Systemics : Phorum 5

**[sigchairs] New science evolved from the old {Tom Mandel, 2004/04/02}**

**[sigchairs] Principles, models, general systems {Chris Lucas, 2004/04/02}**

**[sigchairs] Obvious {Tom Mandel, 2004/04/04}**

**[sigchairs] Logic {Tom Mandel, 2004/04/06}**

"General discussion" on topics on the systems sciences

[sigchairs] Systems rediscovered {Chris Lucas, Tom Mandel, 2004/03/31}

Posted by: **daviding** (---.sympatico.ca)

Date: April 29, 2004 03:27PM

In a message dated 3/31/04 12:56:36 PM Central Standard Time, CALResCo writes:

I don't doubt that cybernetics is a less general science

than systems, and we can also include many complexity

specialisms as such in that. But I'd also say that most 'systems'

work comes into the same category, being specialist looks

at aspects of systems (e.g. company organisation). VSM,

SSM, LST, SD etc. are all specialist looks at types of systems.

Few people really look at anything adequately, in the wider

sense Corning outlines in, say, his 'fire' analogy in his

review of Klein (which I've just happen to have found again):

[www.complexsystems.org]

You can't really claim complexity people "don't rediscover

anything", after you have already said all the concepts

we outline are systems ones - that's self-contradictory

(and as PCW agrees, many weren't aware of your prior use).

I'd still say that much complexity work (in its approach,

if not its execution) treats systems more generally (and

thus more in line with von Bertalanffy's intent) than the

specific work I've seem from systems thinkers, and it was

in that sense I suggested that (in practice) the apples and

fruit labels were the other way around ;-).

Of course there are all sorts of flavours of researchers

and no doubt some miss many points (on both sides !).

As far as a 'general system' goes, it is a model, and

rather than being built up from fundamental parts

we create those too to suit our intent. The world of

the abstract modeller is specific (hence the 'no general

systems' idea), the world of reality is complex, hence

our view. We conflate the two at our peril. If complexity

is 'don't know' then systems must be the 'fantasy of knowing'

i.e. the delusion that the map is the territory ;-) But such a

dualist perspective is surely beneath systems thinkers - if

not then why not ?? Such caricatures are petty and childish.

In some sense looking at the internal aspects (how bits can

inter-relate) is all we can do, creating a 'system' from them

is then somewhat arbitrary and can be done in infinite ways

(depending upon what we choose to include in our 'map').

Thus 'complexity' we could call the inside looking out and

'systems' is then the outside looking in...

Chris

------

Chris, I am sending this to our SIGs. Interestingly, I sent a query about complexity to Eberhard, a systemist, and he wrote back "That is not my specialty." I will be sending out his Toronto paper in which he describes the system soon. I also have scanned pdf files of our first yearbook some of which is alread uploaded.

I'd like to mention that while systems goes back further than complexity (conceptually) there is a knowledge that goes back further than systems. Modern science did not invent systems, witness Bertalanffy's reference to Coincidentia Oppositourm. As far as "no general system" who says so? Is it valid to say that because science is limited to particulars, therefore no generals exist? Can I as an individual human, dismiss humanity? Are the Chinese way off base with their Yin/Yang system?

I would hope that we continue beyond wishful thinking and discuss what is actually going down. One cannot give an old car a new paint job and then sell it as a new car. Even if the Capitalist says "why not, it looks new"

tom

I don't doubt that cybernetics is a less general science

than systems, and we can also include many complexity

specialisms as such in that. But I'd also say that most 'systems'

work comes into the same category, being specialist looks

at aspects of systems (e.g. company organisation). VSM,

SSM, LST, SD etc. are all specialist looks at types of systems.

Few people really look at anything adequately, in the wider

sense Corning outlines in, say, his 'fire' analogy in his

review of Klein (which I've just happen to have found again):

[www.complexsystems.org]

You can't really claim complexity people "don't rediscover

anything", after you have already said all the concepts

we outline are systems ones - that's self-contradictory

(and as PCW agrees, many weren't aware of your prior use).

I'd still say that much complexity work (in its approach,

if not its execution) treats systems more generally (and

thus more in line with von Bertalanffy's intent) than the

specific work I've seem from systems thinkers, and it was

in that sense I suggested that (in practice) the apples and

fruit labels were the other way around ;-).

Of course there are all sorts of flavours of researchers

and no doubt some miss many points (on both sides !).

As far as a 'general system' goes, it is a model, and

rather than being built up from fundamental parts

we create those too to suit our intent. The world of

the abstract modeller is specific (hence the 'no general

systems' idea), the world of reality is complex, hence

our view. We conflate the two at our peril. If complexity

is 'don't know' then systems must be the 'fantasy of knowing'

i.e. the delusion that the map is the territory ;-) But such a

dualist perspective is surely beneath systems thinkers - if

not then why not ?? Such caricatures are petty and childish.

In some sense looking at the internal aspects (how bits can

inter-relate) is all we can do, creating a 'system' from them

is then somewhat arbitrary and can be done in infinite ways

(depending upon what we choose to include in our 'map').

Thus 'complexity' we could call the inside looking out and

'systems' is then the outside looking in...

Chris

------

Chris, I am sending this to our SIGs. Interestingly, I sent a query about complexity to Eberhard, a systemist, and he wrote back "That is not my specialty." I will be sending out his Toronto paper in which he describes the system soon. I also have scanned pdf files of our first yearbook some of which is alread uploaded.

I'd like to mention that while systems goes back further than complexity (conceptually) there is a knowledge that goes back further than systems. Modern science did not invent systems, witness Bertalanffy's reference to Coincidentia Oppositourm. As far as "no general system" who says so? Is it valid to say that because science is limited to particulars, therefore no generals exist? Can I as an individual human, dismiss humanity? Are the Chinese way off base with their Yin/Yang system?

I would hope that we continue beyond wishful thinking and discuss what is actually going down. One cannot give an old car a new paint job and then sell it as a new car. Even if the Capitalist says "why not, it looks new"

tom

Posted by: **daviding** (---.sympatico.ca)

Date: April 29, 2004 04:04PM

In a message dated 4/2/04 1:28:07 AM Central Standard Time, CALResCo writes:

"by an expansion of the

focal concepts of systems science, illustrated by concepts

like autopoiesis, entropy, complexity, chaos, catastrophy

theory, limitations of the 60s and 70s were overcome"

showing not all systems people dismiss our work.

Of course you are talking about "OUR" work. Aren't the above examples of complex-systems? If you want to talk product, that's a different story.

Look at Steward and Cohen's Simplicity>Complexity>Simplexity>Complicity>

My point is NOT that there is this newer science, with newer answers, but that this new science EVOLVED from the old. Much like a cell evolves into a baby. Yes, teenagers do look at babies with derision, but not all.

And teenagers do know it all.

What I am resisting, and rightly so I believe, is the notion that the new science did not evolve from a prior science. And I cannot accept justification for this "because we didn't know about it". Frankly that does not deserve a scientific answer. And I am especially protesting when this "new science" makes claims using the product of the old such that it appears that the old product is a product of the new, that is intellectual thievery. That's all.

And I am making a citizen's arrest.

There are people who are doing that Chris, like it or not. And what they do wrong is a reflection on the whole field. I don't see this happening on your website. I am not talking about you. I feel deeply that you really do understand.

But I have personally met at least one so called complexologist who did not have any grasp whatsoever on the principles of the system, never mind the history. He was saying that he had all the answers, and that the answers modern man was looking for were his answers. (This reminds me about when quantum-theorists really believed that their new science would replace the old Newtonian science)

I should use that again

This reminds me about when quantum-theorists really believed that their new science would replace the old Newtonian science.

I rest my case.

I got your point however. And thank you for pointing out what all of us already know to borrow Kaufmann's phrase. Almost all of our product is in fifty years of proceedings. Five Thousand papers to find and upload.

I have a start at [www.isss.org]

I just created this so there ish't an index page yet, but the directory is there and it has files

where you can find pdf versions of some of our papers. You can find a paper on what principles of system science

at [www.isss.org]

Here are more. unfinished

20083.pdf

20022

20025

20027

20036

20049

20064

20065

20066

20088

20133

20169

20163

20164.pdf

PS Quantum mechanics IS different in an ontological way (the focus is on relationship), complexity as a complex-system is an evolution.

"by an expansion of the

focal concepts of systems science, illustrated by concepts

like autopoiesis, entropy, complexity, chaos, catastrophy

theory, limitations of the 60s and 70s were overcome"

showing not all systems people dismiss our work.

Of course you are talking about "OUR" work. Aren't the above examples of complex-systems? If you want to talk product, that's a different story.

Look at Steward and Cohen's Simplicity>Complexity>Simplexity>Complicity>

My point is NOT that there is this newer science, with newer answers, but that this new science EVOLVED from the old. Much like a cell evolves into a baby. Yes, teenagers do look at babies with derision, but not all.

And teenagers do know it all.

What I am resisting, and rightly so I believe, is the notion that the new science did not evolve from a prior science. And I cannot accept justification for this "because we didn't know about it". Frankly that does not deserve a scientific answer. And I am especially protesting when this "new science" makes claims using the product of the old such that it appears that the old product is a product of the new, that is intellectual thievery. That's all.

And I am making a citizen's arrest.

There are people who are doing that Chris, like it or not. And what they do wrong is a reflection on the whole field. I don't see this happening on your website. I am not talking about you. I feel deeply that you really do understand.

But I have personally met at least one so called complexologist who did not have any grasp whatsoever on the principles of the system, never mind the history. He was saying that he had all the answers, and that the answers modern man was looking for were his answers. (This reminds me about when quantum-theorists really believed that their new science would replace the old Newtonian science)

I should use that again

This reminds me about when quantum-theorists really believed that their new science would replace the old Newtonian science.

I rest my case.

I got your point however. And thank you for pointing out what all of us already know to borrow Kaufmann's phrase. Almost all of our product is in fifty years of proceedings. Five Thousand papers to find and upload.

I have a start at [www.isss.org]

I just created this so there ish't an index page yet, but the directory is there and it has files

where you can find pdf versions of some of our papers. You can find a paper on what principles of system science

at [www.isss.org]

Here are more. unfinished

20083.pdf

20022

20025

20027

20036

20049

20064

20065

20066

20088

20133

20169

20163

20164.pdf

PS Quantum mechanics IS different in an ontological way (the focus is on relationship), complexity as a complex-system is an evolution.

Posted by: **daviding** (---.sympatico.ca)

Date: April 29, 2004 04:14PM

Hi Tom,

>As far as "no general system" who says so?

Well logic. Let us distinguish three ideas here. Firstly

the collection of "principles" that we all agree can apply

to systems across all sorts of disciplines. Secondly our

models of particular systems which incorporate some

of these principles. Thirdly the idea of a "general system".

For the latter, what would it include ? It must include all

the particular ones surely, thus includes everything !

Modelling everything (the Universe) from within it

leads to an infinite regress, so the concept must be

singular - there cannot be 'general systems', just one.

Still let's not get hung up on words, the main point I'm

making is that anything we call a 'general system' is

always a major simplification of reality, and excludes

both many other systems which other people would

call a 'general system', and also many interfaces with

reality which may, nethertheless, be important.

This brings up what I think is relevant about our 'new

paint job' as you put it. Complexity thinking tends to

consider classes of systems, rather than either particular

ones or the "principles". We look to investigating how

connectivity operates in general and what general

rules we can derive to predict (imperfectly of course)

how systems will behave overall within these various

complexity classes. These attractor based classes of

multidimensional behaviour (which relate to the Wolfram

CA classes) I discuss in my essay "Quantifying Complexity

Theory": [www.calresco.org]

"Our stuff" also includes a great deal of work within the

various specialisms - outlined in our introductions:

[www.calresco.org] and in specialist

paper links: [www.calresco.org]

I don't condone the way people seem not to acknowledge

older systems ideas, but most people did arrive at the

same ideas independently, via a different research route.

But they are pursuing different trajectories than systems

people in many cases. The 'cake' is big enough for all

if people can refrain from trying to monopolise it and

pretend they know it all already. Actual familiarity with

complexity work seems as limited amongst system thinkers

as vice-versa to my eyes (the popular hype books are

a very limited source of actual information). It is far too

easy to spot familiar ideas reappearing and ignore those

bits that are novel !

The issues of relationships and integration are indeed

crucial. You make a great deal of the former, yet what

is self-organization other than the effects of internal

relationships, and what is coevolution other than the effects

of external relationships - both crucial to our work. In

what sense can your 'relation' be different from ours ?

Far too much complexologist time is however, in my opinion,

spent on what can be called 'conflict scenarios', destruction

not integration being central. It is no surprise then that what

emerges is limited, but interest in synergy is growing. I'd

say however that relationships are always coevolutionary.

That 'pile of sand' is in fact a valid complex system (it has

boundaries, inputs, outputs, interactions, etc.) and does

demonstrate 'self-organised criticality', also called 'edge

of chaos' - a concept absent in systems thinking I think,

yet endemic we find to natural systems.

If systems thinking has not achieved what it expected

over the last 50+ years, then perhaps something is still

missing ? Maybe we have found it, or hope too, maybe

not. Denial of the new isn't science however. A very

small model I use, comprising just 9 x 2 i/p logic gates

can create 10 to power 38 different systems, all with

different classes of properties. Systems science hasn't

to me even begun to explore the possibilities for understanding

these sorts of state spaces and their dynamics under mutation.

Brief overview of this model at: [www.calresco.orh]

Despite its size its behaviour is applicable throughout nature.

This is all about the dynamics of changing relationships.

As for category theory and other formalisms, well I'm no

mathematician, but I've not seem any treatments of this sort

do more than state the obvious (at great length) for very

simple sets of ideas. To me, if the maths becomes more

longwinded than the words it becomes useless ;-)

Chris

Actually the SIG Chairs had this discussion "about the general system" a while back. I kept a copy at [www.isss.org]

You brought up logic as an source for the argument against a general system. But it looks to me that your logic is built on the premise that "things" is what we are talking about. Things are invented by us, and the logic of things is also invented by us. Complexity is the name of a thing. The proper terminology is system and complex-system. And the question is whether or not the system principle is interpenetrative in all complex-systems.

Mathematics is a logical system, built around rules that are constructed. Category theory is about different fields of mathematics and how they are connected as a relationship. It has been said that category theory is more general than set theory and replaces set theory as the ground of artithmetic. Graph Theory is even mre general. They talked about graph theory back in 1956.

There cannot be a General System "Theory", for the reasons you state, and more, but this does not translate into "there is no general system principle." Science "by definition" cannot find the "Theory" of Everything because the theory has to state it in terms of "something" so that it can test or verify.

Philosophy does have those difficulties of definition. This and That in a particular relationship is something else. That's the philosophical definition of a system. The goal is to turn that into science.

ALL systems are derived from this first act of nature. All processes following the first principle are reiterations of the first principle. "Why would it be a surprise" Jantch said, "Our world came from the sun."

The General System Principle is not about what "things" organize into, It is HOW they organize. The General System is not a "Theory", it is a Principle.

There "is" a General System Principle.

I can make a mathematics out of the system. Watch.

If A then B

If A and B, then R

If A and B and R, then C

Or (A,B,)R=C

This is general and specific at the same time.

BUT all of that is already known.

What I did that is "new", (I learned what is old and what would be new.) is invent a notational form derived from the system. (I did it for Ralph Miester) With that notation I can denote the simplest complexity too. And I have a metaphor - CLAP your hands. What have you got that can do that?

My notation is valid at least in the view of Lou Kauffman. I am certain that if it wasn't he would have said so right away. And it illustrates the system as well.

Hence the general system is valid.

The physicist Gerard t'Hooft noted that all the Four Forces have been described by means of theories having the same general form. Kafatos and Nadeau say that all future theories will have this general complimentarity form. Bertalanffy used this form to describe a philosophical system, wrote at length about Coincidentia Oppositorum. The Yin/Yang, Trinity, Dialectic, Mother/Father, Ur, all have this general form.

It is really all a SNAP.

(Water, Air)Fire = Earth

In this world of a first principle, all theories begin with this general form. Those theories having this general form already are about the Principle of Working Together.

And Bertalanffy's answer was a question; "is this antithesis a product of our thinking or does it have a metaphysical reality?" (GST last sentence note 7.)

Now, it seems that Bertalanffy stated this as well in a short sentence that goes like "A system is elements in standing interaction." Do you suppose that if I added "as a whole" and generalized "interaction" to relationship, I could then say that I discovered that? Because I did back in 1972. It took 22 years to find Bertalanffy and his Society. But I did it, and I am not even a scientist.

tom

On Fri, 17 May 2002 Thommandel@aol.com wrote:

Dear Dr. Kauffman;

I have invented a new notational form I call Tetronic notation, which has been described by others as consistent with Spencer-Brown,C.S. Peirce, and Rosens’ Modeling Relation. In addition I have found it to be consistent with a great deal of other ontological forms. Please take a look at it, I have it at [www.isss.org]

Dear Tom Mandel;

Thank you! It is very much related to Frege’s notation. Frege’s notation for implication is really close to what you write and it was intended to map the relationship of premise and conclusion. I would say that you have a significant generalization of Frege.

You have a good, simple principle here. So simple that anyone who understands it understands that they have always understood it. Therefore it does not belong to you. The principle belongs to everyone. We thank you for pointing out a possession that we might not have known we had if not for you! Thank you!

It seems to me that you have a good articulation here, very much in the line of C.S. Peirce’s ideas and notations. It looks like your detractors want it to be something else than what it is.

Part of the resistance may be that we are trained in logic to ignore whatever connects the premise and the conclusion and we are trained in set theory to ignore the source of the distinctions at the base of the sets.Both matters of ignorance are there for the good reason that we may indeed be ignorant of these sources of connection, but that does not obviate the possibility of such articulation.

You are saying that“A” is related to “B” through “C” and setting up a notation that has

a place of reference to A and B and C. This is simple, useful, profound in its implicity. It maps onto many structures. For example if I write (a la Spencer-Brown) <> to denote a distinction, then there are three terms implicit in this indication: the inside, the outside, and the boundary (composed of < and>) that joins/separates the inside and the outside. The inside and the outside are related through the boundary that also serves to indicate them and itself. It is a good idea to have a general symbol for this kind of thing!

Certainly idea that worlds are built from

compounds "An A, a B, the that that joins them, the entity that emerges

from that " deserves a notation. In fact there are places in mathematics

where such notation is built in. Here are two very basic examples.

1. In a graph, one has nodes and edges. Two nodes A and B can have and

edge joining them (or not). Let denote the entity "edge with nodes A

and B". Then is exactly an abstract version of your notation. And

graph theory is all about describing structures using the language of

interrelated's where the A and the B can themselves be graphs, so

there is great flexibility. The subject of graph theory is designed to

capture patterns of connection.

2. A category is defined to be a collection of "objects" {A,B,C,D,...} and

"morphisms" f:A------>B where a morphism is a directed relation betweem

two objects. (The morphism is purely relational, not necc a map of sets).

Given f:A----->B,g:B----->C, there exists gf:A----->C such that triple

"compositions" if they exist are associative. That is if also h:C----->D,

then h(gf) = (hg)f. It is given that each object A has an identity

morphism 1_{A}:A----->A such that composition with 1_{A} does not change

the other morphism. That is, if f:A----->B, then f1_{A} = f = 1_{B}f.

There are many many examples of categories. Category is a very flexible

relational structure that can be used to talk about how different areas of

mathematics interlock. Thus one has the category of topological spaces and

continous mappings and one has the category of groups and homomoprhisms,

etc. In the category of all categories the objects are categories and the

morphisms are "functors", mappings between categories that preserve the

patterns of composition from one category to the other.

At the base of category theory is the morphism A----->B, a directed

relation of two entities A and B, with the morphism itself the that that

connects them and the triple (A,B,f) is then the relational entity that

emereges from this.

Discrimination is not wholly conceptual, The act of distinction is never a complete severance.It is only in our minds that we conceive of a complete severance and that iswholly an act of imagination! It is through imagination also that we can heal the act of severance and return to the whole

I do not find the universal principle scary. Every form that appears in Universe is an aspect of discrimination or distinction, The distinction can always be seen in terms of a whole that is divided, There will inevitably appear a domain in that arena of discrimination/distinction that can be named the “relation” between the sides of the distinction, What has been taken asunder can be put back together again. Seen rightly the whole has never actually been taken apart.

Yes! Yin andYang and their together that is the Tao of which none cannot fully speak.

Best. Lou Kauffman

So, while it is tue that one cannot model everything, one can model how everything works. And while it is true that things regress infinitely, how they regress is a finite.

Actually, the complex-systems people could have had this principle as their own if they jumped at the chance. I would venture to say that all attempts to find their general theory has been toward maximum complexity. All they had to do is look at minimum complexity. And they would have had it.

The introduction of this general system principle notation by me was in 1994 at Asilomar during the annual meeting of ISSS. So it has been around for a while.

Your turn. :-)

tom

>As far as "no general system" who says so?

Well logic. Let us distinguish three ideas here. Firstly

the collection of "principles" that we all agree can apply

to systems across all sorts of disciplines. Secondly our

models of particular systems which incorporate some

of these principles. Thirdly the idea of a "general system".

For the latter, what would it include ? It must include all

the particular ones surely, thus includes everything !

Modelling everything (the Universe) from within it

leads to an infinite regress, so the concept must be

singular - there cannot be 'general systems', just one.

Still let's not get hung up on words, the main point I'm

making is that anything we call a 'general system' is

always a major simplification of reality, and excludes

both many other systems which other people would

call a 'general system', and also many interfaces with

reality which may, nethertheless, be important.

This brings up what I think is relevant about our 'new

paint job' as you put it. Complexity thinking tends to

consider classes of systems, rather than either particular

ones or the "principles". We look to investigating how

connectivity operates in general and what general

rules we can derive to predict (imperfectly of course)

how systems will behave overall within these various

complexity classes. These attractor based classes of

multidimensional behaviour (which relate to the Wolfram

CA classes) I discuss in my essay "Quantifying Complexity

Theory": [www.calresco.org]

"Our stuff" also includes a great deal of work within the

various specialisms - outlined in our introductions:

[www.calresco.org] and in specialist

paper links: [www.calresco.org]

I don't condone the way people seem not to acknowledge

older systems ideas, but most people did arrive at the

same ideas independently, via a different research route.

But they are pursuing different trajectories than systems

people in many cases. The 'cake' is big enough for all

if people can refrain from trying to monopolise it and

pretend they know it all already. Actual familiarity with

complexity work seems as limited amongst system thinkers

as vice-versa to my eyes (the popular hype books are

a very limited source of actual information). It is far too

easy to spot familiar ideas reappearing and ignore those

bits that are novel !

The issues of relationships and integration are indeed

crucial. You make a great deal of the former, yet what

is self-organization other than the effects of internal

relationships, and what is coevolution other than the effects

of external relationships - both crucial to our work. In

what sense can your 'relation' be different from ours ?

Far too much complexologist time is however, in my opinion,

spent on what can be called 'conflict scenarios', destruction

not integration being central. It is no surprise then that what

emerges is limited, but interest in synergy is growing. I'd

say however that relationships are always coevolutionary.

That 'pile of sand' is in fact a valid complex system (it has

boundaries, inputs, outputs, interactions, etc.) and does

demonstrate 'self-organised criticality', also called 'edge

of chaos' - a concept absent in systems thinking I think,

yet endemic we find to natural systems.

If systems thinking has not achieved what it expected

over the last 50+ years, then perhaps something is still

missing ? Maybe we have found it, or hope too, maybe

not. Denial of the new isn't science however. A very

small model I use, comprising just 9 x 2 i/p logic gates

can create 10 to power 38 different systems, all with

different classes of properties. Systems science hasn't

to me even begun to explore the possibilities for understanding

these sorts of state spaces and their dynamics under mutation.

Brief overview of this model at: [www.calresco.orh]

Despite its size its behaviour is applicable throughout nature.

This is all about the dynamics of changing relationships.

As for category theory and other formalisms, well I'm no

mathematician, but I've not seem any treatments of this sort

do more than state the obvious (at great length) for very

simple sets of ideas. To me, if the maths becomes more

longwinded than the words it becomes useless ;-)

Chris

Actually the SIG Chairs had this discussion "about the general system" a while back. I kept a copy at [www.isss.org]

You brought up logic as an source for the argument against a general system. But it looks to me that your logic is built on the premise that "things" is what we are talking about. Things are invented by us, and the logic of things is also invented by us. Complexity is the name of a thing. The proper terminology is system and complex-system. And the question is whether or not the system principle is interpenetrative in all complex-systems.

Mathematics is a logical system, built around rules that are constructed. Category theory is about different fields of mathematics and how they are connected as a relationship. It has been said that category theory is more general than set theory and replaces set theory as the ground of artithmetic. Graph Theory is even mre general. They talked about graph theory back in 1956.

There cannot be a General System "Theory", for the reasons you state, and more, but this does not translate into "there is no general system principle." Science "by definition" cannot find the "Theory" of Everything because the theory has to state it in terms of "something" so that it can test or verify.

Philosophy does have those difficulties of definition. This and That in a particular relationship is something else. That's the philosophical definition of a system. The goal is to turn that into science.

ALL systems are derived from this first act of nature. All processes following the first principle are reiterations of the first principle. "Why would it be a surprise" Jantch said, "Our world came from the sun."

The General System Principle is not about what "things" organize into, It is HOW they organize. The General System is not a "Theory", it is a Principle.

There "is" a General System Principle.

I can make a mathematics out of the system. Watch.

If A then B

If A and B, then R

If A and B and R, then C

Or (A,B,)R=C

This is general and specific at the same time.

BUT all of that is already known.

What I did that is "new", (I learned what is old and what would be new.) is invent a notational form derived from the system. (I did it for Ralph Miester) With that notation I can denote the simplest complexity too. And I have a metaphor - CLAP your hands. What have you got that can do that?

My notation is valid at least in the view of Lou Kauffman. I am certain that if it wasn't he would have said so right away. And it illustrates the system as well.

Hence the general system is valid.

The physicist Gerard t'Hooft noted that all the Four Forces have been described by means of theories having the same general form. Kafatos and Nadeau say that all future theories will have this general complimentarity form. Bertalanffy used this form to describe a philosophical system, wrote at length about Coincidentia Oppositorum. The Yin/Yang, Trinity, Dialectic, Mother/Father, Ur, all have this general form.

It is really all a SNAP.

(Water, Air)Fire = Earth

In this world of a first principle, all theories begin with this general form. Those theories having this general form already are about the Principle of Working Together.

And Bertalanffy's answer was a question; "is this antithesis a product of our thinking or does it have a metaphysical reality?" (GST last sentence note 7.)

Now, it seems that Bertalanffy stated this as well in a short sentence that goes like "A system is elements in standing interaction." Do you suppose that if I added "as a whole" and generalized "interaction" to relationship, I could then say that I discovered that? Because I did back in 1972. It took 22 years to find Bertalanffy and his Society. But I did it, and I am not even a scientist.

tom

On Fri, 17 May 2002 Thommandel@aol.com wrote:

Dear Dr. Kauffman;

I have invented a new notational form I call Tetronic notation, which has been described by others as consistent with Spencer-Brown,C.S. Peirce, and Rosens’ Modeling Relation. In addition I have found it to be consistent with a great deal of other ontological forms. Please take a look at it, I have it at [www.isss.org]

Dear Tom Mandel;

Thank you! It is very much related to Frege’s notation. Frege’s notation for implication is really close to what you write and it was intended to map the relationship of premise and conclusion. I would say that you have a significant generalization of Frege.

You have a good, simple principle here. So simple that anyone who understands it understands that they have always understood it. Therefore it does not belong to you. The principle belongs to everyone. We thank you for pointing out a possession that we might not have known we had if not for you! Thank you!

It seems to me that you have a good articulation here, very much in the line of C.S. Peirce’s ideas and notations. It looks like your detractors want it to be something else than what it is.

Part of the resistance may be that we are trained in logic to ignore whatever connects the premise and the conclusion and we are trained in set theory to ignore the source of the distinctions at the base of the sets.Both matters of ignorance are there for the good reason that we may indeed be ignorant of these sources of connection, but that does not obviate the possibility of such articulation.

You are saying that“A” is related to “B” through “C” and setting up a notation that has

a place of reference to A and B and C. This is simple, useful, profound in its implicity. It maps onto many structures. For example if I write (a la Spencer-Brown) <> to denote a distinction, then there are three terms implicit in this indication: the inside, the outside, and the boundary (composed of < and>) that joins/separates the inside and the outside. The inside and the outside are related through the boundary that also serves to indicate them and itself. It is a good idea to have a general symbol for this kind of thing!

Certainly idea that worlds are built from

compounds "An A, a B, the that that joins them, the entity that emerges

from that " deserves a notation. In fact there are places in mathematics

where such notation is built in. Here are two very basic examples.

1. In a graph, one has nodes and edges. Two nodes A and B can have and

edge joining them (or not). Let

and B". Then

graph theory is all about describing structures using the language of

interrelated

there is great flexibility. The subject of graph theory is designed to

capture patterns of connection.

2. A category is defined to be a collection of "objects" {A,B,C,D,...} and

"morphisms" f:A------>B where a morphism is a directed relation betweem

two objects. (The morphism is purely relational, not necc a map of sets).

Given f:A----->B,g:B----->C, there exists gf:A----->C such that triple

"compositions" if they exist are associative. That is if also h:C----->D,

then h(gf) = (hg)f. It is given that each object A has an identity

morphism 1_{A}:A----->A such that composition with 1_{A} does not change

the other morphism. That is, if f:A----->B, then f1_{A} = f = 1_{B}f.

There are many many examples of categories. Category is a very flexible

relational structure that can be used to talk about how different areas of

mathematics interlock. Thus one has the category of topological spaces and

continous mappings and one has the category of groups and homomoprhisms,

etc. In the category of all categories the objects are categories and the

morphisms are "functors", mappings between categories that preserve the

patterns of composition from one category to the other.

At the base of category theory is the morphism A----->B, a directed

relation of two entities A and B, with the morphism itself the that that

connects them and the triple (A,B,f) is then the relational entity that

emereges from this.

Discrimination is not wholly conceptual, The act of distinction is never a complete severance.It is only in our minds that we conceive of a complete severance and that iswholly an act of imagination! It is through imagination also that we can heal the act of severance and return to the whole

I do not find the universal principle scary. Every form that appears in Universe is an aspect of discrimination or distinction, The distinction can always be seen in terms of a whole that is divided, There will inevitably appear a domain in that arena of discrimination/distinction that can be named the “relation” between the sides of the distinction, What has been taken asunder can be put back together again. Seen rightly the whole has never actually been taken apart.

Yes! Yin andYang and their together that is the Tao of which none cannot fully speak.

Best. Lou Kauffman

So, while it is tue that one cannot model everything, one can model how everything works. And while it is true that things regress infinitely, how they regress is a finite.

Actually, the complex-systems people could have had this principle as their own if they jumped at the chance. I would venture to say that all attempts to find their general theory has been toward maximum complexity. All they had to do is look at minimum complexity. And they would have had it.

The introduction of this general system principle notation by me was in 1994 at Asilomar during the annual meeting of ISSS. So it has been around for a while.

Your turn. :-)

tom

Posted by: **daviding** (---.sympatico.ca)

Date: April 29, 2004 04:16PM

In a message dated 4/4/04 9:56:34 AM Central Daylight Time, CALResCo writes:

Hi Tom,

Good that you agree there can be no General Theory,

and as I'd already agreed we can have 'principles' there

is no dispute there either.

Thank you

You make much I think of stating the obvious

Thank you for noticing that what I said is obvious. "The name of my journal is

"Journal of the Obvious Principle

regarding relations "If A then B" says nothing *useful* to me as a

scientist.

It's the first law of concepts! If A then B is the first principle of conceptualization. If A concept then the anti-concept B exists right along side of it. A means B too. Anyone who works with concepts knows this first law of concepts. I am using it as a general axiom. It is saying, if positive, then negative.Has that been useful?

And to use a special notation to denote that two distinctions are connected and form a whole is hardly earth shattering. So what ? I'm familiar with Spencer-Brown

and Lou Kauffman's treatment of such things, but I've never seen any of them use such simplifications to any practical use, or to reach any non-trivial conclusion.

What you should have noticed, and you would have if you were looking for it, is that my notation, which makes the connection explicite in the notation, is a notation of a system, extends Laws of form, generalizes Frege, and is the first time this has been done. So your argument that they haven't done it is irrelevant to this argument.

Here is an example of what can be done with tetronic notation. Below is a tetronic diagram of Professor Reino Hakalas's modeling of the relationships in theromodynamics.

Again you make much of your analogy: "And I have a metaphor

- CLAP your hands. What have you got that can do that?"

So I can clap my hands, wow, two hands connect. Do what

exactly - nothing useful !

One of your complexologists used it to create what he called "the clapping machine"

You state that graph theory is more general than all this.

So it is, and it appears all over complexity science. Nodes

and edges are central to all our models of interacting parts.

And a 'complex system' by definition has lots of them, that

is why we study them. Notations that ignore the matrix

effects and outline linear chains, e.g. If A and B and R

then C" don't help me in the slightest, I've been using

such concepts in computer programs for decades.

I didn't say that Graph Theory is more general than all of this, I said that Lou Kauffman said that my notation is equal in generality to graph theory. Rashevski wrote about graph theory back in 1956, General System Yearbook. With the system notation, all fields are subjects.

You say complexity is the name of a thing. What thing ?

All labels have a referent, sure, but to me the referent

here is a verb, not a noun. Complexity implies dynamics

not statics (although some do study statics - what I call

type 1 complexity, e.g. the "computational complexity"

of Chaitin et al.). Where is time in your system ?

Complexity looks like a noun to me. A noun is a name of a person place or thing. Look at the roots of the words: "complex" and "ity". Ironic, the word gets longer by adding "ity" to it. The word itself certainly isn't implying anything process-like. It is an ident-ity word. Perhaps the perceived need to have a unique identifier, e.g., complexity, had backfired. Instead of revealing it obscures.

You say the proper term we should employ is system

or complex system, but we use those too. Now consider

say Cellular Automata. Here we have a matrix of cells,

connected to each other - but no boundary. The matrix

is assumed to be infinite in extent (in practice the edges

wrap round - but no 'edges' of the system effectively,

exist for large boards which can employ millions of cells).

We can study the dynamics of complexity here, the internal

structures if you like, without any reference to 'system'

in your sense. And they are not just abstractions, the

interactions of humans on the planet has a similar small

scale structure.

How much do want to bet that those interactions you are studying are derived from as a system?

In such systems 'things' like gliders emerge - write me

a recognisable description of this in your notation please.

If you can't, and complexity research (so far anyway) claims

such are analytically intractable, than what good is it ?

And these are very simple models indeed.

Fair enough.

Tetracoding is a patented form of CA which can be described by the Clapping machine. The clapping machine is based on the CLAP of two hands. CLAP is an achronym for C=L(A,P), or a minimal-system. Here is how the complexologist explained this CA could be put into a CLAP system.

Picture a line of kids, each one with a cap on with a letter on it. Use the letters of your name. Now the kids with the same letters hold hands. Now bring in the rules. a kid can be in one of rour states, not holding hands, holding to the left, holding to the right and holding both. Give the kids new hats, with one of the four letters according to how they stand. Then iterate. Soon it will become clear that a pattern is set up, and that this pattern repeats itself, and that connects with recursive music. What I found interesting was that the relationships create the new relationships and that the whole process is about relationships which create relationships which create relationships. This is not a new science, this is a confirmation of the old science. See The Sierpinski Triangle

If we are to study the 'complex systems' of the real world,

rather than highly simplified abstract models then we have

to accept that maths is inadequate to the task (at least

so far), especially in its ability to cope with real patterns

in multiple dimensions. Hence our extensive use of

simulations. These teach us about dynamical behaviour

in a way no static notations can even approach. Here

we start with interactions, and if a system emerges fine,

if not fine - we learn from both. This seems to be the

opposite to the 'system first' mode you favour.

It all depends on if the Universe does indeed work like a system. And that in turn depends on the worldview. And that depends on whether one sees, in ones worldview, the whole or the parts FIRST. If in fact this Universe did emerge from a huge creation of stuff, and managed to organize itself into us, who knows what will happen next. The complementary assumption to "parts" is the whole. And the first question then is obvious; how did the whole divide? Then the question becomes was this first action reiterated or superceded? If it were superceded, then who knows what will happen. But it the first action, being a principle, was reiterated, then all that follows will will follow that scheme. I predict that "knowledge" in the future will become very simple to understand, and to understand one field will be to intuitively understand all fields.

Good science is about making progress. Has systems

science actually gone beyond von Bertalanffy ? Someone

once said "all philosophy is footnotes to Plato". Does

much the same apply here ?

GOOD Science means just that. Then there is good fiction. Good science knows how to tell them apart. Has complex-science gone beyond the Bertalanffy era? It can be argured that it has yet to catch up. What are your principles of complexity? Your laws and methods? Where is your product? To say that you have discovered a fundamental relationship among some members of the Universe, does not justify a claim that a new science has been found. Certainly the discoverer has found a new, to him, science, but the essence has been discovered by many before us. It is an insult to dismiss them, and it is bad science to ignore them. Real scientists do not ignore prior research. Nor do they have to be reminded, much less forced to consider prior research. And if some go so far as to say the the prior research product belongs to them, because they didn't know better, that it is their new they have found, that is unwitting theft of intellectual property. Perhaps it could be argued that the ignorance is understandable, so is manslaughter.

I must say, I've never seen a decent review of 'progress', i.e. what's new conceptually.

Well, now we have to turn to the books. Ken Bausch recenly published a book, I have a copy of it, titled The Emerging Consensus in Social Systems Theory.ISBN 0-396-46539-6. Basically it is an overview of the entire field of knowledge.

I have to admit that the science of system has not done enough to make itself known to other researchers. I believe that this is due in pat to the multi-dimensional character of the science. Until the mind is aware of the multi-dimensional character of reality, it will not be able to conceptually arive at the same conclusion. So there is an element of "scientific-enlightenment" involved which introduces a shift in epistemological emphasis from object to interaction. Stating interaction in object terms does not work.

I will try to find our significant papers.

tom

Chris

In such systems 'things' like gliders emerge - write me

a recognisable description of this in your notation please.

If you can't, and complexity research (so far anyway) claims

such are analytically intractable, than what good is it ?

And these are very simple models indeed.

So we have to ask now what can be done with this "minimal-system-notation? You cannot say that nothing has been done when you haven't done the research. All you can say is something like "As far as I know." but you know that is not a valid argument either.

Well, it can be used to FIX incomplete models such as Hegel's Triad, and highlight the limitations of theories such as dualism. And t'Hooft says it can be used "as a blank from which all the keys may be made."

Hi Tom,

Good that you agree there can be no General Theory,

and as I'd already agreed we can have 'principles' there

is no dispute there either.

Thank you

You make much I think of stating the obvious

Thank you for noticing that what I said is obvious. "The name of my journal is

"Journal of the Obvious Principle

regarding relations "If A then B" says nothing *useful* to me as a

scientist.

It's the first law of concepts! If A then B is the first principle of conceptualization. If A concept then the anti-concept B exists right along side of it. A means B too. Anyone who works with concepts knows this first law of concepts. I am using it as a general axiom. It is saying, if positive, then negative.Has that been useful?

And to use a special notation to denote that two distinctions are connected and form a whole is hardly earth shattering. So what ? I'm familiar with Spencer-Brown

and Lou Kauffman's treatment of such things, but I've never seen any of them use such simplifications to any practical use, or to reach any non-trivial conclusion.

What you should have noticed, and you would have if you were looking for it, is that my notation, which makes the connection explicite in the notation, is a notation of a system, extends Laws of form, generalizes Frege, and is the first time this has been done. So your argument that they haven't done it is irrelevant to this argument.

Here is an example of what can be done with tetronic notation. Below is a tetronic diagram of Professor Reino Hakalas's modeling of the relationships in theromodynamics.

Again you make much of your analogy: "And I have a metaphor

- CLAP your hands. What have you got that can do that?"

So I can clap my hands, wow, two hands connect. Do what

exactly - nothing useful !

One of your complexologists used it to create what he called "the clapping machine"

You state that graph theory is more general than all this.

So it is, and it appears all over complexity science. Nodes

and edges are central to all our models of interacting parts.

And a 'complex system' by definition has lots of them, that

is why we study them. Notations that ignore the matrix

effects and outline linear chains, e.g. If A and B and R

then C" don't help me in the slightest, I've been using

such concepts in computer programs for decades.

I didn't say that Graph Theory is more general than all of this, I said that Lou Kauffman said that my notation is equal in generality to graph theory. Rashevski wrote about graph theory back in 1956, General System Yearbook. With the system notation, all fields are subjects.

You say complexity is the name of a thing. What thing ?

All labels have a referent, sure, but to me the referent

here is a verb, not a noun. Complexity implies dynamics

not statics (although some do study statics - what I call

type 1 complexity, e.g. the "computational complexity"

of Chaitin et al.). Where is time in your system ?

Complexity looks like a noun to me. A noun is a name of a person place or thing. Look at the roots of the words: "complex" and "ity". Ironic, the word gets longer by adding "ity" to it. The word itself certainly isn't implying anything process-like. It is an ident-ity word. Perhaps the perceived need to have a unique identifier, e.g., complexity, had backfired. Instead of revealing it obscures.

You say the proper term we should employ is system

or complex system, but we use those too. Now consider

say Cellular Automata. Here we have a matrix of cells,

connected to each other - but no boundary. The matrix

is assumed to be infinite in extent (in practice the edges

wrap round - but no 'edges' of the system effectively,

exist for large boards which can employ millions of cells).

We can study the dynamics of complexity here, the internal

structures if you like, without any reference to 'system'

in your sense. And they are not just abstractions, the

interactions of humans on the planet has a similar small

scale structure.

How much do want to bet that those interactions you are studying are derived from as a system?

In such systems 'things' like gliders emerge - write me

a recognisable description of this in your notation please.

If you can't, and complexity research (so far anyway) claims

such are analytically intractable, than what good is it ?

And these are very simple models indeed.

Fair enough.

Tetracoding is a patented form of CA which can be described by the Clapping machine. The clapping machine is based on the CLAP of two hands. CLAP is an achronym for C=L(A,P), or a minimal-system. Here is how the complexologist explained this CA could be put into a CLAP system.

Picture a line of kids, each one with a cap on with a letter on it. Use the letters of your name. Now the kids with the same letters hold hands. Now bring in the rules. a kid can be in one of rour states, not holding hands, holding to the left, holding to the right and holding both. Give the kids new hats, with one of the four letters according to how they stand. Then iterate. Soon it will become clear that a pattern is set up, and that this pattern repeats itself, and that connects with recursive music. What I found interesting was that the relationships create the new relationships and that the whole process is about relationships which create relationships which create relationships. This is not a new science, this is a confirmation of the old science. See The Sierpinski Triangle

If we are to study the 'complex systems' of the real world,

rather than highly simplified abstract models then we have

to accept that maths is inadequate to the task (at least

so far), especially in its ability to cope with real patterns

in multiple dimensions. Hence our extensive use of

simulations. These teach us about dynamical behaviour

in a way no static notations can even approach. Here

we start with interactions, and if a system emerges fine,

if not fine - we learn from both. This seems to be the

opposite to the 'system first' mode you favour.

It all depends on if the Universe does indeed work like a system. And that in turn depends on the worldview. And that depends on whether one sees, in ones worldview, the whole or the parts FIRST. If in fact this Universe did emerge from a huge creation of stuff, and managed to organize itself into us, who knows what will happen next. The complementary assumption to "parts" is the whole. And the first question then is obvious; how did the whole divide? Then the question becomes was this first action reiterated or superceded? If it were superceded, then who knows what will happen. But it the first action, being a principle, was reiterated, then all that follows will will follow that scheme. I predict that "knowledge" in the future will become very simple to understand, and to understand one field will be to intuitively understand all fields.

Good science is about making progress. Has systems

science actually gone beyond von Bertalanffy ? Someone

once said "all philosophy is footnotes to Plato". Does

much the same apply here ?

GOOD Science means just that. Then there is good fiction. Good science knows how to tell them apart. Has complex-science gone beyond the Bertalanffy era? It can be argured that it has yet to catch up. What are your principles of complexity? Your laws and methods? Where is your product? To say that you have discovered a fundamental relationship among some members of the Universe, does not justify a claim that a new science has been found. Certainly the discoverer has found a new, to him, science, but the essence has been discovered by many before us. It is an insult to dismiss them, and it is bad science to ignore them. Real scientists do not ignore prior research. Nor do they have to be reminded, much less forced to consider prior research. And if some go so far as to say the the prior research product belongs to them, because they didn't know better, that it is their new they have found, that is unwitting theft of intellectual property. Perhaps it could be argued that the ignorance is understandable, so is manslaughter.

I must say, I've never seen a decent review of 'progress', i.e. what's new conceptually.

Well, now we have to turn to the books. Ken Bausch recenly published a book, I have a copy of it, titled The Emerging Consensus in Social Systems Theory.ISBN 0-396-46539-6. Basically it is an overview of the entire field of knowledge.

I have to admit that the science of system has not done enough to make itself known to other researchers. I believe that this is due in pat to the multi-dimensional character of the science. Until the mind is aware of the multi-dimensional character of reality, it will not be able to conceptually arive at the same conclusion. So there is an element of "scientific-enlightenment" involved which introduces a shift in epistemological emphasis from object to interaction. Stating interaction in object terms does not work.

I will try to find our significant papers.

tom

Chris

In such systems 'things' like gliders emerge - write me

a recognisable description of this in your notation please.

If you can't, and complexity research (so far anyway) claims

such are analytically intractable, than what good is it ?

And these are very simple models indeed.

So we have to ask now what can be done with this "minimal-system-notation? You cannot say that nothing has been done when you haven't done the research. All you can say is something like "As far as I know." but you know that is not a valid argument either.

Well, it can be used to FIX incomplete models such as Hegel's Triad, and highlight the limitations of theories such as dualism. And t'Hooft says it can be used "as a blank from which all the keys may be made."

Posted by: **daviding** (---.sympatico.ca)

Date: April 29, 2004 04:19PM

In a message dated 4/6/04 2:40:54 AM Central Daylight Time, CALResCo writes:

Subj: Re: General System rediscovered...

Date: 4/6/04 2:40:54 AM Central Daylight Time

From: CALResCo

To: Thommandel

CC: sigchairs@isss.org, eberhard@mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.de, kauffman@uic.edu

Hi Tom,

It's the first law of concepts! If A then B is the first principle of conceptualization. If A concept then the anti-concept B exists right along side of it. A means B too. Anyone who works with concepts knows this first law of concepts. I am using it as a general axiom. It is saying, if positive, then negative.Has that been useful?

If A then B does NOT (to me) imply that B is NOT A. B could be

anything and you do not define it. Your Anti-A is not even Not-A so

your formalism is flawed. See my treatment of Neutrosophic logic

maybe: [www.calresco.org]

My brother says that If A then B" is the general form of an axiom. I concede that I did not define my terms yet. Your logic confuses me...

What you should have noticed, and you would have if you were looking for it, is that my notation, which makes the connection explicite in the notation, is a notation of a system, extends Laws of form, generalizes Frege, and is the first time this has been done. So your argument that they haven't done it is irrelevant to this argument.

The point I made is that it is still useless in the practical context

of *complex* systems. Whether it is of use elsewhere is of course

a matter for mathematicians and other sorts of scientists to decide.

And that is precisely why our society was formed, because "it is not my specialty."

One of your complexologists used it to create what he called "the clapping machine"

a) They are not mine.

b) They can be as silly as they wish ;-)

c) There is little consensus as to what is a useful approach !

d) I don't agree with many 'standard' approaches.

A lot of people said that about the lazer too. I wonder what happened to their thoughts on that...And what about the lazer, how about the primary complexity there hmmm? And holography? Well....

I didn't say that Graph Theory is more general than all of this, I said that Lou Kauffman said that my notation is equal in generality to graph theory. Rashevski wrote about graph theory back in 1956, General System Yearbook. With the system notation, all fields are subjects.

I quote from your last message "It has been said that category theory

is more general than set theory and replaces set theory as the ground

of artithmetic. Graph Theory is even more general."

The historical origin however is here irrelevant.

You still have not got it right, Graph theory is more general than category theory and system theory is equal to graph theory.

Complexity looks like a noun to me. A noun is a name of a person place or thing. Look at the roots of the words: "complex" and "ity". Ironic, the word gets longer by adding "ity" to it. The word itself certainly isn't implying anything process-like. It is an ident-ity word. Perhaps the perceived need to have a unique identifier, e.g., complexity, had backfired. Instead of revealing it obscures.

We said, a while back, that we wished to get towards a process

approach. I am doing that. Why are you trying to force a return

to an object one here ? If our word definitions are inadequate,

then we, as scientists, often redefine then, I do here perhaps.

Dynamics is key to any useful complexity approach.

Why are you forcing a return to an object "complexity"? Do you know the Principle of relative linguistics? How we talk determines what we say. (Whorf) Complexity does not imply process, it implies an object. So you redefine to yourself it as dynamics. Fine. Back to the word itself. It is flawed and should be discarded or else history will treat it as a joke on you.

How much do want to bet that those interactions you are studying are derived from as a system?

How much do you wish to bet the opposite ;-) It strikes me that

any 'definition' of a system can be logically proven to not be

such...

Your 'kids analogy', says nothing other than combinatorics

generate new (synergic?) combinations (patterns to you).

What then ?

Let's see, gluons and quarks, protons and electrons, atoms and atoms, molecules and molecules, DNA and DNA. Enough?

And the first question then is obvious; how did the whole divide?

Indeed, so you start from the whole and see what emerges, as

complexity scientists tend to do. I.e. from 'chaos' comes 'order'.

Again, bifurcation.

GOOD Science means just that. Then there is good fiction. Good science knows how to tell them apart. Has complex-science gone beyond the Bertalanffy era?

Trying to diffuse a genuine question by implying that the

'opposition' can't answer it, is the height of political duplicity !

Isn't that what you are trying to do to us? You are saying the science of complexity

makes the old science of system "old hat" All you are doing is confirming the system.

Yet I will answer (I await *yours* with interest...). Yes we

have (and we tell them apart by a great deal of experimetal

evidence). Our formalism of mathematical chaos is beyond

anthing B. had. Our idea of EOC is likewise an advance.

Our formalism of multistabilty is way beyond the 'hand waving'

understanding of the B. era. Our understanding of optimization

is far in advance, especialy in terms of multi-value epistasis.

The dynamics of self-organization is better understood. The

general awareness of the extent of nonlinearity is better.

I'll stop there for now ;-)

It can be argured that it has yet to catch up. What are your

principles of complexity?

See [www.calresco.org] for mine. Your own

2000 publication on 'principles' (200169.pdf) I found disappointing.

It surprised me that my entire contribution was run together into one paragraph. I guess I wasn't paying attention. I corrected it on our significant papers page where it is the isss.org/members/papers/sysround.htm file

Repeating, endlessly it seems, your denial that other people can

discover anything is pointless. I've replied to that more than once,

I don't choose to waste time again echoing myself.

I thought this was about the role of system science and the role of complex-system science and the role of complexity. Has complexity discovered more than complex-system?

Well, now we have to turn to the books. Ken Bausch recenly published a book, I have a copy of it, titled The Emerging Consensus in Social Systems Theory.ISBN 0-396-46539-6. Basically it is an overview of the entire field of knowledge.

Such books, whilst welcome I guess, tend to overhype their own

viewpoint. In any case I, and I suspect most others, don't choose

to *buy* (often overpriced) books when research in academia

is supposed to be freely available. If you have a online summary

or paper to offer fine.

I give up.

I have to admit that the science of system has not done enough to make itself known to other researchers. I believe that this is due in pat to the multi-dimensional character of the science. Until the mind is aware of the multi-dimensional character of reality, it will not be able to conceptually arive at the same conclusion. So there is an element of "scientific-enlightenment" involved which introduces a shift in epistemological emphasis from object to interaction. Stating interaction in object terms does not work.

I'd agree with this, it is truely very difficult to 'break the mould' as it were ;-)

(and we all have our own moulds, even when we think we don't...)

Wait there is hope

I will try to find our significant papers.

Good on you.

Chris, I do not see a single significant counter-argument. Thank you.

Chris Lucas

CALResCo Group

Manchester U.K.

[www.calresco.org]

Subj: Re: General System rediscovered...

Date: 4/6/04 2:40:54 AM Central Daylight Time

From: CALResCo

To: Thommandel

CC: sigchairs@isss.org, eberhard@mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.de, kauffman@uic.edu

Hi Tom,

It's the first law of concepts! If A then B is the first principle of conceptualization. If A concept then the anti-concept B exists right along side of it. A means B too. Anyone who works with concepts knows this first law of concepts. I am using it as a general axiom. It is saying, if positive, then negative.Has that been useful?

If A then B does NOT (to me) imply that B is NOT A. B could be

anything and you do not define it. Your Anti-A is not even Not-A so

your formalism is flawed. See my treatment of Neutrosophic logic

maybe: [www.calresco.org]

My brother says that If A then B" is the general form of an axiom. I concede that I did not define my terms yet. Your logic confuses me...

What you should have noticed, and you would have if you were looking for it, is that my notation, which makes the connection explicite in the notation, is a notation of a system, extends Laws of form, generalizes Frege, and is the first time this has been done. So your argument that they haven't done it is irrelevant to this argument.

The point I made is that it is still useless in the practical context

of *complex* systems. Whether it is of use elsewhere is of course

a matter for mathematicians and other sorts of scientists to decide.

And that is precisely why our society was formed, because "it is not my specialty."

One of your complexologists used it to create what he called "the clapping machine"

a) They are not mine.

b) They can be as silly as they wish ;-)

c) There is little consensus as to what is a useful approach !

d) I don't agree with many 'standard' approaches.

A lot of people said that about the lazer too. I wonder what happened to their thoughts on that...And what about the lazer, how about the primary complexity there hmmm? And holography? Well....

I didn't say that Graph Theory is more general than all of this, I said that Lou Kauffman said that my notation is equal in generality to graph theory. Rashevski wrote about graph theory back in 1956, General System Yearbook. With the system notation, all fields are subjects.

I quote from your last message "It has been said that category theory

is more general than set theory and replaces set theory as the ground

of artithmetic. Graph Theory is even more general."

The historical origin however is here irrelevant.

You still have not got it right, Graph theory is more general than category theory and system theory is equal to graph theory.

Complexity looks like a noun to me. A noun is a name of a person place or thing. Look at the roots of the words: "complex" and "ity". Ironic, the word gets longer by adding "ity" to it. The word itself certainly isn't implying anything process-like. It is an ident-ity word. Perhaps the perceived need to have a unique identifier, e.g., complexity, had backfired. Instead of revealing it obscures.

We said, a while back, that we wished to get towards a process

approach. I am doing that. Why are you trying to force a return

to an object one here ? If our word definitions are inadequate,

then we, as scientists, often redefine then, I do here perhaps.

Dynamics is key to any useful complexity approach.

Why are you forcing a return to an object "complexity"? Do you know the Principle of relative linguistics? How we talk determines what we say. (Whorf) Complexity does not imply process, it implies an object. So you redefine to yourself it as dynamics. Fine. Back to the word itself. It is flawed and should be discarded or else history will treat it as a joke on you.

How much do want to bet that those interactions you are studying are derived from as a system?

How much do you wish to bet the opposite ;-) It strikes me that

any 'definition' of a system can be logically proven to not be

such...

Your 'kids analogy', says nothing other than combinatorics

generate new (synergic?) combinations (patterns to you).

What then ?

Let's see, gluons and quarks, protons and electrons, atoms and atoms, molecules and molecules, DNA and DNA. Enough?

And the first question then is obvious; how did the whole divide?

Indeed, so you start from the whole and see what emerges, as

complexity scientists tend to do. I.e. from 'chaos' comes 'order'.

Again, bifurcation.

GOOD Science means just that. Then there is good fiction. Good science knows how to tell them apart. Has complex-science gone beyond the Bertalanffy era?

Trying to diffuse a genuine question by implying that the

'opposition' can't answer it, is the height of political duplicity !

Isn't that what you are trying to do to us? You are saying the science of complexity

makes the old science of system "old hat" All you are doing is confirming the system.

Yet I will answer (I await *yours* with interest...). Yes we

have (and we tell them apart by a great deal of experimetal

evidence). Our formalism of mathematical chaos is beyond

anthing B. had. Our idea of EOC is likewise an advance.

Our formalism of multistabilty is way beyond the 'hand waving'

understanding of the B. era. Our understanding of optimization

is far in advance, especialy in terms of multi-value epistasis.

The dynamics of self-organization is better understood. The

general awareness of the extent of nonlinearity is better.

I'll stop there for now ;-)

It can be argured that it has yet to catch up. What are your

principles of complexity?

See [www.calresco.org] for mine. Your own

2000 publication on 'principles' (200169.pdf) I found disappointing.

It surprised me that my entire contribution was run together into one paragraph. I guess I wasn't paying attention. I corrected it on our significant papers page where it is the isss.org/members/papers/sysround.htm file

Repeating, endlessly it seems, your denial that other people can

discover anything is pointless. I've replied to that more than once,

I don't choose to waste time again echoing myself.

I thought this was about the role of system science and the role of complex-system science and the role of complexity. Has complexity discovered more than complex-system?

Well, now we have to turn to the books. Ken Bausch recenly published a book, I have a copy of it, titled The Emerging Consensus in Social Systems Theory.ISBN 0-396-46539-6. Basically it is an overview of the entire field of knowledge.

Such books, whilst welcome I guess, tend to overhype their own

viewpoint. In any case I, and I suspect most others, don't choose

to *buy* (often overpriced) books when research in academia

is supposed to be freely available. If you have a online summary

or paper to offer fine.

I give up.

I have to admit that the science of system has not done enough to make itself known to other researchers. I believe that this is due in pat to the multi-dimensional character of the science. Until the mind is aware of the multi-dimensional character of reality, it will not be able to conceptually arive at the same conclusion. So there is an element of "scientific-enlightenment" involved which introduces a shift in epistemological emphasis from object to interaction. Stating interaction in object terms does not work.

I'd agree with this, it is truely very difficult to 'break the mould' as it were ;-)

(and we all have our own moulds, even when we think we don't...)

Wait there is hope

I will try to find our significant papers.

Good on you.

Chris, I do not see a single significant counter-argument. Thank you.

Chris Lucas

CALResCo Group

Manchester U.K.

[www.calresco.org]

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.