PhD Research
The Ethics of Entropy: a practice-research PhD in systems aesthetics and systems theory at Goldsmiths, University of London, begun in January 2026. Everything made during the doctorate lands here.
Statement
My work bridges non-equilibrium thermodynamics and systems aesthetics to build a living architecture for art. In the doctorate it takes the form of an interactive digital map: more than two thousand atomic ideas from my research, mapped onto a hyperbolic disk and run as a thermodynamics, with a drawn schematic beside it carrying the mathematics. What I am attempting is a standard model of systems aesthetics, the pattern beneath the patterns. As Descartes found one geometry beneath every figure by giving space coordinates, I am looking for the common architecture beneath every system that persists: the property that emerges wherever matter, life, or thought organises against a gradient, and that feeds into everything else, from ecology to economics to cognition to art itself.
The framework begins with three givens. The speed of light is also the speed of causality. Because that speed is constant for every observer, time itself becomes relative; what stays invariant is the order in which causes can reach effects. That invariant order is the system all events must follow, and therefore all systems, which are made of events. Entropy gives the order its direction. And physics itself supplies the third given, the long ambition running from Newton's unifications to the standard model and the search beyond it, that there is an underlying structure to everything. Together they ground the claim at the centre of my work: systems are an emergent property of entropy moving through causality. Whatever persists, persists by circulating, holding its shape through the small, continuous adjustments that meet its gradient; what fails to meet it collapses and reorganises, locally or across scales. Here it is enough to watch how systems hold, fall, and reorganise.
My work is with systems, and systems show us how truth obeys physics. A truth is a dissipative structure that exists within a convection of validation. It holds its shape by processing the new through itself; sealed away from that flow, it stills into dogma, which cannot prove itself from within.
This is one architecture surfacing across disciplines. Gödel proved that no formal system can demonstrate its own consistency from within; Hume showed that no account of what is can, on its own, yield what ought to be. Truth held in the convection of validation, the incompleteness of formal systems, and the gap Hume's guillotine cuts all share the same shape: every system that persists requires an outside to complete it. For the formal system that outside is an axiom it cannot prove; for the is, an ought it cannot derive; for a truth, the validation it cannot give itself, which arrives through use, construction, and form.
Beneath the mapping is the reason for it. To see how systems hold, fall, and reorganise is to see what our will does when it enters them. The framework is an architecture for realising the implications of our actions on the system dynamics we live inside: ethics as diagnosis, and as the small adjustments that steer a severed circulation back toward its gradient.
The map itself is not a closed archive but a living research boundary, reorganising as returns arrive from an outside reality of matter, ideas, mathematics, and other minds. I work in the lineage of systems aesthetics: Jack Burnham's turn from objects to the relations that produce them, and Agnes Denes, who mapped her philosophy graphically and re-projected the world onto new geometries, making art about systems and from them. The schematic continues Denes's gesture. It is this statement drawn as the system it describes, and this statement is itself part of that system: as practice research it performs what it argues, validating and contextualising the art as art, situating the work within a schema. Your reading completes the circuit, attention entering the work as validation and placing it, from outside, within the boundary of art.
What you are looking at
Every point of light is one atomic idea from the research: a claim, a source, an operator, a piece of evidence, a mechanism, a question or a definition. Every line is a typed relation between two of them. The map is built from the vault directly, 2,232 nodes and 6,970 relations at the current build, and it changes when the research changes: a new argument opens new sources at the rim, a settled one deepens towards the centre, and a failed one folds its own region of the disk.
The space is hyperbolic, a Poincaré disk. The most-connected operators sit near the centre; specific claims and evidence fan out to the rim, which is infinitely far from every node. Inward is towards the core; outward is towards its particulars. The most-connected node in the map, the one the geometry places nearest the centre, is the convection of validation.
The energy overlay, in the framework's own terms
Exergy enters at the sources. Source material is stored information, potential: it enters as usable free energy and flows downstream into the claims that cite it. Read through a schema, it converts into what is accepted, which fuels the framework, and what is left open.
Anergy pools at open questions. It can still convert, at an adjacent system's boundary conditions rather than inside its own: anergy downstreams and becomes exergy in a neighbouring system, the way a question one field sets aside becomes the working premise of another. A dropped or stale concept is anergy gone cold, a terminal pool. A dispute pools anergy on the smooth surface and, like an open question, can still resolve at a conversion point or cross the fold.
Bridges reconvert it. Where a question reaches a bridge the change happens in thought: the anergy downstreams there and returns as exergy in a different system of ideas, flowing onward into new claims.
The fold has two outcomes. The cusp is a premise that reorganised through it, discharging new exergy onward; the catastrophe is a premise that could not recompose, collapsed into a void. When a claim is validated by data or philosophy at other scales, that validation returns to the core concepts it instantiates, the nested return: the convection of validation.
The framework
Entropy Circulation Topology reads persisting systems as circulations and distinguishes two shapes of conversion: a circulatory topology returns what it converts to the systems that sustain it; an extractive topology linearises the loop, takes the gradient, and leaves the cost to pool elsewhere. The ethics in the title is diagnostic: it asks where a circulation has been cut and what has been put in its place. The framework is operating on itself in the map, complete only to the edge of its own frame.
Writing
Papers and talks from the doctorate. Coming soon.
Seeing the map
The map is shown in person. To see it, or to talk about the work, write to rufinoqjimenez@gmail.com or find me on LinkedIn.