The Enigma of BIM

This position paper outlines a number of key questions concerning BIM (Building Information Modelling), as well as the arguments and the historical background behind them. These include the incomplete theory of BIM, the reasons for the emergence of understanding BIM as a panacea for all ills in AECO (architecture, engineering, construction and operation of buildings), the relation between BIM promise and BIM performance, some of the key misconceptions and misunderstandings concerning BIM, and fundamental concerns about what is assumed to be the future of BIM. The paper concludes by suggesting four themes for further discussion and research into the nature and future of BIM and of AECO computerization in general: BIM theory, implementation, the view from practice and legislation / policies.

Friedenslogik – Leistungsvermögen, Geltungsanspruch, Anfragen*

The logic of peace approach possesses specific potentials: It distills a few essentials of peace, makes peace more fluid, and defines peace and security in a special manner. Maybe it also provides a base for a deep reflexive but always incomplete theory of peace. The claimed validity can be described as a conditioned universality. Points of criticism can be refuted: The discrimination between peace and security is still necessary. Safety remains an important value, but it should be achieved by the logic of peace instead by the logic of security. Obviously, a powerful and ‘hell-bent’ aggressor is an excessive demand. But this is true for all logics. Instead of giving up the approach, it is better to make contextual adjustments and conduct deeper elaboration.

Every Entangled Stuff Has Its Own Avatar

During the last century, entanglement was the bone of contention between the two main pillars of Physics: General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM). This began in 1935 with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox (EPR paradox) which concluded that although Quantum Mechanics is not wrong, it is an incomplete theory to represent physical reality. In this paper it is demonstrated that some byproducts resulting from entanglement and which we will call avatars act as a hinge that link both theories making the completeness of QM clear. Moreover, a thorough analysis of the non-locality of this effect will be carried out. Besides, it is demonstrated that entanglement is an instantaneous phenomenon and that it does not require the use of a superluminal signaling for this purpose. Finally, the avatars will also appear in each wormhole resulting from an entanglement process (WREP) demonstrating that they are traversable with an equivalent path of null length which can be crossed in a null time with all that this implies in Quantum Communications.

A note on the possibility of incomplete theory.

In the paper it is demonstrated that a concrete inconsistency occurs in experimental conclusions concerning quantum foundation. This inconsistency is similar to concrete mathematical incompleteness. We would like to stress that in the derivations there are no physics assumptions. Nevertheless the basic physics requirements of a local model are fulfilled.

The Quest for a Unified Field Theory

This chapter addresses the question of why general relativity was perceived to be an incomplete theory by many contemporary scientists, including Einstein himself. In the formative years, general relativity was often seen as a partial or incomplete theory to be generalized, encompassed, or superseded by an overarching unifying theory that would also explain the constitution of matter, typically by including gravity and electromagnetism. This chapter also discusses Einstein's essay, entitled “Generalization of Gravitation Theory,” which he added to the third edition of The Meaning of Relativity. This essay reflects Einstein's struggle in his search for a unified field theory, which in the last ten years of his life was based on the notion of a non-symmetric metric.

Social justice and the distribution of republican freedom

A republican theory of social justice specifies how republican freedom should be distributed. The goal of this paper is to assess the plausibility of two recently proposed principles of republican social justice: an aggregative maximizing principle defended by Philip Pettit in Republicanism and a sufficiency principle of republican social justice offered by Pettit in On the People’s Terms. The maximizing principle must be rejected because it permits under-protecting vulnerable members of society in favor of increasing the freedom of the powerful. The sufficiency principle avoids the most basic objection to the maximizing principle, but it is at best an incomplete theory of social justice. Social justice requires principle(s) for determining the justice of distributions above the sufficiency threshold and republican theory does not determine which principle(s) should govern distributions above this threshold. Republicans must therefore decide whether they will incorporate an independent commitment to equality within their theory of social justice.