Re: [SysSciWG] Digest for syssciwg@googlegroups.com - 13 updates in 2 topics

[Paola Di Maio]

Glad to see some topics of interest on the list (an not only rants LOL)

Wanted to add a few comments

Do I read this right that people are still discussing the
boundary/definition for Systems, vs SOS? Cant believe that people
have been discussing the same thing for decades.

I have a very clearcut definition, that works (but happy to hear
objections if any)

A system is capable of delivering a system function ALONE (by itself)
that is what makes it a system. if it cannot, it is not a system, but
a subsystem. So, for me a liver is not a system, because it does not
work by itself, if you put a liver on a table, it does not do
anything.

when it comes to a wheel, well, one could argue that the function of
the wheel is to spin, therefore a wheel, properly mounted on a hub, is
a system whose function is to turn.

if we consider a wheel system, then a bicycle could be considered an
SOS, whereby the SOS functionality cannot be deliverd by one or even
two wheels alone, without the other components


RE. WORLDVIEWS, well, essentially a worldview is a statement that only
pertains to human sphere, that is what an individual or collective of
individuals perspective, what they can see. This is pertinent to
engineered systems because it is individuals shape their systems
solely based on their worldview, which is continually shifting

When it comes to natural systems (not engineered), the worldview
matters because it defines what people (general users and/or
engineers) can see. which impacts their ability to
use/manipulate/build upon natural systems. any engineered system
interfaces and is deployed within a natural system (laws of physics
and all) therefore it is important that we understand , I think the
role of the worldview. As we continue to learn, the worldview also
changes. if it doesnt. we cannot progress our understanding of the
world.

Just wanted to say these things

Greets to all,

PDM






On 3/5/16, syss...@googlegroups.com <syss...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> =============================================================================
> Today's topic summary
> =============================================================================
>
> Group: syss...@googlegroups.com
> Url:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/syssciwg/topics
>
>
> - Universal Constructor (Re: Manifesto for General Systems
> Transdisciplinarity) [4 Updates]
> http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/t/bb483601c115d5c
> - Systems Worldviews and SOS [9 Updates]
> http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/t/667ccd9bf4682b74
>
>
> =============================================================================
> Topic: Universal Constructor (Re: Manifesto for General Systems
> Transdisciplinarity)
> Url: http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/t/bb483601c115d5c
> =============================================================================
>
> ---------- 1 of 4 ----------
> From: "Aleksandar Malečić" <ljma...@gmail.com>
> Date: Mar 04 01:01PM -0800
> Url: http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/msg/21d31ed1f2691d
>
> "Someone should have warned me" that I was talking rubbish in this group
> all the time. I am rejected by EMCSR Avantgarde because the reviewers know
> something about me, but don't want to reveal it. I apologize.
>
> Aleksandar
>
>
> ---------- 2 of 4 ----------
> From: Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu>
> Date: Mar 04 09:43PM
> Url: http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/msg/21d5734909f528
>
> Perhaps you have a reputation for being young and new at this but others
> disagree with some of your points of view. Not very avantegarde of them
> IMHO. Keep learning Aleksandar and please insert yourself less until you
> have learned more. Asking questions is always acceptable by those who are
> learning. You always say self-deprecating and humble statements in your msgs
> so it is not because you are overbearing or arrogant IMHO. So don't let this
> rejection discourage your interest in a complex subject. They should at
> least be courageous enough to let you know what they think specifically
> about your comments. Rubbish does not a review make; nor does it help the
> young improve.
>
> And know that even old and long time workers like myself are rejected by
> various groups at various times. Even very recently. And every time it makes
> us feel like abandoning our interests. But don't let that happen. We all
> have something to contribute IMHO.
>
> Len
>
>
> On Mar 4, 2016, at 1:01 PM, Aleksandar Malečić wrote:
>
> "Someone should have warned me" that I was talking rubbish in this group all
> the time. I am rejected by EMCSR Avantgarde because the reviewers know
> something about me, but don't want to reveal it. I apologize.
>
> Aleksandar
>
> --
> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>
> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative
> Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to
> syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> ---------- 3 of 4 ----------
> From: Janet Singer <janetm...@gmail.com>
> Date: Mar 04 05:17PM -0800
> Url: http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/msg/21e120c5b92f64
>
> Aleksander,
> I'd like to echo Len's encouragement.
> I don't know what the EMCSR reviewers were thinking, but I have found your
> SSWG contributions to be informed and thought-provoking – if a little
> idiosyncratic : )
> Janet
>
>
>
> ---------- 4 of 4 ----------
> From: joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com>
> Date: Mar 04 05:22PM -0800
> Url: http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/msg/21e1637acd8c8c
>
> Aleksandar:
>
> Humans communicate and find meaning based on context.
>
> In the systems world, one of the most difficult things to do is find people
> who share common context.
>
> I have had many instances where individuals and groups have rejected or
> misunderstood my communications based largely on miscommunication and lack
> of context.
>
> Just keep on going...
>
> Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Aleksandar Malečić <ljma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
> =============================================================================
> Topic: Systems Worldviews and SOS
> Url: http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/t/667ccd9bf4682b74
> =============================================================================
>
> ---------- 1 of 9 ----------
> From: Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com>
> Date: Mar 04 07:47AM -0500
> Url: http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/msg/21b834adc54c96
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ---------- 2 of 9 ----------
> From: MDSE <michael....@gmail.com>
> Date: Mar 04 08:59AM -0500
> Url: http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/msg/21bc204a6b0db8
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ---------- 3 of 9 ----------
> From: "Richard Martin" <rich...@tinwisle.com>
> Date: Mar 04 09:24AM -0500
> Url: http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/msg/21bd7df149dc0d
>
> 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
>
>
>
> From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
> Of Jack Ring
> Sent: Friday, March 4, 2016 12:37 AM
> To: Sys Sci <syss...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Systems Worldviews and SOS
>
>
>
> 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
>
> On Mar 3, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu
> <mailto:lrtro...@cpp.edu> > wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2016, at 12:00 AM, 'Hillary Sillitto' via Sys Sci Discussion List
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 3 March 2016, Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com
> <mailto:jri...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> On Mar 2, 2016, at 6:51 PM, Duane Hybertson <duanehy...@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','duanehy...@gmail.com');> > wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:00 AM, Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jri...@gmail.com');> > wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 9:40 PM, Duane Hybertson <duanehy...@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','duanehy...@gmail.com');> > wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lrtro...@cpp.edu');> > wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 5:37 PM, James Martin wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 7:30 AM, 'Hillary Sillitto' via Sys Sci Discussion List
> <syss...@googlegroups.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','syss...@googlegroups.com');> > wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 21 February 2016, joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jjs...@gmail.com');> > wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 12:08 PM, 'Hillary Sillitto' via Sys Sci Discussion
> List <syss...@googlegroups.com <mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com> > wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> ---------- 4 of 9 ----------
> From: Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu>
> Date: Mar 04 06:08PM
> Url: http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/msg/21c9ae34c8e674
>
> 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.
>
> On Mar 3, 2016, at 9:36 PM, Jack Ring wrote:
>
> 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
> On Mar 3, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Lenard Troncale
> <lrtro...@cpp.edu<mailto:lrtro...@cpp.edu>> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2016, at 12:00 AM, 'Hillary Sillitto' via Sys Sci Discussion List
> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 3 March 2016, Jack Ring
> <jri...@gmail.com<mailto:jri...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 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
>
> On Mar 2, 2016, at 6:51 PM, Duane Hybertson
> <duanehy...@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','duanehy...@gmail.com');>>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:00 AM, Jack Ring
> <jri...@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jri...@gmail.com');>> wrote:
> 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
>
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 9:40 PM, Duane Hybertson
> <duanehy...@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','duanehy...@gmail.com');>>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Lenard Troncale
> <lrtro...@cpp.edu<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lrtro...@cpp.edu');>>
> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 5:37 PM, James Martin wrote:
>
> 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
>
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 7:30 AM, 'Hillary Sillitto' via Sys Sci Discussion List
> <syss...@googlegroups.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','syss...@googlegroups.com');>>
> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> ---------- 5 of 9 ----------
> From: Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu>
> Date: Mar 04 06:11PM
> Url: http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/msg/21c9d870cbe1f0
>
> 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
>
> On Mar 4, 2016, at 6:24 AM, Richard Martin wrote:
>
> 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
>
> From: syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>
> [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jack Ring
> Sent: Friday, March 4, 2016 12:37 AM
> To: Sys Sci <syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>>
> Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Systems Worldviews and SOS
>
> 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
> On Mar 3, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Lenard Troncale
> <lrtro...@cpp.edu<mailto:lrtro...@cpp.edu>> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2016, at 12:00 AM, 'Hillary Sillitto' via Sys Sci Discussion List
> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> On Thursday, 3 March 2016, Jack Ring
> <jri...@gmail.com<mailto:jri...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 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
>
> On Mar 2, 2016, at 6:51 PM, Duane Hybertson
> <duanehy...@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','duanehy...@gmail.com');>>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:00 AM, Jack Ring
> <jri...@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jri...@gmail.com');>> wrote:
> 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
>
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 9:40 PM, Duane Hybertson
> <duanehy...@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','duanehy...@gmail.com');>>
> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Lenard Troncale
> <lrtro...@cpp.edu<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','lrtro...@cpp.edu');>>
> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 5:37 PM, James Martin wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
> On Feb 21, 2016, at 7:30 AM, 'Hillary Sillitto' via Sys Sci Discussion List
> <syss...@googlegroups.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','syss...@googlegroups.com');>>
> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 21 February 2016, joseph simpson
> <jjs...@gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jjs...@gmail.com');>>
> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 12:08 PM, 'Hillary Sillitto' via Sys Sci Discussion
> List <syss...@googlegroups.com<mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com>> wrote:
> 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?
>
>
> ---------- 6 of 9 ----------
> From: Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com>
> Date: Mar 04 12:49PM -0700
> Url: http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/msg/21cf39267f8c01
>
> 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
> <http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/> for a discussion
> of where these later variants may have arisen.
> This may seem very similar to Occam's razor
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_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
>
>
> ---------- 7 of 9 ----------
> From: Hillary Sillitto <hsil...@googlemail.com>
> Date: Mar 04 08:55PM
> Url: http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/msg/21d2c8d6f62b6c
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ---------- 8 of 9 ----------
> From: Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com>
> Date: Mar 04 02:12PM -0700
> Url: http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/msg/21d3b97dabbc96
>
> TKU. Still trying to get to your book.
> Jack
>
>
> ---------- 9 of 9 ----------
> From: Vince Alcalde <valc...@gmail.com>
> Date: Mar 05 08:40AM +1100
> Url: http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/msg/21d5464a807704
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this
> group. You can change your settings on the group membership page:
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/syssciwg/join
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an
> email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
>
>

