Re: [SysSciWG] Digest for syssciwg@googlegroups.com - 3 updates in 1 topic

[steve wallis]

A few years back, I crunched 20 theories of CAS. And, while there was no
set of concepts in common across all 20, I managed (with just a little
"squishing") to show how they might all be reflected in 8 concepts:

Time, Interactions, Fit test, Change, Agents, Schemas, Environment, Edge
of Chaos

More importantly, is that those concepts are causally interconnected.

Wallis, S. E. (2008). From reductive to robust: Seeking the core of
complex adaptive systems theory. In A. Yang & Y. Shan (Eds.),
Intelligent Complex Adaptive Systems (pp. 1-25). Hershey, PA: IGI
Publishing.

Thanks,

Steve

= = = = = =

Steven E. Wallis, Ph.D.
Fulbright Specialist - Consulting on strategy, theory, and policy
Capella University
Meaningful Evidence, LLC

Play ASK MATT to improve your strategy, policy, and theory
http://meaningfulevidence.com/strategic-planning-3-0

On 3/9/2016 3:24 AM, syss...@googlegroups.com wrote:
> syss...@googlegroups.com
> <%0A%20%20https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#%21forum/syssciwg/topics%0A>
> Google Groups
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#%21overview>
> <https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#%21overview>
>
> Topic digest
> View all topics
> <%0A%20%20https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#%21forum/syssciwg/topics%0A>
>
>
> * Complex adaptive systems <#group_thread_0> - 3 Updates
>
> Complex adaptive systems
> <http://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg/t/6cb0d61b933668df?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email>
>
> Mary Edson <mared...@gmail.com>: Mar 08 02:31PM -0800
>
> Tagging is one of three mechanisms, in addition to four basics, that
> Holland describes as common to all CAS. Tagging is a mechanism related to
> the property of aggregation (as in categories) Non-linearity,
> diversity, and flows are three other examples of properties. Internal
> models are examples of another mechanism. Holland's book (1995),* Hidden
> Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity* is a distillation of his work
> and
> a great resource for learning more about CAS.
>
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 5:46:25 PM UTC-5, James Martin wrote:
> Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu>: Mar 09 02:42AM
>
> Seems like "Tagging" to CAS is what "Identifying Features" and
> "Identifying Functions" is to Systems Processes Theory (SPT). Both
> describe properties associated with something. They are like the memes
> we cluster together to distinguish one thing (or concept) from
> another. Like red, round, tree fruit, taste, makes good juice for
> "apple." A useful primitive. But SPT has many other similar tags like
> "Meaurables," "discinyms," "types" to further elaborate its systems
> processes. Which systems processes of course enable or delivery
> manifest complex adaptive systems among others. Just sayin'
> Len
>
> On Mar 8, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Mary Edson wrote:
>
> Tagging is one of three mechanisms, in addition to four basics, that
> Holland describes as common to all CAS. Tagging is a mechanism related
> to the property of aggregation (as in categories) Non-linearity,
> diversity, and flows are three other examples of properties. Internal
> models are examples of another mechanism. Holland's book (1995),
> Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity is a distillation of
> his work and a great resource for learning more about CAS.
>
> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 5:46:25 PM UTC-5, James Martin wrote:
> Curt,
>
> I changed subject line because I want to hear more about these ideas
> regarding complex adaptive systems.
>
> Tell me more about "John Holland's fundamental elements in a complex
> adaptive system". You said 'tags' are one of these elements. What are
> the other elements?
>
> And how can they help us better understand or do better systems science?
>
> James
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 5, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Curt McNamara
> <cur...@gmail.com<javascript:>> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016, 2:48 PM James Martin
> <mart...@gmail.com<javascript:>> wrote:
> Curt,
>
> What do you mean by "tags"? And how are such tags useful in
> understanding or dealing with systems?
>
> James
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 5, 2016, at 3:21 PM, Curt McNamara
> <cur...@gmail.com<javascript:>> wrote:
>
> WRT Jack and Mike:
> SoS, socio-technical, and leveraging could be seen as tags from a
> complex adaptive systems perspective.
>
> Curt
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016, 1:52 PM Mike Dee <mdee...@gmail.com<javascript:>>
> wrote:
> 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
>
> From: syss...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>] On Behalf Of Curt McNamara
> Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2016 12:29 PM
> To: Sys Sci
>
> Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Digest for
> syss...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> - 13 updates in 2 topics
>
> 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
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Mike Dee
> <michael....@gmail.com<javascript:>> wrote:
> 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.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: syss...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> [mailto:syss...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>] On Behalf Of Paola Di Maio
> Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2016 7:05 AM
> To: syss...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> Subject: Re: [SysSciWG] Digest for
> syss...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> - 13 updates in 2 topics
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
> joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com>: Mar 08 08:20PM -0800
>
> -
>
> TAGGING (Mechanism)
> Tagging is a form of identification and recognition for agents. Holland
> describes examples of tagging in real life as such things as banners,
> flags, logos, trademarks, etc. He sees the tagging mechanism as a
> pervasive
> feature of CAS as they enable selective interaction between agents and
> hence act as a mechanism for aggregation and boundary formation.
>
> Take care 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
>
> Back to top <#digest_top>
> You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this
> group. You can change your settings on the group membership page
> <%0A%20%20https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#%21forum/syssciwg/join%0A>.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send
> an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com>.
>