Search results

The aim is to identify and demonstrate the paradigmatic changes that quantum information science engenders in observing and the cybernetics thereof. The new paradigm obviates articulation nodes between the physical and non‐physical worlds (in the sense of Penrose).

Using modal/conditional heuristics, falsification, and consistency analysis, the study designs a formal approach to operating distinctions and (re‐)unifying them through their (formal) languages. To be able to introduce new concepts, consequences of key theses in cybernetics, information, and quantum information science are discussed.

The observer's observer turns into a quantum observer through extending both the how‐controls to what‐why‐controls, and cybernetics' competence of conveying control across disciplines. This turn confines successive‐orders cybernetics to particular applications, but enables the observing to become nearly as self‐generative as information or knowledge is. Quantum observer and cybernetics are shown to be tight in a mutual learning circularity.

Immediate implications concern the framework for unifying observation‐based disciplines with those relying on knowledge generated formally. A limitation is that the framework is necessarily incomplete. At the far‐end, formalisms that solve problems of observer‐dependent complexities are expected to result.

The approach and findings are reported here for the first time. These and the philosophy/epistemology behind cross‐, or non‐disciplinary observers‐languages are crucial for designers of research programmes as well as for actualising sociocybernetics' potential of becoming a unifier.

The study aims at defining solvability at the cross‐roads of cybernetics and problem‐solving. The cases of solvability being focussed on are generated by intervention, and as a result, their approach encounters circular and undisciplinary solving problems. This is why definitions of the third‐order circularity and the undisciplinary framework are analytical and restrictive. The second part of the study is particularly concerned with the construction of an arguably cybernetic model of the solving process, and the formal requirements endorsing the research programme. Finally, far‐aiming conclusions are drawn referring to the epistemic consistency of the third‐order cybernetics and problem‐solving, in an attempt to unify these two, already converging, scientific endeavours.