|
|
 7 May 2008 @ 09:27, by anandavala. Systems Thinking
Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.
What is a System?
A system has two aspects, its
transcendent aspect is as a transitory pattern of transcendent
information that conditions the flow of transcendent information.
When the system is perceived from an empirical perspective by another
system within the common network of interacting systems, then it is
experienced via its observable attributes, which result in
information that flows into the observer system's inputs. This
results in an experience of a manifest form, which is the empirical
aspect.
Subsystems interact to form
supersystems; i.e. patterns dynamically merge to produce larger
patterns. Whilst the transcendent patterns are what they are the
empirical forms exist only in the eye of the beholder. A system may
interact with other systems that are considered to lie 'within'
different supersystems so it may be considered a subsystem of either,
thus there are no absolute system boundaries. Different observers may
observe different interaction channels and thereby resolve different
system boundaries thus they experience very different empirical
forms.
Why should we care to clearly know
what a system is?
We are systems formed out of
interacting subsystems and we interact to form supersystems. All
manifest forms are systems. All events and processes are system
interactions. Our transcendent part we call our 'soul' and our
empirical part we call our 'body'. The empirical universe is a
construct of the experiential aspect of systems and behind this
perceptual veil there is an information theoretic aspect. Some call
this the quantum realm, spiritual realm, Brahman (Vedic), Hundun
(Daoist), Heaven (Christ) and so on.
Everything that is and everything that
happens is the experiential aspect of a unified transcendent process.
This is analogous to the way that a virtual reality is the
experiential aspect of a unified transcendent process.
Understanding the nature of systems
leads us to an understanding of ourselves, of the universe, of what
is happening and how we should respond in order to harmoniously and
effectively participate in the process of evolution that is underway.
What fundamental questions can it
help answer?
A deep understanding of the nature of
systems can help answer all fundamental questions except one, and it
can explain why it cannot answer that one.
There is only one true mystery – What
is the true nature of the fundamental reality generative process?
A manifest form cannot approach this via enquiry; e.g. a sentient AI
character in a virtual reality could realise many things about their
situation all the way down to the computational process itself, but
they cannot realise that the computer is a particular machine sitting
in a particular room, they can only ever know the computer from
within. Similarly, we can systematically comprehend all the general
principles of our reality right down to the fundamental reality
generative process and we cannot enquire beyond that.
Holism is a metaphysical paradigm that
focuses on the whole and comprehends the parts as discernible
features – objects of perception – within the whole. Reductionism
is a metaphysical paradigm that focuses on the many parts and their
interactions and envisages the whole as the product of the many parts
and interactions. Unified system science can comprehend both
paradigms and show how they relate to each other. Similarly it can
unify duality and non-duality. Transcendent and empirical. Subjective
and objective. For these reasons I propose that a unified system
science could provide a useful conceptual framework for the
development of a unified awareness that can flower into a new
consciousness for humanity.
Best Wishes,
John Ringland
Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation. More >
|
|
|
|
4 May 2008 @ 01:08, by anandavala. Systems Thinking
Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.
Excerpts from brainstorming notes related to
SMNDesignView
For more information on SMN see SMN
on Anandavala.
I am exploring the idea of developing a Netbeans 6.0 module,
either as a plugin or as a rich-client application.
Things to consider:
I need a good vision of what I am building before I start
designing it.
What is it that the SMN functionality seeks to provide the
application user? What will people want the whole application or
plugin to do?
What sorts of things will people want to be able to do with the
GUI and with the model and with the simulation space itself via the
GUI? How best can the GUI facilitate this?
If developed as a plugin then how will the SMN functionality be
integrated into the rest of Netbeans?
If developed as a rich-client application then how will it come
together as a single whole application?
How best to implement the matrix itself? As some kind of table? It
needs to be programmatically controlled and not set in the code –
we may want more or less rows or columns, we may want different types
of elements altogether (e.g. instead of text fields they are buttons
perhaps).
The matrix-view is a small window that allows for detailed access,
but for large models we need a lower resolution but broader scope
view, we could have subsystem / supersystem viewing levels for the
matrix. One could view systems at the atomic scale, or as a single
whole system, or at many different levels between these. The designer
can click on systems (either by row, column, vector element or rowOp)
and choose to collapse all sibling subsystem and show only their
supersystem. Or they can drill into a supersystem and show all or
selected subsystems.
The state vector needs to be represented somehow in the
matrix-view so that the system designer can visualise the current
state of the model. The multiple system viewing levels apply to the
state vector as well.
Whether an SM or an SV element, at each level there is some screen
graphic to represent it to the designer. If the element is an atomic
system it shows a text field to display and edit the data. If it is a
conceptual system then there is an icon that displays the subsystems
as small squares within the element.
When the designer double-clicks on an element they drill into the
system and reveal all subsystems. There is also a right-click option
on elements that brings up a dialogue box for selecting which
subsystems to show. More >
|
|
|
|
25 Apr 2008 @ 11:32, by anandavala. Systems Thinking
Before joining the conversation, please read and accept this Invitation to a Conversation.
Here's a posting to let you know what
I'm up to lately. Like I said in the post on What
exactly is SMN and how does it connect with other technologies?
I've been focussing on concrete implementations lately, rather than
on discussions. One project was an artistic collaboration with
Glistening Deepwater, called Mystic
Visions. I've explored quite deeply into semantic and web 2.0
technologies. I've implemented the core algorithm for SMN in Java and
the system simulation engine now has full functionality and the
models can be imported or exported as XML files (this is still in
further development but will be available for download soon).
But the current project on my mind is
the idea of a System Oriented Modelling Paradigm. To give you
some idea of what I mean, below are some excerpts from recent design
documents – they are just a brainstorm at present. If these ideas
make sense to you and you want to get involved then contact
me – it will soon be released as an open source project.
The
project involves an analysis of general computational processes and
general systems, which re-orients system modelling practices upon a
coherent metaphysical foundation rather than on a
commonsense naïve realist foundation. Traditional modelling
practices are seen in a new light and minor optimisations are
proposed that can considerably extend the potential and overall
functionality of designed systems. A detailed example is given in the
context of software engineering.
More >
|
|
|
|
23 Apr 2008 @ 09:25, by johnjoseph. Systems Thinking
Pascal’s Triangle, Self-Similarity and Phi
In maths the simple operation of adding two consecutive elements in a sequence and then iterating, which process is well-known to us in the Fibonacci sequence, leads to many of the more remarkable properties we come across in nature and mathematics. The Fibonacci sequence, as I pointed out in my last article, is based on self-similarity and exhibits the mystical number and proportion called the “Sacred Ratio”, approximately 1.618… which is an irrational number.
Now something very similar occurs in that very famous table of numbers, known to the ancient Chinese, but known to us as Pascal’s Triangle. This is a symmetrical table, with ones at the apex and at each edge, with the intervening numbers created by adding together the two numbers directly above and to either side. Pascal’s triangle has a multitude, maybe indeed an infinite number of remarkable properties. Every interesting thing in mathematics more or less, can be found in different ways in this pyramid. Fibonacci itself, can be found in sequence if you add the short diagonals. This of course yields Phi, the Golden Proportion. However, this is a bit misleading, because Phi is conspicuously absent from the other patterns you will find in this triangle. This is because if you divide any two of the numbers in the table they will be a rational fraction, not irrational. Adding different numbers together, as in the Fibonacci example, is the only way to get a sequence which gives Phi. The whole structure is based on the iterative technique mentioned above, and I suspect that this technique is a cornerstone of self-similarity, though I can’t demonstrate it as convincingly here as I did in my previous article on Fibonacci.
I believe, since Nature produces Phi all over the place, and Fibonacci sequences in the number of petals of flowers and the spirals of shells, that at an early stage in the evolution of life, in plant RNA and animal DNA, the simple iterative technique I refer to, was encoded and passed down to following generations. Thus we find Phi everywhere in Nature. Why it leads to very remarkable properties in mathematics is another issue and one I will address in a later article. More >
|
|
|
|
13 Apr 2008 @ 09:47, by johnjoseph. Systems Thinking
Mysticism and Science: A new Union
1. Phi is the constant of self-similarity
It is my belief that the way forward involves the coming together of mysticism and science, to give a new holistic discipline which will combine the quantitative strengths of science with the holistic and qualitative strengths of mysticism.
What I am writing is not “sacred geometry” or “sacred mathematics”, but just plain true knowledge. My first assertion is that the number or ratio Phi, known from antiquity, is the constant of self-similarity. Let me illustrate this with a simple numerical example. Take the Fibonacci sequence
1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 … … …
each number is the sum of the previous two terms, thus 8 = 5 + 3. It is very significant that if you divide any term by the immediately preceding term you derive a fraction which is alternately greater then less than Phi, and which quickly closely approximates its value of 1.618…. For example 89 divided by 55 is 1.61818, whereas 55 divided by 34 ( the preceding number) is 1.617647058
Now, the next thing to observe is that this sequence is self-similar:
1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144
0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21
taking away each previous term, in sequence leaves a sequence which is identical to the original one. The whole thing appears to be nested and self-similar, and this process can be repeated ad infinitum.
Now let us look at the famous right-angled triangle and Pythagoras’ theorem. There are, it seems, hundreds of valid proofs of the theorem that the square on the hypoteneuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides. One of the least well-known of these proofs is the one which uses the fact that the two small right-angled triangles formed when you drop a perpendicular from the original right-angle to the opposite hypoteneuse, are similar to each other and to the larger triangle. In other words this is another example of self-similarity. It is possible to construct spirals ad infinitum around the vertices of the ensuing smaller and smaller right-angled triangles which you can construct within these two triangles. And where you find equiangular spirals you will always find the ratio Phi, approximately 1.618
There are many other sequences e.g. the Lucas sequence, which like the Fibonacci show the Phi ratio, and they always display a form of self-similarity. I will leave it to you to investigate.
Phi is indeed the constant of self-similarity.
|
|
|
|
 19 Dec 2007 @ 17:40, by mortimer. Systems Thinking
Each sustained pattern of routine polarity triangulates a peak-to-peak amplitude state of being, regardless of its combination with another pure energy component, hence 8x16 = 128 basic peak-to-peak states.
<><
Updated: 5/21/2008
More >
|
|
|
|
1 Dec 2007 @ 16:36, by rdbunston. Systems Thinking
January 1975, a 2AM brain flush
A long slow response to a chance encounter in Sydney Australia in 1972 with a "critical path systems analyst" who introduced me to the global systems dynamics programs of Dr.s Forrester, Meadows et al of MIT and the Club of Rome sponsored Limits to Growth Studies.
The ensuing decades have been shelves full of books, 4 years of consultant work in the 1980's with international efforts to resolve increasingly desperate third world housing issues..a lot of frustrating discussions with governments and business circles and facing the undermining realities of layers of conspiracies and international piracies.
The scale of the self evident unfolding events forces reconsideration of personal responsibility and most importantly, personal capacity. More >
|
|
|
|
5 Aug 2007 @ 08:22, by johnjoseph. Systems Thinking
Dedicated to Sophie Germain
Sophie Germain primes and primes terminating in recurring 9’s
Sophie Germain primes are primes p where 2p + 1 is also a prime. It is noticeable that it is possible to have a sequence of such primes. The primes of such a form and the sequence that seem most interesting to me are the ones where the Sophie Germain prime terminates in a 9.
It is of great interest that we can get sequences of Sophie Germain primes that end in this way:
89 , 179 , 359 , 719 , 1439 , 2879 (D.Wells 1986 pg 115)
What I would like to assert is that numbers ending in 9s and recurring 9s such as 599 , 1199 , 2399 etc., while not all themselves prime, exhibit an underlying pattern from which the exceptions (those that are not prime) can be explained , and which in fact furnishes one of the few ascertainable forms for prime numbers.
Now, when we double a number and add 1 we are in fact, usually, changing its remainder modulus its divisors (if it has any). But not always. It so happens that the numbers 3 , 5 and 7 when you start with a certain remainder and double it and add 1, you go into a loop which continues indefinitely. Now with the number 5, the remainder that has this remarkable property is 4. Now all odd numbers with 4mod5 in fact terminate in a 9. This explains why we can get 6 Sophie Germain primes in sequence without any of them being divisible by 5.
If we link this remarkable property of the number 5, with similar properties of other divisors, such as 3 and 7, which both exhibit loops on using certain remainders, then we get sequences of numbers which will never be divisible by 3 , 5 or 7. These three divisors account for about two-thirds of composites. Therefore numbers such as 599, 2399 and those ending in recurring 9s of any length, are quite likely to be prime and where they are not it can be explained in the way indicated. There is an obvious link with Cunningham chains , not all of which , however, terminate in 9s. More >
|
|
|
|
 12 Jul 2007 @ 22:53, by ming. Systems Thinking
Emergence is one of my most favorite subjects. The one I'd maybe most like to figure out. What makes things emerge? Good stuff. Seemingly out of nothing. Here's a definition by Jeffrey Goldstein, from Wikipedia. It is: the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems. And some common characteristics: (1) radical novelty (features not previously observed in systems);
(2) coherence or correlation (meaning integrated wholes that maintain themselves over some period of time);
(3) A global or macro "level" (i.e. there is some property of "wholeness");
(4) it is the product of a dynamical process (it evolves); and
(5) it is "ostensive" - it can be perceived. Excelleeent! More of that, please.
Monday I was taking part in an online discussion organized by Extreme Democracy, around emergence in relation to politics. Sort of poking around in the thought of whether a better and more direct democracy possibly might emerge from the bottom and up. I can't seem to locate a transcript, so I can't quote all the good points.
One of the starting points was Two ways to emerge, and how to tell the difference between them (pdf) by Steven Johnson.
The two types he's talking about, he calls "Clustering" and "Coping". Those aren't very good choices of words, but it is a good observation that there are different kinds.
Clustering would be where a bunch of somethings get together and do the same thing. Like slime mold. Or a flash mob, or other group phenomena where large numbers of people suddenly get excited about one thing or another, and they all show up at the same time, or they do the same thing.
Coping would be where a bunch of individuals get together, and they don't just do one simple thing, but they form a more complex organization. Like an ant hill. The ants specialize, they take on different roles, they solve problems, they change their behavior if necessary, etc. Without anybody handing out the orders.
It is a lot easier to simply get a large number of people together, or to get them together for one well-defined purpose, than it is to get large numbers of people to self-organize towards solving unknown problems.
Somebody suggested the Howard Dean presidential campaign as an example of a bottom-up emergence of the clustering kind. It was a successful attempt of getting a lot of people together in being excited about one thing, organizing their own local meetings to futher it, etc. But it only worked as long as the main point was being excited about Dean being a leading candidate, and as long as things went well. The moment people started being dissatisfied about something, or they wanted to change direction, there was no vehicle for that, and it fell apart rather quickly. It wasn't the Coping kind of emergence. I don't think it really was emergence at all. That a political candidate gets a lot of grass-roots support might be interesting, but it isn't something that emerged from the grass-roots, or it would have been the assembled crowds that told him what to say, rather than him telling them what to be excited about.
A lot of things that might be given as examples of bottom-up self-organization and emergence probably aren't. Or they're very weak examples. If the date and time of the Superbowl broadcast is announced, and millions of people organize parties around it in front of bigscreen TVs, is that self-organization? Sure, it inspires some self-organization, but it is based on something you're provided from the top down. If some big movie or music star is very popular, and their fans organize fan clubs and websites and online forums, is that self-organization? Yes, it is, on a local level, but it isn't a whole lot of emergence. It is a clustering effect based on stimuli provided from a central source, a movie, an album, a TV show, etc.
If a political candidate hears that through the internet one can easily launch thousands of self-replicating self-organizing local support groups, and forums and meetings, etc, he'll say "great!" Saves a lot of advertising dollars. He'll love it exactly until the point where that network of people starts disagreeing with him, wanting him to do something different from what he had in mind. Which is what would happen if it really were some kind of emerging self-organizing democracy. Candidates with a program don't go well together with real bottom-up democracy. Nobody's really seen such a democracy, so that probably isn't entirely obvious.
