fight ”, especially with oneself, but rather a “ peaceful ” and ever-dynamic dance, a search for harmonious balance . There is a principle that seems to emerge from this brain dump, and that is the “ Principle of least effort ”. As I write this, however, I am not sure that “ effort ” is the proper word as it might point toward “ laziness ”, which is not my intention. Although I read on several occasions that many processes - and perhaps evolution as well - can be seen under the lens of energy efficiency, what I mean here is more along the lines of a “ Principle of least resistance ”, which is the constant search for the path and direction that minimize resistance. This sounds easy at first but, as an example, when it comes to really letting go of something that holds us back, it becomes relatively clear why this is not a simple process. Interesting coincidence. The night I decided to try to work on this brain dump, I found on YouTube a video from Sabine Hossenfelder where the German theoretical physicist mentions the “Principle of Least Action” [ ref ]: δS = 0 Reaching the end of this brain dump, if I had to think about a possible implementation for the “ Principle of least resistance ” it could be something like: The more I speak, the less I know I learn through listening, reading and watching, i.e. by receiving energy and information via sensory stimuli. Edit. Coming back to this brain dump, I cannot help but add some concepts [ ref ] that I think are contextual: The Brachistochrone (from ancient Greek: shortest time ) curve is the same shape as the Tautochrone (from ancient Greek: same time ) curve; both are cycloids. Differences in how the Principle of Least Action can be formulated: Maupertuis - Gives the path (integral over space), energy is fixed across paths but time can vary; Hamilton - Gives the trajectory (integral over time), energy can vary across trajectories but time is the same The Lagrangian has some advantages over a description based on forces The Principle of Least Action does not always provide the true minimum, more like the stationary points Picture created by the author using GenAI

I have been working on this brain dump for such a long time that I forgot what was the fundamental trigger for it. A few days ago I was investing some energy into thinking - or rather, into being aware - whether I did not have a strong  need  to do brain dumps lately. I suppose this can be seen under different lights. On the one hand, I possibly found a way to absorb data and distill information ( knowledge? ) from it without necessarily overloading my system; on the other hand, it might be that there was not enough data flowing in my brain and, consequently, nothing needed to be dumped. The only argument that makes me lean towards the first option is that we know human systems are open. In my defence - if I even need to defend myself - the nature of this brain dump is rather complicated and, I suppose, it touches on several disciplines in which I know little or close to nothing. The most accurate memory I have of the trigger for this brain dump is the following question: Can the functional equalisation of a system reduce its quality ? This might sound counterintuitive, as some normalization efforts can lead to improved quality. I am thinking for example about this example, where I can easily imagine this enhancing the life of people who travel across countries. I guess a counter question in this case would be: "What is the benefit in this context of diversity (of phone chargers)? Does this diversity in the market and manufacturing bring advantages?" A better question would probably be: "To whom does this diversity bring advantages?" . To the manufacturers? To the users? To the system as a whole? I guess this depends on how we look at the system, or what we consider the system boundaries to be. I have the impression that the nature of my question goes deeper than a purely economic or technological matter. Although this might look like brain gymnastics, sometimes I cannot help but ask myself this sort of question. Some would probably claim that these are rather philosophical questions; I will leave it up to others to label and categorise. A proper (better?) way to formulate an answer to the question above would be perhaps to first perform some methodical and qualitative research. On the other hand, I am no researcher either and I don't know how such research must be carried out. The best I can do is try to formulate a coherent brain dump and eventually return to it in the future, should I have collected new insights in the meantime. Although the original question above is about the quality after system equalization, which is by itself a very complex concept to describe, the trigger of this brain dump was rather related to beauty . This might be a mistake, as it opens up an entire philosophical branch, namely that of aesthetics. I cannot avoid but accept this risk and potentially add aesthetics to the list of disciplines I need to carry out qualitative research into, should I ever decide to wear the "researcher" hat. I don't remember exactly if this brain dump was triggered by this post I saw on X or whether something was already "cooking" in my brain in this direction. Certainly, at some point the two paths (my line of thoughts and the post I noticed) crossed, and with them the topic too; not surprisingly, the topic of architecture. It is also quite interesting to notice that this brain dump was "parked" in my brain since December 2023; this brain dump is being written in February 2025. Back in July 2024, I bumped into a reference on the topic of beauty where Sabine holds the position that “physicists rely on beauty”, and this is a problem in the physics community. I have a different position on this topic, but this can be a completely new brain dump by itself. To the main question of this brain dump, the most concise way I can use to help myself move forward is by drawing the following sketch: In this brain dump, I am not focusing on the lack of passion , since it taps into personal individual motivations, which is not a topic I wanted to touch on at this time. The focus at this time is when too much pressure is exercised to functionally equalize the system so that not enough time is available. The claim is that this leads to lower quality in the outcome and this manifests, among other ways, in a reduced intrinsic beauty . It is also important to highlight that the focus here is on the energy invested into equalizing the system, not on increasing the speed of execution. The latter would fall under a " speed and quality " discussion, in which it could be argued that as one improves one can accelerate whilst still maintaining quality. What if I had to make a concise claim out of the considerations above? Trying to equalise - normalise or standardise - reality too much brings value at the cost of quality. This can be balanced by taking speed and safety into consideration; we might need to reduce speed in order to guarantee quality, beauty and safety. There are two major notes I am thinking of: the nature of power laws and the fact that reality  seems to follow a Pareto distribution (certainly comes from complexity science, I grasp the concept but not fully the details) the “too much” wording; how much is too much? Metrics and heuristics? I am sure other people spent way more thoughts on this topic than I have. Unsurprisingly, the following explanation comes from the field of complexity science and it does a much better job of codifying most of this brain dump. Equalizing or standardizing the system, for example, by dictating a common mission and common values in an organization (the substrate from which culture emerges?), is to some extent equivalent to trying to eliminate differences. This is dangerous because it does not allow for coherent heterogeneity, which, as a consequence, removes requisite varieties and reduces innovative capacity ( ref ). It has been rather challenging to formulate the above concepts so that they make some sense to me. To the extent I understand complexity, I know that in complex systems there is no linear causality. The diagram I drew above looks very much like a causal linear chain but I confide in the following: the blocks are not meant to be point-like , but rather sets , and I think there exists at least a relationship between elements of those sets in the direction of the arrows the diagram is not meant to describe a mathematical function, even less so in the linear algebra The diagram helped me bridge some concepts so that this brain dump has - to the extent of my perception and knowledge - some sense. Reaching the end of this post, two final considerations are important, providing both an opportunity for further explanation and an argument for relaxing some parts of this reasoning while possibly helping to steer the thoughts in a slightly different direction: There is a huge conceptual leap in the jump from time to pressure , especially if the focus is on "the energy invested into equalizing the system, not on increasing the speed of execution". Here physics could be helpful. Unless a different level of abstraction is used (e.g. art), anything described here remains constrained by the limitations of language and terminology ( ref ), even, I think, in the case of algebra and mathematics. Edit: Considering the topics I touch in my brain dumps, I find myself going back to this particular one after reading the following passage from The Mathematical Theory of Communication : "One has the vague feeling that information and meaning may prove to be something like a pair of canonically conjugate variables in quantum theory , they being subject to some joint restriction that condemns a person to the sacrifice of the one as he insists on having much of the other. Or perhaps meaning may be shown to be analogous to one of the quantities on which the entropy of a thermodynamic ensemble depends. The appearance of entropy in the theory, as was remarked earlier, is surely most interesting and significant. Eddington has already been quoted in this connection, but there is another passage in "The Nature of the Physical World" which seems particularly apt and suggestive: Suppose that we were asked to arrange the following in two categories - distance, mass, electric force, entropy, beauty, melody. I think there are the strongest grounds for placing entropy alongside beauty and melody , and not with the first three. Entropy is only found when the parts are viewed in association, and it is by viewing or hearing the parts in association that beauty and melody are discerned. All three are features of arrangement. It is a pregnant thought that one of these three associates should be able to figure as a commonplace quantity of science. The reason why this stranger can pass itself off among the aborigines of the physical world is that it is able to speak their language, viz., the language of arithmetic. I feel sure that Eddington would have been willing to include the word meaning along with beauty and melody; and I suspect he would have been thrilled to see, in this theory, that entropy not only speaks the language of arithmetic ; it also speaks the language of language ." Picture created by the author using GenAI

This is a rather strange brain dump but, at the time of writing, I don't have better clues on how to frame the idea differently. I also spent some weeks trying to phrase these concepts better but it's turning out to be more complex than expected. Perhaps it will become more clear with time. I am also not entirely sure how I should categorize the concept; the strongest feeling I have is that the main context is about the behavior of change agents when it comes to affecting and promoting change in a system. The starting assumption is that there is an interest or motivation to improve a given system, as opposed to creating a new one instead, where the new system would perhaps look completely different from the original one. I was speaking with a friend some days ago and we both agreed that there is some sort of threshold that triggers, at some point, a decision to create a new system rather than investing more energy in improving the current one. In my understanding, this threshold is mainly related to resources, although resources might come in from different sources and in different forms. When it comes to affecting change, this last point - i.e. the availability of resources - would make the argument of creating a new system even less relevant: in my view, as long as there is a motivation to grow and a clear vision for the future, keeping the system in a state that can scale is a much viable option. This is something that perhaps touches also on the improving-harmonious state of a system, a topic I briefly mentioned in the post "System dynamics and the strive for harmonious balance". Going back to the original context of affecting change in a system, I am convinced that staying on the boundary of that given system is a much better threshold and strategic positioning for influencing the system without being too much influenced by it. I would claim that trying to influence a system - at least the kind of system I have in mind - while being "all in" is not effective because one would get too much influenced by the same system dynamics he or she is trying to actively change. It would take a great amount of energy and self-awareness, very precious resources, to remain true to oneself; when this is the case, these resources cannot be invested in the changing process (of the system). On the other hand, as human beings, most of us - I would even claim all, despite many might not admit it - have a desire and a need to belong. The desire to be "accepted" and pulled into the system would be so strong that if this eventually happens the main motivation for affecting a change will probably fade (most likely because of conformity). When deciding whether to affect change, one has to have very clear in her or his mind what the motivation and the expected outcomes are. As I'm reaching the end of this brain dump I cannot help but notice that everything I wrote looks like a reason for change agents not to act as part of the system itself, but also not stay on the boundary of it, at least as long as they are alone and they are the only active ones with this mindset. The energy spent trying to stay on the boundary - a dynamic and balancing process by itself - would not leave many resources to affect change. On the other hand, some knowledge and awareness of the internal state of the system is necessary to enable change and continuous improvement therefore it feels like this is going back to the concept of harmonius balance, which requires by itself a tremendous amount of energy. Did I hit a loop? Time will tell. Picture created by the author using GenAI