Functional theory of legal complexity.

Theory of legal complexity

Author

Rogério Oliveira

**Translated by google translator

1

Presentation

2

Analysis of the two theories

3

The Legal System

4

Theory of functional legal complexity

5-

Conclusion

* I will bring here a theoretical view of the law, law and justice according to my theory of legal complexity.

I will limit myself to quotations to support my thinking for sheer lack of time to do so. I waited a long time to present my theory to the world and I intend to do it fast for not knowing the future, but making sure that God knows all things.

I will present a definition of the two theories of complexity. make my analysis and complete.

I hope the academic community take this view something that can boost it forward or at least bring them new considerations or even new doubts.

Writer:

Rogério Oliveira:

* Born in Ipatinga, Minas Gerais, Rogério Oliveira, Studied at Bethany Evangelical Seminary, Brazilian branch of Bethany Fellowship, Bloomington on the outskirts of Minneapolis, USA. It is majoring in law.

Keywords: law, live right, intuitive, intelligent, senses and speech.

1

Presentation:

First, we present the two theories, which are struggling in the current scientific arena: Complexity theory and the theory of irreducible complexity.

-The Complexity theory:

"It is an interdisciplinary view about the complex adaptive systems, the emergent behavior of many systems, network complexity, chaos theory, the behavior of distant systems from thermodynamic equilibrium and its self-organizing powers.

This scientific movement has had a number of consequences not only technological but also philosophical. The use of the term complexity is therefore still unstable and dissemination of literature often occur spurious uses, far from scientific context, particularly in the concept abstractions (crucial) for nonlinearity. "According to Wikipedia.

This theory seems complex as is his name, but looking closely at and away at the same time it is the theory, an attempt to make the relationship between the social sciences and other tangible and palpable. It is a significant advance at what was being treated and showed a new direction to follow.

-The Theory of irreducible complexity:

"Irreducible complexity is a concept used by proponents of intelligent design whereby certain biological systems have a complexity according to which it is highly unlikely to have arisen in an evolutionary way from simpler predecessors, or" less complete "through random mutations advantageous and natural selection occurred naturally, ie without the interference of intelligence, such as biological systems could only be functional if all the parts were present and assembled in the right order. "

2

Analysis of the two theories:

Well. The two theories are correct! Complexity theory're right to say that when we intervene in a system, this intervention will result in a new structure, be it social, political or even biological. Because, as shown in complexity theory, do not interfere with impunity in some system. Even if it is beneficial interference is the result of this interference is change.

But even in his hit, the overkill in your s consequences. The theory attributes to it, it has no powers. Such as the "butterfly effect". Plausible but very restricted in its arc of coverage.

The theory of irreducible complexity, is also correct in stating that a complex system just "may" OR MAY, where I would trade the word may by MUST be played if your all enter into the equation.

The system is so complex that take a thing of the place will make the whole system collapses or stops working. Correct! That's right. But the error of the theory is not recognize that even within this complexity, systems, although complex, and not accept the interference collapsed but continued to expand and to improve.

One is the view that everything can be touched at one point and from then on the system regulates itself. The other sees the system as they can only be moved as a whole and then sistemo function.

3

The Legal system:

"Legal or Legal system is the set of interdependent legal norms, assembled according to a unifying principle.

These rules use prescriptive language, whose purpose is to regulate the social.Assim coexistence, positive law is a prescriptive empirical system as objective stipulate the conduct of individuals. "

The laws regulating the system call. But what we see is the need of regulatory law be modified and sometimes suppressed because of its senility or because she was dead law.

But when I see legislators and judicadores trying to do it, I see the error they commit not for lack of ability, but perhaps clinging to a theory over another or not to act in a greater way and change more than shows on demand .

So that you understand. Using complexity theory, many will surgically acting on a certain point, even though the complexity of fact, enact laws on specific facts that would require greater action, an action as a whole. It's like editássemos a law that no one else would have hunger, but we did not say where would the food, who would pay for it and transport and especially those who produce at the right price or even free.

Or using a simpler figure, when the directions of the way he moved, making it the single or double hands and does not interfere with other adjacent tracks what you have is confusion and chaos. And chaos is not theoretical is real.

Using the irreducible theory, we would change everything, but not permitiríamos no interference in the engine. Believing that it is eternal and unchanging, which is nothing, only God.

To change a system should change it completely. An action from A to Z and preparing the system to accept complex actions located that change the system, improve the same, but that do not cause rejection in the body.

4

Functional theory of legal complexity:

The theory of functional complexity is the theory that to improve a system must achieve a total change: if the security system, he moved around, as the health system also, if the political system idem. And this change, let the system able to receive interventions within the same, but in their implementation, do not end up with the system that is trying to improve.

So if we want to improve the legal and political system of a nation, first we review fully, changing or confirming its mechanisms. At this time, by inserting it in the system itself, a mechanism that can change without the system to stop or will below.

It is as if we needed more power in an engine and when we exchange a piece received a bonus: fuel consumption increases, the premature wear of parts and other things the most.

On the contrary, changing the whole engine and then interfering in even with the right parts and due to it, we will have the same car, Justice, but with best-performs and will accept occasional interference without collapsing or disturbing the rest of it.

The two theories applied and amalgamated.

5-

Conclusion:

The defense of any theory must pass the scrutiny of the "I will wait to see if anyone thinks differently." It's like getting a new run, revolutionary but at the end of the year or out of line not be as revolutionary as well, or irremediable defects. What many do is acquire the second generation, why? Why it comes with solutions, successes and especially with answers that the first did not.

Change everything to change little.

Bibliography: