My Photo

About This Blog

  • This BLOG has a double purpose. It aims to contribute to the discussion and development of the academic field that could be situated in between complexity theory, knowledge management, innovation and learning; in summary a more holistic and systemic approach to management. As such it reflects the activities that take place in the Euromed transversal research track on this subject. The Home Page and the Reading host this contribution. In the News and Discussion sections, this BLOG is used to animate courses in the area of “Complexity and the Networked Economy”, "Knowledge Management and Learning" and "A quantum interpreation of business".

    More about Blogs........

Associate Researcher

Pedagogical concepts



« For those that want to go beyond complexity | Main | Cité de la réussite »



I am not courageous and patient enough to read that book for the moment, but if someone is able to explain me clearly and simply what those two guys, the Bogdanov brothers, meant by saying "before the Big Bang, so before physics, there were mathematics", that would be nice! I heard them in an interview, but it wasn't clear enough for me. Thanks


It is really nice to see how even on the highest level of expertise knowledge games are played... What the Bogdanovs actually did is publishing articles based on nonsense in some reputated scientific journals. They caused a broad and hot discussion on how the "peer review" technique, used to evaluate the content and monitor scientific publications, has apparently failed to avoid articles that make fun of the scientific community. They even seem to have gained their Ph.D. degrees in physics from Bourgogne University on the basis of this work, which they didn´t only publish in one, but in five different journals. Soon there was a heated discussion of what this meant for the state of theoretical physics:Had the subject become so divorced from reality that not even the experts could recognize the difference between real work and a hoax?

This is the nice, interesting and amusing part of the whole story to me. I ask myself oftentimes if it is the characteristic of theories that they offer a meta- theory including and integrating the preceeding ones, thus making it difficult for people to judge the validity of the new one. A theory remains true as long as it is not falsified. If we take for example Ken Wilber and his "theory of everything"- i quote:"...The real world is not given to you twice – one out there, one in here. That "twiceness" is exactly the meaning of "duality." Rather, the real world is given to you once, immediately – it is one feeling, it has one taste, it is utterly full in that one taste, it is not severed into seer and seen, subject and object, fragment and fragment. It is a singular, of which the plural is unknown. You can taste the mountain; it is the same taste as your Self; it is not out there being reflected in here – that duality is not present in the immediateness of real experience. Real experience, before you slice it up, does not contain that duality – real experience, reality itself, is "non-dual." You are still you, and the mountain is still the mountain, but you and the mountain are two sides of one and the same experience, which is the one and only reality at that point."

See, what Wilber does is taking well known concepts of for example Zen Buddhism, adding newer concepts dealing with human consciousness, mixing them up on an abstract level and - wow- a new theory which is hard to falsify is given birth. I am not saying he is a cheater, but i am not smart enough to judge his content, and it is certainly nothing one can aggress with mathematical logic.

To make my point: The more we advance in the field of quantum physics, the more we become aware of the big role the observer plays in the establishment of new theories and their evaluation. We realized that even an unbiased observation is impossible to conduct, as the observer always influences the experiment. Starting from this point, it becomes more and more the question of what consciousness really is. This is why i cited Ken Wilber, and this is what i think the Bogdanov´Brothers realized as well: It is not a question if something is right or wrong, but how appreciated it is by the public... Well, the public realized that they fell victim to a fraud, but who knows if the theories used and taken for real are really displaying reality. Even Einstein, and this is what Hawking for example is taking as a base for his theory, added a cosmic cónstant to his theory of relativity, in order to avoid "god playing dice" even though he new better. But he also realized that this move would make his work more digestable for his fellow researchers. The Bogdanovs did the opposite: They tried to show their fellows how easily one falls victim to a theory using promising, scientific pieces of the puzzle, rearranging them to concepts fitting the current mental models of the scientific community.

I made my point, though i don´t know if i am "right"...

Manu Bey


I read something very intersting about this topic one or two years ago. It was a book written by Hubert Reeves, Yves Coppens and a journalist of "le Monde". They tried to explain the birth of the Earth, with different point of view. And Yves Coppens stated a theeory that I appreciated a lot. He said that there were no forecasted direction of Life but only chaotic evolution. We are the result of billions of extern factors. Species that exists today are the exceptions which have survived to the Evolution. This theory could be shown as the basis of the theory of complexity. Nature work as a complex system so it is clever to see a firm as a complex system... Maybe I'm not clear because of my english but I can answer to some questions in french...
See you soon on the blog!


What I understood about singularity is the point at which Time = 0.Whenever I read about Big Bang so many questions come up in my mind like How did the things which created the Big Bang come about? How did the exact original form of anything come from a null, or nothing? What was the exact original thing, light, air, water, etc??? And how did they come about from nothing?
But as per my view the Big Bang theory clearly still has a long way to go in order to be able to explain the origin of the universe or say starting point (T=0). I never mean that theory as it stands is in any way wrong.
The staggering amount of evidence in support of the Big Bang theory is simply overwhelming. So much so that the theory simply cannot now be overturned. What is known to agree with the theory today cannot be changed tomorrow, by any theory, to make it disagree.
The situation is such that any new theory, far from displacing the Big Bang, would have to incorporate it. In other words, it can only be improved upon in much the same way that Einstein incorporated Newton's theory of gravity into his own theory of relativity. Relativity did not overthrow Newton's theory, it incorporated and developed it.
What I believe about Big Bang theory that it’s the case of socially accepted pedagogical deception to some degree. What do you think???????

Olivier Mirosa

This subject is incredibly interesting for it arouses points that are at the crossroad of points that are essential for everyone. It deals with the power of science, The genesis... In a way, it's also a challenge to religion. I cannot react on the core of this discussion, but I can comment it. This theory is obviously creating a whole debate for it doesn't go mainstream. This only fact will be somehow a positive step for science. It is bound to go over the different praises, either to back or to reject them. But the resistance it as to face is the key of the quality of each theory. It is normal this debate takes place. Maybe it will enhance knowledge, far away from what it currently admited and of the Bogdanov theory.


To resume... who is born first the hen or the egg. Some will say that the hen has create the egg. Ok but who has created the hen, since before to become hen, these latter has been an egg...
What it interesting in the research of the Bogdanov is that they innovate. This article makes me understand that it exists two kind to innovate. Either the human spirit serves itself to what it exists or it changes the rules and create a new way of thinking. In the second case this reasoning clash with what it is named the "normality". (Besides I recommend to you a very interesting book of Paulo Coehlo, named "Veronika décide de mourir"which deals with what is the normality and the crazyness...)However even in front to theory which seems strange we have to keep tolerant and to be open minded. I find scandalous that M. Baez, an apparently celebrous physician, refuses to intent to answer to some questions.


We certainly know that our universe exists, however, this knowledge alone has not satisfied mankind's quest for further understanding. Our curiosity has led us to question our place in this universe and furthermore, the place of the universe itself. Throughout time we have asked ourselves these questions: How did our universe begin? How old is our universe? How did matter come to exist? Obviously, these are not simple questions and throughout our brief history on this planet much time and effort has been spent looking for some clue. Yet, after all this energy has been expended, much of what we know is still only speculation.

We have, however, come a long way from the mystical beginnings of the study of cosmology and the origins of the universe. Through the understandings of modern science we have been able to provide firm theories for some of the answers we once called hypotheses. True to the nature of science, a majority of these answers have only led to more intriguing and complex questions.Here Bogdanovs try to find an other and interesting solution, but in my opinion , at this point science reach philosophy.


I have tried to shed some (positive) light on the pseudo-scientific debate that has been developing on the web for months and is now referred to as the Bogdanov Affair. The analysis is in French and can be found at:
On the same site, the Bogdanov brothers explain their views on the matter:


Je voudrais juste rappeler que la "notoriété" scientifique des fréres Bogdanov est soumise à controverse.
Le côté médiatique de ces deux scientifiques souléve et a soulevé beaucoup de questions. Je serais d'avis de garder un oeil critique sur leur contribution à la recherche.
L' Acrimed propose un excellent article sur "Les frères Bogdanov, la science et les médias" disponible ici: .
Dans des domaines aussi complexes que l'astrophysique, il est plus ou moins facile d'enrober le néophyte sous une couche de mysticisme arômatisé à la science et aux demi-vérités.
Je suis d'avis garder cette fameuse "pointe de diamant" de doute, comme l'a écrit Alain, face à des théories destinées à l'access prime time sur une chaîne nationale...

The comments to this entry are closed.