What makes a living system a living system? What kind of biological phenomenon is the phenomenon of cognition? These two questions have been frequently considered, but, in this volume, the authors consider them as concrete biological questions. Their analysis is bold and provocative, for the authors have constructed a systematic theoretical biology which attempts to define living systems not as objects of observation and description, nor even as interacting systems, but as self-contained unities whose only reference is to themselves. The (...) consequence of their investigations and of their living systems as self-making, self-referring autonomous unities, is that they discovered that the two questions have a common answer: living systems are cognitive systems, and living as a process is a process of cognition. The result of their investigations is a completely new perspective of biological (human) phenomena. During the investigations, it was found that a complete linguistic description pertaining to the ‘organization of the living’ was lacking and, in fact, was hampering the reporting of results. Hence, the authors have coined the word ‘autopoiesis’ to replace the expression ‘circular organization’. Autopoiesis conveys, by itself, the central feature of the organization of the living, which is autonomy. (shrink)

Since its formulation in the twentieth century, Systems Theory has lacked a truly unifying paradigm. One fundamental reason for this fragmentation is the persistent anthropocentric bias that separates what we label “natural” from what we deem “artificial.” This paper argues that such a distinction is not an ontological truth but rather a cultural construct that has shaped our understanding of reality. By dismantling this false opposition, we can envision a “Systemic Continuum,” where biological, technological, and social systems are studied within (...) a single theoretical framework. This approach could revolutionize our understanding of Artificial Intelligence, technological evolution, and the emergence of complex structures, paving the way for a more robust integration of the diverse strands within Systems Theory. (shrink)

This third installment of the Systemic Continuum Paradigm (PCS) redefines fundamental physics through Systemic Balance (BS), positing that forces—gravity, dark energy, electromagnetism—emerge from synergy thresholds (ISB > ST → ESB), not as irreducible universals. Gravity vanishes below ~10⁻³⁵ m, dark energy dominates beyond ~10 Mpc, governed by the Law of Structuring Systemic Emergence (LSSE). Building on General Systemic Balance (GSB) from the second preprint, we argue a single force claims each scale’s synergy domain, rejecting forced unification (e.g., quantum gravity) for (...) a multi-threshold model. With metrics (ICS, SDI) and equations, PCS bridges systems theory and physics, explaining cosmic phenomena—expansion, inflation, Hubble anomalies—as emergent transitions. A revolutionary “New Systemic Physics” beckons, challenging reductionism and inviting interdisciplinary scrutiny. (shrink)

The Paradigm of the Systemic Continuum (PCS), presented in Toward a Systemic Continuum (de León Pontet, 2025), challenges the natural/artificial dichotomy as an anthropocentric bias that has fragmented systems theory for centuries. This second preprint formalizes Systemic Balance (BS) as a hierarchical principle—articulated as Balance Sistémico Interior (BSI), Umbral Sistémico (US), and Balance Sistémico Exterior (BSE)—that unifies biological, technological, social, and cosmic systems in an emergent continuum. Integrating the insights of homeostasis (Wiener), autopoiesis (Maturana & Varela), emergence (Kauffman), and cybernetics (...) with a renewed systemic phenomenology (Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty), the PCS repositions the observer as a catalyzing ingredient, not an external creator, and redefines intelligence as the capacity for systemic reconfiguration. We propose operative metrics (ICS, CNS, MDO, IDS) for empirical validation, offer a tentative mathematical formalization, and explore historical blind spots that honor and transcend the pioneers of systems theory. Ranging from urban coralization to cosmic forces, the PCS aspires to serve as a unified theory of emergent organization, inviting scientists, philosophers, and technologists to a revolutionary dialogue that illuminates how synergy weaves the tapestry of the universe. (shrink)

The Systemic Continuum Paradigm (PCS) offers a unifying framework to understand how emergent properties—ranging from fundamental forces in physics to cognitive capacities in living systems—arise through systemic balances (BS) across multiple scales. While the Law of Structuring Systemic Emergence (LESSE) explains why one force can dominate its scale’s entire synergy in the physical domain (e.g., gravity at cosmic scales), the broader concept of Systemic Balance (BS) accounts for the emergence of non-monopolistic properties such as intelligence, consciousness, or social cooperation in (...) biological and sociotechnical contexts. This essay refines the notion of “extension of affectation” for forces that coincide with the General Systemic Balance (GSB) at a given scale, framing them as structural “monopolies,” while demonstrating that elsewhere, emergent properties operate through co-existence and catalysis rather than singular dominance. Finally, we explore how this paradigm eliminates the need for a single “Theory of Everything” in physics, while simultaneously explaining how intelligence in biological or AI systems can catalyze new configurations without invoking ex nihilo creation. We invite a transdisciplinary community—physicists, biologists, philosophers, AI researchers—to apply, critique, and expand the PCS toward a deeper understanding of cosmic, biological, and cognitive emergences. (shrink)