|
|
 23 Nov 2008 @ 22:54, by jhs2. Systems Thinking
Eine globale Konferenz zur Dokumentierung von systemischen Schwächen in unserer Gesellschaft und zum Aufzeigen existierender oder neuer Lösungen mit Betonung darauf wie systemische Schwächen in der Zukunft verhindert werden können.
Motivation
Die menschliche Gesellschaft wird von einem systemischen Kollaps bedroht. Nicht einfach nur in einigen vereinzelten Bereichen sondern als ein Ganzes. In dem Falle eines einem systemischen Zusammenbruch wird es bedeutungslos einzelne Fehler zu korrigieren. Nur die Ausmerzung der prinzipiellen strukturellen Unregelmäßigkeiten innerhalb des Systems kann die Gefahr des Kollapses verhindern. In einer Zeit wie diese, jeder Mensch ist gefordert den bereits bestehenden Schaden in Augenschein zu nehmen und mit anderen zusammen den Kurs unserer Zukunft zu bestimmen, da wie nicht länger diese Verantwortung auf 'höhere' Instanzen abschieben können.
In den vergangenen Jahrzehnten stieg das Bewusstsein der Bedeutung des 'systemischen Denkens' für unsere ganze Gesellschaft bereits stetig an. Trotzdem kamen Anwendungen und Vorschläge für Lösungen nicht in bedeutender Anzahl zum Vorschein. Ob der Grund dafür in dem Widerstand akademischer Kreise liegt oder in dem Umstand dass das Feld der Systemik selbst übernommen und missbraucht wurde, wird eines der Punkte der Konferenz werden. Wir werden jedenfalls sehr darauf bedacht und sehr aufmerksam sein, daß diese Konferenz nicht auch ein Opfer einer solchen Reprogrammierung wird.
Die Konferenz hat zum Ziel:
- die bedeutsamsten systemischen Schwächen in unserer gegenwärtigen Zivilisation zu dokumentieren
- zu untersuchen wie systemische Schwächen in der Zukunft vermieden werden können
- eine interdisziplinäre Plattform bereitzustellen und nicht auf Beitragende mit akademischen Titeln beschränkt zu sein. More >
|
|
|
|
 20 Oct 2008 @ 18:48, by jhs. Systems Thinking
Worldwide Conference On Systemic Flaws and Solutions in Society 2009
A global conference to document systemic flaws in our society and to point to existing or to new solutions with emphasis on how to prevent systemic flaws in the future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rationale:
Human Civilization is threatened by a systemic collapse. Not just in some isolated segments but as a whole. In the case of a systemic breakdown repairing isolated errors becomes pointless. Only the elimination of the principal structural abnormalities within the system will avert the danger of collapse. In a time like this, every Human is being challenged to confront and assess the damage already done and to work together to determine the course of our future as we cannot defer this responsibility to 'higher' authorities any longer.
In the past decades the awareness of the importance of systemic thinking for society at large has already been rising steadily. However, applications and proposals for solutions of identified problems have not yet been forthcoming in significant numbers. Whether this was be due to resistance in academical circles or due to the circumstance that the field of Systemics in itself has been usurped and abused by other interests, will be one of the topics of the Conference. We will take special care and attention that this conference will not be a victim of such reprogramming.
This conference aims to:
- document the major systemic flaws in our current civilization
- point to existing or new solutions
- investigate how systemic flaws can be avoided in the future
- provide an interdisciplinary platform and is not limited to contributors with academic degrees
The contributors are requested to:
- strive for excellence in form and essence of their presentations
- heed attention to not getting entangled in the contemplation of cartesian (mechanistical) errors within society such as the critique of representants of flawed power structures instead of analyzing the present systemic deficiencies themselves
- add their submissions for the conference themselves in the Wiki : www.systemicflawsandsolutions.com.
If the number of participants exceeds the capacities of the conference, an election process may limit the number of contributors.
The conference is planned as a multi-cultural event but organizational help can currently only be provided for the languages English, Portuguese Italian, Spanish, French, and German,
The Conference itself is planned for:
March 12th-15th, 2009.
Besides the Virtual Conference itself, 'traditional' conferences may be organized in various countries and their languages.
The submitting authors grant the publication of their articles in the 'Proceedings of the Conference On Systemic Flaws and Solutions in Society 2009' and their video presentation(s) in a future video documentary. Both publications are projected to be not-for-profit and will be realized only if appropriate funding will be available.
You may submit only your own work and use only your own images or those drawn from public domain resources. You may not use offensive language or images.
Please post any questions via the community portal. Official e-mail address of the conference: systemic.flaws.and.solutions@gmail.com More >
|
|
|
|
 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.
|
|
|
|
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 >
|
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 Older entries >> |
|
