liver

Paola Di Maio

unread,

Mar 7, 2016, 7:21:04 AM3/7/16

to syss...@googlegroups.com

Apologies for not changing the subject line in the previous reply to group

Getting difficult to read the replies, since nobody bothers trimming the posts :-)

Just a few more thoughts from reading the thread

- well, I d agree that the liver may not be that clearcut example, because as people say ou can take a liver and put it in a machine with appropriate I/O and may work, but without the context the liver doesnt have much of a purpose

- I guess the point I am trying to make is that from a socio technical systems viewpoint, whatever the system needs to function, must be within the boundary of the system. (no problem if folks disagree)

- The example of taking the animal on the table on the moon works fine here: the environmental conditions, such as air, pressure, temperature, are all part of the system, if they impact the ability of the same to deliver its capability

= yes Mike Dee a system is a system, but the distinction I make (which works for me) and which I have not seen addressed in the thread is the importance of

open systems vs closed systems.

a closed system has everything that it needs to function within its boundary, and its dynamic equilibrium is regulated by some control mechamism )think of an aquarium, which needs certain supply of oxygen and temperature to keep the fish alive, these are all pre programmed) But open systems, must self regulate via mechamisms of physical lawas (such as thermodynamics laws etc)

- I make the choice to model a (closed) system as a self contained unit capable of delivery a function/capability, and to consider an SOS a system made up of more than one system, affording a new capability altogether

= Can you plese provide a reference for who says that a SOS exists when the systems is made of do not afford their original capabliity ??(not sure I read that right) I would disagree with that , but I woud accept that maybe there are more than one type of SOS, in which case what you describe may be one type of SOS based on one definition only

= Bottom line: its all about deifinitions and boundary settings, which is an exercise in ontological modelling. I joineds this group with the intent to help evise a systems ontology (an ontology of systems?) maybe the world still needs that?

Many greetings

PDM

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:07 PM, <syss...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

syss...@googlegroups.com Google Groups

Topic digest
View all topics

Structural Modeling Video Conference -- 03-05-2016 -- Agenda - 3 Updates

Digest for syss...@googlegroups.com - 13 updates in 2 topics - 7 Updates

Complex adaptive systems - 6 Updates

Nodes and relations -- was [SysSciWG] Logical Properties Of Natural Language System Structuring Relationships - 1 Update

Structural Modeling Video Conference -- 03-05-2016 -- Agenda

joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com>: Mar 06 08:43AM -0800

Yiannis:

Excellent... can you elaborate on the competition purpose, form and content?

No apologies needed... everyone is very busy..

We appreciate your involvement and participation.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

--
Joe Simpson
“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people
attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends
on unreasonable people.”
George Bernard Shaw

joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com>: Mar 06 07:25PM -0800

Team:

During our last Structural Modeling video conference, Kevin Dye raised a
number of interesting questions relating to the current form and content of
our structuring modeling work. In essence these questions relate to the
history of structural modeling and the types of work developed by certain
individuals in the past.

I sent out three very early papers related to structural modeling. Two
papers from the early 1960's written by Donald V. Steward and one paper
from the early 1970's written by John N. Warfield who referenced Steward's
earlier work. These papers and a few others from this early era may be a
good place to start the evaluation of structural modeling matrix
techniques. We will see where the team would like to go in this area.

Attached is our first cut a outlining an Adaptive Total Strict Partial
Order (ATSPO) structural modeling approach. This approach includes much of
the work by Warfield with the methods further developed, interfaces better
defined and some missing connections filled in, where necessary, to support
this specific work.

The plan is to continue to develop this draft as the current web
application work continues.

Please let us know if you have any comments, questions and/or concerns.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

--
Joe Simpson
“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people
attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends
on unreasonable people.”
George Bernard Shaw

joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com>: Mar 06 07:58PM -0800

Team:

I have attached an updated document that contains the required Figure.

Take care and have fun,

--
Joe Simpson
“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people
attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends
on unreasonable people.”
George Bernard Shaw

Back to top

Digest for syss...@googlegroups.com - 13 updates in 2 topics

"Mike Dee" <mdee...@gmail.com>: Mar 06 06:39PM -0500

Len:

If you are attempting to come up with a generalized theory (say SoS, etc) then it has to be valid across fields, eh? In Wymore, there is no distinction between whether a “Technology Constraint” represents a set of hardware, software, function, nut, bolt, human role, or human individual. A “Technology Constraint” is merely a restriction on what the system implementation may consist of. If I design a human based “SoS”, and define that a role exists in the that will become part of the SoS, then we have a function based Constraint. If you are more specific and say something like “Fred will do [something]” then the Technology Constraint is on the implementation itself.

Either way, SoS places constraints on what you may build your system from (forgive the English), whether people, rabbits, or GPS satellites. Still, I see no purpose for the SoS distinction, and maintain that Wymore’s definitions cover everything you are chatting about. A system is a system, or am I wrong?

J

From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Lenard Troncale
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2016 6:26 PM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Digest for syss...@googlegroups.com - 13 updates in 2 topics

Please note that Mike Dee and others are presenting definitions and distinctions active in the engineering field. There are many many dozens of fields concerned with systems. So please SE's everywhere remind yourselves (as we all must) that your definitions may work for a limited domain, but that there are some who are trying to forge definitions that work across many domains. Perhaps we should have a disclaimer with every msg identifying which domain we are speaking in and for. Then we might be able to agree more or at least learn from our disagreement about the many different types of systems.

Notice also that I am not speaking for or against Wymore or Dee, just trying to promote better or more compassionate communication between domains.

Len

On Mar 5, 2016, at 11:52 AM, Mike Dee wrote:

Thinking in terms of Wymore, SoS is just a system wherein the implementation of certain functionalities (I apologize for using that word) is constrained by use of particular other implementations (Wymore: Technology Constraints). Therefore the only thing that differentiates a SoS from any other system is the degree to which the trade space is restricted only to the new elements of the system, and away from existing stuff that is mandated to perform such implementations. No function design space is available, no implementation design space is available.

Most people just call that leveraging.

MD

From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Curt McNamara
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2016 12:29 PM
To: Sys Sci
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Digest for syss...@googlegroups.com - 13 updates in 2 topics

Speaking as a systems engineer ...

As I understand it, the term System of Systems is most useful when considering a situation which contains:

-- humans

-- human activity systems (organizations)

-- human designed systems
...

For example, a battle field with pilots, airplanes, air traffic control, airplane control systems, civilians, ...

The intent (as I understand it) is to remind system designers and engineers that their work will exist and be used in a complex environment. This has been a useful construct.

There are other concepts of great use to a practicing engineer or designer (for example boundary), that have also been challenged by systems scientists. There is a lesson here ... perhaps more than one?

Curt

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Mike Dee <michael....@gmail.com> wrote:

Paula:

I would add this to the (well worn) discussion of SoS...

As commonly used, the term SoS seems to be an engineering term related the CREATION of new functions by adding something new and incorporating functions from existing implementations or nature. So, the new SoS provides the new functions, but DOES NOT include the other functions of the pre-existing "systems" that comprised the SoS.

So, our definition of a "system" (its boundary) is defined by the I/O that we (as observers) ascribe to it.

A SoS may utilize existing implementations that continue to provide functions unrelated to the desired functions of the "new" SoS.

I understand the desire to use the term SoS, but that term does not seem to add any new distinction. The only caveat to this is that when we design a SoS, one requirement might be that we have NO deleterious effect on the other systems when our SoS is implemented. In the SoS world we are making subsystems of things that pre-exist our design. But how is that diffderent from re-use or leveraging?

Still I see no purpose in the designation SoS.

-----Original Message-----
From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Paola Di Maio
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2016 7:05 AM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Digest for syss...@googlegroups.com - 13 updates in 2 topics

Glad to see some topics of interest on the list (an not only rants LOL)

Wanted to add a few comments

Do I read this right that people are still discussing the
boundary/definition for Systems, vs SOS? Cant believe that people
have been discussing the same thing for decades.

I have a very clearcut definition, that works (but happy to hear
objections if any)

A system is capable of delivering a system function ALONE (by itself)
that is what makes it a system. if it cannot, it is not a system, but
a subsystem. So, for me a liver is not a system, because it does not
work by itself, if you put a liver on a table, it does not do
anything.

when it comes to a wheel, well, one could argue that the function of
the wheel is to spin, therefore a wheel, properly mounted on a hub, is
a system whose function is to turn.

if we consider a wheel system, then a bicycle could be considered an
SOS, whereby the SOS functionality cannot be deliverd by one or even
two wheels alone, without the other components

RE. WORLDVIEWS, well, essentially a worldview is a statement that only
pertains to human sphere, that is what an individual or collective of
individuals perspective, what they can see. This is pertinent to
engineered systems because it is individuals shape their systems
solely based on their worldview, which is continually shifting

When it comes to natural systems (not engineered), the worldview
matters because it defines what people (general users and/or
engineers) can see. which impacts their ability to
use/manipulate/build upon natural systems. any engineered system
interfaces and is deployed within a natural system (laws of physics
and all) therefore it is important that we understand , I think the
role of the worldview. As we continue to learn, the worldview also
changes. if it doesnt. we cannot progress our understanding of the
world.

Just wanted to say these things

Greets to all,

PDM

> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an
> email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com <mailto:syssciwg%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com <mailto:syssciwg%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com <mailto:syssciwg%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

"Mike Dee" <mdee...@gmail.com>: Mar 06 06:45PM -0500

Steve:

Can you draw a boundary around a liver, and define the I/O relationship? If so, then it is a system, no?

Probably best to dump the designation Sub and Super when defining a system. The important thing is context and I/O. After all, the observer gets to define the system boundary by identifying he I/O.

MD

From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Krane
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2016 3:59 PM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Digest for syss...@googlegroups.com - 13 updates in 2 topics

Regarding:

A system is capable of delivering a system function ALONE (by itself)
that is what makes it a system. if it cannot, it is not a system, but
a subsystem. So, for me a liver is not a system, because it does not
work by itself, if you put a liver on a table, it does not do
anything.

If you put the WHOLE animal on a table on the moon it also does not do anything. That's not its gig.

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 4:04 AM, Paola Di Maio <paola....@gmail.com> wrote:

Glad to see some topics of interest on the list (an not only rants LOL)

Wanted to add a few comments

Do I read this right that people are still discussing the
boundary/definition for Systems, vs SOS? Cant believe that people
have been discussing the same thing for decades.

I have a very clearcut definition, that works (but happy to hear
objections if any)

A system is capable of delivering a system function ALONE (by itself)
that is what makes it a system. if it cannot, it is not a system, but
a subsystem. So, for me a liver is not a system, because it does not
work by itself, if you put a liver on a table, it does not do
anything.

when it comes to a wheel, well, one could argue that the function of
the wheel is to spin, therefore a wheel, properly mounted on a hub, is
a system whose function is to turn.

if we consider a wheel system, then a bicycle could be considered an
SOS, whereby the SOS functionality cannot be deliverd by one or even
two wheels alone, without the other components

RE. WORLDVIEWS, well, essentially a worldview is a statement that only
pertains to human sphere, that is what an individual or collective of
individuals perspective, what they can see. This is pertinent to
engineered systems because it is individuals shape their systems
solely based on their worldview, which is continually shifting

When it comes to natural systems (not engineered), the worldview
matters because it defines what people (general users and/or
engineers) can see. which impacts their ability to
use/manipulate/build upon natural systems. any engineered system
interfaces and is deployed within a natural system (laws of physics
and all) therefore it is important that we understand , I think the
role of the worldview. As we continue to learn, the worldview also
changes. if it doesnt. we cannot progress our understanding of the
world.

Just wanted to say these things

Greets to all,

PDM

> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an
> email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com <mailto:syssciwg%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com <mailto:syssciwg%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com>: Mar 06 04:55PM -0700

It is likely that two or more people in respective fields of endeavor (viewpoints) will use a) different labels for the same entity and b) the same label for different entities. I think Hillary Silletto has noted this and Warfield often cited Peirce in this regard.
Accordingly, system science serves us best when it clarifies the key entities of systemness (or systemity) then the relation between each entity and the respective labels (tags?) used in each field of discourse as formulated by the respective cabals.

Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com>: Mar 06 05:06PM -0700

Dee,
Defining the I/O doth not a system make.
Actual I/O enables you to call a configuration a system.
When the behavior ends then system returns to configuration.
Behavior will happen only when the entities/components/constituents have a sufficient degree of coherence.
Kind of like the middle school orchestra, sometimes you hear music, otherwise simply noise.
Jack

"Mike Dee" <michael....@gmail.com>: Mar 06 07:31PM -0500

Should have been more specific.

The system boundary is defined by the I/O.

From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2016 7:07 PM
To: Sys Sci
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Digest for syss...@googlegroups.com - 13 updates in 2 topics

Dee,

Defining the I/O doth not a system make.

Actual I/O enables you to call a configuration a system.

When the behavior ends then system returns to configuration.

Behavior will happen only when the entities/components/constituents have a sufficient degree of coherence.

Kind of like the middle school orchestra, sometimes you hear music, otherwise simply noise.

Jack

On Mar 6, 2016, at 4:45 PM, Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com> wrote:

Steve:

Can you draw a boundary around a liver, and define the I/O relationship? If so, then it is a system, no?

Probably best to dump the designation Sub and Super when defining a system. The important thing is context and I/O. After all, the observer gets to define the system boundary by identifying he I/O.

MD

From: <mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com> syss...@googlegroups.com [ <mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com> mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Krane
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2016 3:59 PM
To: <mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com> syss...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Digest for <mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com> syss...@googlegroups.com - 13 updates in 2 topics

Regarding:

A system is capable of delivering a system function ALONE (by itself)
that is what makes it a system. if it cannot, it is not a system, but
a subsystem. So, for me a liver is not a system, because it does not
work by itself, if you put a liver on a table, it does not do
anything.

If you put the WHOLE animal on a table on the moon it also does not do anything. That's not its gig.

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 4:04 AM, Paola Di Maio < <mailto:paola....@gmail.com> paola....@gmail.com> wrote:

Glad to see some topics of interest on the list (an not only rants LOL)

Wanted to add a few comments

Do I read this right that people are still discussing the
boundary/definition for Systems, vs SOS? Cant believe that people
have been discussing the same thing for decades.

I have a very clearcut definition, that works (but happy to hear
objections if any)

A system is capable of delivering a system function ALONE (by itself)
that is what makes it a system. if it cannot, it is not a system, but
a subsystem. So, for me a liver is not a system, because it does not
work by itself, if you put a liver on a table, it does not do
anything.

when it comes to a wheel, well, one could argue that the function of
the wheel is to spin, therefore a wheel, properly mounted on a hub, is
a system whose function is to turn.

if we consider a wheel system, then a bicycle could be considered an
SOS, whereby the SOS functionality cannot be deliverd by one or even
two wheels alone, without the other components

RE. WORLDVIEWS, well, essentially a worldview is a statement that only
pertains to human sphere, that is what an individual or collective of
individuals perspective, what they can see. This is pertinent to
engineered systems because it is individuals shape their systems
solely based on their worldview, which is continually shifting

When it comes to natural systems (not engineered), the worldview
matters because it defines what people (general users and/or
engineers) can see. which impacts their ability to
use/manipulate/build upon natural systems. any engineered system
interfaces and is deployed within a natural system (laws of physics
and all) therefore it is important that we understand , I think the
role of the worldview. As we continue to learn, the worldview also
changes. if it doesnt. we cannot progress our understanding of the
world.

Just wanted to say these things

Greets to all,

PDM

Mike Dee

unread,

Mar 7, 2016, 9:08:42 AM3/7/16

to syss...@googlegroups.com

Paola: if you have a closed socio technical system then that implies that your system has no context, ergo no interaction with anything else. Therefore no perturbances from external sources are possible. Can you identify any such socio technical system?

Sent from my iPhone

Jack Ring

unread,

Mar 7, 2016, 9:24:58 AM3/7/16

to Sys Sci

If one can be identified you better hurry — because it can’t breath.

Mike Dee

unread,

Mar 7, 2016, 12:33:09 PM3/7/16

to syss...@googlegroups.com

The idea of closed systems is convenient for making closed form academic solutions possible, (like adiabatic compression for example) for putting bounds on an estimate, but again is limited in usefulness. All models are wrong (particularly closed system assumptions) but some are useful for making decisions.

Sent from my iPhone

Paola Di Maio

unread,

Mar 10, 2016, 7:28:29 AM3/10/16

to syss...@googlegroups.com

>>MD Therefore no perturbances from external sources are possible. Can you >>>identify any such socio technical system?

I may have expressed incorrectly

Assume an extended system with a boundary, that includes the techniical, social and environment. What I purport (and happy to defend) is that

the technical capability can only be delivered if the human aspects and environmental aspects are also modelled as part of the system

So people or other social element, oxygen, temperature, other factors should be modelled as part of the system if they essential for the system to deliver its intended capability

to me its obvious, and rather simple. but please tell me whats wrong with my worldview.

SOS

regarding the usefulness vs redundancy of the term SOS, I think it convesy a different meaning from S alone

S, is a given set capable of delivering a function/capability

SOS is a set of sets capable of delivering a function/capability that S alone cannot perform

Do S and SOS behave in the same way?

It depends, imho, whether they are closed or open , I think

if S and SOS are both closed, then they behave similarly/same

if they are both open, then probably not (because their number and tyes of interactions are likely to differ)

doesnt sound too wild an hypothesis to me, but still an hypothesis til I run some experiments

no?

PDM

liver

Paola Di Maio <paola....@gmail.com>: Mar 07 05:51PM +0530

Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com>: Mar 07 09:08AM -0500

Paola: if you have a closed socio technical system then that implies that your system has no context, ergo no interaction with anything else. Therefore no perturbances from external sources are possible. Can you identify any such socio technical system?

Sent from my iPhone

Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com>: Mar 07 07:24AM -0700

If one can be identified you better hurry — because it can’t breath.

Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com>: Mar 07 12:33PM -0500

The idea of closed systems is convenient for making closed form academic solutions possible, (like adiabatic compression for example) for putting bounds on an estimate, but again is limited in usefulness. All models are wrong (particularly closed system assumptions) but some are useful for making decisions.

Sent from my iPhone

Back to top

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

MDSE

unread,

Mar 10, 2016, 8:18:09 AM3/10/16

to syss...@googlegroups.com

I think the idea of the closed system needs specification. I'm not sure that there can be a truly closed system except that the observer (the person who defines what the system is and does) can ignore interactions with the exterior and simply declare the system to be closed. I accept (graciously of course) your clarification of socio technical systems. Now I know! Thx

Sent from my iPhone

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

Lenard Troncale

unread,

Mar 10, 2016, 2:16:09 PM3/10/16

to syss...@googlegroups.com

Michael,

We in SPT have been saying this for many years. Unless the observer finds it useful to artificially "close" the system, all systems are open. This is often presented as "controlling the variables" for reductionist research to be successful.

It is quite interesting historically that Ludwig von Bertalanffy (founder of general systems approaches) got a lot of attention and approbation for even pointing out that there were open systems (to some degree Prigogine's Nobel Prize was for that too, in chemistry).

For many years it was very useful in science to imagine and work on closed systems. It was the beginning of many important formulae which require an "ideal" systems to calculate to discover the relationships between the key parameters. One could read "ideal" as "closed" in many cases. The ideal gas law came out of it. And so on. Now in the era of open and complex systems, we are trying to figure out other new and powerful patterns. So closed is going by the wayside except when it is useful in several reductionist and engineering special cases, as it will always have to be.

Len

Mike Dee

unread,

Mar 10, 2016, 5:34:07 PM3/10/16

to syss...@googlegroups.com

Len: That’s good to know. In engineering (as in science I would suppose) we must be very careful of what we leave out of system models. My concern is the purposeful abuse of half-baked models for use in moving public opinion (i.e. politics). For this we depend upon the honest of scientists (and engineers of course), and I’m not sure the record is all that good.

Sigh…

From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Lenard Troncale

Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 2:16 PM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] liver

Paola Di Maio

unread,

Mar 11, 2016, 6:57:08 AM3/11/16

to syss...@googlegroups.com

On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:11 PM, <syss...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

MDSE <michael....@gmail.com>: Mar 10 08:18AM -0500

I think the idea of the closed system needs specification.

If I remember correctly, the notion of open and closed system is well defined

in literature

there should be references here,

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=4635217&filter%3DAND%28p_IS_Number%3A4635078%29%26pageNumber%3D6

or here

http://www.slideshare.net/PaolaDIM/digital-ecosystems-ontology-entropy-by-paola-di-maio

(* I researched this long time ago its goint to take me time to retrieve my author copy of this paper but if someone wants it desperately I can dig it up somewhere)

Yes, models are notional, and yes, closed and open are not necessarily discrete but fuzzy notions

The metaphore I use to distinguish closed vs open is indeed the aquarium vs the open waters,

where regulation of the variables does not take place naturally but by some engineered control mechanism as Len says

I am sure there are exceptions

PDM

I'm not sure that there can be a truly closed system except that the observer (the person who defines what the system is and does) can ignore interactions with the exterior and simply declare the system to be closed. I accept (graciously of course) your clarification of socio technical systems. Now I know! Thx

Sent from my iPhone

Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu>: Mar 10 07:16PM

Michael,

We in SPT have been saying this for many years. Unless the observer finds it useful to artificially "close" the system, all systems are open. This is often presented as "controlling the variables" for reductionist research to be successful.

It is quite interesting historically that Ludwig von Bertalanffy (founder of general systems approaches) got a lot of attention and approbation for even pointing out that there were open systems (to some degree Prigogine's Nobel Prize was for that too, in chemistry).

For many years it was very useful in science to imagine and work on closed systems. It was the beginning of many important formulae which require an "ideal" systems to calculate to discover the relationships between the key parameters. One could read "ideal" as "closed" in many cases. The ideal gas law came out of it. And so on. Now in the era of open and complex systems, we are trying to figure out other new and powerful patterns. So closed is going by the wayside except when it is useful in several reductionist and engineering special cases, as it will always have to be.

Len

On Mar 10, 2016, at 5:18 AM, MDSE wrote:

I think the idea of the closed system needs specification. I'm not sure that there can be a truly closed system except that the observer (the person who defines what the system is and does) can ignore interactions with the exterior and simply declare the system to be closed. I accept (graciously of course) your clarification of socio technical systems. Now I know! Thx

Sent from my iPhone

>>MD Therefore no perturbances from external sources are possible. Can you >>>identify any such socio technical system?

I may have expressed incorrectly

Assume an extended system with a boundary, that includes the techniical, social and environment. What I purport (and happy to defend) is that
the technical capability can only be delivered if the human aspects and environmental aspects are also modelled as part of the system

So people or other social element, oxygen, temperature, other factors should be modelled as part of the system if they essential for the system to deliver its intended capability

to me its obvious, and rather simple. but please tell me whats wrong with my worldview.

SOS
regarding the usefulness vs redundancy of the term SOS, I think it convesy a different meaning from S alone

S, is a given set capable of delivering a function/capability

SOS is a set of sets capable of delivering a function/capability that S alone cannot perform

Do S and SOS behave in the same way?
It depends, imho, whether they are closed or open , I think

if S and SOS are both closed, then they behave similarly/same

if they are both open, then probably not (because their number and tyes of interactions are likely to differ)

doesnt sound too wild an hypothesis to me, but still an hypothesis til I run some experiments

no?

PDM

liver <http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/t/5697c503fd8c542?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email>
Paola Di Maio <paola....@gmail.com<mailto:paola....@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 05:51PM +0530

Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com<mailto:mdee...@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 09:08AM -0500

Paola: if you have a closed socio technical system then that implies that your system has no context, ergo no interaction with anything else. Therefore no perturbances from external sources are possible. Can you identify any such socio technical system?

Sent from my iPhone

Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com<mailto:jri...@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 07:24AM -0700

If one can be identified you better hurry — because it can’t breath.

Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com<mailto:mdee...@gmail.com>>: Mar 07 12:33PM -0500

The idea of closed systems is convenient for making closed form academic solutions possible, (like adiabatic compression for example) for putting bounds on an estimate, but again is limited in usefulness. All models are wrong (particularly closed system assumptions) but some are useful for making decisions.

Sent from my iPhone

Back to top<x-msg://7/#436773386_digest_top>
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/syssciwg/join>.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

"Mike Dee" <michael....@gmail.com>: Mar 10 05:34PM -0500

<http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/t/5697c503fd8c542?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email> liver

<x-msg://7/#436773386_digest_top> Back to top

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/syssciwg/join> group membership page.

Back to top

MDSE

unread,

Mar 11, 2016, 6:58:44 PM3/11/16

to syss...@googlegroups.com

So in good humor but quite seriously I don't understand the need for the term 'natural'. But does that make man "unnatural"? I can understand the differentiating term "man made" but that has nothing to do with nature or not-nature. Ain't this fun!

Sent from my iPhone

Aleksandar Malečić

unread,

Mar 11, 2016, 8:09:00 PM3/11/16

to syss...@googlegroups.com

It can't be resolved without at least mentioning what we think about reality we are a part of: do we have free will, are we deterministic, are we purposeful and why.

Aleksandar

Mike Dee

unread,

Mar 11, 2016, 8:12:43 PM3/11/16

to syss...@googlegroups.com

Or better yet… Is it man’s nature to build and modify nature?

From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jack Ring

Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 3:34 PM
To: Sys Sci

Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] liver

Lenard Troncale

unread,

Mar 12, 2016, 2:05:38 PM3/12/16

to syss...@googlegroups.com

Or possibly, it is nature's nature to build and modify itself..... seemingly axiomatic

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email tosyssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email tosyssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email tosyssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email tosyssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email tosyssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email tosyssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Back to top

You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email tosyssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email tosyssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email tosyssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email tosyssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.

Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Aleksandar Malečić

unread,

Mar 12, 2016, 5:54:10 PM3/12/16

to syss...@googlegroups.com

Or possibly, it is nature's nature to build and modify itself..... seemingly axiomatic

Brian Josephson's "A Structural Theory of Everything" (the title of his paper), David Deutsch's Constructor Theory/Universal Constructor (more papers with or without Chiara Marletto), and Len Troncale's Systems Process Theory are seemingly the same idea expressed three (Does von Bertalanffy make it four?) times about systems going all (or at least a very long) way down. If further elaborated in wrong hands, the outcome would be a mess that no one would want to publish.

Aleksandar

Jack Ring

unread,

Mar 15, 2016, 3:50:24 AM3/15/16

to Sys Sci

itself? Nature is a self?

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward