Some Charts For Use At The Saturday January 20th, Structural Modeling Video Conference

[joseph simpson]

Please see the attached charts.

These charts are designed to stimulate discussion.

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]

Len:

Just a note to expand my comments on your statement:

"Your last graphic here brought me some relief as I usually regard your detailed matrices as mostly and only logical propositions. The last graphic indicates that you and I agree on the meanings and relations between “formal” “factual” and “value” statements."

In general we have been working in the area of propagating relationships.  

Propagating relationships have an interesting set of characteristics.

From Warfield, "A Science of Generic Design," page 64:

"Propagation of a relationship is a logical phenomenon, not necessarily a temporal or spatial or influence type of phenomenon.  It is the logical propagation that is critical.  Relationships that do not propagate in a logical sense may still propagate in terms of influence or impact."

Systems engineering is mostly focused on relationships the propagate in terms of influence or impact.

Now , that we have established a small set of open source software to engage the logical propagation of relationships, we will start to evaluate the alignment of these different types of propagation.

What type of logical propagating relationships map directly to other types of propagating (non-logical) relationships.

The mapping of these relationship groups provides a direct computational connection between these different forms.

Yes, most of our current material is focused on logical relationship representation.

However, the abstract relation type (ART) was designed to organize and present information about a specific type of relationship.  A specific type of relationship may be encoded in logic, process, influence,  structure, or any combination of these forms.

A fundamental activity would be mapping your  isomorphic systems process (ISPs Linkage Propositions) to a given set of logical forms using the ART construct.

This fundamental step would also help communicate basic applications of the systems science and engineering ART form.

Take care, be good to yourself and I look forward to a chance to work with you in the future.

Joe

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu> wrote:

Joe, Mary, et. al.,

Love these charts but don’t see my work in them or other GST work or what I would agree to label systems science. It might be good to have a translator from them to these other schools of thought. But I do not think you have studied my stuff or I have studied your stuff enough to see how they relate to each other. Synthesis and even meta-languages requires translation and comparison or no integration occurs. How could we and do we even want to accomplish that level of translation? My life and lifework is devoted to integration, synthesis, and unification. So that is why I pursue this. So are my two projects for SSWG.

For example, we have in the past suggested to each other that the language-based statements describing how the various 50 or more isomorphic systems process (ISPs Linkage Propositions) influence each other (for a real, detailed, theory of systems dynamics and behavior) should relate to your matrices of logical relations BUT we have never developed even one single example. I cite and credit and praise your collaboration in the SSWG of IW next week, yet we have never really moved that meta-language translation along.

Your last graphic here brought me some relief as I usually regard your detailed matrices as mostly and only logical propositions. The last graphic indicates that you and I agree on the meanings and relations between “formal” “factual” and “value” statements. Most of my work is derived from massive comparisons between sciences on instantiated real systems to find isomorphies and their mutual influences. So maybe I am restricted to “factual” only? Can that be a basis for translation between these meta-languages?

Len

P.S. will you or Mary be at IW’18 so we can puzzle over this?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-modeling+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structural-modeling@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
<GeneralSystemsTheoryDevelopment_OneSlide_v3_17jan2018.pdf><MathTheoriesTC4.png><LogicalRelations-to-AMEI-Icons_05feb2017.pdf><ClusterTC4.png><IO_SIM_IAT.png><tot_2.png><tot_1.png>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-modeling+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structural-modeling@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[joseph simpson]

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: [structural-modeling] Some Charts For Use At The Saturday January 20th, Structural Modeling Video Conference
To: "structura...@googlegroups.com" <structura...@googlegroups.com>, Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu>

Len:

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

A detailed response  to your complete set of comments will have to want, but the item below is too important to wait any longer:

“IS A PARTIAL CAUSE OF”     AND    “IS A PARTIAL RESULT OF” 

Systems have structure and behavior.

Structural modeling focuses on a system structure.

System behavior is related to system structure in many ways.

From a system structure point of view, we can say that system A is part of system B.

From a system behavior point of view we can say system A causes system B.

The phrase, "is a partial cause of" addresses the structure of the system behavior.

Further, "is a partial cause of" requires additional contextual information (that other causal phenomena exist.)

The phrase, "is a partial cause of" is a compound concept that contains structural information (part of), behavioral information (cause of) and contextual information (implies other causal phenomena.)  

The same types of statements can be made for the phrase, "is a partial result of."

More later,

Take care, b good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu> wrote:

Please see response comments in caps below  …….  please forgive the caps, not a form of shouting at all. Just for you to distinguish them easily from your comments  ……  Sorry for the long delay in response and for non-participation in your meetings. Lots of travel and family problems.

On Jan 19, 2018, at 8:55 AM, joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Len:

Just a note to expand my comments on your statement:

"Your last graphic here brought me some relief as I usually regard your detailed matrices as mostly and only logical propositions. The last graphic indicates that you and I agree on the meanings and relations between “formal” “factual” and “value” statements."

In general we have been working in the area of propagating relationships.  

Propagating relationships have an interesting set of characteristics.

From Warfield, "A Science of Generic Design," page 64:

"Propagation of a relationship is a logical phenomenon, not necessarily a temporal or spatial or influence type of phenomenon.  It is the logical propagation that is critical.  Relationships that do not propagate in a logical sense may still propagate in terms of influence or impact.”

THE SPT LINKAGE PROPOSITION LANGUAGE STATEMENTS (OPERATORS) ARE MOSTLY INFLUENCE OR IMPACT ALTHOUGH THEY CAN ALSO BE TAXONOMIC OR RELATIONAL. THE ONE WE HAD THE MOST TROUBLE WITH ARE THESE:

“IS A PARTIAL CAUSE OF”     AND    “IS A PARTIAL RESULT OF”    THE SE’S TENDED TO OBJECT TO THESE YET THEY ARE CENTRAL TO SPT.

I THINK THE REASON IS THE LINEAR THINKING OF ENGINEERS (AND MOST OF US). IT EITHER IS A CAUSE OR IS NOT. IT EITHER IS A RESULT OR IS NOT. BUT OUR FORMULATION RELATES BETTER TO NETWORK CAUSATION AND NETWORK RESULTS AS IS ALREADY RECOGNIZED IN MOLECULAR GENETICS (PLEIOTROPY) OR MY NEOLOGISM (PLEIOETIOLOGY) AS A COMPLEMENT. WE SYSTEMS-BASED NON-LINEAR CAUSALITY PEOPLE NEED TO START RETHINKING THIS WAY IMHO.

Systems engineering is mostly focused on relationships the propagate in terms of influence or impact.

SO SPT IS MORE LIKE SE IN THIS FEATURE. PROPAGATION IS NOT BY LOGIC AS MUCH AS “INFLUENCE” AS DEDUCED FROM EXPERIMENTS REPORTED IN CONVENTIONAL SCIENCE LITERATURES.

Now , that we have established a small set of open source software to engage the logical propagation of relationships, we will start to evaluate the alignment of these different types of propagation.

What type of logical propagating relationships map directly to other types of propagating (non-logical) relationships.

The mapping of these relationship groups provides a direct computational connection between these different forms.

Yes, most of our current material is focused on logical relationship representation.

However, the abstract relation type (ART) was designed to organize and present information about a specific type of relationship.  A specific type of relationship may be encoded in logic, process, influence,  structure, or any combination of these forms.

A fundamental activity would be mapping your  isomorphic systems process (ISPs Linkage Propositions) to a given set of logical forms using the ART construct.

THIS MOTIVATES ME TO EXTEND WORK THAT HAS ONLY BEEN ON MY BACK BURNER. A MUCH MORE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF LINKAGE PROPOSITIONS OF MY “OLD” FORMS (WHICH WERE PERSONALLY PROPAGATED BY PERSONAL LOGIC OR IMPLICIT UNDERSTANDING OF THE SYSTEMS LITERATURE) AND THE “NEW” FORMS WHICH WERE MUCH MORE AS DESCRIBED AS ABOVE, THAT IS, PROPAGATED BY SYSTEMS-LEVEL ABSTRACT INTERPRETATION OF CONVENTIONAL SCIENCE RELATIONS SUPPORTED BY EXPERIMENTS.

This fundamental step would also help communicate basic applications of the systems science and engineering ART form.

I WOULD JUDGE OUR LINKAGE PROPOSITION WORK TOO PRIMITIVE AT THIS STAGE. WE JUST HAVE LONG LISTS OF PROPOSED LP’S. SO LONG LISTS OF OPERATORS WE HAVE NEEDED TO USE SO FAR TO DESCRIBE RELATIONS BETWEEN ISOMORPHIC SYSTEMS PROCESSES.

Take care, be good to yourself and I look forward to a chance to work with you in the future.

Joe

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu> wrote:

Joe, Mary, et. al.,

Love these charts but don’t see my work in them or other GST work or what I would agree to label systems science. It might be good to have a translator from them to these other schools of thought. But I do not think you have studied my stuff or I have studied your stuff enough to see how they relate to each other. Synthesis and even meta-languages requires translation and comparison or no integration occurs. How could we and do we even want to accomplish that level of translation? My life and lifework is devoted to integration, synthesis, and unification. So that is why I pursue this. So are my two projects for SSWG.

For example, we have in the past suggested to each other that the language-based statements describing how the various 50 or more isomorphic systems process (ISPs Linkage Propositions) influence each other (for a real, detailed, theory of systems dynamics and behavior) should relate to your matrices of logical relations BUT we have never developed even one single example. I cite and credit and praise your collaboration in the SSWG of IW next week, yet we have never really moved that meta-language translation along.

Your last graphic here brought me some relief as I usually regard your detailed matrices as mostly and only logical propositions. The last graphic indicates that you and I agree on the meanings and relations between “formal” “factual” and “value” statements. Most of my work is derived from massive comparisons between sciences on instantiated real systems to find isomorphies and their mutual influences. So maybe I am restricted to “factual” only? Can that be a basis for translation between these meta-languages?

Len

P.S. will you or Mary be at IW’18 so we can puzzle over this?

On Jan 17, 2018, at 5:57 PM, joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Please see the attached charts.

These charts are designed to stimulate discussion.

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

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

To post to this group, send email to structural-modeling@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
<GeneralSystemsTheoryDevelopment_OneSlide_v3_17jan2018.pdf><MathTheoriesTC4.png><LogicalRelations-to-AMEI-Icons_05feb2017.pdf><ClusterTC4.png><IO_SIM_IAT.png><tot_2.png><tot_1.png>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

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

To post to this group, send email to structural-modeling@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

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

To post to this group, send email to structural-modeling@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

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

To post to this group, send email to structural-modeling@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

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]

Len:

I think this discussion should get the widest possible distribution and participation from other interested individuals. 

Therefore, I also copied the systems science working group.

I will try to find some time in the next week or so to make a more detailed response to the semantics associated with the Kenneth Boulding description of General Systems Theory.

In my view there are fundamental symmetries among Boulding's GST description, Warfield's language types and systems science.

I have not yet created a document that describes my views in this area, and it is now time.

To answer your question, copied below:

"It seems from your statements that your group as SE’s are not as hostile to “is a partial cause (or result) of” as others? Is that true?"

In general system engineering strives to clearly define system composition and system behavior.

In general system engineering strives to reduce uncertainty and related complexity.

If "is a partial cause (or result) of" is composed of atomic statements, part-of and cause-of centered in a well-understood context, then these compound statements should not create too much concern.

However, if these compound statements are presented in and undefined context without clear assignment of the part-of and cause-of components then significant uncertainty and associated complexity may be generated. 

I believe that under the right circumstances compound statements are valuable.

Got to go, but this is interesting.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu> wrote:

Joe,

I agree with your statements I think. The LP’s in SPT cover BOTH structural relations and behavioral relations between isomorphies as you detect.

In a sense, the context you speak of is already taken care of because there are many Linkage Propositions. So there are usually several “is a partial cause of” LP’s connected to a particular isomorphy. The implicit assumption is that more will be revealed by experiments with time anyway so in a sense the multiplicity of causes and effects (inherent non-linearity) is a built-in part of the theory construction and expectation.

Remember also that in SPT our statements of linkage are NOT between particular instantiations of a system (real systems in nature or human systems) but rather between abstractions across all studied systems in comparison. So the term “a partial cause (or result) of” has a somewhat different aspect or nature than Warfield statements that apply to particular systems or particular problem areas studies as a system.

It seems from your statements that your group as SE’s are not as hostile to “is a partial cause (or result) of” as others? Is that true?

Len

P.S. Do you want me to keep these interchanges between us as personal, or is it okay that they are now going out to a googlegroup?

On Feb 13, 2018, at 5:02 PM, joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Len:

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

A detailed response  to your complete set of comments will have to want, but the item below is too important to wait any longer:

“IS A PARTIAL CAUSE OF”     AND    “IS A PARTIAL RESULT OF” 

Systems have structure and behavior.

Structural modeling focuses on a system structure.

System behavior is related to system structure in many ways.

From a system structure point of view, we can say that system A is part of system B.

From a system behavior point of view we can say system A causes system B.

The phrase, "is a partial cause of" addresses the structure of the system behavior.

Further, "is a partial cause of" requires additional contextual information (that other causal phenomena exist.)

The phrase, "is a partial cause of" is a compound concept that contains structural information (part of), behavioral information (cause of) and contextual information (implies other causal phenomena.)  

The same types of statements can be made for the phrase, "is a partial result of."

More later,

Take care, b good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu> wrote:

Please see response comments in caps below  …….  please forgive the caps, not a form of shouting at all. Just for you to distinguish them easily from your comments  ……  Sorry for the long delay in response and for non-participation in your meetings. Lots of travel and family problems.

On Jan 19, 2018, at 8:55 AM, joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Len:

Just a note to expand my comments on your statement:

"Your last graphic here brought me some relief as I usually regard your detailed matrices as mostly and only logical propositions. The last graphic indicates that you and I agree on the meanings and relations between “formal” “factual” and “value” statements."

In general we have been working in the area of propagating relationships.  

Propagating relationships have an interesting set of characteristics.

From Warfield, "A Science of Generic Design," page 64:

"Propagation of a relationship is a logical phenomenon, not necessarily a temporal or spatial or influence type of phenomenon.  It is the logical propagation that is critical.  Relationships that do not propagate in a logical sense may still propagate in terms of influence or impact.”

THE SPT LINKAGE PROPOSITION LANGUAGE STATEMENTS (OPERATORS) ARE MOSTLY INFLUENCE OR IMPACT ALTHOUGH THEY CAN ALSO BE TAXONOMIC OR RELATIONAL. THE ONE WE HAD THE MOST TROUBLE WITH ARE THESE:

“IS A PARTIAL CAUSE OF”     AND    “IS A PARTIAL RESULT OF”    THE SE’S TENDED TO OBJECT TO THESE YET THEY ARE CENTRAL TO SPT.

I THINK THE REASON IS THE LINEAR THINKING OF ENGINEERS (AND MOST OF US). IT EITHER IS A CAUSE OR IS NOT. IT EITHER IS A RESULT OR IS NOT. BUT OUR FORMULATION RELATES BETTER TO NETWORK CAUSATION AND NETWORK RESULTS AS IS ALREADY RECOGNIZED IN MOLECULAR GENETICS (PLEIOTROPY) OR MY NEOLOGISM (PLEIOETIOLOGY) AS A COMPLEMENT. WE SYSTEMS-BASED NON-LINEAR CAUSALITY PEOPLE NEED TO START RETHINKING THIS WAY IMHO.

Systems engineering is mostly focused on relationships the propagate in terms of influence or impact.

SO SPT IS MORE LIKE SE IN THIS FEATURE. PROPAGATION IS NOT BY LOGIC AS MUCH AS “INFLUENCE” AS DEDUCED FROM EXPERIMENTS REPORTED IN CONVENTIONAL SCIENCE LITERATURES.

Now , that we have established a small set of open source software to engage the logical propagation of relationships, we will start to evaluate the alignment of these different types of propagation.

What type of logical propagating relationships map directly to other types of propagating (non-logical) relationships.

The mapping of these relationship groups provides a direct computational connection between these different forms.

Yes, most of our current material is focused on logical relationship representation.

However, the abstract relation type (ART) was designed to organize and present information about a specific type of relationship.  A specific type of relationship may be encoded in logic, process, influence,  structure, or any combination of these forms.

A fundamental activity would be mapping your  isomorphic systems process (ISPs Linkage Propositions) to a given set of logical forms using the ART construct.

THIS MOTIVATES ME TO EXTEND WORK THAT HAS ONLY BEEN ON MY BACK BURNER. A MUCH MORE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF LINKAGE PROPOSITIONS OF MY “OLD” FORMS (WHICH WERE PERSONALLY PROPAGATED BY PERSONAL LOGIC OR IMPLICIT UNDERSTANDING OF THE SYSTEMS LITERATURE) AND THE “NEW” FORMS WHICH WERE MUCH MORE AS DESCRIBED AS ABOVE, THAT IS, PROPAGATED BY SYSTEMS-LEVEL ABSTRACT INTERPRETATION OF CONVENTIONAL SCIENCE RELATIONS SUPPORTED BY EXPERIMENTS.

This fundamental step would also help communicate basic applications of the systems science and engineering ART form.

I WOULD JUDGE OUR LINKAGE PROPOSITION WORK TOO PRIMITIVE AT THIS STAGE. WE JUST HAVE LONG LISTS OF PROPOSED LP’S. SO LONG LISTS OF OPERATORS WE HAVE NEEDED TO USE SO FAR TO DESCRIBE RELATIONS BETWEEN ISOMORPHIC SYSTEMS PROCESSES.

Take care, be good to yourself and I look forward to a chance to work with you in the future.

Joe

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu> wrote:

Joe, Mary, et. al.,

Love these charts but don’t see my work in them or other GST work or what I would agree to label systems science. It might be good to have a translator from them to these other schools of thought. But I do not think you have studied my stuff or I have studied your stuff enough to see how they relate to each other. Synthesis and even meta-languages requires translation and comparison or no integration occurs. How could we and do we even want to accomplish that level of translation? My life and lifework is devoted to integration, synthesis, and unification. So that is why I pursue this. So are my two projects for SSWG.

For example, we have in the past suggested to each other that the language-based statements describing how the various 50 or more isomorphic systems process (ISPs Linkage Propositions) influence each other (for a real, detailed, theory of systems dynamics and behavior) should relate to your matrices of logical relations BUT we have never developed even one single example. I cite and credit and praise your collaboration in the SSWG of IW next week, yet we have never really moved that meta-language translation along.

Your last graphic here brought me some relief as I usually regard your detailed matrices as mostly and only logical propositions. The last graphic indicates that you and I agree on the meanings and relations between “formal” “factual” and “value” statements. Most of my work is derived from massive comparisons between sciences on instantiated real systems to find isomorphies and their mutual influences. So maybe I am restricted to “factual” only? Can that be a basis for translation between these meta-languages?

Len

P.S. will you or Mary be at IW’18 so we can puzzle over this?

On Jan 17, 2018, at 5:57 PM, joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Please see the attached charts.

These charts are designed to stimulate discussion.

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

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

To post to this group, send email to structural-modeling@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
<GeneralSystemsTheoryDevelopment_OneSlide_v3_17jan2018.pdf><MathTheoriesTC4.png><LogicalRelations-to-AMEI-Icons_05feb2017.pdf><ClusterTC4.png><IO_SIM_IAT.png><tot_2.png><tot_1.png>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

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

To post to this group, send email to structural-modeling@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

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

To post to this group, send email to structural-modeling@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

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

To post to this group, send email to structural-modeling@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-modeling+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structural-modeling@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-modeling+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structural-modeling@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jack Ring]

A clearer statement may be  “is a conditional cause (or result) of” which would let Weinberg’s ‘a relationship is also an entity' and Cabrera’s ‘perspective’ and those acknowledging n-ary relationships join in the dialog.

Jack

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-mode...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.

[joseph simpson]

Jack:

I believe that type of statement would work under certain conditions.

Given a context where system concepts are used either in design mode or discovery mode, then these relationships and connections will have unique values in each specific context.

As Len pointed out:

"The implicit assumption is that more will be revealed by experiments with time anyway so in a sense the multiplicity of causes and effects (inherent non-linearity) is a built-in part of the theory construction and expectation."

This form works very well in system discovery mode.

However, it may not be as valuable in system design mode (where system engineers spend most of their time.)

Lets say the task is to design a fire suppression system or a explosion suppression system or a problem suppression system.

If we know all the partial causes of fire, then all we need to do is eliminate one of these elements that contribute to the cause of fire, to suppress the fire.  In this fashion, the partial-cause-of concept is very useful in system design mode.  However, you need to know at least one partial cause to implement this system design approach.

This type of design approach may also work well in the design of a explosion suppression system.

However, this approach may not be as effective in designing a problem suppression system.  All partial causes to any given problem may have to be addressed before the problem suppression system is effective.  Addressing only one of the problem partial causes may just slightly alter the problem, not eliminate the problem.

Jack commented:

"A clearer statement may be  “is a conditional cause (or result) of” which would let Weinberg’s ‘a relationship is also an entity' and Cabrera’s ‘perspective’ and those acknowledging n-ary relationships join in the dialog."

This may well be true, but it has a high probability of greatly increasing uncertainty and therefore complexity.  The uncertainty and complexity in these kinds of situations may be suppressed using Combs Filter types of conditional analysis.  Please see:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279205085_Foundational_Aspects_of_System_Complexity_Reduction

https://www.systemsconcept.org/html/Content/smp_arc/docs/06_06_2015/FSCR_old.pdf

https://books.google.com/books?id=-DcKLlQQ1vwC&pg=PA304&lpg=PA304&dq=Combs+Filter+Union+Rule+Configuration&source=bl&ots=ORKY-9Yrot&sig=s-8I2gpFIqQKI6Ox-xixsFVEApo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjDq9L516bZAhULKKwKHRA9DlkQ6AEIMTAB#v=onepage&q=Combs%20Filter%20Union%20Rule%20Configuration&f=false

I believe that these types of approaches can be effectively applied in system discovery and system design tasks without adding unreasonable amounts of uncertainty and/or complexity.

I will am further defining and documenting these system discovery and design methods with a specific focus on uncertainty reduction, connection to General Systems Theory and augmented intelligence activities.

The goal is to have a preliminary document for discussion at the March Structural Modeling Video Conference.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe 

[joseph simpson]

Jack:

As you may well understand, I am just setting a common basic context for a more detailed discussion.

I believe the concepts of system design and system discovery need to be stated and used as discriminators in these types of discussions.

The Union Rule Combination (URC) was developed by Combs to reduce the computational complexity associated with logic conditional statements.  Most conditional rule sets are written in a Intersection Rule Combination (IRC) which requires a N squared number of rules for N conditions. Using the URC the number of rules can be greatly reduced.  

Further, the URC can be directly implemented using fuzzy logic.  The use of fuzzy logic helps in human comprehension. I proposed a N-dimensional "fuzzy number" that I called a system number a few years ago.  The concept of a system number (in N dimensions) has the capability (I believe) to effectively address a wide range of conditions and rules.  Please see:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4334629_System_of_Systems_Architecture_Generation_and_Evaluation_using_Evolutionary_Algorithms

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279205085_Foundational_Aspects_of_System_Complexity_Reduction

It is my belief that these kinds of system concepts, properly aligned with executable implementation techniques, can provide a common basis to integrate a wide range of system science and system engineering activities.

My plan is create a more comprehensive document that addresses these issues in greater detail.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 5:15 PM, Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Joe,

Thanks for addressing this.

A partial cause of fire suppression may be sufficient to suppress  immediately or to take longer depending on whether that one cause is influenced by associated causes. Is a catalyst a partial cause of a result? 

Seems to me you are trying to cope with n-ary situations in which one cause will affect A while another cause will effect the gradient of the cause that affects A.

Your homework in advanced algebra in which you decided the best N for N-stage booster rockets was meaningful.

Conditional may well increase complexness but that’s why we do interpretive structuring in the first place — to increase comprehension.

Jack

[Jack Ring]

Joe,

Thanks for addressing this.

A partial cause of fire suppression may be sufficient to suppress  immediately or to take longer depending on whether that one cause is influenced by associated causes. Is a catalyst a partial cause of a result? 

Seems to me you are trying to cope with n-ary situations in which one cause will affect A while another cause will effect the gradient of the cause that affects A.

Your homework in advanced algebra in which you decided the best N for N-stage booster rockets was meaningful.

Conditional may well increase complexness but that’s why we do interpretive structuring in the first place — to increase comprehension.

Jack

[Aleksandar Malečić]

Physical causation can hardly be resolved in online discussions. What's been discussed here so far depends on the kind of reality we (can) live in. Is it deterministic or not quite? What I like for example to consider, in addition to typical discussions about quantum uncertainty and thermodynamics, is Gaussian curve. Is our human inability to draw an absolutely precise Gaussian curve of a population just about our inherent clumsiness? If we for instance still haven't met a human being with IQ 5000, it means in terms of some Gaussian curve that we just haven't met a big enough population of humans. Is an uncooked egg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_recurrence_theorem) an extremely rare or impossible event? On the other hand, it might be that Black Swans (Nassim Nicholas Taleb), the uncertainty principle (Heisenberg), and the Second Law of thermodynamics are grey areas in which for instance living and conscious beings can occasionally express their unpredictability and creativity. That doesn't mean that any attempt to have more understanding of causation is futile and worthless, but perhaps that we might exist within a consistent rather than deterministic reality.

Aleksandar

--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.

[Hillary Sillitto]

Aleksandar

An IQ of 5000 is an awful lot of standard deviations away from 100. If the SD (Standard Deviation) of human IQ is 30, which feels about right, then we are talking 160 or so standard deviations. This means that if the distribution is Gaussian, the probability of someone having IQ=5000 is ten-to-the-power of minus-an-awful-awful-awful-lot, and way below the one in 9 billion you’d need for anyone on earth to have that IQ. I have forgotten how to do the sums but the probability is incredibly incredibly low. 

If IQ were power law distributed, then the probability of someone having an IQ of 5000 would be very much higher, and there might be a few of them around. 

Black Swans are indicative of power law distributions, which some people consider to be the signature of truly complex systems.

Cheers

Hillary

 

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

[Lenard Troncale]

Hillary,

I just have to say again that your thoughts and mine are often in support of each other.

Power Law distributions are another one of the 100 or so Isomorphic Systems Processes (ISPs) which are the backbone of the SPT. Besides recognizing their importance SPT (and I) insist that like Fractals or Hierarchies, it is critically important that we explore/experiment/discover the “process behind their isomorphic appearance” in many systems and system types across many scales. It’s not just the pattern itself that should interest us but the way the pattern originates de novo at each new scale from new components. So for hierarchies, it is heteropoiesis that should intrigue us not just hierarchical structure.

Anyway it is the complex nature of systems that result in power laws. In several talks and essay writings, i have speculated on the evolution or emergence of a metalanguage (which we need desperately) and in the emergence of metahumans, and in thinking the unthinkable. These may well be not a mere manipulation of IQ (which is based on architectures and neural nets as they currently exist in humans), but more on the appearance of a new architecture or the kind of symbiosis between the upcoming AI and human neural nets speculated on in the AI community.

So I like your comments on Aleksandar’s speculations and think that there is much more here to explore than the field of complex systems as it presently exists in SE thinking, or even ICCSs and NECSI has even begun to touch.

Len

[joseph simpson]

Aleksandar:

Very interesting set of questions.

Taken as a whole, this set of questions may highlight some general features and issues associated with social-technical systems.

From the Preface to "Metasystems Methodology, A New Synthesis and Unification" Arther D. Hall, III, 1989. Page xi:

"First came the law, accounting, and history which look backwards in time for their values and decision making criteria, but their paradigm (casuistry) cannot look forward to to predict future consequences.  Casuistry is overly rigid and does not account for statistical phenomena. "

From: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/NormalDistribution.html

"Normal distributions have many convenient properties, so random variates with unknown distributions are often assumed to be normal, especially in physics and astronomy. Although this can be a dangerous assumption, it is often a good approximation due to a surprising result known as the central limit theorem. This theorem states that the meanof any set of variates with any distribution having a finite mean and variance tends to the normal distribution. Many common attributes such as test scores, height, etc., follow roughly normal distributions, with few members at the high and low ends and many in the middle.

Because they occur so frequently, there is an unfortunate tendency to invoke normal distributions in situations where they may not be applicable. As Lippmann stated, "Everybody believes in the exponential law of errors: the experimenters, because they think it can be proved by mathematics; and the mathematicians, because they believe it has been established by observation" (Whittaker and Robinson 1967, p. 179)."

The general problem of mapping empirical observations to meaningful mathematics  is a fundamental problem.

The Structural Integration Modeling component of structural modeling is designed to directly address these fundamental issues.

Jack

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-modeling+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
<GeneralSystemsTheoryDevelopment_OneSlide_v3_17jan2018.pdf><MathTheoriesTC4.png><LogicalRelations-to-AMEI-Icons_05feb2017.pdf><ClusterTC4.png><IO_SIM_IAT.png><tot_2.png><tot_1.png>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-modeling+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-modeling+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-modeling+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-modeling+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-modeling+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-modeling+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-modeling+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

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

--

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

--
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.

[Steven Krane]

Joe,

Regarding normal distributions, I wonder if you can help me.  There is a distribution that looks very much like a normal distribution except there is much more area way out in the tail.  I’ve forgotten the name of it.  It could be generated by placing a number line next to a spinner.  Spin the needle and record the number the spinner is pointing at.  An odd thing about this distribution is that spinning the needle more times and taking the average does not get you closer to the mean than spinning it once.  Each time you spin there is a risk the spinner will stop nearly parallel to the line and you will get a number so large as to negate the influence of all the other spins.  This is just one example about why it’s generally not smart to talk about six sigma events.  You can’t look at a limited population and know very much about the extremes.  This is why the FAA requires that no single failure, regardless of probability may be catastrophic.  1E-9 per flight hour is the objective.  Claims of <1E-9 for any single failure are not credible.  I think that’s wise.

Steve

[joseph simpson]

Steve:

I am not sure I understand your question.

However, parametric statistics have many issues.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

Jack

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

To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
<GeneralSystemsTheoryDevelopment_OneSlide_v3_17jan2018.pdf><MathTheoriesTC4.png><LogicalRelations-to-AMEI-Icons_05feb2017.pdf><ClusterTC4.png><IO_SIM_IAT.png><tot_2.png><tot_1.png>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

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

To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

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

To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

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

To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

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

To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

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

To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

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

To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.

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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+unsubscribe@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 a topic in the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/syssciwg/GSP5s834f78/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to syssciwg+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

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

--