Mapping the landscape of patterns across domains - A survey

[Helene Finidori]

Dear Systems Sciences colleagues,

I invite you to take part in a research project focusing on pattern knowledge and application, initiated with members of the Systems Science and Pattern Literacy working group of the Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science (BCSSS). Some of you may have attended the workshop I presented with Peter Tuddenham on Pattern Literacy in support of Systems Literacy, or seen the presentation. This is part of a broader research on patterns and systems I am undertaking for my PhD.

Considering that patterns can be found in many domains of research and praxis, the intent of the survey is to develop a map that will reflect the diversity of meanings and applications of patterns and their topology.

 This map will be the first step in the creation of a shared knowledge base on the ways 
patterns are understood, approached, represented and applied in and in-between domains of theory and praxis.

For this purpose, I invite you to provide your insights by answering questions on your approach to different aspects of understanding and referring to patterns. This will take approximately 30 minutes. You will be embarking with us on a short discovery journey where we hope you may also learn, while we learn from you.

Take the survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/MappingPatternsLandscape

The data is collected anonymously, but you will be invited to share your name and details if you would like to be contacted for further discussions, and to be kept informed of our findings.

Please diffuse this email and survey link widely to people and communities that you think have insights to share.

Do not hesitate to contact me for any question or comment.

Thanks for your time and attention!

All the best,

Helene Finidori

PhD Candidate - University of Hull, Centre for Systems Studies

Coordinator - Systems Science & Pattern Literacy research group at the Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science (BCSSS)

Affiliate Researcher - Evolution, Complexity and COgnition group (ECCO)
Senior Research Fellow - The Schumacher Institute

[Aleksandar Malečić]

Should that research also be accompanied by a discussion?

I think that the next big move is science is in some way related to patterns and/or relationships. In search for patterns people tend to form or join a school of philosophy (real or imaginary patterns of being, spirit, etc.) or "find" nonexistent patterns (apophenia, https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/reality-check/201111/11-11-11-apophenia-and-the-meaning-life). The field of pattern research is already a minefield because so many people had their say: mythology and religions, sacred geometry, aforementioned being (Heidegger) and spirit (Hegel) and other schools of philosophy, a new (Stephen Wolfram) and other kinds of science (for instance John von Neumann)...

Are any real patterns (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_stance) waiting to be discovered and applied? Real patterns, as Daniel Dennett understands them (I apologize if I misunderstood how he understands them), are a concept useful for understanding consciousness and physical systems in general. But, according to (my understanding of) Dennett, the bottom line theory of consciousness and/or systems will never be found because we shall do some kind of injustice each time we try to reduce a physical system (information about a system and a system are the same real and irreducible pattern). Ladyman et al. (https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/every-thing-must-go-metaphysics-naturalized/) are inspired by Dennett (they call "naturalized" what Dennett calls "real"), but they go with that inspiration into the opposite direction: looking for the ultimate rule-book of reality.

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

[Helene Finidori]

I would welcome a discussion Aleksandar.

This group is probably quite advanced in the reflections on patterns and their role in systems science / systems thinking / systems engineering. I have been in contact with some members such as Len Troncale, Joseph Simpson a while ago in a discussion Len involved me in but it seems I lost the thread, and Peter Tuddenham, with whom I have been reflecting on the role of pattern literacy in support of systems literacy. In addition to what we presented at ISSS 2017 on the topic we presented a paper at the pattern languages of programs conference, with pattern literacy in support of systems literacy seen from a pattern language perspective. An approach to patterns quite different than the systems science approach.

The issue you raise Aleksandar is key. Patterns can be everything or nothing, and can we really find a bottom line theory that is not a reduction from one or another perspective (sorry if I 'reduce' your point that much here, I am looking forward to get deeper in Dennett's understanding of patterns)? I am very interested in Len's work, because I think that what Len has done over the years can provide some responses although I do not know his work well enough to know exactly which piece. The isomorphies Len has been pursuing are patterns, and it seems to me that there would be ways of interconnecting patterns of different types on different types of criteria with some sort of 'semantic' if not semiotic relationship, to see clusters of 'probable' isomorphy emerge, around which conversations can take place. This is something we have discussed in Vienna, and that is outlined around slides 16 to 22 of the presentation linked above.

What I would very much like to do, with, and beyond this survey, is to gather research that has already been done on different approaches to patterns. When reading the paper Defining “System”: a Comprehensive Approach, [proceedings of?] 27th Annual INCOSE International Symposium (IS 2017) in Adelaide, with some of you I recognize as authors, I was wondering whether something like this type of research had been done on patterns within a systems context, and thought maybe some in this group had started looking at patterns similarly.

The survey is an attempt to scratch the surface. The input of your group will be very valuable, especially if key questions are asked there, and I offer to share here a compilation of responses I will have collected. I look forward to further discussions.

Thanks for your attention,

All the best

Helene

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/syssciwg/86wTCklZ83Y/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to syssciwg+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Aleksandar Malečić]

Linkage propositions (Len Troncale) is a huge topic on its own.

Here is a good paper on Dennett and patterns. I think that the stances as Dennett thinks about them, the strands as defined by David Deutsch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabric_of_Reality, his more recent work on constructor theory http://constructortheory.org/), and the bones that Kenneth Boulding's Skeleton of Science are the same idea and that all those attempts should at their mature stage get to the same outcome. I wrote something about that: http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings60th/article/view/2988 
http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings61st/article/view/3217/986

Aleksandar

[Helene Finidori]

Aleksandar,

Thanks for sharing this. For the moment, I have just watched the 10 minutes video on Constructor theory. I haven't understood everything but intuitively it seems to resonate with my research, as it deals with the involvement of patterns both in the 'law' and in its manifestation in information. In my 'creative' explorations, I sometimes contemplate the idea of a 'theory of patterns' that would be a theory of information, where information has meaning... I may reach out to you when I get deeper in the documents you shared.

And definitely, I am looking forward to further explore linkage propositions with Len.

We may be on the same call later today, so looking forward to exchange there.

Best,

Helene

Helene Finidori
PhD Candidate - University of Hull, Centre for Systems Studies

Coordinator - Research Group Systems Science and Pattern Literacy at the Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science (BCSSS)

Affiliate Researcher - Evolution, Complexity and COgnition group (ECCO)
Senior Research Fellow - The Schumacher Institute

[Aleksandar Malečić]

I think the idea that information carries meaning or that information processing (perhaps "processing" isn't the best word - it's more like embodiment or something) is an inherent part of any (natural or artificial) system. It's extremely difficult to comprehend as an observer of what systems are doing and what they have in common. A criterion I like for comprehending systems is, I'm not sure how to make it clear, is the balance between a suspicious and advanced idea. For instance, if two persons claimed that natural systems had been created by a deity named Zeus whose wife is Hera, it would be very suspicious that one of them stole the idea. It should also be applied to other ideas shaped in a way that looks more rigorous (Hegel, Heidegger...), but maybe some of them are just as much either heuristics or figments of imagination. An advanced idea on the other hand would make a series of (right or wrong) complex statements about systems. Is there something out there that might hit the right balance between a suspicious and advanced idea? Terrence Deacon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incomplete_Nature) was accused for plagiarism by Alicia Juarrero (https://aliciajuarrero.com/dynamics-in-action-2/) and her work is (almost) suspiciously similar to Robert Rosen's work (http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/PPRISS3.html). Rosen actually is mentioned once in that Juarrero's book, but more as an afterthought.

Aleksandar

[Jack Ring]

Perhaps any author’s statement regarding ‘system' is simply a report about the author (their Ladder of Inference at that time) containing truth plus observer error. At best describing only an aspect of ‘system.’ 

In Korsybski’s sense they are describing their map, not the actual territory.

Those with color-compromised vision do not always interpret a traffic light safely.

Was the earth ever actually configured like the ancient world maps claimed?

Jack Ring

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

[Aleksandar Malečić]

I'll add here some links

https://archinect.com/forum/thread/131180280/schemas-theory

https://thinknet.quora.com/Eisenman-Defending-Derridas-Hyper-Diagram-from-the-Wild-Diagram-of-Deleuze

That's a lot of words written by Kent Palmer (for some personal reasons it's very awkward for me to disagree with him) and some other people, but the point is that he is trying to make some progress with what is known as continental philosophy and some other authors. For some reason it still seems to be a good idea to consider Leibniz's concept of monads as metaphysical points. It's inevitable from that starting point to assume that there are some levels of being (philosophers that Palmer mentions) and/or levels of schemas (including monads; Palmer's idea - https://archinect.com/forum/gallery/131180280/0/schemas-theory) that (nothing can cause anything or be caused by anything) only some pre-established harmony (Leibniz's concept) can prevent from falling apart. A similar (right or wrong) commentary can be made about David Deutsch's fabric of reality and constructor theory (arguably neat ideas) combined his questionable attempts to embrace actual infinity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beginning_of_Infinity) rather than reject it.

The point is that it is a very slippery terrain already visited by many people who have made some right and wrong assumptions. Wrong assumptions are arguably those that cannot be connected with other assumptions in order to make a coherent and consistent picture, that require explanations and explanations of explanations.

Aleksandar

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

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

[Steve Wallis]

YES -

“We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are”

― Anaïs Nin

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 a topic in the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/syssciwg/86wTCklZ83Y/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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 a topic in the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/syssciwg/86wTCklZ83Y/unsubscribe.

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.

[Aleksandar Malečić]

Whatever happens systems-thinking-wise, it will include personalities of those involved in systems thinking. It's like the film The Lawnmower Man - shaping and being shaped (and letting or refusing to be shaped) by reality and knowledge. If someone happened to be good at this kind of activity, he/she would probably be more messed up than for instance smart.

Aleksandar

[Helene Finidori]

Thanks Aleksandar for your comments and links. It seems increasingly difficult to 'stand on the shoulders of giants'...

Jack and Steve, as far as seeing from our own lenses, and describing our own maps, I was in Hull a couple of weeks ago and met Dionysios Demetis who wrote this book which I started to read and seems quite relevant to this discussion: https://sciencesfirstmistake.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/sciences_first_mistake_angelldemetis.pdf. He goes even farther. We are not constructing our own maps, we are constructing our own delusions...

https://sciencesfirstmistake.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/sciences_first_mistake_angelldemetis.pdf

Helene

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Steve Wallis <swa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to syssciwg+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Aleksandar Malečić]

"constructing our own delusions..."

If I wanted to choose one word to define the word "pattern", it would be "inherent". When I was in Vienna at the ISSS conference, there was an interesting tendency among people to move back and forth between thinking about systems as genuine and as something arbitrary/imaginary. Steven Wallis participating in this discussion is the author of the paper "Developing effective ethics for effective behavior". It is, as I understand it, about how much a systems thinker (Gandhi as a case study) is aligned to the system he is a part of. In a way that alignment can be observed as a pattern (how other people see and treat me over and over again), but that paper isn't directly about natural and/or inherent patterns. Although it might (?) reveal something about inherent patterns.

The other word describing patterns would be "consistency". The idea that people are constructing delusions might mean that any idea would be good as any other or that nothing matters. That kind of nihilism and confusion is already out there and it's pointless to encourage that. So, aforementioned Dennett's real patterns should (?) be inherent and consistent in order to make sense as a whole and single reality. The difficulty of standing on shoulders of the shoulders of giants is about alignment of giants and those standing of their shoulders to society and what other people are doing on a daily basis. And how much they deserve to be aligned as successful and respected or not quite. If you are successful within the current situation, you will be less motivated to change it. If you aren't successful, you will be motivated, but you won't have much chance to contribute to anything. One of delusions could be delusion of grandeur (What if someone who is "misunderstood" actually doesn't deserve to be properly "understood"?), but it doesn't necessarily make patterns less real.

Aleksandar

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