[Mike Dee]

Paula:

I would add this to the (well worn) discussion of SoS...

As commonly used, the term SoS seems to be an engineering term related the CREATION of new functions by adding something new and incorporating functions from existing implementations or nature. So, the new SoS provides the new functions, but DOES NOT include the other functions of the pre-existing "systems" that comprised the SoS.

So, our definition of a "system" (its boundary) is defined by the I/O that we (as observers) ascribe to it.

A SoS may utilize existing implementations that continue to provide functions unrelated to the desired functions of the "new" SoS.

I understand the desire to use the term SoS, but that term does not seem to add any new distinction. The only caveat to this is that when we design a SoS, one requirement might be that we have NO deleterious effect on the other systems when our SoS is implemented. In the SoS world we are making subsystems of things that pre-exist our design. But how is that diffderent from re-use or leveraging?

Still I see no purpose in the designation SoS.

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

[Lenard Troncale]

Just a quick point Paola.

The context of the system is as important as the system. Putting a liver on the table is certainly divorcing it from it's natural context. Of course, it cannot function as a system then. Saying a car that has not had its ignition turned on (or a vacuum cleaner for that matter) is not a systems because it is not functioning at the moment, are also problematic metaphors. Take ANY system out of the context it was evolved or designed to exist in will lead to non-systemness or dysfunction.

Such metaphors only point up the requirements of a definition. They actually may cause more confusion than they seem to resolve. Just sayin'

Len

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

[Curt McNamara]

Speaking as a systems engineer ...

As I understand it, the term System of Systems is most useful when considering a situation which contains:

-- humans

-- human activity systems (organizations)

-- human designed systems
...

For example, a battle field with pilots, airplanes, air traffic control, airplane control systems, civilians, ...

The intent (as I understand it) is to remind system designers and engineers that their work will exist and be used in a complex environment. This has been a useful construct. 

There are other concepts of great use to a practicing engineer or designer (for example boundary), that have also been challenged by systems scientists. There is a lesson here ... perhaps more than one?

                   Curt

[Jack Ring]

Curt, 

Thanks for this distinction. For > 50 years many persons practicing SE have called these sociotechnical systems while others have always presumed that humans were constituents in the first place. The adjective is sufficient. The parsimony prize doesn’t need a "system of belly buttons” category any more than we need a 'system of chemical reactions' category.

Jack

[Jack Ring]

Len,
Except that most ‘definitions’ of system treat system in the present tense, i.e., doing something. Calling something a system because of what it IS rather than also or better yet, instead of what it DOES is the classic Descartes Myopia.
Onward,

[Mike Dee]

Thinking in terms of Wymore, SoS is just a system wherein the implementation of certain functionalities (I apologize for using that word) is constrained by use of particular other implementations (Wymore:  Technology Constraints).    Therefore the only thing that differentiates a SoS from any other system is the degree to which the trade space is restricted only to the new elements of the system, and away from existing stuff that is mandated to perform such implementations.   No function design space is available, no implementation design space is available.

 

Most people just call that leveraging.

 

MD

[Curt McNamara]

WRT Jack and Mike:

SoS, socio-technical, and leveraging could be seen as tags from a complex adaptive systems perspective.

    Curt

[James Martin]

Curt,

What do you mean by "tags"? And how are such tags useful in understanding or dealing with systems?

James

Sent from my iPad

[Steven Krane]

Regarding:

A system is capable of delivering a system function ALONE (by itself)
that is what makes it a system. if it cannot, it is not a system, but
a subsystem. So, for me a liver is not a system, because it does not
work by itself, if you put a liver on a table, it does not do
anything.

If you put the WHOLE animal on a table on the moon it also does not do anything.  That's not its gig.

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

[Curt McNamara]

A tag is like short hand - a way to represent an idea or set of attributes. They often develop in a particular area of work / research, or in a human activity system. 

It is one of John Holland's fundamental elements in a complex adaptive system.

    Curt

[Jack Ring]

Curt, 

Yes to tags. 

Now then, are there prudent rules for tagging, e.g., mutually exclusive if specifying an intended system or highly redundant if describing an existing system or structure?

Jack

[Lenard Troncale]

Oh Jack. And some of us define what a systems is as what a system does. When it's active. What its potential is. All of these things. Look up entitation of Gerard defined a two generations ago in the early GST movement. It is you who make a distinction between is and does (structure and function) that are suffering from Descartes Myopia IMHO.
Len

[Lenard Troncale]

Please note that Mike Dee and others are presenting definitions and distinctions active in the engineering field. There are many many dozens of fields concerned with systems. So please SE's everywhere remind yourselves (as we all must) that your definitions may work for a limited domain, but that there are some who are trying to forge definitions that work across many domains. Perhaps we should have a disclaimer with every msg identifying which domain we are speaking in and for. Then we might be able to agree more or at least learn from our disagreement about the many different types of systems.

Notice also that I am not speaking for or against Wymore or Dee, just trying to promote better or more compassionate communication between domains.

Len

[Jack Ring]

Len,
Good for you and your “some of us.”
How does that community compare to the INCOSE definition, the SEBoK and the various WG charters, the IFSR Praxis?
Is the interaction of INCOSE and ISSS accomplishing its intended purpose?
Jack

[Curt McNamara]

Jack, that book/article will be very useful, for my students (and many others).

Is there a list of the "Jack Ring challenges" to the systems community somewhere?

                Curt

[Jack Ring]

Curt,

I am confused. To what book/article are you referring?

My list of challenges is >1500 pages but which contain only about 1.5 pages of really salient stuff. Problem is I can’ t decide which 0.1% are the right pages. I intend to get it down to 30 pages this year, but am behind schedule already.

Doing an INCOSE webinar re: transforming SE to System Management on June 16, 2016 which may help shed light and shed some chaff. (Yes, shed has two interpretations.)

FWIW, my focus is on discovering how N persons can serve stakeholders by creating a problem suppression system that stakeholders can operate, particularly when 2<N>250 (www.starkermann.com). 

My metric is Fit For Purpose which attributes are Quality, OpAvail and User Trusted. 

My maximization scheme is a seven-tuple wherein the the problem suppression system (System D)  enables the stakeholders (System C) to make their clients/customers/dependents (System B) more Fit for (their client’s (System A)) Purpose. The problem suppression system creation system (System E)  fits the problem suppression system challenge, the system management system (System F) ensures the system creation system is Fit For Purpose and the human synergy system (System G) evolves the right system management citizens just-in-time, perpetually.

My theory says a) this seven-tuple operates as an implicit differential system of the third order (the equivalent of conservation of mass, momentum and energy), and b) there are four basic tags (such as Derek Cabrera’s D, S, R, and P), c) an ontology of functions and features tags of probably less than 2500 terms, d) a BIG purpose, i.e., Do No Harm, for which we have near-zero theory, and e) a blind spot in design wherein we arrange interoperation among the components but not mutual tension, the dynamic stability factor.

Then there is the pathology wherein humans with too much hubris declare that just because they can make up a story about ant colonies and get others to agree that ants really have such purpose. A recent finding about how ants act when subjected to a flood is a quite different scenario from a colony.

Further, there is Prof. Bruce Lipton’s Biology of Belief in which what we think influences or DNA. 

Any help filtering chaff will be greatly appreciated.

Jack

[Lenard Troncale]

Jack,

Very good questions. I am not sure that the MOU actually explicitly lists a set of purposes beyond the overall purpose of cross-communication for fecundity. That's a rather general and low lying hurdle.

The various projects of the SSWG specifically and rather successfully try to focus in on doable products coming out of that communication. INCOSE especially is big on delivering products (and should be praised for it). While there is general agreement in INCOSE that a better systems knowledge base is needed, I do not see deep penetration on what that KB should be or explicit lists of criteria describing it. As a result, one might have to say that the "penetration" of systems synthesis into the general membership is going very slowly, if at all. I don't see sufficient penetration of rigorous systems science into SEBoK much. Some surface stuff but not anything really useful to what the members do each day. Most of the traditional SE textbooks educating new SE's are embarrassing in their coverage of systems.

Perhaps now with the greater recognition of SSWG communicating more with the NSWG, the CxSWG, SoSWG, and maybe even others on Agile etc in the near past and futures, there may be a gradual evolution of awareness.

One case in point. (When one of my current Systems Engineering graduate students made me aware of the software and then systems engineering adoption and popularity of the buzzword agile as an umbrella for a new set of techniques for both of those strong engineering domains, I found the basis of the original manifesto was exactly FIVE systems processes of the SPT. They explained virtually all of the advances promised by agile. This shows the utility of the SPT if it was widened in awareness. If only FIVE can cause the new advances of agile praxis, think of what more and others might do, whatever label you applied to it). Conscious, aware application of how systems work and don't work could cause a jump start for the future. But SE is currently ignoring it mostly and some even more; they have specifically stated to me that they are resisting it.

I might say that my insistence on a huge difference in systems science and systems thinking or systems philosophy has mostly gone unheeded. (My papers proposed on this distinction were actually rejected by the local Chapter and by IS reviewers while people like a couple of past Pres. say it should be published??) I have met members who insist systems thinking is the only thing they will consider. This is not pioneering; this is regression IMHO. And the several systems education forum's (fora) I have attended have actually been highly resistant to the suggestion there is anything beyond systems thinking and current practices in MBSE with current tools, limited as they are.

I have not attended IFSR lately but I think they are going off the deep end lately (more words; less insight) in what I have seen lately. The conversations (which I was present at in their beginnings) are getting larger, but more diffuse with mostly very very shallow thinking being produced.

I think the Complex Systems Movement in physics and various other societies are a better match for systems science for INCOSE than ISSS or IFSR. Odd. The ISSS and IFSR and INCOSE share a preoccupation with the human, not the natural, and that is good as function-sharing and communication, but they all three suffer from too much distance from real science IMHO.

Certainly INCOSE has provided an important needed stimulus and just a bit more rigor to ISSS and IFSR. So I think the benefit has mostly gone to those old societies and federations. I would like to see more real benefits come back to INCOSE. Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it /or/ I should better say IMHO.

Len

[Mike Dee]

Len:

 

If you are attempting to come up with a generalized theory (say SoS, etc) then it has to be valid across fields, eh?  In Wymore, there is no distinction between whether a “Technology Constraint” represents a set of hardware, software, function, nut,  bolt, human role, or human individual.  A “Technology Constraint” is merely a restriction on what the system implementation may consist of.    If I design a human based “SoS”, and define that a role exists in the that will become part of the SoS, then we have a function based Constraint.   If you are more specific and say something like “Fred will do [something]” then the Technology  Constraint is on the implementation itself.

 

Either way, SoS places constraints on what you may build your system from (forgive the English), whether people, rabbits, or GPS satellites.   Still, I see no purpose for the SoS distinction, and maintain that Wymore’s definitions cover everything you are chatting about.   A system is a system, or am I wrong?

 

J

[Mike Dee]

Steve:

 

Can you draw a boundary around a liver, and define the I/O relationship?  If so, then it is a system, no?

 

Probably best to dump the designation Sub and Super when defining a system.  The important thing is context and I/O.  After all, the observer gets to define the system boundary by identifying he I/O.

 

MD

 

From: syss...@googlegroups.com [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steven Krane
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2016 3:59 PM
To: syss...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Digest for syss...@googlegroups.com - 13 updates in 2 topics

 

Regarding:

[Jack Ring]

It is likely that two or more people in respective fields of endeavor (viewpoints) will use a) different labels for the same entity  and b) the same label for different entities. I think Hillary Silletto has noted this and Warfield often cited Peirce in this regard.  

Accordingly, system science serves us best when it clarifies the key entities  of systemness (or systemity) then the relation between each entity and the respective labels (tags?) used in each field of discourse as formulated by the respective cabals. 

[Jack Ring]

Dee,

Defining the I/O doth not a system make. 

Actual I/O enables you to call a configuration a system. 

When the behavior ends then system returns to configuration. 

Behavior will happen only when the entities/components/constituents have a sufficient degree of coherence. 

Kind of like the middle school orchestra, sometimes you hear music, otherwise simply noise.

Jack

[Mike Dee]

Should have been more specific. 

 

The system boundary is defined by the I/O. 

[Jack Ring]

the system boundary is defined by the I/O that occurs.

[Mike Dee]

Jack:  Interesting caveat.  The limit of the model is that it might not be possible to include all forms of l/O (do we care about the interaction of input random gamma radiation on the output?).   From the standpoint of an engineering model, the I/O is limited to the context we define.  That does not mean we have included everything.