Re: [SysSciWG] Digest for syssciwg@googlegroups.com - 12 updates in 1 topic
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Paola Di Maio
Mar 12, 2016, 7:02:51 AM3/12/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
although we cannot be too sure of anything, these days it looks to me that most issues
are about definitions and boundary setting.
one of the reasons why I put 'goal setting' at the top of any modelling exercise
(ontology, system or otherwise) is because the exercise must serve a purpose
(otherwise its speculation and can be fun, but can also be annoying because some definitations and boundaries may work in some cases but not in others)
that means, putting humans and beavers in the same category (animal)
or separating them (animal vs human), and everything else we do,
is driven by whatever is the task at hand
so it depends, Steve, Mike, Jack, Len-
why do we need the definition we are looking for>
what do we need to design a system for >
etc=
I also not sure whether any system is truly closed, or truly open'
when we think big enough, even the ocean is a closed system (with the earth atmosphere its boundary).
even that consideration depends where the boundary lies
I use the term natural system as in it exist without human intervention
(artificial lake is engineered, natural lake exists alone) with whatever implications the distinction bring-
but wait a minute.... why do we live? why does anything appear to exist at all>?
<lol>
Back to the meaning of life questions
Have a nice weekend
PDM
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 5:04 PM, <syss...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
- liver - 12 Updates
Paola Di Maio <paola....@gmail.com>: Mar 11 05:27PM +0530
> 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
Steven Krane <sk5...@gmail.com>: Mar 11 07:11AM -0600
Is a pond made by a beaver an engineered control mechanism or takes place naturally?
MDSE <michael....@gmail.com>: Mar 11 08:38AM -0500
Anything in the physical realm, whether it was created by man or not is a part of reality. This differentiates man's conceptualization (models) from the real world; theory from reality. I find the term "natural" to be misleading. If a beaver builds a dam is it natural? If people build a dam ( say to catch fish for primal tribesmen) is it natural? If people build a dam to generate electricity is it natural? Is mans propensity for making tools natural? Does it matter?
Sent from my iPhone
MDSE <michael....@gmail.com>: Mar 11 08:40AM -0500
The notions of open and closed are well worn conceptualizations. Use where useful, but beware. At the root of all mistakes will be lurking the assumptions.
Sent from my iPhone
Steven Krane <sk5...@gmail.com>: Mar 11 07:50AM -0600
As are natural and artificial. Perhaps the distinction is more interesting if you believe people came into this world rather than out of it. I recognize beavers as kin. :)
MDSE <michael....@gmail.com>: Mar 11 11:45AM -0500
Nice!
Sent from my iPhone
Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu>: Mar 11 06:46PM
Interesting. From a biologists point of view the following....
Anything a beaver, or even army ants, or colonial termites make is natural because it is made by a natural entity. Presumably evolution has very strongly selected for that which is made by them by eliminating many other alternatives as they arose. This ensures that at least for the near term, such innovations are fit within the environment. Until the environment changes which it usually does in the very long term.
But then why make a distinction for humans? We have evolved also. We are natural entities. Why wouldn't anything we make be burdened with the term "artificial" than any other thing made by a tool- using social organism? Persons focusing only on these aspects would see the natural vs artificial controversy as empty and unnecessary.
Now, I did not make up that distinctions but do use it often. All human systems, including our socio-economic and socio-political institutions I consider immature artefacts. In fact, it was Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon, in whose honor NECSI grants an annual award, and whose famous book was titled, "Sciences of the Artificial" who first popularized use of the term.
Perhaps it is because scientists realize that anything man makes can be engineered so quickly that it is not subject to natural selection and evolution at first and then not even for a very long time afterward if at all. So products that reflect more greed than adaptation to context, more arrogance than fit within natural parameters, surround our civilization. This might give some meaning to artificial. Further, the distinction might lead to a regime in which prescription and values become an important part of the process, recycling and fit in environment and cost:benefit an important part of the process in addition to making a buck.
