Structural Modeling Project Video Conference, Saturday July 2nd -- Read Ahead --

[joseph simpson]

Team:

The team has covered many topics in the last five (5) or six (6) months.  As indicated in the attached Read Ahead document, it is time to focus on two or three tasks and create a more complete set of artifacts that explain, detail and communicate the information and insights that have been discussed in that period of time.

Three basic artifacts are targeted for creation:

--- A new, refactored structural modeling set of web applications.  These web applications are written in Javascript and developed as open source code bases.  Anyone interested in participating in developing the web application requirements, specification, and/or code base please plan on joining the Saturday discussions and/or send an email introduction.

--- A research paper that focuses on the foundational system and mathematical concepts associated with structural modeling.  Kevin Dye has started this activity and the team of individuals interested in contributing to this effort is forming.

--- A Systems Concepts Technical Report will be generated based on the information and concepts developed over the last six (6) or so months.  The main organizing theme of this report is the further definition of General Systems Theory and a language set to explore and discuss the creation of a General Systems Theory (as defined by Boulding -1956: paper attached).  "General Systems Theory is a name which has come into use to describe a level of theoretical model-building, which lies somewhere between the highly generalized constructions of pure mathematics and the specific theories of the specialized disciplines."

A quick review of axiomatic set theory, shows that there are two sources of paradox in the use and application of mathematics.  The first source of paradox is associated with the axioms themselves, like Russel's Paradox.  The second source of paradox is associated with the semantics and language context in which the mathematics of interest is applied.  The augmented model-exchange isomorphism (AMEI) is used mainly to address the second source of paradox and confusion. A classic example in this area is the work by  Donald V. Steward, published in 1981, that states, 'If xi <= xj we say that xi "precedes" xj. Note that by definition each xi precedes itself...'  The natural language semantics of an event preceding itself is non-sense and a paradox.  The mathematics may very well be executable under appropriate mathematical rules, however the semantic value of the computed answer is very questionable.

Anyone interested in participating in the development of these artifacts please indicate your area of interest.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

--

Joe Simpson

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. 

Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. 

All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”

George Bernard Shaw

[Lenard Troncale]

Joe,

As always, I am interested in the third basic artifact --- A Systems Concepts Technical Report and participating in it.. Although I focus on isomorphic system processes, not merely "concepts" where I recognize 110 of them. But if I have already done this and published several papers on it since 1978, what is the difference of your effort and the one already reported. Or the very large collection of concepts collected and defined by multiple systems researchers (for each concept) in Charles Francois's International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics (2004 I think) that is a whopping 661 pages in length and contains so many concepts I have not taken the time to count them in toto.

Why do different people keep inventing the same wheel in this field? Of course, your project might have a different purpose and set of criteria producing a unique listing. But that should be made explicit at the beginning of the project, or you should cite and use what has already been produced as is the standard in academic research. Knowledge and use and building on what has been done in the past is both commendable and necessary.

I hope this does not sound hostile; I admire your group and what you have accomplished. I just think these thoughts should be considered.

Len

--
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.
<issue_6_1-2_18_cp.pdf><ReadAhead-for-July2_26jun2016.pdf>

[joseph simpson]

Len:

Thanks for your interest and comments on this specific effort.  I do no consider you comments hostile in any sense..  I consider them very positive....

There is a wide array of General Systems Theory literature and information available...  I am trying to identify a specific point-of-view on General Systems Theory ... and if it already exists, then I would be very happy to be introduced to this existing work...

Or, it could be that I do not understand the existing work and am not able to appreciate the importance of the current body of knowledge...  

In any case, I am using a simple three part inclusion relationship upon which to base my General Systems Theory view.  This three part inclusion relationship is as follows:

--- Each specialty science has its specific theories that are based on specific restricted empirical science, facts and data.  Each specific science theory includes General System Theory components and mathematical components.

--- General Systems Theory includes mathematical components but not all specific theories from all other sciences.

--- Mathematical theories only contain mathematical theories, not General Systems Theory or theories from specific sciences.

The key factors associated with this arrangement are:

--- Mathematical theories are the only theories available in all three areas.  Mathematics is a formal language.

--- Mathematics is the only language available to fully engage all three areas of theory development.  Mathematics has two languages, the object language and the meta-language.  Error and paradox can originate in either the object language or the meta-language.

The augmented model-exchange isomorphism (AMEI) is an analysis tool that is used to add precision and rigor to a mathematical meta-language.  The AMEI is based on axiomatic set theory but its application must take on the semantics of a specific given area of science that is based on a limited set of empirical data.

If you consider the three components of structural modeling, this general structure may be more apparent.  The three components are:

--- Basic Structural Modeling: Mathematics -- formal patterns -- no empirical data

--- Interpretive Structural Modeling: Real world empirical data and activities -- no formal patterns.

--- Structural Integration Modeling: Placing the mathematical theories in proper correspondence with specific empirical science and data.

The structural modeling activity is focused on the identification of specific general associations and models that are applicable in many if not all cases.

Klir in, "An Approach to General Systems Theory," presents much of this basic information.  However, this information is not in a computer executable format or easily accessible binary format..

Klir does present material in a formal mathematical language as well as an informal natural language... but again it is not in an executable format...

The AMEI presents a set of logical configurations the allow the mapping between natural language relationships and mathematical relations to become more well defined...

Your views on hierarchy motivated the further analysis of partially ordered sets as opposed to the ordering of a set of sets... 

These ordering concepts are difficult to express with precision in natural language, but they are extremely important in the correct communication of specific types of systems concepts.  The 27 categories associated with the AMEI will be used a first cut filter to identify any given system structuring relationship.  Then each of these 27 categories will be evaluated to assign the proper mathematical relation to natural language relationship transform and/or alignment process.

Therefore, if you know of any General Systems Theory literature that uses a logical topology created from the logical properties found in axiomatic set theory, I would like to know about the literature..

Warfield started down this path.. did not go to far.. other started down this path and got hopelessly lost..  I may wind up lost myself..

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

---

--- 

[joseph simpson]

I noticed that I did not hit the 'reply all' button..

So.. here is my reply again..

Len:

Thanks for your interest and comments on this specific effort.  I do no consider you comments hostile in any sense..  I consider them very positive....

There is a wide array of General Systems Theory literature and information available...  I am trying to identify a specific point-of-view on General Systems Theory ... and if it already exists, then I would be very happy to be introduced to this existing work...

Or, it could be that I do not understand the existing work and am not able to appreciate the importance of the current body of knowledge...  

In any case, I am using a simple three part inclusion relationship upon which to base my General Systems Theory view.  This three part inclusion relationship is as follows:

--- Each specialty science has its specific theories that are based on specific restricted empirical science, facts and data.  Each specific science theory includes General System Theory components and mathematical components.

--- General Systems Theory includes mathematical components but not all specific theories from all other sciences.

--- Mathematical theories only contain mathematical theories, not General Systems Theory or theories from specific sciences.

The key factors associated with this arrangement are:

--- Mathematical theories are the only theories available in all three areas.  Mathematics is a formal language.

--- Mathematics is the only language available to fully engage all three areas of theory development.  Mathematics has two languages, the object language and the meta-language.  Error and paradox can originate in either the object language or the meta-language.

The augmented model-exchange isomorphism (AMEI) is an analysis tool that is used to add precision and rigor to a mathematical meta-language.  The AMEI is based on axiomatic set theory but its application must take on the semantics of a specific given area of science that is based on a limited set of empirical data.

If you consider the three components of structural modeling, this general structure may be more apparent.  The three components are:

--- Basic Structural Modeling: Mathematics -- formal patterns -- no empirical data

--- Interpretive Structural Modeling: Real world empirical data and activities -- no formal patterns.

--- Structural Integration Modeling: Placing the mathematical theories in proper correspondence with specific empirical science and data.

The structural modeling activity is focused on the identification of specific general associations and models that are applicable in many if not all cases.

Klir in, "An Approach to General Systems Theory," presents much of this basic information.  However, this information is not in a computer executable format or easily accessible binary format..

Klir does present material in a formal mathematical language as well as an informal natural language... but again it is not in an executable format...

The AMEI presents a set of logical configurations the allow the mapping between natural language relationships and mathematical relations to become more well defined...

Your views on hierarchy motivated the further analysis of partially ordered sets as opposed to the ordering of a set of sets... 

These ordering concepts are difficult to express with precision in natural language, but they are extremely important in the correct communication of specific types of systems concepts.  The 27 categories associated with the AMEI will be used a first cut filter to identify any given system structuring relationship.  Then each of these 27 categories will be evaluated to assign the proper mathematical relation to natural language relationship transform and/or alignment process.

Therefore, if you know of any General Systems Theory literature that uses a logical topology created from the logical properties found in axiomatic set theory, I would like to know about the literature..

Warfield started down this path.. did not go to far.. other started down this path and got hopelessly lost..  I may wind up lost myself..

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

[joseph simpson]

I have been informed that some people who received my reply to Len... di dnot get Len's original message...  so here it is..

Joe,

As always, I am interested in the third basic artifact --- A Systems Concepts Technical Report and participating in it.. Although I focus on isomorphic system processes, not merely "concepts" where I recognize 110 of them. But if I have already done this and published several papers on it since 1978, what is the difference of your effort and the one already reported. Or the very large collection of concepts collected and defined by multiple systems researchers (for each concept) in Charles Francois's International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics (2004 I think) that is a whopping 661 pages in length and contains so many concepts I have not taken the time to count them in toto.

Why do different people keep inventing the same wheel in this field? Of course, your project might have a different purpose and set of criteria producing a unique listing. But that should be made explicit at the beginning of the project, or you should cite and use what has already been produced as is the standard in academic research. Knowledge and use and building on what has been done in the past is both commendable and necessary.

I hope this does not sound hostile; I admire your group and what you have accomplished. I just think these thoughts should be considered.

Len

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 5:08 PM, joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Lenard Troncale]

Joe:

Your answer here is a good overview of what you are planning. It seems to me to answer definitively exactly what I asked originally .....

"your project might have a different purpose and set of criteria producing a unique listing. But that should be made explicit at the beginning of the project"

It shows that your emphasis and focus seems to be completely mathematically-based while the lists of isomorphic systems processes (110) that I investigate and document fall into a rather different "set" (not in the math sense) or domain because they are "words" not formulae or math symbols that represent the naming of a series of universal patterns found in ALL natural systems models, including those that originate from the conventional phenomenal sciences. That is not to say that someday (and in some cases even now) there are not math formulations of some of these universal patterns (e.g. the math treatments of cycling or oscillations or wave patterns). The point is that we are using language to name them, not math, and that they map one to one with comparisons ACROSS the many different science case studies at different scales. For many of the ISP, we presently only have language defining characteristics and functions and the Linkage Propositions that describe their mutual influences are stated in word language, not math.

So your effort would be explicitly different from my or other work or extensions of former ones as you point out for Klir. (have you followed up on some of the work of Klir's many students, many of whom were computer programmers to see if his idea's were translated to software???). It would also be important for you to follow up on the programming versions of Forester's Systems Dynamics or the math models of Howard Odum? (which in my opinion are especially superior). The net conclusion might be that your listing would have considerably different content and meaning than these other listings, while yours might still learn from the pre-existing knowledge bases. So not reinventing the wheel so much as designing new wheel designs for different functions.

The same goes for the "words" in Francois' Encyclopedia except that my list is much more constrained to only processes found on all levels, while his includes all words used in any way in describing a very broad and encompassing umbrella of all systems approaches.

There are also "criticisms" of using set theory as a basis for describing systems comprehensively. Although I have repeatedly encountered folks, who listening to presentations of Systems Processes Theory insist that it sounds very compatible with, contributory to, and expressible in Category or Group Theory Mathematics as well as Network Theory Math. I am not knowledgeable about how all three of these relate to pure set theory.

As far as "lost," welcome to the crowd.......

Len

[joseph simpson]

Len:

Interesting point of view.. and aligned with my views in many cases..

However, my view of the structural modeling work appears to be a little broader than your current view..  you stated..

"It shows that your emphasis and focus seems to be completely mathematically-based while the lists of isomorphic systems processes (110) that I investigate and document fall into a rather different "set" (not in the math sense) or domain because they are "words" not formulae or math symbols that represent the naming of a series of universal patterns found in ALL natural systems models, including those that originate from the conventional phenomenal sciences"

My view of the structural modeling work is centered in the classical arts of the Trivium.

See:  http://www.triviumeducation.com/trivium/

The Trivium has three components:

-- General grammar

-- Formal logic 

-- Classical Rhetoric

The formal logic is a mathematical component, but it is considered in association with grammar and rhetoric... the focus is on the identification of logical properties of relations that may be used to increase the clarity and precision of grammar and rhetoric.

The augmented model-exchange isomorphism (AMEI)  provides the basis for this increase in clarity and precision.  For example, the  AMEI version 1.1, available at:

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

is organized around the natural language relationship, "connected-to."

If the natural language relationship connected-to is used by itself without any AMEI logical property group modifiers, it is very non-specific and can be assigned to any one of the 27 logical property groups.  However, if the natural language relationship, connected-to, is accompanied by a AMEI logical property group modifier then its meaning is more carefully defined.

Further, the natural language relationship, "north-of" fits in only one of the AMEI 27 category buckets and is more specific that the natural language relationship connected-to.

While these fundamental distinctions have their foundation in math and logic, their impact and use is not restricted to mathematics only.  These mechanisms support clear logical argument development and presentation in words as well.

The AMEI was developed to highlight the ubiquitous problems associated with the  use of natural language prose ONLY as a system description approach.  Expanding the scope and impact of logic and mathematics directly to prose and graphics, using the AMEI, provides a structured, classical communication approach that now may have the logical reasoning component supported with digital computers.  Further, the AMEI provides a clear metric for relationship precision measurement.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe