Re: open vs. closed systems

[Curt McNamara]

Most of Earth's water came from space:
http://www.space.com/27969-earth-water-from-asteroids-not-comets.html

There is ongoing debate and research about whether the building blocks of life came from space:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

              Curt

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu> wrote:

Dear All:

Interesting. The amount of science that is necessary for making these defining decisions is rather high and in all specific cases requires experts in those areas.

I almost always agree with Hillary. Here I would not disagree, just add that there are many external influences on a earth-moon-sun subsystem. All of the planets, and for that matter moons, asteroids, planetary debris, solar wind, gravity flows, highly influence each other in astronomy and physics. So an earth-moon-sun set cannot be considered closed for treatments at their level. For that matter, the recent discovery that there probably is an undiscovered proto-planet sized object way out in the asteroid belt indicates how much all objects in the solar system interact with each other. That they could predict its presence, as they did two of our current planets, without even seeing it is evidence that none of these exist as a closed system component.

So is the solar system as a whole a closed system? Consider that the part of the galaxy arm that we reside in is rotating, and the entire galaxy is moving -- all further influenced by gravity and dark energy and dark matter -- there is no way to even call our solar system a closed system. Then there is the influences of the black hole at the center of our galaxy, the expansion of galaxies away from each other, rare but existing galactic collisions and one galaxy eating other smaller ones, etc. etc. All these impart velocity and direction to our little solar system.

The observation that computer models are often closed systems falls in line with my previous comment that we simplify in order to make it possible to follow more limited interactions. But that doesn't mean much more than we should always recognize the limitations of our computer models and even our much vaunted equations relative to where and at what scales they can be helpfully and reliably applied.

I still have as a working hypothesis that there exists nowhere a completely closed system. Still open to receiving evidence though.

Len

On Mar 12, 2016, at 8:28 AM, 'Hillary Sillitto' via Sys Sci Discussion List wrote:

Ocean is an open system, exchanging gas and energy with the atmosphere and absorbing energy from the sun!

Earth plus moon plus sun is very close to a closed system for many purposes.

And computer models of systems are usually closed systems...

Cheers

Hillaru

On 12 Mar 2016 12:02 pm, "Paola Di Maio" <paola....@gmail.com> wrote:

although we cannot be too sure of anything, these days it looks to me that most issues 

are about definitions and boundary setting.

one of the reasons why I put 'goal setting' at the top of any modelling exercise

(ontology, system or otherwise) is because the exercise must serve a purpose

(otherwise its speculation and can be fun, but can also be annoying because some definitations and boundaries  may work in some cases but not in others)

that means, putting humans and beavers in the same category (animal)

or separating them (animal vs human), and everything else we do, 

is driven by whatever is the task at hand

so it depends, Steve, Mike, Jack, Len-

why do we need the definition we are looking for> 

what do we need to design a system for >

etc=

I also not sure whether any system is truly closed, or truly open'

when we think big enough, even the ocean is a closed system (with the earth atmosphere its boundary).

even that consideration depends where the boundary lies

I use the term natural  system as in it exist without human intervention

(artificial lake is engineered, natural lake exists alone) with whatever implications the distinction bring-

but wait a minute.... why do we live? why does anything appear to exist at all>?

<lol>

Back to the meaning of life questions

Have a nice weekend

PDM

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 5:04 PM, <syss...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

syss...@googlegroups.com

Google Groups

Topic digest
View all topics

• liver - 12 Updates

liver

Paola Di Maio <paola....@gmail.com>: Mar 11 05:27PM +0530 > MDSE <michael....@gmail.com>: Mar 10 08:18AM -0500   > I think the idea of the closed system needs specification.   If I remember correctly, the notion of open and closed system is well defined in literature   there should be references here, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=4635217&filter%3DAND%28p_IS_Number%3A4635078%29%26pageNumber%3D6   or here http://www.slideshare.net/PaolaDIM/digital-ecosystems-ontology-entropy-by-paola-di-maio   (* I researched this long time ago its goint to take me time to retrieve my author copy of this paper but if someone wants it desperately I can dig it up somewhere)   Yes, models are notional, and yes, closed and open are not necessarily discrete but fuzzy notions   The metaphore I use to distinguish closed vs open is indeed the aquarium vs the open waters, where regulation of the variables does not take place naturally but by some engineered control mechanism as Len says   I am sure there are exceptions   PDM

Steven Krane <sk5...@gmail.com>: Mar 11 07:11AM -0600 Is a pond made by a beaver an engineered control mechanism or takes place naturally?

MDSE <michael....@gmail.com>: Mar 11 08:38AM -0500 Anything in the physical realm, whether it was created by man or not is a part of reality. This differentiates man's conceptualization (models) from the real world; theory from reality. I find the term "natural" to be misleading. If a beaver builds a dam is it natural? If people build a dam ( say to catch fish for primal tribesmen) is it natural? If people build a dam to generate electricity is it natural? Is mans propensity for making tools natural? Does it matter?   Sent from my iPhone

MDSE <michael....@gmail.com>: Mar 11 08:40AM -0500 The notions of open and closed are well worn conceptualizations. Use where useful, but beware. At the root of all mistakes will be lurking the assumptions.   Sent from my iPhone

Steven Krane <sk5...@gmail.com>: Mar 11 07:50AM -0600 As are natural and artificial. Perhaps the distinction is more interesting if you believe people came into this world rather than out of it. I recognize beavers as kin. :)

MDSE <michael....@gmail.com>: Mar 11 11:45AM -0500 Nice!   Sent from my iPhone

Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu>: Mar 11 06:46PM Interesting. From a biologists point of view the following....   Anything a beaver, or even army ants, or colonial termites make is natural because it is made by a natural entity. Presumably evolution has very strongly selected for that which is made by them by eliminating many other alternatives as they arose. This ensures that at least for the near term, such innovations are fit within the environment. Until the environment changes which it usually does in the very long term.   But then why make a distinction for humans? We have evolved also. We are natural entities. Why wouldn't anything we make be burdened with the term "artificial" than any other thing made by a tool- using social organism? Persons focusing only on these aspects would see the natural vs artificial controversy as empty and unnecessary.   Now, I did not make up that distinctions but do use it often. All human systems, including our socio-economic and socio-political institutions I consider immature artefacts. In fact, it was Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon, in whose honor NECSI grants an annual award, and whose famous book was titled, "Sciences of the Artificial" who first popularized use of the term.   Perhaps it is because scientists realize that anything man makes can be engineered so quickly that it is not subject to natural selection and evolution at first and then not even for a very long time afterward if at all. So products that reflect more greed than adaptation to context, more arrogance than fit within natural parameters, surround our civilization. This might give some meaning to artificial. Further, the distinction might lead to a regime in which prescription and values become an important part of the process, recycling and fit in environment and cost:benefit an important part of the process in addition to making a buck.   Len

Back to top

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

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

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

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

[Jack Ring]

And the notion of ‘system’ came from inner space.

[Lenard Troncale]

Jack,

Cannot resist. The "notion" or brain meme and the logos (name) came from inner space, presumably you mean the human mind. BUT the systemness itself came from nature stabilizing itself. Otherwise how could the atoms be systems or the net of galaxy strands be systems 14 billion years before human minds could compare them and find isomorphic patterns from the comparisons?

Len

[Jack Ring]

Len, Glad you did not resist. That’s what makes you a co-learner.

How could the atoms 'be' systems? Simply by humans afflicted with tenure needing it to be so and not having to exercise a few independent fallibility experiments.

How could the net of galaxy strands 'be' systems? See above.

Let’s add How could the current configuration of land mass on earth have lasted for 14 billion years? Oh, it didn’t? Then how do you know that galaxy strands were not comparing them and inventing the label SKRRKDRGFF, now called systemness? 

When you are ready to start fallibility experiments to justify your systemness notion pls describe the attributes and behaviors of systemness and those of Not-systemness. Then I and others will see whether we can duplicate your experiment.

Cheers,

Jack

[Aleksandar Malečić]

How could the atoms 'be' systems? Simply by humans afflicted with tenure needing it to be so and not having to exercise a few independent fallibility experiments.

 

Neither Ilya Prigogine nor Brian Josephson had tenures to fulfill. They had already had Nobel Prizes before they got weird and started talking about systems at the level of atoms and emergence of everything. It also applies to Albert Szent-Gyorgyi. Add Wolfgang Pauli and his Exclusion Principle to the list. One can say anything about quantum mechanics or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics except that they aren't experimentally proven. On the other hand, one is always free to run in circles and say "WE shall never know".

A textbook example is two halves of a box and the probability of all particles of the gas moving to one half. Statistical physics says that it is very unlikely to happen, once in billions of billions of years. One can be happy with this explanation, but there is irreversibility and the arrow of time (systemness - individual particles or Newtonian bodies (such as marbles) in equations seem to be reversible) embedded in this box example. And nature is absolutely indifferent whether or not we like the way it behaves. Also, feedback and synergy will be manifesting in many ways and systems regardless whether we like them or not.

Aleksandar

[Jack Ring]

Statistical physics says it is just as likely to happen tomorrow as a billion years from now.

--

[PDM]

Glad to see this discussed, and thanks for changing the subject line to an appropriate one

Also quite amazed to see a discussion that seems to focus on the broader interpetation of everything, rather than having to struggle with narrow views [progress+]

where we set the boundary, depends on our cognition (what we identify as what), our worldview, what belongs where, as well as the language and concepts

we choose.

In an extreme leap, I if we want to consider the ocean and atmosphere a closed system, provided the sun and moon !! (wjatever we consider is part of a critical interaction for the ocean) withing the boundary of what we are trying to model

so if we want to model the ocean tides, the moon must be in the model, evaporation rate and iight, the sun be in the model

its only when we manage to include ALL the interactions that we start seeing the complex behaviours we aim to understand

Is there a truly closed system? uhm. I d say one where the interactions are controlled by humans, can be considered a closed system

(aquarium exhcnages water and air and light with outside the boundary, but the exchanges are controlled by a regulating mechanism which has been engineered to simulate natural systems)

Is there a truly open system? <?>

Len

humans are definitely part of nature, no doubt about that, 

so surely if we want to consider human made systems as natural because we are trying to purport this continuum, then OK

but,,, in natural systems we dont know the cause of why they come into being and cease to be  or transform, and when.

in human designed systems generally come into being to fulfil a purpose (da capability), and human decide when to deploy them, when to stop deployng them

etc etc etc-  

so for me, the distinction is important when we want to understand the world, and operate in in

so, in the forest, which is a wonderful type of complex system, natural interactions determine its equilibrim, (say, temperature, humidity) which in turn

determing which species survice, how they evolve, and when changes occurr etc

In Kew Gardens, or any other beautficul botanical pavillion replicating forest habitats, these conditions need to be simulated

more importantly, when human made systems are deployed in nature, their interaction can bring unpredictable changes to the environment

which in turn (who knows) could impact everything (butterfly, chaos etc)

so the distinction is worth considering, Imho

Sorry Hillary, agree with your first two points, but networked computer systems are not closed, -) not the way I see them, unless you are thinking hardware only, with NO PORTS

 Lots of stuff goes in and out from computers, 

 and if we talk about cyberphysical systems gets even more comlex (virtualization? hardware that behaves like software? software that delivers the capability of software?)  Not so.

Aleksander:

Maybe I should start working towards proving the 2nd law experimentally, except that it seems a futile exercise

as some say:

 "There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the second law or its corollaries ..... ". Written to show that no experimental evidence has disproved the second law, by physicists G.N. Hatspoulous & E.P. Gyftopoulos in E.B. Stuart, et al (eds.) "Deductive Quantum Thermodynamics in a Critical Review of Thermodynamics", Mono Books Corp: Baltimore, 1970 p:78

(5) "There are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems - there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the Second Law of Thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself." Written by Professor John Ross (Harvard University) to indicate that if Earth is regarded as an open system, then the Second Law still applies to it (meaning that evolution could not occur). In Chemical and Engineering News, July 7, 1980 p:40

http://www.wicwiki.org.uk/mediawiki/index.php/ORDER_%26_THE_2ND_LAW_OF_THERMODYNAMICS...........69

[Hillary Sillitto]

Paola, I never said anything about networked computer systems! I was  talking about system models constructed inside computer systems. Such models are more often than not closed, or represent closed systems.

[Lenard Troncale]

Jack,

You comments here would be hilarious if they were not meant seriously. But I fear you are serious. So all of the science of astronomy and cosmology and all of the science of geology and all of the math behind those models are erroneous because you say they are. Who are you to contest all the observations and experiments in all of the journals that have been published over the last 200 years!

Land masses and the earth itself are not 14 billion years old. Our solar system is around 4.6 billion years old. There are many lines of evidence from experiments and readings on techniques and instruments that corroborate those dates. As I have endlessly said before, one of the most powerful proofs of the timelines of the universe and the reliability of the science is that ALL of these measurements FIT into each other and agree with each other. Even after using entirely different disciplines techniques, methods, tools, instrumentation, different exp'ts on different entities etc.

If you do not know this literature, as you clearly do not or you would not have stated that earth land masses could not be 14 BY old, please stop making ex cathedra statements about it. Or I will have to embarrass you in front of the masses.

Now for calling them systems. That is another matter. To me systems are those that have evidence of many of the processes that make systems sustain themselves over very long periods of time. And all of these have those elements (parts, interactions, hierarchy, feedbacks, cycles, symmetry, synergy, thermodynamics, self-similarity, self-criticality, etc. etc. to our 55 and more). All of these entities from the smallest atoms to the galaxies to the cosmos have these features. So I call them systems. You can call them what you want, but the evidence is NOT on your side. Yet you keep saying there is no evidence denying all of the sciences. Amazing.

To you I guess, unless YOU do the experiment, it is false and not citable. That's nonsense. Just plain nonsense. Or have you never used an equation in any of the engineering that you have done. Any equation you have used has been based on many past experiments, and chains of things that have survived falsifiability. So you as an engineer act on science while you deny all of it. Incredible!

Len

[Jack Ring]

Len, 

I am concerned about your reading comprehension.

I never said “...all of the science of astronomy and cosmology and all of the science of geology and all of the math behind those models are erroneous …” is erroneous. In fact I really appreciate all that effort, particularly that which involved the scientific method (as contrasted to premature immaculation by vote counting.)

Regarding your “...you would not have stated that earth land masses could not be 14 BY old” please see that I said, "How could the current configuration of land mass on earth have lasted for 14 billion years? Oh, it didn’t?” Your appreciation of the meaning of a question mark is alarming.

But let’s get on to the real point, labeling a thing ‘system.’ As Sten Dahlberg has noted, calling a dog’s tail a leg doth not a five-legged dog make. Korsybski said the same thing somewhat more scientifically. The map is not the territory and the label is not the thing.

Your "To me systems are those that have evidence of many of the processes that make systems sustain themselves over very long periods of time.” reads very much like ‘to me systems have processes that have parts that make systems that last over long periods of time.’ Other than being circular I suspect Feynman would be surprised to learn from it that the atomic bomb was not a system because its action was so short lived. 

And what about repeatable and reversable?

Your "Yet you keep saying there is no evidence denying all of the sciences” doesn’t make sense to me but I am pretty sure I have not said anything remotely similar. 

No need to guess that “…unless YOU do the experiment, it is false and not citable…” because I clearly said " I and others”

Meanwhile, I await your claim as to the age of the current configuration of the lithosphere and any theory as to the formation of the veins of gold.

Onward,

Jack

[Aleksandar Malečić]

Statistical physics says it is just as likely to happen tomorrow as a billion years from now. - Jack Ring

Perhaps we aren't talking about the same statistical physics. I am also an engineer and in that sense I understand why someone would say that. 

Here is a nice text about what I wanted to say: http://kremesti.com/portfolio/technical_writing/Academic_Research_Papers/End_of_Certainty.htm

The legend says that Boltzmann's failure to combine statistical physics and thermodynamics into a single theory contributed to his suicide. In that sense it's futile to try to resolve determinism and the arrow of time in an ad hoc sentence or two in an online discussion. The fact is that whatever statistical physics says, all particles will never be spontaneously in one half of a box. Statistical physics says that it is very unlikely, but the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that it's impossible. 

Thermodynamics and quantum mechanics are examples of systemness in nature. The Newtonian mechanism is broken and something very strange and counter-intuitive (hence an attempt to stick to determinism is both futile and reasonable) provides more accurate explanations.

Aleksandar

[Jack Ring]

Aleksandar,

Pls express your opinion regarding this quote from Wikipedia 'The second law is an empirical finding that has been accepted as an axiom of thermodynamic theory.” Do you favor calling an axiom a law?

 

[joseph simpson]

Jack:

Interesting situation....

We have an empirical component... (law)

We have a abstract (mathematical) component... (axiom)

These two different concepts are applied to the same subject....

This pattern of matching an empirical component to an abstract (logical) component is identical to the pattern of structural modeling.

Structural modeling has the basic structural modeling (BSM) component for the abstract mathematical area...

Structural modeling has the interpretive structural modeling (ISM) component for the empirical area...

Further, structural modeling has the structural integration modeling (SIM) component that aligns the abstract area with the empirical area.... in each specific case...

Given the above context, it is difficult to determine the meaning of this question?

"Do you favor calling an axiom a law?"

A specific subject area has both laws and axioms.   

Laws and axioms serve different purposes, but may be applied to the same subject area.

Can you expand on the purpose of your question?

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

[Jack Ring]

Joe,

The root of the question was to discover how Aleksandar’s distinction between proposition, principle, theory and law compared to Joe Novak’s and others. Seems to me an axiom fits the label of proposition and perhaps even principle however law has more credence than theory.

Before you apply that empirical component you call law it will be wise to confirm that it is a law and not just a theory.

[joseph simpson]

Jack:

Thanks for the detailed reply..

A theory is different from an axiom....

A law is different from a theory..

However, any given subject can have all of these applied ...

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

[Jack Ring]

How? Human Hubris. 

[Steve Wallis]

I concur... we can apply many different labels and uses to those things (theories, models, axioms, laws, hypotheses) and they may be used in different ways (A hypothesis is typically framed as a question). The important similarity between them is that each represents a view of the world - found in the propositions.

Thanks,

Steve

[Steve Wallis]

The laws of physics were made to be broken (cf. Newton v. Einstein)!

Thanks,

Steve

[joseph simpson]

Jack:

As part of a process...

A process some might call the scientific method...

These terms are used to describe components of the scientific process....

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

[Jack Ring]

Yes, but —

 the problem is that too many people in SE do not honor the distinctions, often calling a hypothesis a requirement or even a principle.

Jack

[Jack Ring]

Broken? Perhaps just refined regarding limits of applicability.

Jack

[Jack Ring]

Joseph,

Pls tell me how a lighting bolt stabilizes itself. Only human hubris presumes to bestow the label ‘system’ or ‘systemness’ on nature’s co-evolutions.

[Aleksandar Malečić]

Systemness in nature can be about thermodynamics, quantum mechanics (regardless which interpretation one votes for, double-slit experiments and quantum erasers do look like systems), and chaos.

That example with particles in a box and how long we should wait in order to experience all particles to spontaneously move towards one half resembles the question how fast will the fastest person ever. A non-systemic answer would be: "Somewhere between Usain Bolt and the speed of light." It's more likely that such a person will with his (at the moment male humans are faster) speed be closer to Bolt than to light. But we can't tell for sure the lowest impossible speed. For that box we can never be sure for that box what deviation from equilibrium is "reasonable" (One, two, even ten particles don't have pressure and diffusion, but "many particles" have it). Gaussian curves are approximations of reality, but that doesn't mean just that we can't properly compute. In the same way it's difficult based on empirical data to tell the difference between determinism and indeterminism. That's where some theory might improve our understanding of life, consciousness, and other forms of systemness even if it's difficult to prove.

I watched yesterday and today "Dangerous Knowledge"

http://www.dailymotion.com/playlist/x1cbyd_xSilverPhinx_bbc-dangerous-knowledge/1#video=xdoe8u

made by BBC (five 20-minute videos in the playlist) about Cantor, Boltzmann, Turing, and Gödel and I'm glad I watched it.

Aleksandar

[Mike Dee]

Important to note that laws are man-made conceptualizations.  They might or might not be valid.

 

Einstein did not “brake” Newton’s law”.   He added understanding that limited its applicability.

 

Then Einstein did it to himself.

[joseph simpson]

Jack:

From a brief overview of history, it appears that human beings need to use symbols of some type...

These symbols are used to tell stories, communicate and have fun,

It is not possible for me to decide if you are taking issue with a specific symbol selection or the type of relationship assigned to a selected symbol..

I am interested in your story about the lighting bolt... as your description is foreign to me..  what specific symbol are you addressing?

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

[Mike Dee]

Another thought on open/closed.

 

The fact seems to be that there is no such thing as a closed system, but the idea is used for simplicity by humans trying to conceptualize something.

 

Seems to me that the terms Open and Closed are not really meaningful.  The question is how open (or how closed?) is the system model we are constructing, and does the system model have enough I/O (openness) to adequately represent the problem posed.

 

So (IMHO) forget the open/closed debate.   Not worth having.  Instead, concentrate on the following:

·        Identify the I/O you are including in the model

·        Identify the I/O you are NOT including in the model

·        Beware the I/O you are not aware of (unknown unknowns), which is where the problems will probably start.

 

MD

 

From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of joseph simpson
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 5:51 PM
To: Sys Sci
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] open vs. closed systems

 

Jack:

[Jack Ring]

Joe,

I am encouraging the examination of whether  ‘system' exists sans human hubris. 

One path suggests that the label or symbol, system, signifies only man-made artifacts, one expressed in a mental model, another expressed in a modeling language (a shared ontology of symbols) and the third expressed as a physical entity that produces only acceptable responses to only authorized stimuli when and while needed and is trusted by its users.

Another path examines Len’s notion that "systemness itself came from nature stabilizing itself” rather than simply a human labeling. For stabilizing itself I ask whether lightning bolt is a stable action or serves to stabilize some aspect of the systemness or whether nature seeks stability or evolution.

I am questioning whether the symbol, systemness, was devised by humans or demonstrated by nature before humans devised the symbol or was established by nature without any involvement by humans.

Thanks for your interest. Probably we will not resolve this with sentences. It may be possible if we formulated an ontology.

Jack

[Jack Ring]

Or simply acknowledge that any system is Fit For Purpose or not, 1 or 0. Accordingly whether Open or Closed is relative to whether it is F4P so Open or Closed are also 1 or 0.

[Aleksandar Malečić]

I am questioning whether the symbol, systemness, was devised by humans or demonstrated by nature before humans devised the symbol or was established by nature without any involvement by humans.

Thanks for your interest. Probably we will not resolve this with sentences. It may be possible if we formulated an ontology.

Jack

I've mentioned here a few times my "ontology": https://www.academia.edu/s/b0a4cdd171?source=swp. At the moment I have difficulties to be properly accepted or rejected. It is published once as a book chapter. When I'm rejected it's either about me as an awful person or that I should submit it somewhere else without any changes. It was an extension of Terrence Deacon's work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature) even when I knew nothing about him. On the other hand, I agree with Professor Mihai Nadin's e-mail response to me that, in order to be taken seriously (and properly either accepted or improved), I should do something about systems. If I can't do something "awesome" about systems, I guess it's fine the way it is.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo18VIoR2xU - Pi (1998) Official Trailer

Aleksandar

[joseph simpson]

Jack...

My main question is, can humans do anything else?

If so, what?

Take care and have fun,

Joe

[Lenard Troncale]

Jack,

I think your first sentence is a very concise formulation of one of the most basic dilemma's or disagreements in this thread of conversation. I know you and others are very admiring of ontology because it promises a look into the most fundamental level of being. But I am afraid that is its definition but not its praxis from my worldview.

Ontology solves nothing compared to experimental testing IMHO. Ontology asks the human mind to think about things and that mind can only conceive of things within its current neural nets and logical reasoning on them. That is very limiting. On the other hand, experiments ask nature how it works and demands we formulate our neural nets to conform to how the experiments indicate how it works (sun around the earth; earth around the sun; earth flat; rounded earth, etc. etc. ad nauseum). Minus those, of course, who refuse to accept the results of the vast range of experiments that are consistent with each other across the wide range of science specialties.

Ontology presumes it can uncover how entities came into being and sustain their beingness. Only by using human thinking about it. The sciences propose hypotheses on how entities (all levels of entities) came into being and then tests whether or not those mechanics would work. Most of the past 50 or so origins of new scales in nature (new classes of entity) show mechanics that would work long before humans, or even multicellular life came about on earth.

The point is whether or not you are convinced systemness leads to the stability and sustainability of systems. If you are convinced by about 400 years of science on the dynamics of numerous entities or phenomena, then systemness was here in our grand space-time scale tens of billions of years before our solar system was even formed, much less human thought to think about ontologies.

Now the limited expression of awareness of systemness is another matter completely. We are just stumbling into our awareness of what it means to become or maintain a systemness. So perhaps the symbol is human brain limited and is certainly crippled by our currently limited understanding. But the hypothesis of the natural sciences as a whole (astronomy, cosmology, physics, math, chemistry, geology, biology, etc.) is that systemness existed way back in time and not when we humans (much less other aliens) began to become aware of and investigate it.

So I vote for the last two of your propositions (which consistent with the above analysis), to wit

"demonstrated by nature before humans devised the symbol or was established by nature without any involvement by humans." Except that we must acknowledge we are now trying to catch up to what nature was doing then and now.

Len

[Jack Ring]

Len, 

Although interspersing is often interpreted and argumentative the following is simply a way of succienctly examining propositions. 

No offense intended.

Jack

On Mar 16, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu> wrote:

Jack,

I think your first sentence is a very concise formulation of one of the most basic dilemma's or disagreements in this thread of conversation. I know you and others are very admiring of ontology because it promises a look into the most fundamental level of being.

This is not what I think ontology does.

I think an ontology assigns one or more labels or tags to each of several concepts such that a field of coherent discourse is established among a community of purposeful practice. 

The content is not necessarily the “most fundamental level” whatever that is. 

But I am afraid that is its definition but not its praxis from my worldview.

Although many ontologists restrict the content to nouns (operands) I think an ontology should include operators (verbs) as well. In Piercean terms an interpretant of the symbol 6 and the nym ’six’ is stated as are the interpretents of  ‘-' and ‘+' and even the interpretant of 6-3 = (this expression being a praxis). However, the resultant, 3, involves the operation of - and operation of =. Likewise 3+3=. 

Note however, that 3/15/2015 - 3/12/2015 has meaning but 3/15/2015 + 3/12/2015 is problematical and 3/15/2015 * 3/12/2015 is meaningless thus types of entities are as important as are classes of entities.

Ontology solves nothing compared to experimental testing IMHO.

The act of sharing ontologies is fundamental to coherency among two or more humans (and apparently many kinds of animals)

Ontology asks the human mind to think about things and that mind can only conceive of things within its current neural nets and logical reasoning on them. That is very limiting. On the other hand, experiments ask nature how it works and demands we formulate our neural nets to conform to how the experiments indicate how it works (sun around the earth; earth around the sun; earth flat; rounded earth, etc. etc. ad nauseum).

Or perhaps an experiment only asks nature whether the construct is feasible but does not ask nature if that is the ONLY way nature works. 

Minus those, of course, who refuse to accept the results of the vast range of experiments that are consistent with each other across the wide range of science specialties.

Do these confirm only past tense or also guarantee applicability in future tense?

Ontology presumes it can uncover how entities came into being and sustain their beingness.

Ontology is not an operator. Humans may presume to uncover how entities came into being. They can do so by running experiments thst show it was possible. However the experiment does not confirm that the possible way was what actually happened.

Only by using human thinking about it. The sciences propose hypotheses on how entities (all levels of entities) came into being and then tests whether or not those mechanics would work.

But do the tests discover the limits of applicability?

Most of the past 50 or so origins of new scales in nature (new classes of entity) show mechanics that would work long before humans, or even multicellular life came about on earth.

The point is whether or not you are convinced systemness leads to the stability and sustainability of systems.

Leads to or only confirms possible past?

Are you saying that something designed to operate then disappear is Notsystem? 

May a system exhibit more than one mode of operation and switch modes thereby disappointing previous humans with instability and even unsustainability? 

If you are convinced by about 400 years of science on the dynamics of numerous entities or phenomena, then systemness was here in our grand space-time scale tens of billions of years before our solar system was even formed, much less human thought to think about ontologies.

If you are convinced you can apply the systemness label to 400 years of experience then with just a little more hubris you can declare it applicable to a previous billion or more. After all, who can show you are wrong?   THEN with enough more hubris can you decree that it will apply tomorrow?

Now the limited expression of awareness of systemness is another matter completely. We are just stumbling into our awareness of what it means to become or maintain a systemness. So perhaps the symbol is human brain limited and is certainly crippled by our currently limited understanding. But the hypothesis of the natural sciences as a whole (astronomy, cosmology, physics, math, chemistry, geology, biology, etc.) is that systemness existed way back in time and not when we humans (much less other aliens) began to become aware of and investigate it.

yea, verily; hypothesis

So I vote for the last two of your propositions (which consistent with the above analysis), to wit

"demonstrated by nature before humans devised the symbol or was established by nature without any involvement by humans.”

Except that we must acknowledge we are now trying to catch up to what nature was doing then and now.

Want to start with premonitions and remote viewing?

How about Bruce Lipton’s Biology of Belief?

Len

Jack

[Aleksandar Malečić]

Want to start with premonitions and remote viewing?

How about Bruce Lipton’s Biology of Belief?

Jack

Is it a smart idea to start with that? If it's real, it's much easier to attract people prone to wishful and false thinking (ancient alien civilizations, the truth about aliens and zero-point energy hidden from us by politicians) than those who are responsible and skeptical. If someone here is interested in strange ideas or hobbies, it comes with the territory: systems thinking is also a strange idea. I am familiar with altered states of consciousness, but it would be a very bad idea to be totally messed up in public. That would be a serious "difference that makes a difference" in a wrong and disruptive way.

I guess this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Biomathics (Simeonov knows about Troncale thanks to me) is very similar to what Len Troncale is doing and what he has suggested to Joseph Simpson. A lot of (Uncertain and exhausting?) work could still be done with computational modeling rather than with guessing the colour of my socks.

Aleksandar

[Aleksandar Malečić]

I have a feeling that this is somehow relevant to systemness and systems theory  http://www-2.dc.uba.ar/profesores/becher/ns.html (it's about Gregory Chaitin, Turing's halting problem, and Omega) as two theories that should somehow be combined. I think that strange loops (Hofstadter) that our minds are made of are prone to mistakes, but, as they are not always halting at the best possible moment, at least they halt (self-awareness) and deal with the consequences. Is an epileptic seizure a situation when someone's Turing machine has difficulties to halt?

Aleksandar

[Jack Ring]

I think it is not smart to include only some aspects of ‘nature’ but not all. So that’s why I asked. Instead of questioning my asking why not just respond to the question? 

[Jack Ring]

My understanding of Prof. Joe Novak is that propositions represent a view of only a part of the world, then when they are shown to apply more generally they become principles.

[Jack Ring]

Never heard of ‘scientific process.’ Where did you find that?

[joseph simpson]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[Jack Ring]

Your citation diagrams the scientific method as a process. It never mentions scientific process.

[joseph simpson]

Jack:

The citation states, "The Scientific Method as an Ongoing Process."

The definition of a method is:

 " a particular form of procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one."

The definition of a process is: 

"a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end."

The definition of ongoing is:

"continuing; still in progress."

The scientific process is the application of many discrete instances of the scientific method.  Each instance of the application of the scientific method is discrete with a beginning, middle and an end. 

Take care and have fun,

Joe

[Curt McNamara]

I tell my students that the scientific process / method is a meme (actually a set of memes).

                            Curt

[Jack Ring]

Your citation shows a diagram of the scientific method as a process. It never mentions scientific process.

On Mar 17, 2016, at 9:04 PM, joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jack Ring]

I appreciate your rationale for your claim of scientific process. 

You may want to consider —

Method is noun (form) that is interpreted/described as a process. 

Scientific is adjective.

A scientific process would be a process that has been subjected to the scientific method.

http://www.generalsemantics.org

OBTW, note that the process claimed in the cited URL is not a ‘series’ of actions, more like a web.

[Jack Ring]

Suggest you tell them that the scientific method can be described and characterized as a set of memes but talking about it is not the same as doing it. The ‘horny’ among them will understand. ;-)

cheers,

Jack

[joseph simpson]

Please see the attached document, an excerpt is provided next:

"Studies of spoken interaction generally proceed in one of two ways: either an explicit theory of communication and interaction is used as the basis for analyzing actual instances of talk, or conversational data are taken as the point of departure for formulating new theoretical concepts and rules. The first ”deductive” model is mostly found in various pragmatic approaches within linguistics, whereas the second ”inductive” model is predominant in ethnomethodological conversation analysis. However, practical scientific programs cannot be based on either pure deduction or pure induction. Central to any scientific process is the inferential step from some initial puzzling fact to some theoretical hypothesis which can explain it. This inferential process is called abduction by the pragmatist philosopher Charles S. Peirce. The aim of this article is to describe how abduction enters into the methodologies of two approaches to spoken interaction, Gricean pragmatics and Conversation Analysis, and thereby contrast their respective conceptions of theory and data."

[Jack Ring]

Quite so, 

And the better method for co-abduction is dialog, not discussion, persussion or plain ol’ cussin.

<Abduction as a methodological .pdf>

[joseph simpson]

Maybe we could start with:

"The revolution of guidance is now happening worldwide. It is in flowering that we are reborn. We must learn how to lead ancient lives in the face of greed.

Reality has always been aglow with seekers whose chakras are baptized in faith. We are at a crossroads of flow and turbulence. Throughout history, humans have been interacting with the solar system via frequencies.

Through ayurvedic medicine, our bodies are enveloped in transformation. Naturopathy may be the solution to what’s holding you back from an incredible revolution of passion. As you believe, you will enter into infinite inspiration that transcends understanding.

Delusion is born in the gap where science has been excluded.

Who are we? Where on the great journey will we be awakened? Our conversations with other beings have led to a summoning of pseudo-non-dual consciousness. Humankind has nothing to lose.

It can be difficult to know where to begin. Although you may not realize it, you are sentient. The grid is calling to you via morphic resonance. Can you hear it?"

Referenced from: http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/

Take care and have fun,

Joe

R

--

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

--

[Aleksandar Malečić]

"The revolution of guidance" or something like that (when wishful thinking collides with reality) is the idea behind websites such as this one: http://www.fouryearsgo.org/ The deadline for those four years was 2013. The problem with any attempt of a "killer network" is that a transition might be very uncertain, to the point that we can't be sure whether there is any transition happening at all. I suppose more healthy communication (we are a message away from everyone else) and systems thinking in politics or wherever people interact wouldn't hurt.

Aleksandar

[Steven Krane]

‘This Unscientific Age”, a lecture by Richard Feynman

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_65a3a2bf0100rmqx.html

[Aleksandar Malečić]

I've read that Richard Feynman's lecture. He is frequently mentioned in discussions such as these: https://socialforecasting.wordpress.com/2015/12/22/where-do-we-go-from-here-an-interview-with-anthony-tony-hodgson/ (remote viewing of the future)

http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm (How has meaningful information emerged in the universe?)

Free will and self-awareness should be at some point included in proper systems thinking, but it should be done carefully and responsibly.

Aleksandar

[joseph simpson]

This is an interesting statement:

"I agree with the responsibilities and with the duties that the Pope

represents as the responsibilities and the duties of people. And I recognize this encyclical
as the beginning, possibly, of a new future where we forget, perhaps, about the theories
of why we believe things as long as we ultimately in the end, as far as action is
concerned, believe the same thing."

This statement seems to conflict with the ideas by Charles Sanders Peirce in "The Fixation of Belief."

See: http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html

"Experience of the method has not led us to doubt it, but, on the contrary, scientific investigation has had the most wonderful triumphs in the way of settling opinion. These afford the explanation of my not doubting the method or the hypothesis which it supposes; and not having any doubt, nor believing that anybody else whom I could influence has, it would be the merest babble for me to say more about it. If there be anybody with a living doubt upon the subject, let him consider it.

To describe the method of scientific investigation is the object of this series of papers. At present I have only room to notice some points of contrast between it and other methods of fixing belief.

This is the only one of the four methods which presents any distinction of a right and a wrong way. "

Take care and have fun,

Joe

[Jack Ring]

TKU for this. Seems quite relevant to the discussion on a Standard of Care for INCOSE members. A SOC is based on measurable principles instead of the ‘feel good’ stuff in an Ethics statement.