Len
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.
steve wallis
Mar 12, 2016, 9:41:52 AM3/12/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Perhaps the notion of closed/open would make more sense it it could be
measured/quantified on some scale?
i have no idea if that scale would be linear, logarithmic, whatever. But
it might be somewhat undefined at the extreme ends. I wouldn't expect
something to be completely open or completely closed. On the completely
open end, it would seem to be completely interconnected with its
environment The fish tank is in the ocean. On the completely closed end
of the spectrum, the fish tank would not even be part of the universe!
Thanks,
Steve
= = = = = =
Steven E. Wallis, Ph.D.
Fulbright Specialist - Consulting on strategy, theory, and policy
Capella University
Meaningful Evidence, LLC
Play ASK MATT to improve your strategy, policy, and theory
http://meaningfulevidence.com/strategic-planning-3-0
On 3/12/2016 3:34 AM, syss...@googlegroups.com wrote:
> syss...@googlegroups.com
> <%0A%20%20https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#%21forum/syssciwg/topics%0A>
> Google Groups
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#%21overview>
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#%21overview>
>
>
> * liver <#group_thread_0> - 12 Updates
>
> liver
> <http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/t/5697c503fd8c542?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email>
> On Mar 11, 2016, at 5:57 AM, Paola Di Maio
> <paola....@gmail.com<mailto:paola....@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:11 PM,
> <syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
> MDSE <michael....@gmail.com<mailto:michael....@gmail.com>>:
> 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<mailto: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><mailto:paola....@gmail.com<mailto:paola....@gmail.com>>>:
> Mar 07 05:51PM +0530
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike Dee
> <mdee...@gmail.com<mailto:mdee...@gmail.com><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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>
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#%21forum/syssciwg/join>>.
>
>
> --
> 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><mailto: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><mailto: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.
>
> "Mike Dee"
> <michael....@gmail.com<mailto:michael....@gmail.com>>: Mar
> 10 05:34PM -0500
>
> 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>
> [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>]
> On Behalf Of Lenard Troncale
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 2:16 PM
> To: syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] liver
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 07:28, Paola Di Maio
> <paola....@gmail.com<mailto:paola....@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> >>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
> Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com>: Mar 11 01:34PM -0700
>
> If a beaver builds a dam to irritate beavers downstream is that
> natural (or political)?
>
> Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com>: Mar 11 01:54PM -0700
> artificial.
> I have asked many beavers, ants and termites none of which had
> ‘system’ in their vocabulary.
> Do not confuse the map with the territory.
> Only humans invent Gods and ‘systems.'
> MDSE <michael....@gmail.com>: Mar 11 06:58PM -0500
>
> 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" <ljma...@gmail.com>: Mar 12 02:08AM +0100
>
> 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" <mdee...@gmail.com>: Mar 11 08:12PM -0500
>
> 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
>
>
>
> If a beaver builds a dam to irritate beavers downstream is that
> natural (or political)?
> &filter%3DAND%28p_IS_Number%3A4635078%29%26pageNumber%3D6
> 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
> <http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/t/5697c503fd8c542?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email>
> &utm_medium=email>
> Paola Di Maio <paola....@gmail.com<mailto:paola....@gmail.com>>:
> Mar 07 05:51PM +0530
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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>
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/syssciwg/join
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#%21forum/syssciwg/join>>
> &utm_medium=email#!forum/syssciwg/join>.
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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.
>
>
> "Mike Dee" <michael....@gmail.com>: Mar 10 05:34PM -0500
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 07:28, Paola Di Maio <paola....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >>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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/t/5697c503fd8c542?utm_source=digest
> <http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/t/5697c503fd8c542?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email>
> &utm_medium=email> liver
>
>
> Paola Di Maio <paola....@gmail.com>: Mar 07 05:51PM +0530
>
> 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,
>
> Back to top <#digest_top>
>
measured/quantified on some scale?
i have no idea if that scale would be linear, logarithmic, whatever. But
it might be somewhat undefined at the extreme ends. I wouldn't expect
something to be completely open or completely closed. On the completely
open end, it would seem to be completely interconnected with its
environment The fish tank is in the ocean. On the completely closed end
of the spectrum, the fish tank would not even be part of the universe!
Thanks,
Steve
= = = = = =
Steven E. Wallis, Ph.D.
Fulbright Specialist - Consulting on strategy, theory, and policy
Capella University
Meaningful Evidence, LLC
Play ASK MATT to improve your strategy, policy, and theory
http://meaningfulevidence.com/strategic-planning-3-0
On 3/12/2016 3:34 AM, syss...@googlegroups.com wrote:
> syss...@googlegroups.com
> <%0A%20%20https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#%21forum/syssciwg/topics%0A>
> Google Groups
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#%21overview>
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#%21overview>
>
> Topic digest
> View all topics
> <%0A%20%20https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#%21forum/syssciwg/topics%0A>
> Topic digest
> View all topics
>
>
> * liver <#group_thread_0> - 12 Updates
>
> liver
> <http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/t/5697c503fd8c542?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email>
> <paola....@gmail.com<mailto:paola....@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 5:11 PM,
> <syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
> MDSE <michael....@gmail.com<mailto: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
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> 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<mailto: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><mailto:paola....@gmail.com<mailto:paola....@gmail.com>>>:
> Mar 07 05:51PM +0530
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike Dee
> <mdee...@gmail.com<mailto:mdee...@gmail.com><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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
> group. You can change your settings on the group membership
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#%21forum/syssciwg/join>>.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send
> an email to
> syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com><mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>>.
> an email to
>
>
> --
> 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><mailto: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><mailto: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.
>
> "Mike Dee"
> <michael....@gmail.com<mailto:michael....@gmail.com>>: Mar
> 10 05:34PM -0500
>
> 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>
> [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>]
> On Behalf Of Lenard Troncale
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 2:16 PM
> To: syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] liver
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 07:28, Paola Di Maio
> <paola....@gmail.com<mailto:paola....@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> >>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
> Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com>: Mar 11 01:34PM -0700
>
> If a beaver builds a dam to irritate beavers downstream is that
> natural (or political)?
>
> Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com>: Mar 11 01:54PM -0700
>
>
> > Anything a beaver, or even army ants, or colonial termites make is
> natural because it is made by a natural entity.
>
> Then when a human comes along and labels it ‘system’ that label is
>
> > Anything a beaver, or even army ants, or colonial termites make is
> natural because it is made by a natural entity.
>
> artificial.
> I have asked many beavers, ants and termites none of which had
> ‘system’ in their vocabulary.
> Do not confuse the map with the territory.
> Only humans invent Gods and ‘systems.'
> MDSE <michael....@gmail.com>: Mar 11 06:58PM -0500
>
> 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" <ljma...@gmail.com>: Mar 12 02:08AM +0100
>
> 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" <mdee...@gmail.com>: Mar 11 08:12PM -0500
>
> 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
>
>
>
> If a beaver builds a dam to irritate beavers downstream is that
> natural (or political)?
>
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2016, at 6:38 AM, MDSE <michael....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Anything in the physical realm, whether it was created by man or not
> is a part of reality. This differentiates man's conceptualization
> (models) from the real world; theory from reality. I find the term
> "natural" to be misleading. If a beaver builds a dam is it natural? If
> people build a dam ( say to catch fish for primal tribesmen) is it
> natural? If people build a dam to generate electricity is it natural?
> Is mans propensity for making tools natural? Does it matter?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2016, at 08:11, Steven Krane <sk5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is a pond made by a beaver an engineered control mechanism or takes
> place naturally?
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2016, at 5:57 AM, Paola Di Maio <paola....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2016, at 6:38 AM, MDSE <michael....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Anything in the physical realm, whether it was created by man or not
> is a part of reality. This differentiates man's conceptualization
> (models) from the real world; theory from reality. I find the term
> "natural" to be misleading. If a beaver builds a dam is it natural? If
> people build a dam ( say to catch fish for primal tribesmen) is it
> natural? If people build a dam to generate electricity is it natural?
> Is mans propensity for making tools natural? Does it matter?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2016, at 08:11, Steven Krane <sk5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is a pond made by a beaver an engineered control mechanism or takes
> place naturally?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=4635217&filter%3DAND%28p_IS_Number%3A4635078%29%26pageNumber%3D6>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> <http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/t/5697c503fd8c542?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email>
> &utm_medium=email>
> Paola Di Maio <paola....@gmail.com<mailto:paola....@gmail.com>>:
> Mar 07 05:51PM +0530
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> group. You can change your settings on the group membership
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/syssciwg/join
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#%21forum/syssciwg/join>>
> &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%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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.
>
>
> "Mike Dee" <michael....@gmail.com>: Mar 10 05:34PM -0500
>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 07:28, Paola Di Maio <paola....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >>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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/t/5697c503fd8c542?utm_source=digest
> <http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/t/5697c503fd8c542?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email>
> &utm_medium=email> liver
>
>
> Paola Di Maio <paola....@gmail.com>: Mar 07 05:51PM +0530
>
> 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,
>
> Back to top <#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
> <%0A%20%20https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#%21forum/syssciwg/join%0A>.
> 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
> <mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com
>
Hillary Sillitto
Mar 12, 2016, 11:28:21 AM3/12/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Ocean is an open system, exchanging gas and energy with the atmosphere and absorbing energy from the sun!
Earth plus moon plus sun is very close to a closed system for many purposes.
And computer models of systems are usually closed systems...
Cheers
Hillaru
--
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
Mar 12, 2016, 1:59:32 PM3/12/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Dear All:
Interesting. The amount of science that is necessary for making these defining decisions is rather high and in all specific cases requires experts in those areas.
I almost always agree with Hillary. Here I would not disagree, just add that there are many external influences on a earth-moon-sun subsystem. All of the planets, and for that matter moons, asteroids, planetary debris, solar wind, gravity flows, highly
influence each other in astronomy and physics. So an earth-moon-sun set cannot be considered closed for treatments at their level. For that matter, the recent discovery that there probably is an undiscovered proto-planet sized object way out in the asteroid
belt indicates how much all objects in the solar system interact with each other. That they could predict its presence, as they did two of our current planets, without even seeing it is evidence that none of these exist as a closed system component.
So is the solar system as a whole a closed system? Consider that the part of the galaxy arm that we reside in is rotating, and the entire galaxy is moving -- all further influenced by gravity and dark energy and dark matter -- there is no way to even call
our solar system a closed system. Then there is the influences of the black hole at the center of our galaxy, the expansion of galaxies away from each other, rare but existing galactic collisions and one galaxy eating other smaller ones, etc. etc. All these
impart velocity and direction to our little solar system.
The observation that computer models are often closed systems falls in line with my previous comment that we simplify in order to make it possible to follow more limited interactions. But that doesn't mean much more than we should always recognize the
limitations of our computer models and even our much vaunted equations relative to where and at what scales they can be helpfully and reliably applied.
I still have as a working hypothesis that there exists nowhere a completely closed system. Still open to receiving evidence though.
Len
Lenard Troncale
Mar 12, 2016, 2:03:34 PM3/12/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Paolo and Steven,
Did you ever notice that a fish tank on standing grows a lot of algae? Something must be coming in and out. See, often our distinction between open and closed is greatly influenced by what we are thinking of at the moment. And we often don't think enough.
Len
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Did you ever notice that a fish tank on standing grows a lot of algae? Something must be coming in and out. See, often our distinction between open and closed is greatly influenced by what we are thinking of at the moment. And we often don't think enough.
Len
Jack Ring
Mar 13, 2016, 4:25:09 AM3/13/16
to Sys Sci
I have never encountered a closed system. A few closed minds but they weren’t systems.
Steven Krane
Mar 13, 2016, 10:45:53 AM3/13/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Practically, "closed" systems are closed in respect of something, but not everything, and even then only for a while. The ocean will boil.
Lenard Troncale
Mar 13, 2016, 1:21:55 PM3/13/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Interesting and beautiful. See how discussing systems could be prescriptive and not just descriptive. If most entities in nature are open systems, it would suggest that this is of universal value. Thus closed minds (I've encountered a few too; can we ever know if our own personal minds are closed?) would be against the universal and so unethical.
Len
Len
Jack Ring
Mar 13, 2016, 7:20:36 PM3/13/16
to Sys Sci
Hi Len,
One way to detect whether one’s mind is closed is to notice whether it refuses to consider a proposition, particularly one that claims that it is closed. One recurring lock is when ‘consider' is presumed to be ‘accept’ which is a self-lock. For example Dr. Milton Erickson, Phoenix, has shown that this condition can be demonstrated by the Double Bind.
Jack
One way to detect whether one’s mind is closed is to notice whether it refuses to consider a proposition, particularly one that claims that it is closed. One recurring lock is when ‘consider' is presumed to be ‘accept’ which is a self-lock. For example Dr. Milton Erickson, Phoenix, has shown that this condition can be demonstrated by the Double Bind.
Jack
Jack Ring
Mar 15, 2016, 3:42:44 AM3/15/16
to Sys Sci
Probably open and closed are states, 1 or 0, like quality, not degrees.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Jack Ring
Mar 15, 2016, 3:44:28 AM3/15/16
to Sys Sci
The model may be closed but that is what makes it a less than accurate representation of the system.
Hillary Sillitto
Mar 15, 2016, 10:29:50 AM3/15/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Jack, that (a closed model is a potentially inadequate representation of open system) was exactly the point I was clumsily trying to articulate!
MDSE
Mar 15, 2016, 12:48:34 PM3/15/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
And further, of what interest can a closed system be? By definition it has no context, no interaction, ergo no I/O, and is not observable. It's like an equation consisting of nothing but an "equals" sign.
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
Hillary Sillitto
Mar 15, 2016, 1:36:24 PM3/15/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Mike
Most physics experiments are conceptualised as closed systems in order to isolate the phenomenon of interest, and then designed to get as close to that ideal as possible. Many engineered, political and social systems are also conceptualised as closed systems, for less good reason, because their managers can't operate without the illusion of total control.
Hillary
Jack Ring
Mar 15, 2016, 3:13:49 PM3/15/16
to Sys Sci
Good.
And in my interpretation of Derek Cabrera’s DSRP it may be said that no model is closed because any two observers will ‘groc’ different things and even that one observer will not ‘groc’ the same thing twice.
Jack
Jack Ring
Mar 15, 2016, 3:24:19 PM3/15/16
to Sys Sci
Having proctored college physics lab I can assure you that any physics experiment conceptualized as closed would earn a C grads at best.
Every Analysis and Conclusions must include estimate of probable error and one kind of estimate must acknowledge ‘possible influences that were not measured.' At least in S. Winston Cram’s physics department.
Jack
Hillary Sillitto
Mar 15, 2016, 5:36:24 PM3/15/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Jack
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile
What you describe is an environment for learners. What I described was behaviour I have observed in experts. Some of the best experts, having learnt as you described, work as I described to make breakthroughs in their field.
Best
Hillary
--
Sent from Gmail Mobile
Mike Dee
Mar 15, 2016, 5:40:23 PM3/15/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Hillary:
Agreed. And therein lies the self-delusion. Even Von Clausewitz understood the problem way back then. He called it “friction”… the reason plans (models) can be so dangerous when believed.
MD
From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 1:36 PM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com
Jack Ring
Mar 15, 2016, 11:51:09 PM3/15/16
to Sys Sci
Apparently I was not clear. In Physics Lab the student designs and experiment then fabricates the equipment from the technology and materials available. Typically the student knows that this configuration will allow some error (measuring G by timing a falling body but not in a vacuum). The student acknowledges the variance and estimates the probable error. Also, from conducting the experiment and interpreting the measurements the student often thinks of other factors not controlled or accounted for so also estimates the probable error due to those.
Yes, "Many engineered, political and social systems are also conceptualised as closed systems, for less good reason, because their managers can't operate without the illusion of total control.” Accordingly, they should not only estimate the Fit For Purpose of the system they engineered but also estimate the probable error in that F4P estimate due to factors that will influence the system but were not included in the model.
In fact, in the CAS era, a prudent designer knows that more than one system will be required. The first one copes with some aspect then the second version copes with another, etc. It may take 7 versions to completely suppress the problem situation. We see this in military situations as they estimate the Order of Battle then devise a system to nullify the enemy's surveillance and communication then another version to also nullify the enemy’s logistics, then a third version to nullify his mobility then another to destroy what has become a ‘sitting duck.’ Accordingly, particularly in a so-called SoS situation a closed model may be used at first but simultaneously a prudent expert estimates the consequences of that simplification.
Thus the homily that a prudent designer designs not just for the problem that initiated his effort but also for the problem that his system will cause when it becomes operational.
Thanks for examining the description.
Jack
Hillary,
Nope. I described a way of conceptualizing and design that reveals the essence of a behavior but also acknowledges other possible factors. Many experienced practitioners devise
Jack Ring
Mar 17, 2016, 6:33:03 PM3/17/16
to Sys Sci
It allows you to estimate the state of the system before the next stimulus occurs.
Hillary Sillitto
Mar 17, 2016, 7:02:52 PM3/17/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Jack
I am sad to see that, it would seem, your opinions are impervious to the evidence of and insights from others' observations. The best scientists have the skill to see how to design experiments that isolate the effects they are looking for from perturbations and uncertainty factors. A friend of mine from university was notably good at this. That is why he made his career in research whereas I did not.
Jack Ring
Mar 17, 2016, 8:45:11 PM3/17/16
to Sys Sci
Hi Hillary,
Or my observations are impervious to the opinions expressed by others, even those said to be ‘best scientists’ (even though best denotes singular).
But let’s be clear that the issue is not about doing science, the issue is about precision in the application of the label systemness to a phenomenon. The general semantics people warn us that to claim systemness we must also claim Not-systemsness. I have not seen any of the latter in thread.
Or are you saying that if a best scientist calls a dog’s tail a leg then he/she has, in fact, invented a five-legged dog.
As near as I can tell, given Alice’s advice, all those vaunted experts use the words system and systemness to mean precisely whatever they want the words to mean at any time.
Jack
Hillary Sillitto
Mar 18, 2016, 4:35:42 AM3/18/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Jack
Unrelated issue, I think we were down a rabbit hole. Science advances by comprehensive testing to confirm or improve theories. Engineering advances by comprehensive testing to confirm or improve designs. Philosophy and linguistics - and ontology in bith meanings of the word - deal with systems of human thought, which are not amenable to objective proof or disproof in the way that scientific theories and engineering designs are.
Hillary
Aleksandar Malečić
Mar 18, 2016, 5:22:17 AM3/18/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
As near as I can tell, given Alice’s advice, all those vaunted experts use the words system and systemness to mean precisely whatever they want the words to mean at any time.Jack
Is "interactions and the context at least as important as parts" precise enough?
Aleksandar
Jack Ring
Mar 18, 2016, 11:43:43 AM3/18/16
to Sys Sci
Hillary,
I like your summary regarding science and engineering. My presentation at the IS 14 Panel made the same distinctions.
However, you have also expressed elsewhere another very important notion regarding the problem that occurs when people use the same label to refer to two different things or use two different labels for the same thing.
I think this is the issue with who gets to call ‘X' a system or systemness AND demands that they also precis Not-system and Not-systemness.
Jack
Lenard Troncale
Mar 18, 2016, 11:45:18 AM3/18/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Hillary,
Let me praise how concise and accurate are your juxtapositions below (to persons with a worldview similar to mine) (or IMHO). Admirably stated. May I quote you?
Len
Michael Singer
Mar 18, 2016, 2:21:39 PM3/18/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Jack -- If a scientist calls a kangaroo’s tail a leg, has he/she invented a three-legged kangaroo?
Michael
Steven Krane
Mar 18, 2016, 3:20:34 PM3/18/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Hilary, Regarding:
Unrelated issue, I think we were down a rabbit hole. Science advances by comprehensive testing to confirm or improve theories. Engineering advances by comprehensive testing to confirm or improve designs. Philosophy and linguistics - and ontology in bith meanings of the word - deal with systems of human thought, which are not amenable to objective proof or disproof in the way that scientific theories and engineering designs are.
Do you disagree that a Design is (like) a Theory or that Theory is thought? Science tests (definite) thinking, in my view.
Jack Ring
Mar 18, 2016, 3:28:58 PM3/18/16
to Sys Sci
If so then does the K no longer have a tail? Be careful of confusing what that appendage is vs. what it does.
Note that scientist did not provide third foot.
Michael Singer
Mar 18, 2016, 7:43:53 PM3/18/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Is there one correct, context-invariant answer to the question:
"How many legs does the depicted kangaroo have?"
If so then does the K no longer have a tail? Be careful of confusing what that appendage is vs. what it does.
Note that scientist did not provide third foot.
On Mar 18, 2016 11:21 AM, "Michael Singer" <michaelj...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jack -- If a scientist calls a kangaroo’s tail a leg, has he/she invented a three-legged kangaroo?
<Screen Shot 2016-03-18 at 11.17.25 AM.png>
Steven Krane
Mar 18, 2016, 8:14:01 PM3/18/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
I’ll just inject a little Feynman here;
Its not so important to be precise with words, as long as you understand what the other guy means,
If someone said, “the kangaroo’s leg is broken”, I think you would know where to look.
Its not about correctness. Its about understanding. In this WG, some of what is going on seems to be about checking whether we understand, in the same way, the words we are using. That is a prerequisite to science, because science can only assess DEFINITE statements, and even then, only some of those.
JackHillary,
Jack
Jack Ring
Mar 18, 2016, 8:39:27 PM3/18/16
to Sys Sci
Legs = 2. Locomotion aids = 3. Also uses legs to fight an opponent but does not use tail.
On Mar 18, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Michael Singer <michaelj...@gmail.com> wrote:
JackHillary,
Jack
Michael Singer
Mar 18, 2016, 9:00:10 PM3/18/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Are you saying that "2" is the correct, context-invariant answer to the question?
Jack Ring
Mar 19, 2016, 12:51:45 AM3/19/16
to Sys Sci
Yes, because the context is stated as kangaroo.
If you want context to include observer then doen’t the question have to be How many legs does the observer think the kangaroo has?
Jack Ring
Mar 19, 2016, 12:56:28 AM3/19/16
to Sys Sci
Correction:
Yes, because the context is stated as ‘depitcted kangaroo.'
If you want context to include observer then doen’t the question have to be How many legs does the observer think the kangaroo has?
Michael Singer
Mar 19, 2016, 1:04:25 AM3/19/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for the clarification
Jack Ring
Mar 19, 2016, 1:28:21 AM3/19/16
to Sys Sci
What do you think?
Michael Singer
Mar 19, 2016, 2:37:42 PM3/19/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Jack,
I would say the context is not completely fixed by the sentence
"How many legs does the depicted kangaroo have?"
but is also a matter of the mutual knowledge of a given speaker (or writer) and intended audience (per Steve K's answer).
For efficiency's sake, we omit contextual qualifiers from our assertions in cases of presumed adequate mutual knowledge. If we are prepared to make our contextual assumptions explicit as needed, arguments about who has the 'correct definition from on high' can be avoided.
Korzybski's followers Kellogg and Bourland call the unqualified use of language 'deity mode’ (http://www.generalsemantics.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/articles/etc/47-4-kellogg-bourland.pdf, see pp. 6-8).
I think James raised the problem of unqualified uses of 'is' a few months ago.
Michael
Steven Krane
Mar 19, 2016, 9:37:46 PM3/19/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
Right. You have to build linguistic models TOGETHER to jointly confront complex problematic situations. Otherwise it's like working with foggy lenses
Sent from my iPhone
Curt McNamara
Mar 19, 2016, 10:29:32 PM3/19/16
to Sys Sci
Yes, and that is how discourse could be improved when discussing systems. Instead of trying to prove that our view of systems is better, we could look at how to find commonalities. Then we could progress rapidly towards useful tools for all.
CurtReply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages