Re: lightning as a system

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Curt McNamara

unread,
Mar 16, 2016, 12:39:48 AM3/16/16
to Sys Sci
Lightning is a transfer of energy from cloud-ground or vice versa. It is the result of excess charge, and is a temporary balancing of charge between two large systems :-).

I would view it as an exchange / relation between two systems.

Is the lightning relation systemic?
-- It can be decomposed into smaller components / modules.
-- It has a boundary
-- It has inputs and outputs
-- It is subject to "control" via the physics of the air and the sources of charge which are being balanced.

Lightning is also a phenomena of great interest to forecasters and those who work and play outdoors. Some areas of the world have far higher occurrence of lightning than others. Structures have been used to balance charge so that lightning is reduced, and this improves the stability of systems in the area.

In this view, lightning is a disturbance which can affect normal operation of systems and human safety.
                  Curt

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Joe,
I am encouraging the examination of whether  ‘system' exists sans human hubris. 

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

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

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

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

Jack
On Mar 15, 2016, at 2:51 PM, joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jack:

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

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

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

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

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe



On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com> wrote:
Joseph,
Pls tell me how a lighting bolt stabilizes itself. Only human hubris presumes to bestow the label ‘system’ or ‘systemness’ on nature’s co-evolutions.

On Mar 15, 2016, at 8:28 AM, joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com> wrote:

Jack:

As part of a process...

A process some might call the scientific method...

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

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Jack Ring <jri...@gmail.com> wrote:
How? Human Hubris. 

On Mar 12, 2016, at 5:38 PM, Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu> wrote:

Jack,

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

Len

On Mar 12, 2016, at 4:30 PM, Jack Ring wrote:

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

On Mar 12, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Curt McNamara <cur...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

              Curt

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

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

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

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

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

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

Len

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

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

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

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

Cheers

Hillaru

On 12 Mar 2016 12:02 pm, "Paola Di Maio" <paola....@gmail.com> wrote:
although we cannot be too sure of anything, these days it looks to me that most issues 
are about definitions and boundary setting.

one of the reasons why I put 'goal setting' at the top of any modelling exercise
(ontology, system or otherwise) is because the exercise must serve a purpose
(otherwise its speculation and can be fun, but can also be annoying because some definitations and boundaries  may work in some cases but not in others)

that means, putting humans and beavers in the same category (animal)
or separating them (animal vs human), and everything else we do, 
is driven by whatever is the task at hand

so it depends, Steve, Mike, Jack, Len-
why do we need the definition we are looking for> 
what do we need to design a system for >
etc=

I also not sure whether any system is truly closed, or truly open'
when we think big enough, even the ocean is a closed system (with the earth atmosphere its boundary).

even that consideration depends where the boundary lies

I use the term natural  system as in it exist without human intervention
(artificial lake is engineered, natural lake exists alone) with whatever implications the distinction bring-

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

Back to the meaning of life questions

Have a nice weekend

PDM


On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 5:04 PM, <syss...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Paola Di Maio <paola....@gmail.com>: Mar 11 05:27PM +0530


> MDSE <michael....@gmail.com>: Mar 10 08:18AM -0500
 
> I think the idea of the closed system needs specification.
 
If I remember correctly, the notion of open and closed system is well
defined
in literature
 
there should be references here,
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=4635217&filter%3DAND%28p_IS_Number%3A4635078%29%26pageNumber%3D6
 
or here
http://www.slideshare.net/PaolaDIM/digital-ecosystems-ontology-entropy-by-paola-di-maio
 
(* I researched this long time ago its goint to take me time to retrieve
my author copy of this paper but if someone wants it desperately I can dig
it up somewhere)
 
Yes, models are notional, and yes, closed and open are not necessarily
discrete but fuzzy notions
 
The metaphore I use to distinguish closed vs open is indeed the aquarium vs
the open waters,
where regulation of the variables does not take place naturally but by some
engineered control mechanism as Len says
 
I am sure there are exceptions
 
PDM
 
 
 
 
 
 
Steven Krane <sk5...@gmail.com>: Mar 11 07:11AM -0600

Is a pond made by a beaver an engineered control mechanism or takes place naturally?
 
 
 
MDSE <michael....@gmail.com>: Mar 11 08:38AM -0500

Anything in the physical realm, whether it was created by man or not is a part of reality. This differentiates man's conceptualization (models) from the real world; theory from reality. I find the term "natural" to be misleading. If a beaver builds a dam is it natural? If people build a dam ( say to catch fish for primal tribesmen) is it natural? If people build a dam to generate electricity is it natural? Is mans propensity for making tools natural? Does it matter?
 
Sent from my iPhone
 
MDSE <michael....@gmail.com>: Mar 11 08:40AM -0500

The notions of open and closed are well worn conceptualizations. Use where useful, but beware. At the root of all mistakes will be lurking the assumptions.
 
Sent from my iPhone
 
Steven Krane <sk5...@gmail.com>: Mar 11 07:50AM -0600

As are natural and artificial. Perhaps the distinction is more interesting if you believe people came into this world rather than out of it. I recognize beavers as kin. :)
 
MDSE <michael....@gmail.com>: Mar 11 11:45AM -0500

Nice!
 
Sent from my iPhone
 
Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu>: Mar 11 06:46PM

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


--
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.



--
Joe Simpson

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. 

Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. 

All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”

George Bernard Shaw

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


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



--
Joe Simpson

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. 

Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. 

All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”

George Bernard Shaw

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

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

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages