Logical Properties Of Natural Language System Structuring Relationships

[joseph simpson]

Just a quick note to  make sure I communicate these ideas to a larger group.

A system is a relationship mapped over a set of objects.

A system has a minimum of two objects.

The reflexive logical property involves only one individual.

Therefore, when the reflexive property is involved in a system structuring activity it is almost always an error because the property does not operate between two objects.

The symmetric logical property involves two individuals and is the only logical property that generates system structure.

The transitive logical property involves three or more individuals but does not impact the system structure.  The transitive property only impacts the inference opportunities and the efficiency of the structuring process.  You could think of the transitive property as "riding on top" of the symmetric property structure.

These and other observations enable the structuring of a system using the natural language system structuring relationships set of logical properties.  

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

[Curt McNamara]

A system is a set of "objects" (i.e. nodes) which are coupled via relations. The minimum number of nodes for a "real system" (e.g. the system exists in 3-space) is four. If there are fewer than 4 nodes then the system is an abstraction.

Given the above, the minimum number of relations at a node (object) is three.

     Curt

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s04/p0000.html

--
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.

[James Martin]

Joe,

What do you mean by logical property? Examples? Then what is a non-logical property? Examples?

What is meant by the qualifiers reflexive, symmetric and transitive? Examples?

Are these properties of the objects in the system? Or of the ensemble of objects when behaving as a system? Or of something else?

James

Sent from my iPad

--

[joseph simpson]

James:

The augmented Model-Exchange Isomorphism V1.1 provides all of this information.  Please see:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272238246_Augmented_Model-Exchange_Isomorphism_Version_11

Page 5 has this basic material.  

Page 6 has the list of 27 groups.

Page 8 and on contain specific examples of:

  -- the prose logical property list for the group Reflexive-Symmetric-Transitive

  -- a structured graph of the group organization

  -- a matrix of the group organization

These are properties of the natural language system structuring relationship.

For example:

is-north-of is:

 -- irreflexive (a city is not north-of- itself)

 -- asymmetric (if city a is north-of city b, then city b is-not-north of city a)

 -- transitive (if city a is north of city b, and city b is north-of city c, then city c is north of city a.

At this time we are not discussing non-logical properties.

However, the weigh of a system would be an non-logical, empirical property.

The cost of a system would be a non-logical property.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

[Hillary Sillitto]

Curt

I find the text you reference interesting but odd. It seems to be associated with a particular belief system not universally (perhaps not even widely) shared. Do I understand it is from the writings of Buckminster Fuller?

The assertion that a system has at least four nodes is at odds with Joe's definition and many others'. As an example of a system with only two nodes, a star with one planet meets Joe's definition and is definitely imaginable. Likewise a hydrogen atom with a nucleus and one electron.

Best regards

Hillary

[Curt McNamara]

Thanks! Excellent examples.

A star, planet, nucleus, and electron  have (at least) 3 dimensions. A common model of the pairs you mention would be their orbits and interactions, which also exist in 3D (+ time).

It is certainly possible (and definitely useful) to use simplified representations of complex items. It is also useful to be aware that our models represent an abstraction, and that this abstraction has limits.

What relation (s) between the nodes would you use, and to what end would you model these pairs of complex items as two nodes? 

     Curt

[joseph simpson]

Interesting line of thought and concepts...

However, they do seem  a bit awkward in a discussion titled:

Logical Properties Of Natural Language System Structuring Relationships

A system is a relationship mapped over a set of objects.

A system has a minimum of two objects.

A key concept is logical properties..

Another key concept is natural language...

Almost every language is abstract...

Given the above, it is difficult to align the discussion threads...

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

[Jack Ring]

You may discover that 'system is' does not address 'system does' which is the issue under A influences B.
Or maybe not.

[Hillary Sillitto]

Curt, Joe

Interesting and confusing!

Curt, you are now talking about dimensions. Before, you were talking about nodes. 

What did you mean by 'node'? I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that a node in your taxonomy corresponded to an object in Joe's. Is this the case, or not?

Joe, I understand your definition of system and accept that it is a valid definition in the context of your particular world view. I don't find it a satisfactory definition of system for my purposes and in my worldview because, as Jack's cryptic comment points out, it is concerned only with structure and not (or at least not explicitly) with behaviour. There are other categories of definition of system that bring in behaviour (in one category) and purpose (in another). Like Goldilocks I prefer the middle one - including behaviour but not purpose.

I now believe that for a definition of 'system' to be useful, it must come with a declared worldview and with a statement of range of validity. Then and only then can we make sense of and have a meaningful discussion about different definitions of 'system'.

Best regards

Hillary

Sent from Gmail Mobile

[joseph simpson]

Hillary:

You wrote:

"I now believe that for a definition of 'system' to be useful, it must come with a declared worldview and with a statement of range of validity. Then and only then can we make sense of and have a meaningful discussion about different definitions of 'system'."

What world view and statement of range of validity would be associated with following uses of the term 'system."

A system of logic.

A system of mathematics.

A system of thought.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

[Hillary Sillitto]

Joe

If these uses are all compatible with your definition, they suggest that you consider that the range of validity for your definition of 'system' includes (but might not be limited to) the domains of logic, mathematics, and thought; and that your worldview is focused on classes of 'system' that include, though might not be restricted to, what Bertalanffy called 'abstract systems'. More than that I cannot tell from what you wrote.

Lots of people have lots of different and mutually inconsistent definitions of 'system', and use and assert them without establishing proper context and world view. This leads to confused and unconstructive dialogue. So I think, if we are to make progress, that though painful, it is necessary for a user of a definition of 'system' to declare the worldview associated with their definition, and the context to which it applies. Only if we do this can we be sure that we are understood and that our views can carry the intended weight and influence.

I discussed some of the issues involved in an article that will appear as a chapter in Moti Frank's forthcoming book on Systems Thinking: Foundation, Uses and Challenges.

I can send you a link to a mature draft of the article. (Unfortunately for copyright reasons it isn't appropriate to post the link on this particular reflector.)

Best regards

Hillary

[Hillary Sillitto]

Sorry, I have just checked Bertalanffy's exact words, and I see the correct term in his language is 'conceptual systems', not 'abstract systems'.

Best regards

Hillary

[joseph simpson]

Hillary:

Interesting point of view and approach.

Mary and I have established two high level concepts to assist in the presentation of information about a system. These concepts are:

-- Abstract relation type (ART)

-- Augmented Model-Exchange Isomorphism (AMEI)

These concepts establish a base form for the encoding of information that defines and describes a system.

The ART form includes a prose definition and description component, a structured graphics component and a mathematics component.  

The AMEI form presents 27 categories of basic system configurations and sample definitions and descriptions.

I believe that we agree on the need for additional specific information to define and describe a specific system.  The AMEI and ART forms are designed to organize this additional information in a standard manner.

[Hillary Sillitto]

Joe

Thanks. So these are constructs that would be used to create a model corresponding to a 'real world' system?

Hillary

[joseph simpson]

Hillary:

Yes, the ART Form can be used to communicate logical structure, static structure, and dynamic behavior.

Most people just focus on the logical structure, but the method is completely general.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

[joseph simpson]

Hillary:

Interesting point of view and approach.

Mary and I have established two high level concepts to assist in the presentation of information about a system. These concepts are:

-- Abstract relation type (ART)

-- Augmented Model-Exchange Isomorphism (AMEI)

These concepts establish a base form for the encoding of information that defines and describes a system.

The ART form includes a prose definition and description component, a structured graphics component and a mathematics component.  

The AMEI form presents 27 categories of basic system configurations and sample definitions and descriptions.

I believe that we agree on the need for additional specific information to define and describe a specific system.  The AMEI and ART forms are designed to organize this additional information in a standard manner.

[James Martin]

Subject: Systems Worldviews, was: Logical Properties Of Natural Language System Structuring Relationship

Hillary,

Interesting challenge when you ask someone to "declare the worldview associated with their definition" of 'system'. I suspect many people would have no clue there even exists more than one worldview. Could you help us understand this concept of 'worldview'?

What would or could be the components of a worldview? How does one even go about declaring a worldview? Is there somewhere a list of possible worldviews that one can pick from? Would it be possible to identify the particular worldview for each of the famous systems thinkers?

James

Sent from my iPad

[Lenard Troncale]

James,

Okay I should be writing lectures and have an immediate deadline tomorrow, but I cannot RESIST the temptation to comment. Apparently I'm not so good with temptation.

Good questions. I think the oft-cited problem of "silo thinking" or "thinking with blinders" or need to "think out of the box" or "stovepipe thinking" or cultural isolation or "zenophobia" and bias or lack of communication between necessary team groups, etc. etc. ad nauseam support your conclusion that humans don't even realize how mired they are in their own particular worldview and what effects it has on their perception, much less judgement. We aliens have always found this to be true. Of course, the more compassionate of the alien races does recognize that this limitation of the human species is often due to the peculiar way their brains evolved. Having to think in neural nets, and only those neural nets that one has long established, is a difficult obstacle to overcome. How does one think outside his/her learned neural nets if by definition you don't have other ones to think with or into?

Essentially a problem with ALL of systems science and thinking is related to this. I knew the arguments I used to have with Churchman and Warfield and Ackoff and (name just about any so called systems thinker) were very much about this. They were actually quite ignorant of many, many things, phenomena, ideas, approaches, methods etc. beyond the human-social context. Others have even called this anthropomorphism or as I call it, simply humanocentrism. I think this is the source of the barrier I keep meeting in trying to get a systems science started.

Many of my disagreements with systems engineers are exactly about this. They quite naturally focus heavily on human systems. I know their focus is good for their purpose. But their approach is limited because of it. Some even disagree anything at all exists beyond the human brain. So, yes, James it is almost easy and very instructive and revealing to suggest a "worldview" for any of the systems guru's. But a list of worldviews? Yes, also. Just about any specialty, discipline, domain, philosophy, method, tool becomes a worldview when practiced long enough. Those established and elaborated neural nets start to dominate one's worldview. Germans recognized this long ago when they coined the world "weltanshauungen." 

Here is just one among many examples. I was giving an invited lecture to the LA INCOSE Chapter and gave my definition for "system of systems." I used the human body as an easily understood and accepted example. Almost all of biology and medicine recognizes that any organ is a system of subsystems (tissues, cells) and the body is a set of cooperating organ SYSTEMS. They even conventionally call them that. One SE in the audience scoffed that this was not SE's definition of system of system because the individual subsystems have to be capable of independent existence. After this, nothing I said was good enough for him. For an engineer who makes a system from off the shelf systems that they then have to integrate, this makes a lot of sense. But a liver does not exist on its own so does not match the SE definition BECAUSE OF THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES and conditions or worldview  or purpose/goal or function that they espouse. Are SE's wrong? NO! are all the others wrong? NO! But what one can hope for is defining the worldview one uses or comes out of and then trying to communicate across them. While highly respecting each one for its purposes and functions.

Amen?

Len Troncale

[joseph simpson]

A system of logic has the concept of universe of discourse or domain of discourse.

These are fairly well defined terms used to communicate the fact that all logic exists in a context of some type. 

There are many context types.  

Communication is enhanced when the context and context type is identified.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

[Duane Hybertson]

Hi Len,

Regarding your example: I am always amused when a systems engineer (or anyone) says a system of systems is a system whose subsystems are capable of independent existence. By that definition, no system of systems exists, at least in the physical world, because every system and every subsystem depends on its environment. It is true that a human heart cannot have an independent existence. But neither can a human. How long does a human last without oxygen from the environment? This definition is simply inadequate, especially when interpreted simplistically, as in the case of the systems engineer at your lecture.

Thanks,

Duane

[Curt McNamara]

Perspective: check out the W in CATWOE, and the Cabrera's focus on P (perspective) as a critical element in a systems model.

An important part of this is understanding that your model (which has a distinct perspective/worldview) is not the same as others who perceive the same "system".

"Your point of view determines structure, order, and relations." Karl Albrecht

              Curt

http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings52nd/article/view/862/384
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_systems_methodology

[James Martin]

Duane,

It is possible although unlikely that the person in LA actually said that the component systems in an SOS "have to be capable of independent existence". No engineered systems of any kind are wholly and completely independent of everything else. So, on the face of it this is clearly an absurd statement, which is why I doubt this was what he actually said.

What he was trying to say perhaps is this:

"Modern systems that comprise system of systems problems are not monolithic, rather they have five common characteristics: operational independence of the individual systems, managerial independence of the systems, geographical distribution, emergent behavior and evolutionary development." *

* Sage, A.P.; Cuppan, C.D. (2001). "On the Systems Engineering and Management of Systems of Systems and Federations of Systems". Information, Knowledge, Systems Management 2 (4): 325–345.

I underlined the two "aspects" of independence that your provocateur likely had in mind when was telling you what was "SE's definition of system of system". By no means does this mean that each component system in the SOS is completely "capable of independent existence."

I don't bring this up to say that there is only a single meaning of SOS. This article provides 7 different characteristics of SOS, only one of which is highlighted above: 

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_of_systems]

James

James

[David Rousseau]

James and Hillary,

 

The GSTD team developed a generic model of the structure of a worldview, which we included in the workshops we gave last year on the relevance of Systems Philosophy to SE.  This will be published in the next month, and when it comes out I’ll post the link here.  According to this model, a “worldview” consists of an epistemology (a view on what knowledge is, how it can be acquired and what the limits are on what can be known) and a world picture.  The world picture consists of an ontology (a view on what exists), a metaphysics (a view on the nature of what exists) and a cosmology (a view on the origin, evolution, present organization and possible futures of what exists).  A worldview is accompanied by a “life-view”, consisting of an axiology (a value system and views about how to make value judgements) and a praxeology (a view about the nature of action, agency, freedom and responsibility).  From this it is clear that a worldview is a complex nexus of concepts and commitments embedded in a complex nexus of concepts and commitments.  This makes it tricky to specify anyone’s worldview in a concise way.  Nevertheless there are named positions within these categories that can be of some help in categorizing individual positions.  Sadly there is not yet any standardized way of doing this.  There is an ongoing project in the Centre for Systems Philosophy to develop a framework and methodology for characterising and comparing worldviews.  This is on track to be published towards the end of this year.  I’ll post a link here when that comes out.  

 

In the meantime, it may be interesting here to mention the worldview of von Bertalanffy, which I support personally and I think has much in common with the position Hillary is advocating.  Von Bertalanffy called his view “Perspectivism” (1955), and he meant by this a view that was Naturalistic but moderated by several supplementary views and reservations, so as to be intermediate between Objectivist Realism and Social Constructivism.  Von Bertalanffy’s view represented a form of Objectivist Realism in that he accepted the existence of a universe independent of the observer, and a form of Naturalism in that he accepted that the scientific method can reveal aspects of reality’s nature.  However his view was moderate in that he accepted that science is limited in what it can reveal, and that the making of observations and the building of models and theories are conditioned both by agents’ cognitive capacities and the purposes that agents have in mind.  The term “Scientific Perspectivism” is now becoming established as the contemporary label for this nexus of philosophical commitments (Callebaut, 2012; Giere, 2006; Jaeger, Laubichler, & Callebaut, 2015).  The qualification “scientific” distinguishes this view from the perspectivisms of e.g. Nietze (who coined the term “Perspectivism”), which was more relativistic and closer to contemporary Postmodernism and Radical Constructivism.  Extensive treatments of Scientific Perspectivism are given in Wimsatt (2007) (who calls his view “Multi-perspectival Realism”) and van Fraassen (2008)  (who calls his view “Constructive Empiricism”). Werner Callebaut argues that Scientific Perspectivism “provides the best resources currently at our disposal to tackle many of the outstanding philosophical issues implied in the modeling of complex, multilevel/multiscale phenomena” (Callebaut, 2012, p. 75).

 

David

 

·         Callebaut, W. (2012). Scientific perspectivism: A philosopher of science’s response to the challenge of big data biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43(1), 69–80.

·         Giere, R. N. (2006). Scientific Perspectivism. Chicago  IL: University Of Chicago Press.

·         Jaeger, J., Laubichler, M., & Callebaut, W. (2015). The Comet Cometh: Evolving Developmental Systems. Biological Theory, 10(1), 36–49.

·         Van Fraassen, B. C. (2008). Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

·         von Bertalanffy, L. (1955). An essay on the relativity of categories. Philosophy of Science, 22(4), 243–263.

·         Wimsatt, W. (2007). Re-Engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings: Piecewise Approximations to Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

[Duane Hybertson]

James,

Yes, I understand what you are saying. But how much difference is there, for example, between independent existence and operational independence, which Maier (Sage and Cuppan’s source) defined as "each system is independent and it achieves its purposes by itself"? I don’t see that much difference. My general point is simply that the criteria for distinguishing SoS from non-SoS are not as clear or well-established as they might seem, and the various criteria that have been offered could use more scrutiny.

Thanks,

Duane

[James Martin]

Duane,

If you want more precision then I suggest you look at the 140 page System of Systems Engineering Guide. This is better than the Sage and Cuppan and Maier articles that go back over 15 years. 

There is much difference between "independent existence" of a particular component system in a general sense and independence from the other component systems in the SOS. It is the latter concept that is the important trait of the SOS. Each component system is not independently existing on its own, as if it operates in a vacuum with closed boundaries. That is not what is meant by "operational independence". 

James

James

[Aleksandar Malečić]

According to you (David Rousseau), moderate realism includes the absence of supernatural phenomena. Does that mean that every real phenomenon is explainable or that currently unexplainable phenomena aren't real, i.e. a person with different beliefs is uninformed, crazy, or not intelligent? Ervin Laszlo (Mister Systems Philosophy, i.e. not some random person) has/had quite a few assumptions about reality. What is his worldview?

Aleksandar

[Hillary Sillitto]

Aleksander

Neither, I think. Science makes progress by seeking to understand currently unexplained events. The assumption is that since they are (assumed to be) not supernatural, they are due to some hitherto unknown or inadequately understood process or mechanism. Their study leads to new or revised scientific theories that explain the previously unexplained, and also the previously explained, so integrating the new understanding with existing knowledge.

The basic assumption of science, which was the paradigm shift that triggered the Scottish Enlightenment in the 18th century ('There will be no miracles here!'), is that unexplained events are not supernatural but nature's way of telling us we don't know everything!

Best

Hillary

[David Rousseau]

Aleksander,

 

I completely agree with Hillary’s response below.

 

On a point of terminology, it is Naturalism, not Realism, that doubts the existence of supernatural phenomena.  To be a (something) realist is only to assume pro tem the objective existence of (something).  To be a naturalist is to assume (pro tem) that all objectively existing phenomena are amenable to scientific investigation and (in due course) scientific characterization.  The essence of Naturalism is the view that there are principled connections between causes and effects.  Phenomena that are naturalistic can therefore be investigated and modelled using science and reason. 

 

It is important to note that realisms and naturalisms are assumptions, and can be refined on the basis of how investigations turn out.  It is also important to keep in mind that appearance can be different from reality.  Naturalists do not deny that there are phenomena that appear to be supernaturalistic, but they assume that deeper investigation will show them to be actually naturalistic after all.  Phenomena that do not yet fit into current naturalistic frameworks are important to science because they may indicate the existence of hitherto unknown naturalistic substances or naturalistic change mechanisms.

 

David

[Jack Ring]

Is it possible that such phenomena may not turn out to be either?

[David Rousseau]

Of course!  Any such phenomenon may be due to known substances/processes, and we merely  didn’t see how to make the connection.  In fact that is by far the most likely case.  But if you want to make new discoveries, this is where to look.

 

From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
Sent: 29 February 2016 00:04
To: Sys Sci
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Systems Worldviews

 

Is it possible that such phenomena may not turn out to be either?

 

On Feb 25, 2016, at 4:36 AM, David Rousseau <david.r...@systemsphilosophy.org> wrote:

 

Phenomena that do not yet fit into current naturalistic frameworks are important to science because they may indicate the existence of hitherto unknown naturalistic substances or naturalistic change mechanisms.

 

--

[Lenard Troncale]

Of course. The mind of man, even in science, is limited to his current level of neural nets representing his awareness. At one time there were many phenomena that he was completely unaware of. At the time of Darwin (in fact buried next to him in the floor of Westminster Cathedral) there was a famous physicist who said Darwin's theory could not be true because the sun could not have lasted that long. He had no idea of radiation or fusion. 

But most of these fit into discovering and elucidating either substances or change mechanisms not yet known. I think you are referring to something so far beyond our current knowledge that they go beyond natural matter or change mechanisms. I still believe in miracles. Even as a scientist. But these are of another world and cannot be investigated using our current tools, ideas, memes, methods, etc. They are a supernatural worldview. As far as most are concerned right now dark matter and dark energy and superstrings fall into this category. But the uncanny thing is, 400 years of experience tend to encourage us to think that eventually all will succumb to inquiry. Who knows?

[Jack Ring]

Hi Duane,

Can you describe a system of systems that is not a system? 

Otherwise, seems to me, system of systems is only a thought crutch for those who have too simplistic notion of system.

Jack

[Jack Ring]

If "But these are of another world and cannot be investigated using our current tools, ideas, memes, methods, etc.” then perhaps ‘supernatural’ simply signifies those natural things (including the human imagination) for which we are too dumb to make natural.

The experiments at The Institute of Noetic Sciences point this way. Through the looking glass, Alice.

Jack

[Duane Hybertson]

Hi Jack,

Every system of systems is a system. The question is: Is every system a system of systems? I believe your answer to that question is that there is no need for a system of systems notion because system is sufficient; a system of systems is simply a system. For those who believe the system of systems concept is useful, the answer is no--not every system is a system of systems; i.e., systems of systems have some characteristics that distinguish them from other systems.

A variety of characteristics have been proposed that claim to distinguish systems of systems from other systems. My position is something like this: I think it is difficult to come up with a set of clearly distinguishing characteristics--especially formal distinctions. Many of those offered, such as emergent behavior, I think are true of systems in general. Others, such as managerial independence of constituent systems, are characteristics of the governing environment rather than of the system (of systems) itself. Nevertheless, I accept the potential usefulness of the concept of system of systems, if the systems community can define a practical set of distinctions that work in practice. (The system of systems community would argue that they have already defined such a set--in fact, several such sets.)

Thanks,

Duane

[Jack Ring]

Duane,

Thanks for humoring me. I think you have described the situation quite concisely (if there is a quite concise different from concise). 

I think it is hard to find a system that does not satisfy the criteria used to signify SoS. For example, people have tried but stop when I ask about cosmic rays. 

What really irritates me is the notion of constituent systems which they presume to use but do not address whether a constituent system no longer exhibits the stimulus:response characteristics of its “primary” mission. They don’t even address whether a constituent system performs in its original mission and its constituent mission simultaneously. 

I just yearn for full-assed SE.

Jack

[Hillary Sillitto]

My Composable Capability paper from IS2013 refers to this issue.

Unless you firewall the resources and capabilities required to support SoS use cases, participation in the SoS will divert attention from, and reduce the ability to perform, the primary mission of the constituent systems. 

So in a voluntary SoS, the benefit to each participating system needs to outweigh the 'cost of participation' in the SoS to ensure the constituent systems join and stay joined. For example if you are flying in controlled airspace it is better to follow the directions of the air traffic controller even if it means taking a bit longer to get onto the ground and takes a bit more fuel. 

In a directed SoS, you can 'order' participating systems to prioritise SoS objectives at the expense of their own. For example in WW2, standing orders for British submarines were always to take any opportunity to sink an enemy submarine even if this meant jeopardising the particular mission the submarine was engaged in at the time (e.g. dropping or collecting agents on a hostile coast).

Hillary

[Jack Ring]

Well said. 

Have you seen evidence that the INCOSE SoSWG has adopted your view? 

When participation changes the configuration/capability of any constituent system is its primary mission affected or must two configurations be sustained? 

If a constituent system changes on it own is the SoS apprised of the change or does the SoS have the ability to determine whether it is still fit for purpose?

[Hillary Sillitto]

Jack

All good questions.
1. I am not sufficiently involved in the SOS WG to comment.
2 and 3 - it depends!

Hillary

[Lenard Troncale]

Reply variously:

I am always informed when I see systems engineers and others from the soft systems methodology clan engage in debates over one of the "issue" topics. I think their self-limited focus on certain types of systems greatly influences their positions on issues like defining "systems of systems."

Now I usually put all issue topics (in talks and in workshops and in my ever-upcoming-text) in the "issue bin" or "parking lot." As a Dept. Chair and executive in Academic Senate's for half a century, I saw we often encountered long blocks to our getting decisions made by even longer debates on seemingly irresolvable issues. There were good points on all sides of these issues that made them endlessly debated but never resolved in a direction. This is particularly true of human-nature hybrid systems problems. And so when I hired "facilitators" to help in these debates, I learned about their use of "issue bins" and "parking lots" where they put these kind of topics that were somewhat tangential to the debate but still important so that debate could be kept on topic and decisions made. Defining "systems" or "system of systems" is one of those topics IMHO.

But back to the rather clear avoidance of natural systems knowledge in those populations that engage systems in the real human-nature hybrid systems problems domains. Why would intelligent people completely ignore what natural systems, virtually ALL of which are systems of systems, tell us about a defining SOS for all? Or why would they assume that considering only their domain of inquiry is all that they need to do to define SOS for all? Or that they should then argue with other domains that might have different definitions? There is so much to be learned from natural systems. And the result is an almost diametrically opposed set of definitions and concerns to that concluded by human-only focused decision makers.

I like at face value Hillary's suggestion that "in a voluntary SOS, the benefit to each participating system needs to outweigh the 'cost of participation.'" But I would sure like to empirically study that in a range of natural systems before I would agree to it. Or see its many manifestations and variants which I suspect exist. It is in that wider and experimentally verified world that we would achieve a more open and detailed understanding of SOS and its implications.

Len

[Hillary Sillitto]

Len

I have to confess that the idea you liked was based in part - at least the insight was crystallised - by a paper I reviewed for Systems Engineering recently. But it also has a debt to a book called 'the collapse of complex societies' written in 1990 by an Archaeologist!

Cheers

Hillary

[Duane Hybertson]

Len,

I assure you that all my consideration of systems includes the full scope of systems, both natural and artificial. I do not disagree with your statement that virtually all natural systems are systems of systems. The same argument can be applied to artificial systems, that virtually all of them are systems of systems. But if all systems are systems of systems, then of what use is the term system of systems? Let's just call them systems. My point in this discussion is to ask what is the real distinction between systems that ARE systems of systems and systems that are NOT systems of systems (whether natural or artificial). You say that virtually all natural systems are systems of systems. Does that mean that there are a few that are not systems of systems? If so, what are the characteristics that make those few not systems of systems?

Thanks,

Duane

[Lenard Troncale]

Duane,

I know you and you are not one of those who tends to focus only on human systems. You are both quite aware of and accepting of natural systems. So please do not see those comments as useful for you.

The point is decomposability (a word used a lot in SE but not in entirely the same way as in science reductionism). I cannot think of any system that is not somehow composed of sub-systems. Even Jack Rings supposed blockbuster question of cosmic rays. Who says one must only focus on the cosmic ray rather than all the other parts of the system that a cosmic ray is a part of. Surely, when you only use human power to restrict the scope of awareness (boundary) and of focus, you can limit so much that you don't get an SoS or think you don't at current levels of understanding.

I say "virtually all" just to avoid the usual conundrum and trap of ever saying all. As you point out, we should continually challenge others to present NOT SoS and see if we find one, or is it just that we have not yet explored the system deeply enough or are falsely limiting the system like creationists arguing that biosystem evolution breaks the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because they leave the sun out of the window of awareness. For example, cosmic rays are radiations of either galactic nuclei or massive supernovae. Both of those are systems of systems. They are composed mostly of protons and atomic nuclei. Both of these are SoS. Even protons are composed of subsystems of quarks and those of gluons while atomic nuclei are several levels of decomposition up. So all around cosmic rays are SoS based.

Just sayin'

Len

[Jack Ring]

Hillary,

Thanks. I did not have access to your IS2013 paper so thought maybe you had addressed these.

Jack

[Jack Ring]

Len,

does it bother you to say “...what natural systems, virtually ALL of which are systems of systems …”?

If you use system to refer to system of systems then do you pass the parsimony test?

Jack

[Jack Ring]

All,

This exchange may be may be highlighting the unacceptable ambiguity of the INCOSE definition of “system” to begin with.

Jack

[Richard Emerson]

Jack

IMHO your questions 2 and 3 apply to infrastructures when considered in the wider sense as well as "SoS.".  Not just a bridge, but the road system.  Or consider the impact of self driving cars on law, insurance, fuel, vehicle spacing, ownership, etc., which could be called an SoS or an infrastructure.  Probably can't get very far in the analysis without looking at or defining the boundaries. 

Regards

Dick

[Mike Dee]

All:  if a system is closed, is it observable? (Nothing crosses its boundary)  If not observable, can it be identified as a system?   Does this relate to SoS?  So how could a system (defined as such by an observer) not be part of another system, and how can it not have peers (i.e. SOS)?

Sent from my iPhone

[MDSE]

Continued:  so is the term SoS really needed other than to designate a situation wherein you are trying to create a solution to a problem by incorporating input from editing systems?   Seems as if SoS terminology is not really necessary, particularly in science 

Sent from my iPhone

[Richard Martin]

Jack,

 

Parsimony with respect to what? Consider the notion of system as a mental construct created to bound one or more observations. Examination of the elements, and the elements of those elements, etc., of such a system reach a limit of relevance with respect to bounded observations – digging deeper yields no new information regarding the bounded observations. Parsimony is the effect of the stop rule at that limit.

 

Of course while examining with respect to the original observations other observations of interest may arise but parsimony limits pursuit regarding those new observations if they are considered irrelevant to the original observations. However, using parsimony to avoid observations that are actually relevant is dangerous

 

So if observations are with respect to every possible detail about a natural system, i.e Len’s worldview of a natural system is in play, then indeed the SoS characteristic leads deeper and deeper in examination since each new observation as relevant to the original.

 

Make sense?

 

Cheers,

Richard

[Lenard Troncale]

Jack,

To me the parsimony test is overused and miss-represented even in science much less its wide popular application. I keep threatening to write an article entitled, "Dulling of Occam's Razor."* Parsimony is not just a recent popular approach, it is a traditional one in the scientific method going way back to observations of William of Ockham about debates about theology. But much modern research, for example modern molecular genetics shows that parsimony as practiced widely suffers from the fact that it is limited human minds who are defining the parsimony. While there is a good basis when applied to statistical tests and to very complex computer programs, software, the taxonomic or decision trees, when it is implied in the data-free, human evaluation arena, it has many problems.

So, no, I am not bothered by at all by saying what you quote. I think this popular way of applying the meaning of parsimony should be limited to data strong, data intensive cases. I would have to say that parsimony is not related to establishing boundaries of SoS at all. You cannot invoke parsimony to defend your argument for tighter boundaries or leaving subsystems out (& so making an SOS, not an SOS) IMHO. Nature determines what subsystems are necessary for any supersystem you focus on to work sustainably. Not you. Not humans who came into rather stumbling and humbling awareness some billions of years later. So natural systems SOS status occurred since the beginning of the universe in the Big Bang.

The point is can human systems in formation (and they all are at a very primitive stage) learn anything from studying how SOS occurred originally and sustains itself? That is a much bigger and challenging question for future workers. Perhaps we can humbly set the stage by defining, or promoting or establishing a worldview that would enable that future rather than disable it.

Len

*Current studies show the gene DNA is not one long uninterrupted sequence as earlier thought. It is divided into meaningful sequences (exons) that must be cut out of the longer transcribed sequence by removing (introns) intravening sequence which have no meaning to the intended product RNA. and then those exons must be properly retied together. In many genes these nonsense parts can amount to far more than the 52 for your vital hemoglobin gene. This is absolutely crazy, inviting all kinds of mistakes, clearly not "parsimonious" as far as nature goes. We still don't know exactly why but many workers have pointed out that this increases the chances of mixing and matching for evolution of genes, the next higher level of meaning (note SOS implication). It speeds up evolution. SO nature has opted for a most unparsimonious process in favor of a higher level advantage. If you do not include the higher levels, you miss the advantage entirely.

[Lenard Troncale]

Richard and Jack,

Disregard my long winded response. Richard more elegantly and precisely puts my argument simply in 

"using parsimony to avoid observations that are actually relevant is dangerous"

my observations are just trivial support for this aphorism.

Len

Jack

Jack

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

For more options, visithttps://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 athttps://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/. 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

 

 

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

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

For more options, visithttps://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 athttps://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/. 

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

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

-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

 

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

[Jack Ring]

Richard,

Sorry, but it does not make sense to me. Here’s why.

For the field of discourse regarding system science and engineering, wherein SE produces a theory (descriptive model) regarding an existing system underlying a stakeholder situation then a theory (prescriptive model) for the intended suppression system, as excerpted from Wikipedia ---

"It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.

• "On the Method of Theoretical Physics" The Herbert Spencer Lecture, delivered at Oxford (10 June 1933); also published in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 1, No. 2 (April 1934), pp. 163-169., p. 165. [thanks to Dr. Techie @ www.wordorigins.org and JSTOR]
• There is a quote attributed to Einstein that may have arisen as a paraphrase of the above quote, commonly given as “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” or “Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.” See this article from the Quote Investigator for a discussion of where these later variants may have arisen.
• This may seem very similar to Occam's razor which advocates the simplest solution. However, it [ed. the simple but no simpler] is normally taken to be a warning against too much simplicity. Dubbed 'Einstein's razor', it is used when an appeal to Occam's razor results in an over-simplified explanation that leads to a false conclusion."

I think it is pretty clear that a) if either theory is too simple then the ramifications will be encountered later in the project or usage period and will cost a lot more to remedy, conversely, b) if the theory exceeds the necessary, sufficient and efficient claims then the development and test people will have to devise bric-a-brac that will never be used.  More cost and schedule waste.

I did not mention Occam’s razor because as noted above, it is often invoked erroneously.

Moving to the left wherein system science informs system engineering then I think it is clear that a too-simple model of the concept 'system’ will lead to insufficient explication of system functions and features in the subsequent theory therefore later period problems and overruns. Similarly, an ambiguous concept of ’system vs. system of systems vs. complex adaptive system vs. the other 85 kind of system listed in the encyclopediea will lead to unnecessary SE choice-making therefore more cost and schedule.

Bad enough we have inverted objective and goal, confused property and characteristic, ignored endo and exo, etc., let’s not confuse the field further..

So how do we ensure the right degree of simplicity?  Does 15288 tell you?

Jack

[Hillary Sillitto]

Jack, 

The paper can be downloaded here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ody8iep2qfu6ehz/Paper_ID_76.pdf?dl=0

(or from the INCOSE Symposium on-line library now managed by Wiley)

Best

Hillary

[Jack Ring]

TKU. Still trying to get to your book.

Jack

[Vince Alcalde]

Most of this discussion is over my head, but I came across this online (introductory) course about Systems Biology and thought it might be of interest to some (assuming it's even mildly related to the current topic)

https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-systems-biology-ieeex-sysbio1x

Vince

[Jack Ring]

Perhaps not in System Science but certainly in system engineering the WorldView is established by Doing descriptive modeling of the problematic situation Until stakeholders and those performing SE agree that the model is Fit For Purpose. 

The two perspectives differ, Stakeholders being concerned with what causes them angst while SE practitioners are concerned with the whether the model contains the necessary, sufficient and efficient attributes. A key rule is that the SE practitioner is a facilitator, not a stakeholder. They must not design a system they want, only what the Stakeholder wants (although the SE practitioners may have to perform many hours of therapy on the stakeholders to get all ‘druthers’ to align).

On Feb 21, 2016, at 9:55 PM, Curt McNamara <cur...@gmail.com> wrote:

Perspective: check out the W in CATWOE, and the Cabrera's focus on P (perspective) as a critical element in a systems model.

An important part of this is understanding that your model (which has a distinct perspective/worldview) is not the same as others who perceive the same "system".

"Your point of view determines structure, order, and relations." Karl Albrecht

              Curt

http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings52nd/article/view/862/384
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_systems_methodology