On the Origin of Abstraction : Real and Imaginary Parts of Decidability-Making
The behavioral tradition has largely anchored on Simon's early conception of bounded rationality, it is important to engage more explicitly cognitive approaches particularly ones that might link to the issue of identifying novel competitive positions. The purpose of the study is to describe the cognitive processes by which decision-makers manage to work, individually or collectively, through undecidable situations and design innovatively. Most widespread models of rationality developed for preference-making and based on a real dimension should be extended for abstraction-making by adding a visible imaginary one. A development of a core analytical/conceptual apparatus is proposed to purposely account this dual form of reasoning, deductive to prove (then make) equivalence and abstractive to represent (then unmake) it. Complex numbers, comfortable to describe repetitive, expansional and superimposing phenomena (like waves, envelope of waves, interferences or holograms, etc.) appear as generalizable to cognitive processes at work when redesigning a decidable space by abstraction (like relief vision to design a missing depth dimension, Loyd's problem to design a missing degree of freedom, etc.). This theoretical breakthrough may open up vistas capacity in the fields of information systems, knowledge and decision.
|Date of creation:||29 Jun 2012|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||Published - Presented, 11th World Congress of the International Federation of Scholarly Associations of Management (IFSAM), 2012, Limerick, Ireland|
|Note:||View the original document on HAL open archive server: http://hal-ensmp.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00750628|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/|
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- David Schmeidler, 1989.
"Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
7662, David K. Levine.
- Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-87, May.
- R. E. Bellman & L. A. Zadeh, 1970. "Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages B141-B164, December.
- Machina, Mark J, 1982.
""Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom,"
Econometric Society, vol. 50(2), pages 277-323, March.
- Mark J Machina, 1982. ""Expected Utility" Analysis without the Independence Axiom," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7650, David K. Levine.
- Stamelos, Ioannis & Tsoukias, Alexis, 2003. "Software evaluation problem situations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(2), pages 273-286, March.
- Roy, Bernard, 1993. "Decision science or decision-aid science?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 184-203, April.
- Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Ensslin, Leonardo & Correa, Emerson C. & Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 1999. "Decision Support Systems in action: Integrated application in a multicriteria decision aid process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 315-335, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00750628. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (CCSD)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.