Computational Biology in Entrepreneurial Improbability Tectonics

INTRODUCTION

Humans are complicated, non-linear matrixes and share vivaciously while making decision. On the other hand, are (all) human beings cogent? Is there an element of rationality or backed up by logic – while making decisions? Are all calculations based on some evidence, facts, figures, statistics, calibrations, models or mathematical computing? Are such estimates based on a viaduct, linking computational, mathematical, numerical, geometric, calculus and biological sciences? In such a scenario, is there scope for modeling and simulation to play a significant role? Is there a duct for computational analysis? This paper declares rejection. Neo-classical archetype of circumscribed rationality is gnarled and can induce human eyes that it is somewhere it in actuality isn’t.  Neuro – management assumes that decision-making involve rational optimization of predictable utility. This is assumed as if humans were operational with limitless information, time and information-processing control. How can we learn and use models of biological systems constructed from experimental measurements? Challenging contemporary assumptions or theories (based on type of experimental data), this is the biggest challenge and issue that needs a clinical precision based anatomical peep.

Fundamental concepts in decision conjecture are ‘preference’ and ‘prediction’. Neuro – physiological dissections have furrowed footing of conformist neuro – management to a state of ‘Improbability Tectonics’. This clearly calls for initiating a new move rather than alteration of reachable hypothesis. There is a need to investigate VUCA – BANI – TUNA and RUPT (VBTR) based decision making tectonics or ‘Improbability Tectonics’ within the gamut of an expounding archetype that embraces probabilistic practical constraints. Potential playing field of neuro – management appear to broaden supposition and run through to appreciate this behavioural dimension with reference to a VBTR continuum. Expansion of neuro-entrepreneurial management sciences, Cognitive Science and human sense organ – sciences challenge customary management viewpoint.

‘Although decision management provides wide range of mathematical models its status as a science is disputable.

Decision management is often devoted to studying of surrogate systems instead of reality.

Biology, especially Neuroscience, offers a completely new attitude to decision-making,

which is based on empirical research and inductive modelling’.

…….. Michal Müller

Conventional, orthodox and stereotype management is based on archetype of reasonableness stating that human beings project at attaining maximal utility. Management Science is a core guide towards primary understanding of motivation for management behaviour. Neuromanagement is a new inter – disciplinary behavioural discipline guiding individual development towards decision making ‘trials’. Neuromanagement shows individual is neither egoist nor altruist but hybrid of both as essence of decision augmentation. Neuromanagement identifies management decisions regarding pragmatic utility, objectifies neural correlates of decision. This is mostly by sophisticated scanners and interprets subjective dynamics of neural correlates to decisions (Satpathy & Yousri; 2024). Dawn of neuro-management has been laced with ‘Players’ of convolution. How is entrepreneurial decision making processes carried out in intellect? Do we interpret research answers when neuroentrepreneurial logical results conflict? Knowing how intellect (and eyes) is working explains little about what mind produces; what we think, what we trust and how we craft decisions. What are the general implications of neuroentrepreneurial management? How to choose in tough situations where disruptions and uncertainties are high and there are multiple conflicting objectives? How should Entrepreneurs’ plan? How can we deal with risks and uncertainties involved in a decision? How can we create options that are better than the ones originally available? How can we become better decision makers? What resources will be invested in decision – making? What are the potential responses to a particular problem or opportunity? Who will make this decision? Every prospective action has strengths and weaknesses; how should they be evaluated? How will they decide? Which of the things that could happen would happen? The decision has been made. How can we ensure it will be carried out? These are the questions neuroentrepreneurial researchers suspect are most crucial for understanding complex human behaviours in disruptions and uncertainties (Satpathy & Yousri; 2024). The above issues have been posed by (Satpathy & Yousri; 2024) in a paper presented at Dhaka, Bangla Desh.

 ‘The only way to rectify our reasoning is to make them as tangible as those of the Mathematicians so that we can find our errors at a glance, and when there are disputes among persons, we can simply say: Let us calculate, without further ado, to see who is right’.

….  Leibniz