Eigenbehavior

16 views
Skip to first unread message

Aleksandar Malečić

unread,
Aug 20, 2016, 7:04:56 AM8/20/16
to Sys Sci Discussion List
I'll write a suggestion for a discussion and it will take place of someone else is in the mood to discuss.

I've recently received an invitation to consider writing for a journal something about eigenbehavior. For some reason that email message assumes that I might know something about eigenbehavior. I mean, I've heard about eigenvalue (characteristic value/root), but what in the world is eigenbehavior?

That call for paper mentions Heinz von Foerster.

Aleksandar

joseph simpson

unread,
Aug 20, 2016, 8:55:45 AM8/20/16
to Sys Sci
Aleksandar:

I did a quick search on the suggested topic...

Attached are two papers associated with this topic..

Take care and have fun,

Joe

--
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.
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
1817.pdf
Pangaro-Invitation-to-Recursioning-Heinz-von-Foerster.pdf

joseph simpson

unread,
Aug 20, 2016, 9:00:13 AM8/20/16
to Sys Sci

On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 4:04 AM, Aleksandar Malečić <ljma...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

joseph simpson

unread,
Aug 20, 2016, 12:14:18 PM8/20/16
to Sys Sci
Aleksandar:

Mary and I use a technique, called expansion and compression, in our work on systems with a symmetric structure that could be identified as eigenbehavior.

Also, certain forms of Formal Concept Analysis may also be identified as eigenbehavior...

Take care and have fun,

Joe

On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 4:04 AM, Aleksandar Malečić <ljma...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

Jack Ring

unread,
Aug 20, 2016, 1:27:24 PM8/20/16
to Sys Sci
Aleksandar,
Consider that an early version of an instance of eigenbehavior was coined by the French many moons ago, notably, ‘the more things change the more they stay the same.’
Be aware that identical eigenbehaviors can be generated by quite different system configurations. 
Jack Ring

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

Aleksandar Malečić

unread,
Aug 21, 2016, 3:15:41 AM8/21/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com
I appreciate the response.

What I find interesting about it is that, regardless of whether people use eigenbehavior or some other neologism or terminology, it looks like someone familiar with natural science and engineering talking about individual and collective consciousness and behavio(u)r. It's an important work but very difficult/nearly impossible to track progress. Insights from "many moons ago" are just as relevant as the latest research, whatever that might be. If I am for instance having a peaceful and civilized communication, it looks pretty much as I'm doing nothing. It doesn't make the news.

Aleksandar

joseph simpson

unread,
Aug 21, 2016, 10:14:04 AM8/21/16
to Sys Sci
Aleksandar:

System structure and system behavior are two different, interrelated concepts. 

Similar conceptual tools (mathematics) may be used to  analyze, explore and communicate information about any specific system.

Common metrics are needed to track progress.

It is not clear to me that a set of common metrics for this area of human endeavor exists at this time.

Have fun,

Joe 



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

Ferris, Tim

unread,
Aug 21, 2016, 6:00:29 PM8/21/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com

Joe,

 

‘Metrics to track progress’ seems to be the application of a measure that is meaningful (even if very difficult to really do) in engineering to science. Measuring progress in actual projects in real time is fraught with difficulty, especially with projects that have ambitious goals. Joe Kasser used to refer to the rapid progress of projects to about 80-90% complete and then seeming to take as long to get to 100%. (Actually a bit like the progress bar in Microsoft installation and file transfer indicators.) Would the project progress measure be better reported if the provider got given a budget to finish based on current expenditure and reported progress – thereby encouraging more conservative reports of progress?

 

But in science the goal is understanding of the world. While early work along a certain line of reasoning may appear to be converging on a good explanation of reality there are cases where continued work only seems to keep on opening up more questions which can be approached as refining the current construct, and result in more and more complex theory which is structured like a patchwork, when one looks at the detail. At such a time a paradigm shift is needed, where a whole new explanatory theory is needed.

 

Examples:

1.       The failing of classical physics of the 19th century to cope with electromagnetism, which resulted in the discovery of relativity. But now there might be a need for something fundamentally different that unifies relativity and quantum mechanics – etc.

2.       The phlogiston theory of chemistry – which at least superficially sounds a bit like the electrical engineer’s joke that stuff runs on smoke and when the smoke comes out it stops working.

 

Dr Tim Ferris

 

From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of joseph simpson
Sent: Sunday, 21 August 2016 3:14 PM
To: Sys Sci <syss...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Eigenbehavior

 

Aleksandar:

 

System structure and system behavior are two different, interrelated concepts. 

 

Similar conceptual tools (mathematics) may be used to  analyze, explore and communicate information about any specific system.

 

Common metrics are needed to track progress.

 

It is not clear to me that a set of common metrics for this area of human endeavor exists at this time.

 

Have fun,

 

Joe 

 

 

On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 12:15 AM, Aleksandar Malečić <ljma...@gmail.com> wrote:

I appreciate the response.

 

What I find interesting about it is that, regardless of whether people use eigenbehavior or some other neologism or terminology, it looks like someone familiar with natural science and engineering talking about individual and collective consciousness and behavio(u)r. It's an important work but very difficult/nearly impossible to track progress. Insights from "many moons ago" are just as relevant as the latest research, whatever that might be. If I am for instance having a peaceful and civilized communication, it looks pretty much as I'm doing nothing. It doesn't make the news.

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+u...@googlegroups.com.



 

--

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.

joseph simpson

unread,
Aug 21, 2016, 7:35:19 PM8/21/16
to Sys Sci
Tim:

Interesting insights and point of view....

Your point of view, associated with metrics, may be a little different than the point of view I assumed in my note above.

My reference to metrics was in response to Aleksandar's statement, given below:

"What I find interesting about it is that, regardless of whether people use eigenbehavior or some other neologism or terminology, it looks like someone familiar with natural science and engineering talking about individual and collective consciousness and behavio(u)r. It's an important work but very difficult/nearly impossible to track progress. Insights from "many moons ago" are just as relevant as the latest research, whatever that might be. If I am for instance having a peaceful and civilized communication, it looks pretty much as I'm doing nothing. It doesn't make the news."

Aleksandar appeared to be addressing natural science, engineering, system behavior and consciousness.  A very wide range of system types, structures and behaviors.  The eigenbehavior concept appears to have valid applications across this wide range of system types, capability and function.

My reference to a system metric was intended to align with the ideas expressed in the paper, "Entropy Metrics for System Identification and Analysis."  

This paper is available at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245334556_Entropy_Metrics_for_System_Identification_and_Analysis

Entropy appears to be a candidate metric that could be crafted for use as a candidate 'common metric' to identify and analyze a wide range of system types.  

Energy flow in biology indicates that the system structure is strongly associated with energy flow, which can be modeled using non-equilibrium thermodynamics and steady state theory.

Entropy, in all forms, has the potential to provide the conceptual basis for a common metric.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe



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



 

--

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+unsubscribe@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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Jack Ring

unread,
Aug 21, 2016, 8:12:06 PM8/21/16
to Sys Sci
Warfield has highlighted an interesting metric, The Situation Complexity Index, SCI = (N/7) (V/5) (K/10) = (1/350) NVK Where: N is Miller Index, V is Spreadthink index and K = DeMorgan index
Also, when the goal is sufficient coherence among those doing the system design it is possible to have the SE project members express their respective weltanschauungs as concept maps then use recently devised metrics for quantifying the ‘conceptual distances’ among the SE workgroup as revealed by the maps.
Of course it all starts with the descriptive model of the problem system structure and behavior underlying the problematic situation before we ever get to concerns about prescriptive models of system structure and behavior.
Jack

joseph simpson

unread,
Aug 21, 2016, 8:28:59 PM8/21/16
to Sys Sci

joseph simpson

unread,
Aug 21, 2016, 9:33:01 PM8/21/16
to Sys Sci
Jack:

Interesting choice of complexity metrics.

Warfield developed a number of complexity metrics ( about five) that are used to evaluate the reduction of complexity in a group activity.  The measured reduction in complexity, in any specific group activity, implies human and group learning.  Complexity reduction changes some critical aspects of the system.  If the Situation Complexity Index is above 100 then the situation is deemed to be complex.

The entropy metrics developed by Mary and I have a strong correlation to the complexity metrics developed by Warfield. 

Situational complexity is based on those aspects of the current phenomena that are open to making and impression on the mind.   Cognitive complexity is based on the aspects of the noumena that make the interpretation of the impression difficult.

Active learning, measurable complexity reduction, can take place in either or both of these complexity types; situational and/or cognitive.

Entropy metrics associate complexity reduction with active learning by identifying areas in the local context that can be changed to impact and create a new global system context.  Introduces the main aspects of eignbehavior for certain types of systems.

Take care and have fun,

Joe







 areas of complexity



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


 
-- 
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+unsubscribe@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+unsubscribe@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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

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

Ferris, Tim

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 3:20:20 AM8/22/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com

Joe,

 

I read the portion you quoted but clearly took a different thread of interpretation. I got hooked on the idea of a measure of completeness of the theory.

 

I may have thrown in a red herring to that discussion.

 

Dr Tim Ferris

 

From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of joseph simpson
Sent: Monday, 22 August 2016 12:35 AM
To: Sys Sci <syss...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Eigenbehavior

 

Tim:

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



 

--

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.

--
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.



 

--

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.

Ferris, Tim

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 3:25:23 AM8/22/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com

Jack,

 

That is a measure of ‘situation complexity’. That is, a measure related to some manifestation, and the description of that manifestation. It is likely useful to create such a measure, which will be helpful so long as the theory associated with its constituent aspects remains accepted.

 

As such it is a measure of something very different than a measure of the completeness of a theory.

 

Dr Tim Ferris

joseph simpson

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 10:12:57 AM8/22/16
to Sys Sci
Tim:

Excellent point of view, different but strongly related to to my point of view.

In my mind a theory outlines how objects are related and/or why events happen.

A theory is created using the scientific method.

The first step in the scientific method is hypotheses creation or making measurable predictions about the theory affect. And then conducting a range of experiments.

Due to the extremely wide range of eignbehavior  candidate system types, entropy was selected as a measurable, observable metric for use in the testing associated with the scientific method.

The direct connection to the formal language of mathematics as well as identification of system structure in some application of eigenbehavior,  makes it a great candidate for advanced structural modeling work.  See attached paper.

As far as completeness of a theory, I am not sure I clearly understand the concept.  In some sense, theories are always incomplete....

  "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."  Albert Einstien..

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Ferris, Tim <Timothy...@cranfield.ac.uk> wrote:

Joe,

 

I read the portion you quoted but clearly took a different thread of interpretation. I got hooked on the idea of a measure of completeness of the theory.

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



 

--

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+unsubscribe@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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.



 

--

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+unsubscribe@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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
eigenbehaviors.pdf

joseph simpson

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 10:43:35 AM8/22/16
to Sys Sci
Tim:

Interesting...

How do you measure the completeness of a theory?

What does a complete theory look like?

How would I identify a complete theory?

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

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.



 

-- 

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+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 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.
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+unsubscribe@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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Jack Ring

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 7:43:26 PM8/22/16
to Sys Sci
Tim, 
Yes, the SCI indicates complexity. 
However pls note the second topic that concerns coherence among the practitioners. It raises the question of whether a theory is complete if it is not understood, i.e., parsimony, and suggests this aspect be measured by determining the coherence of the receivers. I think this is meaningful relative to tracking progress because the ‘progress' we are trying to measure is not about the completeness of a theory but about the degree to which a theory fosters design.

Ferris, Tim

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 8:39:25 PM8/22/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com

Joe,

 

I believe that there is no way to confirm a theory is complete since there is always the possibility of the observation that falsifies – like the Einstein quote.

 

All we can really hope for is a theory which is capable of explaining all observations of which we currently know and which is predictively useful when we set up situations relying on the theoretically predicted outcome of a situation. (This latter effect is the foundation of engineering and anything like engineering.)

 

Therefore, until something happens to convince me to the contrary, I do not believe that the notion of measuring completeness of a theory is meaningful.

 

Dr Tim Ferris

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


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



 

-- 

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.


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

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

.  


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

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.

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

--
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.



 

--

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.

Jack Ring

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 9:10:31 PM8/22/16
to Sys Sci
Your entropy metrics sounds interesting. Are they public?
Pls notice Warfield’s distinction of complexity vs. saliency. 
Reduction of complexity is not always the best objective. Otherwise the Olympics would consist only of the shot put and long jump.

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

Ferris, Tim

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 9:25:45 PM8/22/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com

Jack,

 

If there is diversity of interpretation or view among participants in a field it would suggest to me that at the present time the field is still developing. The result of this situation will play out in the social and intellectual climate of the field. Eventually for either social or success reasons it is likely that the number of contending views will decrease.

 

The long-term success of a field may well be connected to whether scientific truth or the social power of participants was the factor that drove the acceptance of theories. (See for instance some of the commentary about operations research by Russell Ackoff.) The social factor is a reason why advancing theory through a paradigm shift may take a long time and meet with much resistance.

Jack Ring

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 9:26:00 PM8/22/16
to Sys Sci
When it comes to system engineering that propounds a theory for a problem suppression system I have a simple completeness test which almost all system models fail, notably, whether it addresses what the system will NOT do. 
Make sense?
Jack 

Jack Ring

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 9:30:46 PM8/22/16
to Sys Sci
Tim,
Well said. 
My interpretation of the scenario you describe is that the ‘participants' are still developing. 
And I take this to be a good thing. Otherwise we have the well known phenomena that 'science progresses one funeral at a time.’

Ferris, Tim

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 10:28:48 PM8/22/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com

Jack,

 

Your theory seems to me to be quite constrained, as in about a particular point. This contrasts with a broad theory, such as how to specify systems ensuring that nothing that matters is left out of the analysis (including the NOT items that are the subject of your current theory). As such it is possible to be much more confident of completeness because the breadth of claim for coverage is constrained.

 

In addition, this specific theory has an interesting characteristic – since it is about things which are absences rather than present.

 

This gets into another issue with negation which  has several aspects.

1.       The mind works reasonably well with things that are present, can be observed, and the like.

2.       The mind is poor at recognising something that is absent in the presence of many things that are present. Therefore, in selecting a product one may be carried away by the features of a product on offer, but without a formal selection criteria, forget that some feature which may be important for the intended application is absent. (Feature could also refer to some other property.)

3.       Negation of something is potentially a huge space. A product which is x (matches a set of criteria that could be written as requirements) is something specific. Everything else that exists (or could exist), fits under ‘not x’ and is therefore hard to comprehend.

4.       So ensuring that one specifies what a system will not do is a huge challenge that asks one to think of all manner of things which will  be nowhere near the front of mind when thinking about a system for a particular purpose.

5.       And there is the verification problem: how can one verify that a system does not do something under any set of conditions?

 

More concretely, if designing a system for a particular purpose, using a certain type of technology and physical phenomena, will one consider effects from a different physical phenomenon. For example, if designing a mechanical element, would one consider the impact of EMC effects? There would be some circumstances in which it may be relevant.

joseph simpson

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 11:05:12 PM8/22/16
to Sys Sci
Jack:

Yes, the entropy metrics are public.

They have been introduced and published in the following paper:


The paper is also attached.

The entropy metrics were developed based on the evaluation of Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) approaches developed by individuals other than Warfield.  In this specific case, the work of Derek Hitchins provided the motivation and insight to explore this area of analysis.

Derek Hitchins presented an ISM approach that was very different from Warfields approach.  The ISM process did not use the type of Boolean reasoning in the binary matrix that Warfield used.  However, this approach appeared to have strong benefits and provided interesting analytical tools.

Mary and I modified the entropy approach introduced by Hitichins to include both an information entropy metric (object score) and a physical entropy metric (relational score.)

These metrics lay the foundation for more advanced systems analysis techniques.  As shown in the paper, these metrics are used with system structures that are developed from system structuring relationships that have a symmetric logical property.

In the last two or three years Mary and I have focused on system structures that are based on a system structuring relationship that have a asymmetric logical property.

The goal is to integrated these techniques into the structural modeling software applications after the basic asymmetrical logical property structuring relations have been addressed. Hopefully, next year will be when these techniques can be incorporated into the current software project.

There are more aspects of the entropy metrics than detailed in the paper but the paper should get you going.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe




To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+unsubscribe@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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
SE-120811__SE-Journal-Article copy (1).pdf

joseph simpson

unread,
Aug 22, 2016, 11:07:50 PM8/22/16
to Sys Sci
Tim:

I agree...

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Ferris, Tim <Timothy...@cranfield.ac.uk> wrote:

Joe,

 

I believe that there is no way to confirm a theory is complete since there is always the possibility of the observation that falsifies – like the Einstein quote.

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.



 

-- 

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+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 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.
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+unsubscribe@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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.



 

--

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+unsubscribe@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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Jack Ring

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 1:11:33 AM8/23/16
to Sys Sci
Tim, 
1. Pls do not presume that my view of a useful theory is only about Not. My view is that a complete theory addresses both what a system will DO and not DO. Further, the useful theory addresses what a system IS and IS not. All four aspects must by harmonized.
2. What mind? Although the majority of minds may be as limited as you portray, I dare say there are enough minds that can actually work all the way through the systems design challenge. All we need is about 5% of the population.
3. Regarding your #3 and #4 be careful of presuming "negating of something” when all one has to do is Confirm an ‘Only.’  I daresay that the thinking you describe is the root of all User Identity goofs in IT systems today. It is possible to deal with all the “Nots" simply by ensuring the “Wills” are a specific constrained set. c.f., dynamic programming which does not visit every possible Not in a field.
4. Regarding your #5, A. Turing, Prof. Corbato (MIT Project MAC), E.W. Dijkstra and a few others have evolved clues along the way and Dr. Antonio Pizzarello has articulated one way. c.f. www.ontopilot.com 
Sorry if my earlier statements were too cryptic.
Jack

Jack Ring

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 1:20:24 AM8/23/16
to Sys Sci
Joe and Mary,
TKU for this.
Jack
On Aug 22, 2016, at 8:05 PM, joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jack:

joseph simpson

unread,
Aug 23, 2016, 9:15:14 AM8/23/16
to Sys Sci
Jack:

You are welcome... 

Let us know if you have any questions...

Take care and have fun,

Joe

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

Aleksandar Malečić

unread,
Aug 28, 2016, 9:44:51 AM8/28/16
to syss...@googlegroups.com

I'm glad we had this discussion. That call for papers can be found at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/special/eigen. I submitted an abstract today under the title "What Does Constructor Theory Construct?: Knowledge as a Physical Property".

Aleksandar

Jack Ring

unread,
Aug 28, 2016, 2:32:05 PM8/28/16
to Sys Sci
Looks interesting. 
Our work at www.ontopilot.com says it is more effective to look at the situation from post-condition back to weakest precondition rather than input to subsequent actions. Either way attention must be paid to the situation invariants that must be assured.
Jack

On Aug 28, 2016, at 6:44 AM, Aleksandar Malečić <ljma...@gmail.com> wrote:


I'm glad we had this discussion. That call for papers can be found at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/special/eigen. I submitted an abstract today under the title "What Does Constructor Theory Construct?: Knowledge as a Physical Property".

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+u...@googlegroups.com.

joseph simpson

unread,
Aug 28, 2016, 2:48:24 PM8/28/16
to Sys Sci
Excellent...

Structure is very important...

In any form...

Take care and have fun,

Joe

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Aleksandar Malečić <ljma...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm glad we had this discussion. That call for papers can be found at http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/special/eigen. I submitted an abstract today under the title "What Does Constructor Theory Construct?: Knowledge as a Physical Property".

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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages