Theory of matter Introductory handbook to regulatory-kinetics 18 de enero de 2022 Dr. Nicolás Persico nspersico@hotmail.com  “Impossible is not a scientific term” Vanna Bonta – Novelist Disclaimer “Scientific creativity” may unwillingly lead to internal inconsistencies or otherwise possible contradictions. Should that be the case, I apologize in advance and invite the reader for a critical mind when facing an exploratory interdisciplinary field. Preface In my previous books I remark that systemic law deals with the approach problem rather than the subject being regulated. Nevertheless, I intuitively refers to one “ius systemic field” as a concept that although does not seems to properly define a specific subject or regulated matter it does outline a field of study. Prior disquisition push me further to realize that second order law should treat the regulated matter as an abstract concept independently from their content and within a much broader matter theory, from which the notion of order of a ius systemic field emerges. Traditional first order law proceeds by identifying to which branch law does any content belongs, but does not propose a theoretical approach for a “regulated matter” as an abstract concept. In order to do so, a general “matter theory” should be theoretically built, under which the systemic dimension of law naturally operates. Matter theory as proposed on this book requires a prior definition of the conceptual scenography under which the matter express itself and the types of matter that are categorized. Then, the branch of the matter theory that deals with its dynamical mechanism is approach and should be defined as “matter-kinetics”. Accordingly, chapter one defines the conceptual scenography under which the matter express itself; chapter two with matter itself, its properties and features; finally, chapter three with matter-kinetics and a corresponding bioelectronics model of a ius systemic field. Chapter I: Conceptual scenography under which the matter express itself Matter express itself naturally under a certain logic. It can be differentiated between them but never operates in an isolated fashion. Matter is, belongs to, is related to, includes and/or integrates. Matter while being express a certain identity, pertains to a certain order and might include a certain structure. Ius systemic matter‘s identity is defined as entrant information to the pattern regime, or otherwise stated a "process of comparison through which the human psychic system finds a comfortable or workable correlation between incoming information and some aspect of the information system" T. Downing Bowler (1981) General Systems Thinking. Its scope and applicability. USA: Elsevier North Holland, Inc. Page 136. . Notice that: 1) the matter’s identity is defined in terms of a systemic standpoint; 2) the identity does not refers to its content, but rather to the implications of this content in terms of the prevailing pattern regime. By this means a matter within an ius systemic field is conceived. Matter’s identity as entrant information might belongs to a certain geo location within a topological representation of the ius systemic order defined as a multidisciplinary holomovement that expresses the whole matter‘s identity. The matter’s context is defined as the environment composed by all other matter content that directly or indirectly influence the matter’s identity morphogenesis, meaning the specific geo position, features and properties that define matter within the pattern regime. Matter context should be distinguish from context reasoning, the first one approaching matter’s identity relations while the second one to its content relations and quality analysis. A matter’s system is defined by the set of causes by which matter remains together under certain set of principles and relations. An ius systemic field as a system should necessarily include regulated matter. Systems may recognize super systems and infra systems as hierarchies. The structure of the system is made up of that elemental disposition and relationship within the order that lasts over time. Elemental analysis requires a prior definition of the type of matter that compose an element. In sum, matter express itself supported by a natural conceptual scenography that defines its identity within an order, surrounded by a certain context, integrating a specific system (with super and infra systems), and possibly contributing to an elemental structure. Chapter II: Matter Matter shall be understood in three different levels: 1) physical matter; 2) Intellectual matter; 3) regulated matter. All three levels converge within a unified concept of matter. Physical matter is the “ob-iectum”, meaning the irrefutable evidence or objective criteria that supports the existence of something real. Intellectual matter deals with the observed-observer dilemma and is defined by all the scientific theories by which the physical matter is properly, completely or incompletely, understood. Regulated matter is defined as the real and intellectual matter in which law is actually applied. Besides regulated matter, there’s influential and a-legal matter. Influential matter is defined as the real or intellectual matter that, although not properly regulated, is capable of exercising an influence to, or being influenced by, the regulated matter. A-legal matter in turns is defined as all matter not included in the regulated and influential categories. So there are two ways in which laws intervene in matter: 1) The natural laws that govern physical matter; 2) The laws that govern intellectual matter. This second form includes the laws of systems, the laws emanating from scientific theories applicable to matter, and the intellectual laws that regulate matter. This last is refers to the regulated matter category, on which a proposition of a systemic ius order is done. Regulation, then, is not about the proper functioning of physical matter (natural laws), nor about the possible transformation processes (scientific theories), but about the regulation of the activity in question from an organizational perspective of man. A fragment of Matter is defined as a complete process or activity in which all types of matter converge. It’s conformed by the regulated matter, the influential matter, the a-legal matter and the intellectual matter that directly contributes to that process or activity. A micro fragment of matter is any type of matter located within a fragment of matter or an inter-fragment zone (in between two or more fragments). Matter is defined in four dimensions: time, space, relational ontology, axiological ontology. Therefore: M (t, s, r, a) Time is the interval of existence of matter within an order. Space is the geo localization of matter during time. Relational ontology is the identity of matter by which it is related to the context (all other surrounded matter) in a specific and definable way. Axiological ontology stands for the moral relevance of matters content. So relational ontology may be plotted in a digital form while real ontology pertains to reality and its Greek philosophy; and can only be measured digitally by the artificial introduction of a parameter. This previous distinction should be considered when building an artificial order (digital). Chapter III: matter-kinetics and a corresponding bioelectronics model of a ius systemic field. Now that we define a conceptual scenography and explicitly defines the types of matter in existence, we are ready to elaborate a detail analysis of matter-kinetics or the dynamical mechanics behind the order. The matter-kinetics analysis as we shall see will ultimately lead to a bioelectronics model of the ius systemic order. Let’s start with a fragment of matter representation, which can be visualized either through a cube or circle: In the cube graph we can easily view the three types of matter: regulated, influential and a-legal. In the circle graph the distinction between real and intellectual matter is properly done. A consolidated graph may include all types of matter on its real and intellectual nature: Notice that: 1) the fragment includes regulated and influential matter and a-legal ones remains important as a context matter; 2) Intellectual matter may be applied to regulated, influential or a-legal surrounding matter. Matter-kinetics then initiate in the fragment level by analysing both models movements in terms of both volume and geo position. For instance, an update of a scientific theory may lead to its approximation to real matter as a sign of more theoretical robustness (knowledge and fundamentals of real matter transformation process), while other correlated theories may become near or far from the same real matter. Graphically: Also, matter identity may change over time and more or less entrant information should be required for the activity or process to be done. Graphically: Both changes – in real volume and intellectual distance – can and is expected to occur simultaneously. When the theoretical fundamentals are said to be fully explainable of the matter transformation process, the distance of the implied theories are equidistance to the real matter circle and at their minimal possible distance. A minimum distance shall nevertheless remain since all the theoretical set is supported by a given paradigm. Graphically: Within the cube model, and in a strictly stand-alone fragment level analysis, the volume of the real matter may increase or decrease in different possible ways. For the increase case (one direction from left to right) there might be eight possible scenarios: 1- Influential matter increase while regulated matter stay fixed; 2- Influential matter stay fixed while regulated matter increase; 3- Both influential and regulated matter increase proportionally; 4- Both influential and regulated matter increase although not proportionally having regulated matter increased more; 5- Both influential and regulated matter increase although not proportionally having influential matter increased more; 6- Influential matter decrease while regulated matter increase in such a way that the final volume is more than the initial influential volume; 7- Influential matter increase while regulated matter decrease being influential matter initially more bigger; 8- The same case as in 4 but the final regulated matter has more volume than the final influential one. Graphically: Please bear in mind that provided the final cube – whether because of regulated or influential matter – is much bigger than the initial one (that is an increase happens), the a-legal type of matter also increases, since a more surrounding area is required to cover the fragment. The increase and decrease movements of the volume in the fragment of reality is simple the magnitude of the portion of matter – in their three levels previously exposed – required for an activity or process to be done. The matter-kinetics of this fragment of reality deals with the analysis of volume and distance. Up to now both are analysed within a fragment as a stand-alone basis, although it should be said that the fragment might also be view as a system. A more detail analysis will be done by adding the micro fragment level in which connected events takes place. Back with this stand-alone fragment analysis, the regulated matter as a physical matter or a scientific theory, both in which law intervenes, has special outstanding properties. In the case of physical matter, implicit law as proposed by Lon Luvois Fuller Postema Gerald. (1994). Implicit law. Law and Philosophy. 13. 361-387. 10.1007/BF01001679. should enter the scene specifically as conducts that take place as a consequence of an expectation network and interdependent purpose. At first glance, is seems more accurate to introduce implicit law in the micro fragment level, but in the fragment one the process as a system might find it useful to identity those forces behind the conducts included in the regulated matter, and amplifying the analysis by including those forces behind the conducts that take place in the influential and surrounding a-legal area. In the case of scientific theories, it should be said that the intellectual matter, from the law perspective, has much more relevance in two specific cases: 1) when there is a vast extension of matter included in the fragment; 2) when the transformation capacity is critical. In the first case, the extension of matter should probably implies a great significance of the portion of reality in which the humans acts or may potentially act, or may otherwise implies the necessary intervention of a big portion of the population. As an example, we can propose the disposition of space beyond the earth – National Air and Space Administration NASA -. In the second case, a high density transformation capacity of matter is encountered in nano-materials / nanotechnology; in quantum physics; or in the right to borne as a biological process. By principle, the regulated matter of a fragment should have that optimal volume by which two objectives are simultaneously accomplished: 1) the matter existence and the transformation process should be possible; 2) provided that there’s no unreasonable danger or moral constrain. Notwithstanding, these objectives impact the regulated matter portion of the fragment, by assuming that regulation applies only to the specific matter that needs to be monitored, and that any other non-relevant matter within the fragment should be legally discarded, provided that there are no expected direct or indirect causal attendable connections capable of modifying matter in an unconvinient way. Back to the stand-alone analysis, within the increasing volume scenario, in case (1) the more entrant information is regarded as irrelevant in the transformation capacity contribution while the total matter size of the fragment remains tolerable for keeping regulation fixed; in case (2) the transformation capacity evidently change because the influential volume remains fixed, it is rather than entrant information, the applying theories update what cause a changing transformation capacity, and therefore a much more regulation burden; in case (3) the entrant information is continuously seen as a change in the relevance either of matter quantity or transformation capacity; in case (4) each marginal matter contribution as entrant information is exponentially critical in their mass or transformable capacity; in case (5) each marginal matter contribution as entrant information is less critical on its transformation capacity while the mass magnitude remains as a parameter in tolerable levels; in case (6) the transformation capacity exponentially increase is guiding the augment of the regulated matter; in case (7) the total fragment mass volume remains tolerable independently from its increasing volume feature, while the transformation capacity probably is much more well understood and adopted as a regular non-risk activity; in case (8) the augmented mass volume is of quite relevance and/or the transformation capacity increase. Matter-kinetics helps regulation policies by identifying the specific scenario in which a process or activity fits over time and therefore what sort of legal measures extensions are expected to assume. Notice the power of intellectual matter to change both the mass volume and the transformation capacity of a certain fragment of matter. Precisely because of this power, new theories or updated scientific theories should be adequately monitored on their implications by official authorities, in an attempt to grant an accurate and timely regulative response. When we approach the increasing and decreasing feature, we implicitly introduce motion, a property that calls for “regulation equilibria”. A fragment as a system, in this regard, finds previously defined types of oscillating customs “Complejidad interpretativa ius sistémica. Instituto del Derecho sistémico”. Buenos Aires: Editorial Dunken. as en explicit concept to approach law from a systemic standpoint. We now turn to the micro fragment level at the fragment stand-alone analysis. This level deals with events that occur and are related one to another explaining the emergence behaviour. The event as matter, as already explained, may be regulated, influential or a-legal. Therefore, connections between event-matter takes place as cause (sequential), confluence (simultaneously), for logical motivational or functional meaning. There are nine possible connections between event-matters: The arrows within the connectivity line define the relational direction between event-matters. They can also indicate a dual direction (bidirectional). As an example for a fragment: A fragment of matter from the micro fragment level analysis may be defined as net emission fragment or net reception fragment depending on the much higher number of outbound connections or otherwise inbound connections, respectively. Graphically: In addition, with regard to the relation between the fragment and the adjacent zone, we might highlight the relation between the theoretical density and the Net fragment position (much more it will be said about adjacency). Graphically: While in A the theoretical arena supports a matter density and transformation capacity that has the power to connect in a pushing sense other adjacent matter; in B the reverse occurs since theories applied to a matter density and transformation capacity that is connected in the sense that is being pushed by other adjacent matter. This feature has relevance in science applications. An example of A is nanotechnology applied in medicine, aircraft and other industries as well. An example of B is a biological Holon. Notice how the regulated matter should attend both types of fragment features. C and D are the same but with a much broad theoretical framework. In regulated matter terms, D should be specially monitored for its high adjacent influence and theoretical complexity. The micro fragment connectivity density is an indicator of the complexity behaviour of the fragment, meaning the causes of the entire fragment behaviour are not completely understood. Density in micro fragments quantity and their connectivity are strictly linked to the time interval. Once again, is about motion. Micro fragments are considered now nodes and connectivity allows for either a two or mutli-nodes occurrence during this interval period. The drawing branch of a set of nodes are call bracket-nodes. For a more general depicted description bracket-nodes are simple circles and might be any type of matter. Graphically: In the above example there are three bracket-nodes: {4; 3; 9-8} {7; 6; 9} {2; 5} that are completely expressed in time interval t7; t6; t4 respectively. Also {1} and {10} are isolated events occurring at t4; t8 respectively. From a monitoring activity, for example, at t4 we have: {1} {2; 5}. The real assembly procedure Nicolás Persico (2021) Contractual meshes. A systemic law chapter. Buenos Aires: Editorial Dunken. as proposed by the author is properly implemented by tracking the bracket-nodes activity during a certain time interval. The model must necessarily accept some hidden connections, not properly seen either because of lack of theory or technology. The micro fragment structure are the set of bracket-nodes that remains stable during the interval period, meaning they appear consistently over time. The recognition of a structure involves an easier way to assess causes, or otherwise stated, turns the fragment simpler (less complex), provided that the structure behaviour is well understood. Recall that nodes (micro fragments) are events that takes place at a certain time and involves either physical matter or intellectual matter, and that all events at this stage takes place within a fragment, i.e., a process or activity, in which regulated, influential and a-legal matter converge. The micro fragment structure analysis is relevant for regulated matter extension predictability with special consideration of those events that occur in a non-consistently fashion and are nevertheless included as regulated matter. Graphically: So basically the micro fragment level reflects a non-fixed matter component for regulated, influential and a-legal matter expression included in a fragment. Recall that hidden connectivity exists so unjustified unregulated matter may also be expected. Both consistent and non-consistent events, regardless of their nature as matter, should directly or indirectly be involved in the activity or process that defines the fragment. An event might be consistent and notwithstanding remains out of the micro fragment structure provided that their iteration of existence over time does presents arguments in favour of a cause that is not strictly linked to the fragment mechanism or fragment-kinetics. Nevertheless, of course, their proper matter identity as entrant information for a pattern regime should assure certain fundamentals for their inclusion, or stated differently, when the activity or process that defines the fragment is seen as an entire system, this mentioned consistent but not structural event should have some identity arguments by which it remains together with all other matter included in the fragment. Therefore, micro fragment structure does not only requires bracket-nodes to be consistent over time, but their identity as an ingredient of the pattern regime should be explained from a quality analysis perspective, meaning that context analysis should provide for a sound argumentative framework in order for that event to be explained in terms of causality. Identity level deals with systemic dimension, while quality analysis deals with nodes content. Consistency speaks about the degree of existence iteration within a pattern regime, while quality analysis explain that behaviour in a narrative fashion. The reverse is also true. Non consistent events might notwithstanding pertains to micro fragment structure. The lack of iteration is not a final judgment for its exclusion, provided that there’s a sound quality analysis by which its content is justify and relevant to better understand the all structure behaviour and, in order to do so, it must necessarily be included as a structure content. Nevertheless, it should be said that both cases are to be taken with a much degree of sensitivity or modelling criteria, in order to avoid noise. Sensitivity analysis may allow for alternative micro fragment structures in order to assess the most accurate one. This is certainly a complex task since, as we saw, fragment composition – events – change over time, so structure scenarios are build based on an specific time interval. The purpose of a micro fragment structure definition is clearly to understand and easily monitor the matter behaviour, and eventually identify, and quickly and effectively act in response to changes in structure. This last may be born from physical matter behave, their prevailing transformation process, or the legal regime that applies. A structure modification may or may not change the emerge behaviour, but its existence augment the probability of a new emergence, thus representing a flag to consider. Besides from monitoring, an active propositional adaptation may be considered. In this sense, artificial nodes are those events not naturally occurred, but deliberately grafted in the fragment. Intellectual matter recognizes artificial nodes in ad hoc legal dispositions, or peripheral theorems considered as the main explanation. Physical matter recognizes artificial nodes in those taken actions that are carried out with the main intention to modify emergency fragment behaviour. Artificial nodes may become consistent in existence or even be part of the micro fragment structure. This, nevertheless, may be costly and/or riskier. Structure monitoring should always exhibit a net structure after eliminating artificial nodes in order to assess the level of dependence of the fragment to an active policy. Also, artificial nodes sustainability stands for those factors that are necessary to exist in order for the artificial process to be done. Artificial nodes should much properly be implemented as a transitional phase with the clear purpose of modifying the fragment behaviour. A black-box exists every-time complex fragments does not allow for a clear understanding of causality, and artificial nodes are implemented on a trial and error basis. When a battery sequence of artificial nodes do not reach the desire behavioural purpose, there might be an irreparable damage to the fragment identity, meaning the all patter regime should be refound. Natural inertial force principle states that all fragments, regardless of their clinical history, should tends to return back to their natural behave, that is, prior to any policy intervention. All artificial nodes have their own consistent plan. Ideally, artificial nodes should intend to acquire a non-structural identity but provoke indirect and effective effects on the entire fragment-kinetics. We now turn to a two-fragment stand-alone analysis. Under this scenario there are two existing fragments with their own properties and a certain level of interaction between them. The first question concerns the fact of a plurality of fragments within a given order. From an initial “big-bang cube/circle” a variety of fragments split out and spread all along a topological space in which a certain order is plotted. This initial big-bang figure is nothing else than the proper unity of science that encompass all possible universal matter. The splitting process entails what the author call “excision of the actual tissue” In spanish “Escisión del tejido real”. Nicolás Persico (2021) Complejidad Interpretativa ius sistémica. Instituto del Derecho sistémico. Buenos Aires: Editorial Dunken. , that is, starting from an inexhaustible reality, activities and processes are identify, and clusters of purpose-matter built, notwithstanding the micro fragment connectivity between nodes pertaining to different fragments are kept or visualized. Graphically: Two questions arise when thinking about this ordering process. The first one concerns with the identification process of the activity or process that justifies to build a fragment. The second one to adjacency criteria in order to plot fragments within the topological space in a specific disposition. The first question concerns to philosophy of science and epistemology. The second one to model design and purpose. Once and existing order and back to the to-fragment stand-alone analysis, from a micro fragment perspective: There is symmetrical intra-inter fragment connectivity density every time inter and intra fragment density correlation is positive (behaviour). Conversely, there is asymmetrical intra-inter fragment connectivity density every time inter and intra fragment density correlation is negative. In terms of inter fragment activity a Net emission and Net reception position also exists when relating two specific fragments. Graphically: Inter-fragment connectivity is relevant provided that the inter-activity nodes are structural ones for a single fragment behaviour, and quality analysis should be further done. Also, as we shall see, there’s a structure for the fragment order. Micro fragment Non-locality is defined as two or more non-connected nodes that exhibit a relevant distance among them, and a pronounced positive or negative correlation is observed. Although causality is excluded from the equation, the pattern regime explicitly includes this sort of correlations. Non locality effects are more relevant when applied to structural nodes. This effects are both on the own node existence (intermittence) and its content. The first effect concerns to identity matter. The second concern to quality analysis. As a distinct point it should be said that in the already explained symmetrical or asymmetrical intra-inter fragment connectivity density, aside from motion and in absolute terms, when the quantity of inter fragment net reception connections are superior than the corresponding intra fragment connections, and those net receptors nodes are structural ones, the fragment should rather be defined as a subsystem. Graphically: A chain of subsystems and super systems may be built. Notwithstanding, the fragment identification process and disposition should remain. When considering the structure of the fragment order and within a two-fragment analysis, it is relevant to distinguish between inter fragment types of connection: 1) structural; 2) Non-structural; 3) Strictly a-legal (fragment exterior boundaries). Graphically: Recall that theory of matter encompasses the all three levels: physical matter, their transformation capacity and regulated matter. Therefore, connectivity should distinguish among this three matter’s sort of expression. For inter-fragment theories connectivity we might draw: Inter-fragment theoretical connectivity (or simply T-connectivity) has profound indirect effects on transformation capacity perception, and from matter-kinetics, it might encourage forces toward changing paradigms. Remaining ourselves in a two-fragment stand-alone analysis, we may find a shift not only in theoretical connectivity but on their position or level of magnetism toward a predefined matter identity (process or activity), meaning a certain theory might slowly but steadily changes its applicability to fragment A to fragment B. Graphically: Then matter-kinetics assumes a continuous discrete theoretical repositioning every time a theory that initially applies to a certain matter-field turns to be more suitable to another one. Matter kinetics in this regard does not only assumes substitution effects, but also a simultaneous presence of a theory frame for two different activities and a corresponding repositioning of closeness whenever the theory is properly updated: Within this two-fragment stand-alone analysis the matter-kinetics requires a deep understanding of the regulated, influential and a-legal matter interaction, deeply analysed within the micro fragment level: Therefore, real assembly procedure recognizes nine possible micro- fragment connections that are visualized in the inter-fragment scenario: (1) Two a-legal micro fragments are assembled into a unique reality; (2) One a-legal and influential micro fragments are assembled into a unique reality; (3) One a-legal and regulated micro fragments are assembled into a unique reality; (4) One influential and a-legal micro fragments are assembled into a unique reality; (5) Two influential micro fragments are assembled into a unique reality; (6) One influential and regulated micro fragments are assembled into a unique reality; (7) A regulated and a-legal micro fragments are assembled into a unique reality; (8) A regulated and influential micro fragments are assembled into a unique reality; (9) Two regulated micro fragments are assembled into a unique reality. Notice that in all this cases there’s only one direction of connectivity, that is, from fragment A to fragment B (so, for example, nbr. 2 and 4 are different to each other). The direction could be the other way around, or also bidirectional. Micro fragments are defined as an observational level of matter and therefore their connectivity properly analysed through quality analysis. First order law commonly uses case management analysis, but socio-legal systems may also found useful to previously categorized matter and then monitor their assembly procedure. Traditional epistemology approach lead us to a sort of technicality in which reality is ultimately cropped and studied separately from different disciplines, while the real assembly procedure entails the opposite process, integrating portions of matter into a unique rational expectation of emergency behaviour. Recall that regulated, influential and a-legal matter, along with intellectual matter (theories), are all assembled into a unique holo movement in which matter express itself within an order. Case management, although pertaining to first order law, may give us a pedagogical tool to understand previous nine type of micro fragment connectivity. Thus, following two U.S. Patent Law leading cases are cited and analysed in terms of this matter’s categories and their implications: Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980). First analysis of this case should allow us to differentiate between matter theory as formulated on this book and matter as defined by law. In this sense 35 U.S.C. § 101 provides that: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." Therefore matter is reduced under the terms of law to its physical dimension. Notwithstanding, the transformation capacity and the intellectual matter are also included as regulated matter (patentable) provided that certain conditions are met. A second view on this case-subject, allow us to properly differentiate between a-legal matter as “products of nature” (micro-organisms); regulated matter as “human-made genetically engineered bacterium” (in the case “capable of breaking down multiple components of crude oil. Because of this property, which is possessed by no naturally occurring bacteria, Chakrabarty's invention is believed to have significant value for the treatment of oil spills”); and influential matter as the research activity to find new bacteria and their usefulness. At the very heart of this case decisional rationale it was stated that: “Congress thus recognized that the relevant distinction was not between living and inanimate things, but between products of nature, whether living or not, and human-made inventions. Here, respondent's micro-organism is the result of human ingenuity and research. Hence, the passage of the Plant Patent Act affords the Government no support.” This certainly proposes, from quality analysis, a certain level of pattern interaction between regulated and influential matter that is enhancing research activity to find new “living thing” patentable bacteria to be considered “composition of matter”. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978) The first concern in this case, from the matter theory as exposed herein, is whether intellectual matter is patentable itself or not. The judicial sentence bases the ruling on a variety of reasons which can be conceptually structured in the following reasoning: (1) “It is a commonplace that laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter”; (2) A scientific theory may be deeply disruptive on its paradigmatic foundations (i.e. Newton`s law or relativity theory) and nevertheless be considered as law of nature or abstract idea, therefore unpatentable; (3) An algorithm may be found to be treated as law of nature provided that it is not an entire process or activity but rather stands for a specific purpose within a certain process. This last reasoning is not explicitly mentioned in the court ruling in which nevertheless the algorithm is described in their purpose to accomplish “an intermediate step which uses an algorithm to calculate an updated alarm-limit value” (“identification of a limited category of useful, though conventional, post-solution applications of such a formula does not make the method eligible for patent protection”). The fundamental brings us to the question of the minimal portion of matter eligible as regulated matter. Stated differently, as the matter-fragment involves an activity or process, micro fragments would only be eligible as regulated matter if they stand as a differentiated process on itself, but not as only an abstract isolated intellectual matter. Please be aware that we are equalizing the terms “regulated matter” with “patentable”, which is not quite the same. This is quite truth since algorithms may found to be running under certain legal conditions, therefore being a regulated matter, and nevertheless may not be patentable-eligible. The case then introduce in matter-kinetics an intellectual matter that operates under T-magnetism principles and at the same time might or might be not eligible as regulated matter. Once again, we refer to a much broader concept than patent law. Graphically: Under a more complete categorization of intellectual matter: Please notice that intellectual matter under this categorization process it’s not the mere “lettre théorique” but the proper physical matter that involves the process explained by theory, so that the circle and the T-magnetism semicircles are profoundly merged. Also, that a unique theory – semicircle - might be composed or rather decomposed in intellectual matter pertaining to the three different types of matter already explained. The two-fragment stand-alone matter-kinetics analysis introduces two concepts: 1) Adjacency; 2) Distance between fragments. Nevertheless, the level is only capable of the introduction, requiring their complete analysis a holistic view of the topological space within an order. From this last perspective: 1) adjacency defines why a specific fragment is located near another one or, in a broad picture, the fragment disposition; 2) Distance between fragments takes the form of a porosity principle within a mesh, as already explained by the author Nicolás Persico (2021) Contractual meshes. A systemic law chapter. Buenos Aires: Editorial Dunken. . Adjacency concerns with mind-order by which a disposition is built and an understanding of all available matter proceeds. Although different criteria may apply, adjacency normally takes into account the micro fragment level of connectivity density. The more density, the closer fragments should be, for a cluster to be recognized. A cluster is a high frequency micro fragment connectivity zone. Within each fragment zone density should be higher for an iterative activity to happen. Inter-fragment connectivity density defines fragment adjacency in a certain disposition. Therefore, clusters might be composed of matter within a fragment and/or inter-fragment zone. They represent a visualization of a bio-emergence, an observed natural evolution of activities. High Frequency in connectivity means that both level of iteration and durability (time interval) are greater than other connections. This is a normal characteristic for a fragment since recurrent connections are expected to happen within a predefined process or activity. On the contrary, inter-fragment connectivity does not match a specific activity but rather a fundamental in quality analysis or a certain correlation pattern. This inter-fragment level of connection defines fragment adjacency or mesh disposition: From the last graph we can see how adjacency is plotted according to clustering principle (connectivity density). When any given cluster involves an identify process or activity it might be considered a fragment. Also, there’s an outbound and inbound balancing force in any given fragment order, pretty much like the internal forces faced by all the wheels of a war tank. Any time there’s a net inbound/outbound position or marginal force, it produces the fragment to move its adjacency position, provided that there is enough inter fragment space for that to happen. Graphically: Recall that a net inbound or outbound position means that the fragment is more event-dependant or event-influencer, respectively. Adjacency movement might follow different logic systems: it may reduce distance or augment it every time there’s a net inbound or outbound behaviour. The corresponding fragment mesh will behave accordingly. This way, matter-kinetics offers a dynamical topological visualization of behavioural emergency. Recall that matter is defined in four dimensions: time, space, relational ontology, axiological ontology: M (t, s, r, a). Therefore, fragment adjacency directional movement might be represented according the following: Here matter is analysed at the fragment level and through matter-kinetics six adjacency movements are properly identified. Relational ontology are defined by the six adjacent fragments surrounding the analysed fragment; and the distance in between them (in all six directions) defines the level of adjacency capability movement: {1; 4} - ● / {2; 5} - ● / {3; 6} - ● | ●: = circle diameter of the analysed fragment. Relational ontology then deals with matter identity since the geo position refers to the fragment as entry information within a pattern regime. On the contrary, axiological ontology concerns with quality analysis, specifically taken from philosophy of science, defining the moral relevance of a certain matter-fragment or micro fragment within the objective reality. Graphically: Note that we are indirectly defining t, s within the digital arena (as relational value) and the objective external reality (ontological value). This t, s dual scenographic dynamics carries some kinetics consequences, and the all-purpose shall be for the digital model system to allow for prediction and timely decision-making support. For instance, an analysis should take into account the magnitude of the matter involved (in a fragment defined by the all activity) with its intrinsic axiology value or extension, therefore recognizing a symmetric, asymmetric and random performance. Graphically: Since the matter magnitude may be digitally assess, there’s a need for a further step in the prior comparison, including the effect of decoding a possible meta- language to an object language. Graphically: Within the relational value and back to adjacency as a property or matter-kinetics, once we have define de adjacency movement capacity, we shall distinguish from the behavioural perspective the physical and the intellectual matter movement, and finally they overall movement. With regard to the physical movement, an augmented fragment in which new entrant information refers to a marginal activity or portion of reality that previously does not exist, depending upon the fulfilment criteria of the circle area that marginal physical matter can actually involves an additional area in any of the six adjacent directions, as long as the convention states that the new resulting figure is not a perfect circle any more. Graphically: Should the resulting figure remains a perfect circle the additional area that represents the marginal physical matter should spread proportionally and the question regarding the centre of the figure remains. Graphically: With regard to intellectual matter, the adjacent movement should provide an accurate measure of both the level of theory checking or distance with the circle analysed (physical matter) and the level of proximity or distance with regard to the implied theories of the adjacent fragments. For an equidistance scenario in theory checking (physical matter or circle under analysis), a theory adjacent movement will encompass a simultaneous distance movement with all theories included in all six adjacent fragments. When we turn to quadrant movement expectation eight possible adjacency movements emerge. Graphically: If we assume equidistance for each theory under matter-analysis with regard to theories implied in the adjacent fragments, that is, the theory network, we then graph: Please note that we now include a black point in the semicircle as some of them requires to change their degree position (rotation) in order to look always to the physical matter under analysis. Recall that, up to now, we pass from a two-fragment stand-alone matter-kinetics analysis right to an adjacency fragment environment in which matter-kinetics seems a little more confuse. The possibility of splitting of the movement of physical matter from that pertaining to intellectual matter makes matter-kinetics dynamics more complex. Physical matter (circles) distance depends on micro fragments connectivity clusters. The more inter-fragment connectivity, the closer the fragments become. Intellectual matter closeness is much more intricate as it depends both on distance to physical matter of application (under analysis by the theory) and distance to the theoretical network (theories pertaining to adjacent fragments). Remember that in evaluating the coordination of both types of intellectual matter movements, a theory is always merged with their corresponding physical matter so a unique matter theory prevails. Black point dynamics introduces distance from the intellectual matter perspective under the assumption of a unique theory that applies simultaneously to different physical matters located at their six possible directions. The meaning of geodesic point might then be added as black point geo localization from where all antennas are then plotted (semicircles). Graphically: So basically black points within the fragment order are the geo localizations that represents the geodesic point of a unique theory that simultaneously applies to a variety of activities or fragments thus including various semi circles or antennas. Previous analysis lead us to assess the effect of updating a theory content on the entire theoretical network depending upon the quantity of fragments involved in the theory and the distance effect for each one. Following a chart to clarify this point: The unity of distance might be centimetres (cm) or any other provided that it serves the logical system offered by the model. Note that a change in the number of circles or fragments might also occur. A black point serves the purpose of recognizing that this all semi circles or antennas correspond to the same theory, although a paradox emerge from this since each of the antennas are not properly identical one to another because of the merged principle with the physical matter. Stated differently, the “lettre théorique” for each antenna is identical but it is applied and therefore merged with different activities or fragments, and being all sorts of matter ingredients of a unique matter theory expression, we conclude that it would be incorrect to treat this antennas as identical in nature. Just as we define a connectivity-cluster in the micro fragment level, we can now define an intellectual matter cluster as a group of antennas that share the same “lettre théorique” but applies to different physical matters or fragments. Therefore: Please notice that theirs is an emergent regulated matter applicable to both physical and intellectual matter (and its transformation capacity), and the visible distinction between patentable matter in which theories are fully merged with fragments on one side (unique arrow from bottom to top), and black points or scientific deeper theories by which an intellectual order is plotted that although not patentable conforms a certain paradigm (in this case the arrow goes from top to bottom). From a research and development standpoint, we must now introduce people to matter theory. People are visualize in their functional contribution to transformation capacity, that is, as communities of practice. From the modelling standpoint the passage allows for ABMs modelling (Agent-Based systems) where agents are COPs (communities of practice). Let’s first distinguish our neural diamond concept of regulated matter: Now activity theory are introduced to matter scenography by COPs and their corresponding geo localization whether physical or digital. Graphically: Recall that there is one t, s for real objective ontology and another one for the digital world (IP), so that activity monitoring of R&D differs and should be appropriated matched. COPs can also work on a wide range of fragments as a new sort of clustering. COPs-clustering is defined as the sum of fragments in which a certain COP works with. For a two-fragments stands alone level: Notice that the COPs working simultaneously on each fragment do not necessarily fully matches (** ≠ **). COPs-clustering turns the visualized monitoring matter order much complex and should therefore advise to smartly introduce the minimum additional data to the graph in this case. Regulated matter might fluctuate in the reduction or augmentation process of the fragment order (here we assume a unique physical mass that represents all fragments within an order): Notice that the only natural positive correlation is between COPs and regulated matter, since more people involved would naturally provoke, sooner or later, law intervention. In another vain, up to now the event-micro fragment activity was an issue that simply was taken as raw data for a given system model. Truth is that virtual modelling would require a data science to collect and structure all available and relevant data that conforms a given matter order. In order to do so, algorithms are used to identify and assign mater identities that are pertinent to the matter order, thus automatically proposing a geo-location for what can be seen either as data or event interchangeably. An artificial matter order will then plot data into a topological space under a certain logical system and according predefined criteria. From a given matter order a structure is built, both recognized as a holo-movement. Should two algorithms are used (one for the order, and other for the structure which will consist of event-clustering or high frequency connectivity between events and for a stable period of the interval time analysed), then there’s a risk of either different data included or identity mismatching. Difference in raw data may be adequately visualized as follows: Accordingly, structural algorithm should assure a predefined criteria that is compatible in terms of selected raw data with the prevailing matter-order algorithm. Graphically: An artificial matter-order requires technical IT skills both to manage big quantities of data (events) and structure it (matter identity in a certain pattern frame) in a fashion, effective and usable format. The ratio micro-fragment/fragment tell us how much activities that requires theories from any given discipline emerge for a certain quantity of data. Stated differently, for a certain quantity of events a clustering process would reveal how matter express itself in terms of activities. Similarly, the ratio black points/intellectual matter antennas will should how science build its fundamentals in order to pass from abstract paradigmatic theories to patentable ideas. Finally, the ratio physical matter/ intellectual matter will keep an eye on unity of applicable knowledge to matter as physical event and according to its transformation capacity. All this ratio may naturally evolve in time and epistemology science bring us with dispersion and concentration processes of science along with the continuously augmented portfolio of matter evolution forms. “Regulated matter” as a law institute then requires a more extensive field of study for a theory of matter to include it and propose a certain environment or scenography along with the already mentioned matter-kinetics rationale. Of course additional specific ratios can be proposed for this regulated matter, in its behavioural correlation pattern with all event-micro fragment, fragment, antennas and black points’ evolution. Also, with COPs population. Back with order and structure dilemmas, within the already explained by the author ius systemic adjectival method Nicolás Persico (2020) Estudio exploratorio sobre la conformación de un Derecho sistémico. Buenos Aires: Editorial Dunken. , a normal data-quantity curve would look as follows: Take into account that in this context a frame will simply choose that portion of matter within the holo movement that conforms the matter-order, in which the pretended analysed matter is included. It is therefore a target-tool for matter-kinetics in the sense that matter to be analysed is selected according to some predefined criteria within a solution-searching process. Note also that the matter-frame is not a fixed line, since its mathematical representation allow for parameters that can take different quantities over time. One ius systemic order in this context is simply a matter order in which regulated matter exists and is properly included. Elementary law dynamics proceeds every time there is a micro-fragment connectivity phenomena in which regulated matter connects with other type of matter. Let’s continue now with connectivity, a property that appear in every Holon whether micro fragment or fragment level. In all the above examples of connectivity only two portions of matter were actually connected, with no graphical distinction between functional, motivational or causal indication. A much more detail visualization may distinguish among the type of connectivity while any number of possible matter-portions connected may be adequately contemplated. For the micro level: As you can guess from the above graph the behavioural connectivity may become complex to visualize with connectivity-clusters in which matter-portions vary both from regulated, influential and a-legal types of matter and in the total number that conforms the cluster. Note that motivational and causal connectivity are in essence sequential, while functional may be either sequential or simultaneous. Also, the cluster may connect portions inner or inter fragmentally. Precisely because of this the author refers to the process of “excision of actual tissue” In Spanish “Escisión del tejido real”. See: Nicolás Persico (2021) La complejidad interpretativa ius sistémica. Instituto del Derecho sistémico. Buenos Aires: Editorial Dunken. . This process is rather different in quality analysis or external objective philosophical ontology; or quantitative approach within a pattern regime and a systemic dimension of sociology of law. When visualization takes into account a discrete time, at each instant a specific set of matter-portions within each cluster is actually activated within a matter order. This means that not all the portions of a cluster is readable in the same moment of time, or stated differently, that cluster conformation might necessarily takes into account more than one instant of time to be completely dimensioned on its extension. Similarly, at a very instant of time, a matter-portion of any kind may be readable as pertaining to two or more clusters simultaneously. In such cases a symbol may be introduced to adequately recognize as suggested following: Once again black points comes into help, this time to allow for a proper inter-clustering visualization. It is worth to clarify that a-legal matter will only allow for a causal sort of connectivity when the causality is not legal in nature, otherwise it should be necessarily influential. Note also that black points could refer to a stand-alone portion matter or to two or more portion-group which simultaneously conforms two or more clusters. Graphically: The resulting graph mimics the brain synapsis functioning or network theory for a micro fragment emergent behaviour within a certain matter order. Once again approaching an artificial matter order, and the logic behind algorithms, it should be said that infinite possible algorithmic strategies exists in trying to build this artificial system. Just to mention an example, the execution process might consider the following order: (1) A Regtech programming module to define the set of norms with continuous updates taken as axioms within the order; (2) A SVM algorithm (Support Vector Machine) to differentiate entry data according to two types: (a) those that mention a norm included in the set and (b) Those that do not; (3) K-Means algorithm over the universe data (a) (mention of the norm) in order to build clusters for each norm; (4) An Association rule mining algorithm applied to (3) to identify conducts or implicit law surrounding each norm; (5) The search for conducts or implicit law surrounding data that do not include a norm; (6) An Association rule mining algorithm to identify those conducts that are highly correlated with the conducts surrounding norms directly (3) or indirectly (4); (7) A Bayesian algorithm in order to build attributes of the conducts mentioned in the previous point, so as to build an influential matter reality, which could help in assessing probabilities of activating norms according to certain conducts or events; (8) An artificial matter order design including the regulated and influential matter. Graphically: The strategy example does not consider the technical viability of its implementation but simply suggest an algorithmic sequence according to logic or deductive criteria. Please note that the volume of data do not depends on this sequential strategy bur rather on the time interval and activated filters for entry data (data mining) in the World Wide Web (www.) Also, that the strategy pertains to second order law since influential and a-legal matter are considered pari passu with the regulated matter. In addition, correlation of actions should take the form of a type of connectivity or otherwise a non-locality feature. The described example of an algorithmic strategy to build an artificial matter order may be view in their process from a mechanical standpoint highlighting the data process treatment: It is clear now that the search for conducts or implicit law surrounding data that do not include a norm (6) will require some sort of filter criteria - rather difficult since it should intends to predict a priori actions that might have behavioural correlations with those that mention the norm – and ultimately determine the volume of data during a specific interval of time. Within artificial matter orders there’s a predefined criteria implemented through filtering data and algorithms design. This feature does not imply an emergent behaviour abolition but rather its expression according to some structuring data design. Notwithstanding, pattern regime will always have to be consistent with some quality order defined as the narrative analysis by which a certain pattern regime is explained. Quality analysis takes into consideration all types of connectivity – functional, motivational and causal – along with non-locality behaviour – distant portions or nodes that behave under high positive or negative correlation although without connectivity -, and bring us with the rationale behind or what we may call the fundamentals of a certain matter structure or order. Thus, a matter order or matter structure might be inexplicable at some degree, provided that it shows an observable pattern regime which is not adequately explained through quality analysis. An inexplicable pattern regime may presents either good or bad results. A good result is a paradox: how can we define a good result without knowing the process by which those results are conquer? How could we declare in this context that artificial nodes are not to be taken into account? A bad result might also be a reasonable one. So facing either an explicable or inexplicable matter order, whenever patterns are intended to be modified, regulated matter is something to be check and properly review in an attempt to modify with the arm of law the prevailing pattern regime. Additionally, an indirect path should consider influential and a-legal portions of matter and their potential micro fragment clustering effects. Consider now that while matter expression is biological in nature, connectivity visualization is much more likely to be approached from electronics. Therefore, we are dealing with natural bioelectronics matter order defined as a matter order that express its biological holo-movement according to certain electronic principles. For instance, the mechanical view of the algorithm strategy implemented to build artificial matter orders, is comparable with an electronic board in which information flows according to some logical design (see graph from previous example). We turn now to analyse connectivity at the fragment level. Within this level, the types of connectivity will not be reduced to the simple trinomial already mentioned for the micro fragment level (causal, functional and motivational). This is because at the fragment level there is direct interaction with the intellectual matter and therefore some knowledge structuration has already happen. It is expected then that fragment connectivity types will be defined according to knowledge management. Please be aware that there is a micro inter-fragment connectivity in which the trinomial types applies, and an inter-fragment connectivity latu sensu (that is connection between fragments). Fragments as activities or structured matter shall require a more exquisite quality analysis to define the nature of the relationship among them. This last should be properly differentiated from fragment adjacency principle in which certain homogenous criteria is taken into account for the all matter order, commonly the degree or extension of the micro inter-fragment connectivity. Now, inter-fragment connectivity have been approach from a micro fragment level, thus far away from intellectual matter, and closer to adjacent property. It’s now time to consider an inter-fragment connection that considers the all fragment not only on his physical and transformation capacity but also and specifically on the intellectual matter that is merged. From this standpoint, it seems that connectivity respond to certain paradigm in which all available fragments are linked one to another according some technical explanation that pertains to quality assessment. Stated differently, should any fragment suffers from an intellectual matter modification, the entire order quality relationship might simultaneously update their quality fundamentals by which the matter stay together as a definition of a system. But this explanation may not belong to a specific scientific theory but rather on a holistic view that expresses the way in which a matter order is structured not from the pattern regime but from the general logic behind those patterns. It seems that we found a field in between philosophy and science. A field that should also be included within matter kinetics. Visualization of this field, however, shall necessarily sin for being too simple, mainly because the nature of this connectivity expression is through quality analysis at the fuzzy general level of matter cohesion. From the theoretical standpoint a shyly description of this quality cohesive order within transdisciplinar systems was presented by the author as “cognitive tensors” See: Nicolás Persico (2021) La complejidad interpretativa ius sistémica. Instituto del Derecho sistémico. Buenos Aires: Editorial Dunken. , a concept that emulates a method to recognize matter expression on its interdisciplinary nature. In order to include this fragment-cohesive connectivity within a matter order a symbol commonly used in the electromagnetic field is preferably, just to reinforce this cohesive effect. Graphically: Recall that fragment cohesive connectivity is different from the micro level and thus adjacency principle does not apply. Therefore, as within a given matter order each fragment is cohesively connected with all others under a unique entire explanation call “paradigm”, the symbol shall looks like follows: In (A) the black bar pertains to a single fragment meaning that there’s a philosophical and scientific reason by which this activity remains together with all other available fragments within a matter order. Instead, in (B) the black bar is at the top left side, meaning that the entire matter order is adequately explained on its cohesive quality explanation. A fragment might present a quite cluster density of intra and inter connectivity at the micro level and, notwithstanding, may lack from the black bar or an adequate explanation of the integration property according to knowledge management. This may turn the theoretical explanation of this fragment rather modular, capable of behavioural contribution but unable to be explained as a part of the whole. Therefore a modular fragment is defined as one in which fragment-cohesive connectivity does not adequately explain its existence as a part of the whole. This feature is not very common in nature where the opposite is the rule, meaning each biological specie has a purpose for the whole. But in biology we stay at the physical matter level and science contribution historically reinforce this purpose-integrative style. When transformation capacity is added, modular fragments may appear. A regulated matter should consider from their legal risk assessment the level of modularity of a regulated fragment (i.e. a fragment that includes regulated matter). When dealing with micro level connectivity, we could say that more connectivity entails more risk. When dealing with fragment cohesive connectivity the problem becomes a field pertaining to philosophy of law. This last sentence explicitly assumes that philosophy of law pertains to a discipline that is in between philosophy and science (in this case the organizational science). By the way, non-locality effects at the micro level takes into consideration the behavioural high positive or negative correlation between portions or micro fragments, while at the fragment level the correlation assumes a weak fragment-cohesive connectivity and a quality analysis that cannot properly explain why such behavioural correlation exists. The correlation in this last case is not about the proper matter existence or identity (as in the micro level) but on the form, restrictions or any other presentable feature that an activity assumes as a fragment. The correlation then takes the form: FR (A) (FE1) → FR (B) (FE2) (every time fragment A assumes feature 1, fragment B assumes feature 2), being FR (A) & FR (B) weakly cohesively connected and without a quality analysis able to explain this feature correlation between fragments. Should the fragments been strongly cohesively connected, quality analysis is expected to be capable of technically arguing fundamentals of the behavioural correlation or any other pattern between them, although this is not necessarily true in all cases due to the insufficient level of knowledge acquire by intellectual matter for each fragment. To put it in a more readable fashion, philosophy of science might explain the linkage between to activities of matter, but the understanding by science of this two isolated fragments might not be enough in order to explain certain observable correlations of behaviour among them. Matter-kinetics is not only supported on the connectivity expression of matter, fully or partially explainable by quality analysis. It also includes the already mentioned real or matter assembly procedure. At the micro fragment level the procedure involves tracking connectivity among portions. But aside from that, it shall be the process by which a fragment takes a special form (fragment level), or an activity is done in a certain way, or presenting some specific features (which may in turn allow for non-locality effects). This special form is basically the matter’s morpho-emergence where all the fragment portions do not only connect to each other but coordinate themselves in such a way so as for the fragment to become unique not only with regard to others fragments but to itself during the passing time interval, namely matter evolution. The real or matter assembly procedure as a topic of matter-kinetics is defined as the procedure by which portions of matter are assembled or articulated so as to draw a unique matter-form or DNA, namely the fragment. Notice that it is not about connectivity but assemblages, a procedure in which physical and intellectual matter merger in such a way that a transformation capacity level is born, with its corresponding cohesive-connectivity. Please notice that the real assembly procedure has been defined in two different levels: micro fragment and fragment one. But at the very essence of this procedure we shall refer to the fragment level, where we pass from connectivity and quality analysis to an orchestra of matter portions that justify their behaviour of staying together as a system, defines a genetic-specific ID regarding the way in which they decide to sing this melody, and a corresponding level of cohesiveness with the rest of the fragments included in the matter order. This procedure shall not be read analytically by quality management, nor by system design and monitoring for patter regime observation. It shall rather be seen as the mystery of emergency itself, where spontaneous unpredictable fusions of matter occur despite any possible rational expectation according to intellectual matter and strategic visions. This continuous fusion process takes place for a given matter order all together at all instant of times, and from this spark there is an evolution for connectivity-orders that system models intends to visualize. Note that there is a difference between the real assembly procedure and what we call an initial “big-bang cube/circle” (where as we told a variety of fragments split out and spread all along a topological space in which a certain order is plotted). In this last “the excision of the actual tissue” observes the inexhaustible reality and according to some predefined order criteria proceeds to identify activities or fragments ordering them. In the real assembly procedure, on the contrary, the spark comes from reality itself only observable by humans after it happens, not fully understandable or even observable, but crucial to define the evolution of connectivity and cohesive expression. From the modelling perspective and matter order visualization, real assembly procedure at the fragment level shall be viewed by a continuous changing of colours in the matter-order dashboard. Pretty much as a climate dashboard where red is hot, blue is cold, and winds bring motion. Matter capacity transformation evolves and in doing so matter-colours changes. Matter volume (quantity) for each activity (fragment) evolves and a certain tonality for the selected colour changes. Micro fragment connectivity evolves and clustering space-variations are seen through a fixed colour that continuously moves. Cohesive-connectivity evolves and thus a certain background colour. In sum, the real assembly procedure is not something analytically seen like predictable (although colour movements can later by analysed) but rather a sparkle that guides all other matter-related concepts. The procedure includes simultaneously all available clustering activities summed up: micro fragment connectivity, fragment matter identity and black points as intellectual matter clustering. This clustering confluences calls for matter conformation at all levels, permanently, instantly, at all times and plotted all over the same topological space. It is what allows for matter order evolving coherence. History of science shows for each period, applying Matter theory, a constant evolutionary phase in which the real assembly procedure exhibit some fragment order, a level of matter transformation capacity (morpho-matter), a micro connectivity behaviour, and a corresponding level of intellectual matter as knowledge cohesively unified around the prevailing black points. Precisely within this history of matter order, Regulatory-kinetics consider regulated matter behaviour and interaction within matter-kinetics. It is a new topic of law discipline introduced by systemic law as a second order one. The topic introduces the “regulated matter” as an abstract concept and allow for its behavioural study by including it within a broader Matter theory. Stated differently, it propose an ius systemic matter order. Regulatory-kinetics uses a logical reasoning for modelling data and a corresponding quality analysis to explain the behavioural patter regime, taking into consideration specifically the regulated matter, its dynamical behave and interaction within a matter order. Content analysis shall follow data entry flow commonly involving conducts and norms pertaining to different law branches, but keeping a certain coherence both in matter connectivity and activities identity (fragments). Law shall not be approached by case management and prior branching definition, but rather view as merged physical and intellectual matter that conforms micro fragments of regulated matter, agglutinated with other sorts of micro fragments – influential and a-legal matter – in a precisely way according to the continuous real assembly procedure, so as to recognize a certain fragment order. Some of the topics that regulatory-kinetics approach are: 1) Regulated matter identity process, that is, how regulated matter is conceived when occur within a certain matter order, meaning its geo spatial position, surrounding matter, and belonging fragment; 2) Micro fragment behave with regard to regulated matter, or other types of matter that directly or indirectly affects regulated matter according to connectivity, non-local, quality analysis or any other affordable methods; 3) Regulated matter meddling in the real assembly procedure, fragment’s identity (conformation), matter-order evolutionary behave, and the level of cohesive-connectivity. As we already told, one ius systemic order is simply a matter order in which regulated matter exists and is properly included. An ius systemic order inevitably allows for a regulatory-kinetics discipline to work in all previously mentioned topics. Matter order reads in terms of micro and macro fragments or portions of physical and intellectual matter, but systemic law discipline introduces elementary analysis considering an element as any conjunction between legal and non-legal components in which a functional differentiation occurs. Therefore, any conjunction between regulated matter and any other sort of matter, possibly read in terms of connectivity, which leads to a recognizable functional differentiation within a matter order, may well be considered as an element in terms of systemic law discipline. This feature is not to be dismissed at all since it introduces elementary law dynamics within the matter order evolving behave, a technical tool for regulatory-kinetics. It is worth to mention that already told micro and macro fragments lecture capacity that matter order entails, does not imply denying this order as holo-movement. In that sense, David Bohm A quantum physicist which philosophy of science view had been profoundly altered by the Indian Philosopher jiddu krishnamurti on his view of conscience. refers to this holo-movement as an “undivided whole in flowing motion” and wrongly differentiate it from a fragmental state, thus stating that “it is the totality that is real, and that the fragmentation is the response of that totality to the action of man, guided by an illusory perception and deformed by a fragmentary thought”. Under this view it seems quite impossible to approach this totality from a scientific perspective, while what he calls “illusory perception” is rather a consistent methodological one that recognizes its limits according to the volume of matter under study, both physical and intellectual (and the underpinning associated transformation capacity). It is precisely the probably vague term of real assembly procedure what constitutes the intentional bridge that connects the fragmental-scientific approach with the totality of a matter order. But a vague term might, notwithstanding, represents a propositional field of study in which scientific knowledge might approach this totality or matter order consistently. Regulatory-kinetics works under this uncertain and exploratory scenography with propositional fields of study. For instance, one initial approach might consider connected micro fragment morphology related to regulated matter and including elementary law dynamics. In that sense, regulated matter within any portion of matter might be seen in terms of a vehicle to inhibit or boost matter expansion or reduction in any affordable form. That is, regardless of connectivity principle, and for undefined portion of matter, the morphology of the portion or morpho-evolution should find in regulated matter a propositional efficient frontier as the maximum possible addressable (vector) expansion or reduction area within a figure (undefined portion). Graphically: In plain English norms can impact the physical and intellectual matter volume through the influence on matter transformation capacity, primarily on the matter under regulation and prior to any connectivity principle. With regards to intellectual matter, norms cannot inhibit humans to express their ideas, but can prevent abstract theories to become experimental. At the fragment level (defined-portion of matter), the inhibition feature of regulated matter is considered for strategic geo positioning in the activity process. Graphically: This actually means that regulated matter has the potential effect of fragment identity meddling, within morpho-matter dynamics, a clue to be certainly included within the real assembly procedure study. When connectivity principle is included, regulated matter effects on expansion or reduction of volume matter is exponentially augmented. For instant, a functional sort of connectivity may behave due to the norm’s effect by augmenting or reducing one node or the other, o both: Consider the complex effect of multiple portions of regulated matter within a micro fragment connectivity-cluster. Thus, regulatory kinetics certainly faces a high level of complexity. Another relevant approach that serves as clues for the real assembly procedure. In this way, matter-volume dynamics plays a role within connectivity-clustering and quality analysis should specially consider for all sorts of connectivity the influence from or to regulated matter as proper analysis of regulatory-kinetics. Graphically: Regulatory-kinetics then through pattern regime and quality analysis predict the volume of matter modification (delta) according to expected impact of norms on regulated matter on one side, and the natural interaction of this regulated matter portion with others sorts of matter (portions). Graphically: By natural interaction of portions we shall refer to connectivity and the modular contribution of intellectual matter to such connectivity. By modular we mean that only a limited and differentiated matter compound is actually merged with specific theory sets, thus also influenced by the real assembly procedure and contributing to fragment identity. Micro fragments volume dynamics directly affects fragment volume. In turns, volume is by definition a magnitude or quantitative feature, thus indicating how much physical and intellectual matter is actually involved in the activity defined by fragment identity. Recall that matter transformation capacity is also represented by the resulting volume and as such should be adequately weighted. Thus, a small portion of matter should nevertheless be highly integrated by matter transformation capacity content, which may predict using quality analysis an expansion of matter volume in the near future due to patents approval and a corresponding augmented reality of the quantity of activities involved in the physical matter treatment. What we are saying here is that matter transformation capacity although spatially represented in any matter-portion, assumes a natural power to influence volume over time and thus should be considered from a kinetic perspective. Once again the real assembly procedure gains an additional clue that can perfectly be visualized as a differentiated colour within each matter-portion. While intellectual matter deals with theory actually applied and merged to a certain physical matter; matter transformation capacity uses the prevailing physical and intellectual matter status to formally propose accessible patentable paths or otherwise an achievable modus operandi to affect an activity by a better transformation, integration, application, knowledge, discovery, observation, or conservation capacity. Its definition is rather about potentiality with imminent or near future applicability. One Regulatory-kinetics axiom consider the system of norms as a matter transformation capacity itself, capable of modifying directly or indirectly the regulated matter, and influential and a-legal one, respectively. Remember that indirect transformation introduces connectivity, clustering and quality analysis management, along with pattern regime monitoring. Graphically: Please note that black points, from which we have said they could refer to a stand-alone portion matter or to two or more portion-group which simultaneously conforms two or more clusters; may also be located in between two nodes or in a specific one. They are essentially an indicator of a connectivity exponential expression. Norms then are prescriptive animals that are taken as intellectual matter merged with the regulated matter, but their potential goes far beyond, ultimately influencing micro fragment clustering volumes and therefore the fragment volume itself as an identity expression of matter. Connectivity and their sorts of, ensure that is not about a sole norm influencing a regulated matter node on a stand-alone basis, but rather a group or set of norms that are included in portions of regulated matter within a matter-cluster, or various matter-clusters that conforms a fragment; thus influencing holistically the all fragment volume whether directly, indirectly or even remotely. Recall that a fragment is a complete process or activity in which physical and intellectual matter merged, and a matter transformation capacity occurs. This shall then be the natural environment in which norms are to be seen and properly analysed, within a systemic dimension of law. Norms then on this holistic but fragmentary view directly affects regulated matter, which in turns intrudes in the real assembly procedure and the fragment’s identity (conformation), both by influencing the connectivity architecture, propose a content for their sort of, affecting also matter-volume portions. When seen from a matter-order perspective, this meddling done by regulated matter in which norms are key raw data, are an essential contribution mechanism for pattern regime and matter-order evolution, remotely affecting the cohesive-connectivity level. Norms then are defined as a necessarily ingredient of regulated matter with the potential to affect it directly, and to affect indirectly and by a variety of channels the matter-order itself. Any norm affects a physical matter-process observable as regulated matter, and this reality-shape is delineated simultaneously with other portions of matter-reality being connected through a specific criteria. It’s is not just about volume-quantity – an approach that enable kinetics visualization models -, but on the proper matter content, for which quality analysis explain from a wide range of disciplines such as sociology and anthropology, the very nature of the relationship between portion matters that conform a fragment. Shaping a portion-matter entails a sort of decoding objective reality matter description into a visualized morpho-figure. The decoding method shall consider a multivariable frame in which every factor is weighted and has a specific meaning in terms of morpho-contribution. Portion-matter analysis then is not just visualized through cubes or circles, but through undefined figures that perfectly matches one to another in a logical methodological sense, spontaneously assembled, defining a unique DNA-fragment figure. Cubes and circles are fine for simplicity and a propositional visualized structuring data process, but matter-complexity is much more correctly represented by unnamed figures which can nevertheless recognize a certain decoding process by which matter-reality data is read and properly ordered in a geometrical sense within a topological space. Cubes and circles then, within this structuring processes, may easily contribute for a bioelectronics model of an ius systemic field. Notwithstanding, figures are more helpful to visualize the real assembly procedure in terms of a simpler puzzle in which portion-matters are pieces that simultaneously and continuously define their shape while perfectly matching to ensure a propositional order-logic. Connectivity is not an isolated variable but instead contributes by its type of definition and associated quality explanation; a contribution that also support morpho-definition of the portions involved. We can now assert with our American quantum physicist (David Bohm) that the holo-movement is continuously alive and is definable on its own terms, but differ from this giant historical scientist in that systems modelling allow for its proper visualization, granting that matter-entity at all levels with their features and properties are defined all together, definition that supports a possible scientific comprehension of totality without eliminating the fragment approach. Nevertheless, totality in this context shall not be identical to the inexhaustible reality prior to any “excision of the actual tissue”, meaning that totality as understood by any model should accept levels of simplification processes, with filters, algorithms and logical methodologies primarily used in digital worlds. In a practical sense, totality for modelling are rarely used in the matter-universe sense, but rather refers to a totality within a partiality or a subject definition (within the ius systemic procedural methodology shall be defined as the frame definition). The “modelable totality” presents a continuous tension between scientific micro fragment and fragment partiality explanation on one side, and the “electromagnetic field” that grants this portions will stay together as a system within an order, namely, the cohesive-connectivity that precedes any pattern regime and propose a higher order quality analysis (in between philosophy and science). A virtual totality as matter-universe is unconceivable not only because of the infinite entre data required – even with a high simplify model -, but because of the limits in the digitalization process which entails not fully or adequately inclusion of the consciousness deepness of inexhaustible reality. Rather, any artificial (digital) matter-order should simultaneously propose a data entry flow selection and structuring methodology implementing a sort of “excision of the actual tissue” to affront the inexhaustibility feature of reality, while simultaneously allowing for a real assembly procedure and an emergent patter regime behaviour within the matter-order. Although Bohm clearly refers to totality in the inexhaustible external reality, matter-totality should also be viewed as hierarchal clearly defined thematic Holons, thus recognizing a matter-super system order, and a corresponding matter-subsystem order; and this totality shall be perfectly understood in terms of holo-movements where “everything” is defined after an excision act, and structured in their matter-kinetics according to algorithms that emulate bio-systems. In this context, regulatory-kinetics is far away from traditional first order law that propose legal systems for comparative law. A merged law-matter portion of reality gets confused with other influential and a-legal portions, defining activities as fragments of a certain matter-order. Norms are treated as a special kind of intellectual matter, all of them merged with physical matter and their corresponding transformation capacity, but norms are specially considered for a matter categorization as “regulated matter”, an abstract concept finally proposed by systemic law. Regulated matter immersion in the matter-order, its identity and natural connectivity, its contribution to the real assembly procedure, and the observable cohesive-connectivity within a matter-order where regulated matter remotely contributes (philosophy of law in first order traditional law), are all evidence of nascent field of regulatory-kinetics. The real assembly procedure not fully understood in bio-systems operates at three levels: nano, micro and macro. We have already approach the micro fragment level (micro) and the fragment one (macro). Nano-scale are at the heart of the decoding process. Decoding shall be defined as the process by which an objective and external matter-reality description (namely data), turns into matter-identity with a specific geo position and corresponding matter-surrounding-environment. Nano-scale is compounded of what we may call “white points” (to properly differentiate it from other types of points). A white point takes data entry flow as sentences with subject, predicative and verbs, and build from a meta- language a concise description of a matter-occurrence. Nano white points build together a connected network of points in a 3D topological space. A white point cluster constitutes a micro fragment. Adjacency criteria is crucial to build micro fragment-shapes. Micro fragments should be adequately identify as differentiated parts of a whole unique activity or fragment. Decoding then transform data into geometrical figures with regard to matter-treatment. Of course, decoding only enter into the scene with one artificial (digital) matter-order building process. Graphically: Now, decoding occurs within the real assembly procedure in which matter-identity is properly defined at all levels. This means that all parts of the same fragment should be simultaneously defined through an iterative process including also the definition of the sort and direction of connectivity among micro fragments. Graphically: From a regulatory-kinetics standpoint, this means that once all data entry flow related to a certain set of norm’s applicability for a specific activity definition happens, the regulated matter and associated influential and a-legal matter is defined all together according to the prevailing flow of data and running algorithms (recall that artificial matter-order emulates bio-systems). This process is certainly at the very heart of the real assembly procedure. Micro fragments contains billions of white points, thus the digital matter-order requires a Big Data approach. Morpho-dynamics constantly decode data entry flow in new possible matter-shapes at the micro fragment level under an assembly proposal for fragments identity. We already mention the relation between the matter-order and its structure composition. Matter kinetics assumes this continuous decoding flow and adopts a constant running process of the real assembly procedure. Regulatory-kinetics dynamical environment due to the high level of quantity data is extremely uncertain at the nano-flow level – quite different from first order law -, and much more readable or even predictable within the micro fragment and fragment level, according to a certain pattern regime and quality explanation. Therefore, artificial matter-order is not very different from matter-science state of art, meaning that at the nano level the speed of change is so high that it reminds the quantum state. Sentences are continuously entering into the structuring running process and converted into a meta-language expression within a white point, while white point’s agglomeration shapes micro fragments figures and their connectivity style within a certain defined activity (fragment). Matter-kinetics adopts matter-figure transitory fuzziness as a normal behave. This means for an artificial matter-order an iterative interval of time during which nano white points express themselves in such a way that micro-fragments figures remains undefined. From quality analysis this scenario introduces uncertainty in the fragment identity and thus a certain epistemology-dynamics, meaning at a lower level that intellectual matter does not properly fusion with physical matter or a transformation capacity remains unsolved. This matter-figure transitory fuzziness is precisely fleeting, or stated differently, model visualization capacity may be discrete with intervals of time during which matter-order remains undefined. The lack of definition usually involves a certain geo spatial area within the order, and should be understand it as a regular pattern regime of matter itself. Therefore, it should be logically differentiated from chaos. Micro fragment clustering with its connectivity definition should consider matter-figure transitory fuzziness for all the micro fragments involved and their potential sort of connectivity. This means that the fuzzy area involves more than one fragment – essentially a one fragment definition within matter-order should be illogical since it would be like a puzzle with only one piece missing from which there is no figure-shape certainty – and their definition type of connectivity. Iteration should stop eventually jointly defining all this pieces with their sort of connectivity and correspondingly the fragment DNA. White points adjacency criteria simply follows the actionable closeness, meaning that the matter expression in their physical or intellectual form should exhibit a necessarily closeness according to time, space, execution, and other acceptable criteria. This last may eventually differ from micro fragment to micro fragment, even within the same fragment piece, provided that the very nature of the activities described also differ. Notwithstanding, when joining all micro fragments together in order to conform and conceive the fragment as a system, they should present perfectly matching figures for a unique reality description. System noise have been addressed from the event-consistent relation with matter-structure in cases where the event does not properly fits into the matter-structure. This sort of noise is taken from communication systems where it is comparable to “undesired random disturbance”. Undefined figures or an inconsistent decoding process where all nodes are not perfectly agglutinate are a sort of matter-noise, provided that they are out of the temporal interval limits expected for undefined expressions within the iterative running process. A noise may therefore be seen as a delay in matter-definition. However the technical scientific fragmental and micro fragmental perspective for their matter-definition accuracy shall not consider a perfect fully understandable matter-order, but rather justify certain degrees or levels of unexplained assembles (or much proper not fully explained) by downgrading the level of cohesive-connectivity. This is to say that activities are not fully understandable in their interaction because the very paradigm itself with its black points (intellectual matter clustering) does not provide full support for that to happen. A significant delay may occur repeatedly or pronounced intervals of time exhibit undefined figures, in which case noise gradually changes to a chaos matter-order. Chaos is different from disorder. An order exist every time there’s a recognizable holo-movement. Within chaos, we may face a holo-movement but matter keeps undefined. Prolonged undefined matter (chaos) leave us with a lack of lecture or vacuum in the quality analysis content. Without matter-identity and assertions from quality analysis the matter-order is useless but for the sole recognition of an observable holo-movement. Bio-systems design and existence is justify firstly on the human capability to conceive an order and secondly on their ability to be fully or partially read. Accordingly, matter-defined-order allow for regulatory-kinetics to be expressed within an identity and order, and to be available for reading purposes. This reading capacity tell us more about second order law usefulness. Back to decoding principle, it should be said that passing from a sentence format as entry data flow, to a meta-language contained in a white point, is not necessarily a linear path (one to one), meaning that one white point may contain the equivalence of a group of sentences. Clustering sentences in meta-language format within white points specially consider the physical and intellectual matter density. This means that matter-density all over a micro fragment should be similar, so as for matter-volume to gain significance. Correspondingly, intellectual matter density is properly viewed, as already told, according to the quantity of semicircles surrounding in a certain circle or cube (physical matter). Geometrically surrounding but matter-merged in significance. Another matter-feature to consider is time in artificial orders (bio-systems emulation). Intellectual matter do not consider time except as an abstract variable within theories. Notwithstanding, with merged with physical matter theirs is specific time required for the application of theories and ideas in a practical sense, in order for a certain part of a whole activity to be realized (micro fragment). All agglomerated nano-white-points uses a logic vector clock (used for distributed systems) to coordinate their processes between them, all within a certain micro fragment. This time coordination and synchronization do not equal connectivity concept, meaning that it only involves the time factor and do not define any causal, motivational or functional relationship among white points. This is particularly important since, as we already told, there are billions of white points expressing in a single micro fragment. At the micro fragment level, there is a structured concurrence time, running of the parts of the activity simultaneously and only timely restricted by the connectivity type. There is a nano-execution-break every time a significant amount of white points are timely dependant to a specific running data that has not yet been entered into the system. This should leads us to quality analysis, so as to study why this particular data wasn’t found in the world wide web, or otherwise to review the logic vector clock‘s algorithm in order to check if the dependant criteria is accurate. Logically, being billions of white points, with possible different decoding criteria, it is rather impossible to propose a vector clock‘s algorithm in which all the white points are related one to another in a timely coordination fashion. More feasible shall be the inference taken from the continuously entry white points, of the main processes contained in the whole micro fragment process, thus automatically categorizing each white point according to this inferred steps. Note that this steps are not defined once and for all, but depends continuously on the white points content inference, specifically through verbs ID and their corresponding applicable physical and intellectual matter. It is worth to mention, that a time dependant existence on a verb not yet entered unto the system – thus occurring a nano-execution break – is only possible if the clock’s algorithm uses artificial intelligence to relate internal and external data system. Please note that a logic vector clock (nano level) and a concurrence clock (micro fragment level), are both acceptable for a bioelectronics matter-order, as we already told, defined as a matter order that express its bio holo-movement according to certain electronic principles. An intellectual matter time-range is defined as the time range (from minimum to maximum) emerged from of all possible physical and transforming applications of a specific intellectual matter (theory). Intellectual matter time-range is useful in order to analyse the time-range of a fragment in which a set of theories as merged intellectual matter is defined. An accurate fragment time-range estimation should consider not only the intellectual matter time-range, but a later filter consisting of the selected possible physical and transforming applications for the defined activity (since some applications may be discarded). The following graph consider simultaneously the logic vector clock and the time-range applicability of the intellectual matter: Notice that for the first time intellectual matter is merged with physical matter at the nano-white-points level. This might involve defining an abstract applicability matter-field (description) prior to nano-white-points examination to check if they actually involves activities included in this matter-field. An intermediate programming layer in this bioelectronics model. The checking process is done automatically and instantly when entering unto the system (decoding), for all billions of white points, and clearly helps to the matter-identity process. Another feature on the nano level is data validity over time. Data entry flow is continuously converted unto white points. But this last don`t lasts forever. Aside from time range and a running logic vector clock, the points perish when new entering point are found to serve as substitutes. Point’s substitution and matter-identity process should be adequately equilibrate. A permanent substitution as an update data flow inhibit matter-identity process. A very time slow points-update turns the matter-order model delayed on its validity. For instance, in a good updating equilibrium intellectual matter-range is respected without substitutions. Within regulatory-kinetics, the nano scale should also be approached. In that sense, a regulatory-point is defined as white point in which the decoding content includes a regulated conduct (implicit norm’s call), or otherwise explicitly invokes a norm. A micro fragment of regulated matter is fully composed by regulatory-points. Also, norms as intellectual matter recognizes a matter time-range when merged with physical and transformational matter. The real assembly procedure specially takes into account the logic vector clock when relating regulated matter to other sorts of matter. Note that this is something different from connectivity, since this last consider the nature of the relation between micro fragments, while the clock simply serves as a time manager. But each micro fragment sparkle will shine for a certain range-time during which connectivity occurs. This shining interval is the micro fragment range-time. Nano substitution then is prior to micro fragment substitution, which in turns is prior to fragment substitution. Although each substitution is different in nature. Nano substitution, as already told, takes into account entering data flow, considering updates. Micro fragment substitution occurs every time the nano updates redefines the part of a whole activity in a significant level. Fragment substitution, in turns, consider the activity or process content definition as a whole, redefining their parts. Redefinition occurs simultaneously at all levels. As we already told within the real assembly procedure, matter-identity dynamics is properly visualized through matter changing colours spectrum. Then, substitution has a direct effect on matter-identity (although a substitution may occur without altering matter-identity). Matter-order artificial model propose a fine balance between events, activities and theories. Events occur at the nano decoding process. Activities are taken in their parts or entirely in the micro fragment and fragment level, respectively. Theories cut transversely all levels. An artificial nano-white-point is introduced when, from the existing data-points within a micro fragment, non-entry data is assumed to exist. Recall that abstract matter-field of theory applicability conforms a programmable layer. Then additional external dependant-data is already identified. When “A” data may only occur if “B” data has already happen, and “A” data is entry-data, then “B” data conforms an artificial nano-white-point. Artificiality turns the real assembly procedure more dynamical and shorten the matter-identity procedure. Notwithstanding, data-dependence should be irrefutable, provided that matter-redefinition may propose new ways to an activity part to be realize. More generally, an artificial matter (not in the digital matter sense as previously exposed, or rather not exclusively in that sense) should consider the case of either a physical and transformational capacity merged with an artificial or hypothetical non-prove theory; or a proved theory with a non-entry data description of intellectual matter applicability. For regulatory kinetics, artificial matter means that either a reality is merged with a hypothetical norm, or an actual norm in existence is hypothetically applied to a non-existence-case. Regulatory-artificial-matter is useful for legislative purposes, drawing an augmented reality in which the legal system is conceived. Sensitivity analysis works with intellectual (norms) and physical matter-fusion. An imperceptible hypothetical change in either the norm or the reality, may conform a rather different regulatory-point (decoded fusion) and a corresponding micro fragment, indirectly affecting the fragment figure. So artificial matter may refer to a digitally matter-representation in a broad sense, or a digitally matter-representation that includes hypothetical matter fusion (content) as recently explained. Artificiality has a level of translational property according to matter-significance. This means that artificial white point’s density should be enough so as to consider the micro fragment an artificial one. Congruently, artificial micro fragment areas should be of volume enough so as to consider the whole activity or fragment an artificial one. Also matter-artificiality includes artificial-connectivity, which is considered first order artificial connectivity when the connectivity definition is hypothetical but applies to two matter-existence terminals; and second order artificial connectivity when an artificial-matter leads to an artificial connectivity. The level of artificiality (not exclusively in the digital sense) and the propositional cohesive-connectivity are directly linked. The more artificial the matter-order is, the less proofness the propositional cohesion turns to be. This is a particular impact feature of digital matter in the philosophy of science field. Comparatively, a less cohesive non-artificial matter order is preferred to a more cohesive relatively highly artificial matter-order. Proofness shall guide the cohesive advancements. Non-locality may apply to artificial-matter (once again, not exclusively in the digital sense) and shall be considered as second order non-locality. Quality analysis should always take into account artificiality with their implicit degree of assurance or truthfulness. Hot points are defined as white points that are geometrically located at geo strategic positions, meaning that any updating change may highly influence the micro fragment figure. At the micro fragment level instead, all the prevailing micro figures shall change at a simultaneous glance, according to the real assembly procedure. In fact, for the white points the same occurs (simultaneously of changing) but geo positions are more meaningful since we are at the events level. Hot points clustering consider all or a significant portion of the hot points plotted and spread it within a matter-order. Hot points clustering analysis may help us in matter-identity order speed of change prediction, another significant clue for the real assembly procedure understanding. Regulatory-hot-points are regulatory-points which geo position is strategic for regulated matter changing figure potential, through updating process. For instance, a change in jurisprudence within first order law, applied to a regulatory-hot-point, implies that the matter under analysis has profound effects in terms of quality analysis in order to change the part of a whole activity. The dependant-data principle for artificial nano-white-point building process may be relaxed, and degrees of non-existing or external data inclusion within white points are to be acceptable with different levels of credibility categories. Graphically: Note that in the example above the white point volume remains fixed. Truth is that external data inclusion may impact the level of matter within a certain order, and not just the physical or transformational one, but also requiring additional theories to be included for a certain activity. Artificiality may then fulfil or not the intermediate layer programming regarding an abstract applicability matter-field. Stated differently, artificiality calls for entry-data-elasticity to build a certain matter-order, by adding an initial unknown extension of external-data. Order remains under a hypothetical scenario where the “staying together” principle of systems is granted. At the initial pages of this book we have refer to micro fragments as events, while afterwards we properly differentiate between a part of an activity (micro fragment) and an event (nano-scale). Thing is that an event may well be understood in terms of a set of events that conform it. In that sense, a micro fragment is a type of matter-event - compounded of a set of nano-events - that is considered part of an activity. The difference is that in the nano-event there is a decoding activity by which data in sentence format (subject, verb, and predicative) is given through a meta- language a specific white point content with its corresponding geo position. A micro fragment event instead is a matter-figure in which a set of nano-events are included (white points). Graphically: Purity state of the matter-order suggest that the sort of matter of a micro fragment is a hundred percent exhibit in the sort of matter of their white points included. This is rarely the case. Usually when a part of an activity is defined and categorized as a type of matter, the part involves nano-events that may not be of the same type, although this apparently incongruence shall be not, provided that this not matching types of matter between levels remains the minority within the micro fragment figure Resembling the mixing in fluid mechanics. Also within the cube format the types of matter where geo clustered in the sense that each type of matter is located within an area of the fragment. This is a little beat idealistic, for normally the fragment figure will show a dispersion of all sorts of matter all along the figure. But it turns to be useful for pedagogical purposes for it makes visualization much easier. Nevertheless, we have introduce an example of an undefined portion of matter with a disperse type of matter scenario, where matter-figures principles could also stand. The possibility of a holo-gradualism introduces the scientific approach to the holo-fragmentary dilemma, thus moving away from Bohm’s apparent antagonism. Specifically, it allows for a holo-analysis from a scientifically perspective. Initiating by matter-universe as holo undoubtedly lead us to an assertion of a scientific impossibility of totality-analysis. Instead, totality is seen as something definable on its extension as well as their fragmentary composition. One might argue that it is ridiculous to define a totality concept knowing that there is much more matter outside the totality frontier. But it is also ridiculous to define totality as a matter-universe where matter-limits are not delimited with knowledge (in fact the same notion of matter-limit seems to be inapplicable). By this means, the matter-order as holo-movement with continuous entry data flow that pass through a structuring process call matter-identity, may perfectly show as previously exhibit a natural data-volume variability. Graphically: From the above graph we may differentiate over and under regulation within first a second order law. In first order law the approach shall always be the subject under regulation and the quantity and deepness of the norms involved. In second order law, regulatory-kinetics allow as for a certain matter-order to approach over and under regulation from a relative perspective, since regulated matter volume variation may increase or decrease in percentage terms relative to influential and a-legal matter. Accordingly, regulatory-kinetics defines over regulation every time the regulated matter increase more than other types of matter within a certain matter-order. Conversely, under regulation is defined as the process by which regulated matter decrease more than other types of matter within a certain matter-order. Recall that when we refer to a matter-order we are dealing with holo-movements, thus, with motion. Also under the regulatory-kinetics arena, a noise in over or under regulation occurs every time there is sudden and shortly consistent upward and downward movement in the level of regulated matter quantity within a certain matter-order. Influential and a-legal sorts of matter may also face noise of volume-order. Graphically: Within the decoding process volume-analysis recognizes three mayor types of volumes: 1) data-volume; 2) matter-volume; 3) geometry-volume. The decoding process offer two volume conversions: 1) data to matter conversion; 2) matter to geometry conversion. Data to matter basically read the sentences format and assess a level of implied physical and intellectual matter with its corresponding transformation capacity. Matter to geometry recognize a matter portion an offer a topological visualization. Decoding method start from a data-digital-volume flow and continuously convert it into a matter-volume by writing in meta language the described matter reality within each white point. This last matter-volume is proportionally to geometry-volume within a topological space. A homogenous diameter for all circle-points that conforms a micro figure requires the same matter-volume representation. Stated differently, there may be different diameters-circle-points within a micro figure, provided that the nano-events exhibit different levels of matter intervention. The resulting figure shall always be the result of nano-events logically agglomerated as an emergency property and a nano-behave within the real assembly procedure. Graphically: Transitory lack of matter-identity during the continuous visualization process presents a time gap between the data to matter on one side, and the matter to geometry on the other (conversions). During this time gap registered portions of matter lie in the soft-cloud without a matter-figure assigned. This shall be carefully indicated within the panel visualization of any artificial matter-order and is a relevant feature of digital matter-kinetics. With regard to the real assembly procedure, from which we said that defines matter-identity and integrates portions of matter into a unique rational expectation of emergency behaviour, we shall now review previously described clues for its proper analysis and key factors as well, among others: (a) Micro fragment level: (1) tracking the bracket-nodes activity during a certain time interval; (2) In the regulated matter meddling; (3) From the complex effect of multiple portions of regulated matter within a micro fragment connectivity-cluster; (4) Hot points clustering that considers all or a significant portion of the hot points plotted and spread it within a matter-order (b) Fragment level: cohesive-connectivity gradualism; (c) Macro-matter: holon-gradualism; (d) All levels: The matter transformation capacity, that although spatially represented in any matter-portion, assumes a natural power to influence volume over time and thus should be considered from a kinetic perspective. The real assembly procedure in an artificial matter-order has bio-systems and electronic principles properties, thus, showing a bioelectronics model. Recall that there is an ius systemic matter field every time there’s a matter order that includes regulated matter. It’s now time to approach a bioelectronics model of an ius systemic matter field derived from the already matter-kinetics foundations, which certainly includes as main topics regulatory-kinetics and the real assembly procedure. Such a model might be initially draw under simple assumptions as follows: Bioelectronics is a field of research in the convergence of biology and electronics, for the implementation of new information processing systems, including the nano-scale. While digital-data flow on its concepts represents the holo-movement of an external objective bio-reality, there is an artificial structuring-data process by which matter-identity and agglomeration emergently occurs in a readable and useful format. Decoding is in between bio and electronic principles. Surprisingly, artificiality with the use of algorithms and AI may replicate a bio-emergency property able to be fashionably visualized. This replication is at the very heart of the real assembly procedure and matter-kinetics dynamics. Regulatory-kinetics as a branch of second order law is properly approach from systemic law for a research field in which legal and non-legal phenomena interacts in new unthinking ways with unprecedented results. 57