Anyway, it of course isn't enough to get a whole lot of people together. That's the clustering thing. If one promotes and organizes it well, and one hits the right nerve, one might get 100s of thousands of angry people to show up at the same time and express themselves. But that doesn't necessarily add up to doing something in any organized fashion. For large numbers of people to do something complex together requires a complex organization. The traditional way of doing that is the top-down way. Somebody's in charge, somebody sets the tone, inspires everybody, sets goals, hands out jobs. They delegate some of their power to others, and so forth. It works, but it creates dumb, inflexible, slow organizations.
We sense that something better is becoming available. The networked world. We're all more and more connected, and the world is moving faster and faster, and obviously it is better if decision making is distributed to those who're most involved with whatever decisions need to be made about. So, many organizations are busy trying to develop more flat structures, more networks, more communities, more self-organization. But if we're talking business or government, there's still somebody in charge who largely decides what one should self-organize around.
The very hard problem is how stuff can actually emerge from the bottom and up, how one can self-organize around what emerges, and how that can scale to a bigger size.
Self-organization amongst people can work great in small groups. If your family is going to have a picnic, you'll probably all figure out how to contribute, without anybody having to be in charge. A few dozen people can maybe do that. But can thousands? Or millions?
Could the world possibly work without anybody being in charge? It is sort of a ridiculous idea to expect that a few people can be in charge of governing the world. Sooner or later it will be not just a little ridiculous, but it will become impossible, as the world moves faster and becomes more complex. Sooner or later the answer has to be that it is some kind of emergent self-organizing direct democracy. It isn't just some idealist notion. The alternatives will stop working sooner or later.
But nobody seems to know how, yet. Hopefully the answer will somehow emerge, and be a delightful surprise.
A couple of other excellent papers on the subject are: Emergent Democracy by Joi Ito, and The Second Superpower Rears Its Beautiful Head by James Moore. Both PDFs. More >
|
|
|
|
 29 Jun 2007 @ 22:39, by jhs. Systems Thinking
In order to shed some light on the plethora of options to win or lose in the rat-race (or life if you want), I mapped the various combinations of the be-do-have onto the Zousel graph of polarities (see Polar Dynamics 1). The result is pictured in the graph.
Example:
+Do & -Be (doing and not-being -> faking):
if you're doing a job as a dentist but you aren't a dentist, you're a fake, an impostor
More Expansions:
doing and being -> growth (more have)
not-doing and being -> unemployed
doing and not-being -> impostor
not-doing and not-being -> bum
having and doing -> winning
having and not-doing -> idle
not-having and doing -> losing
not-having and not-doing -> ruined
being and having -> wealthy
being and not-having -> daydreaming
not-being and having -> overwhelmed
not-being and not-having -> in despair
Result of Skipping 1 State
Assuming to:
be without having - debtor
do without being - impostor
have without doing - dependent
Conditions of Skipping 2 States
Assuming to:
be without doing - unemployed
do without having - slave
have without being - thief
Conclusions:
The WINNING states are characterized by POSITIVE attitudes along the direction of the BE-DO-HAVE triangle (counter-clockwise). ALL other combinations are failing. (Note: a stagnant condition is a losing condition because of the law of entropy, in other words, to maintain a stable condition there is always a supporting energy needed).
In addition to my last entry, one could specify that just 'Positive Thinking' while ignoring the above dependencies WILL result in a failure.
Likewise, following the rules above will result in success, regardless of 'Positive Thinking' or not. It is obvious that in order to kick-start the success cycle, the assumption of the POSSIBILITY of success must be present. In this sense, and only in this sense, 'Positive Thinking' will result in a positive outcome.
For example, 'dreaming of a red Porsche' (+H&-D-->disaster) doesn't help, but hyping up a 'you can do it!' attitude DOES help (+Be & +Do-->growth/success).
Special attention is due to the results of enslavery (+Do & -Have) and being a debtor (+Be & -Have) - the former arrives directly from the latter!!!). More >
|
|
Page: 1 2 3 Older entries >> |
|
