Reflections on General System Theory

[anathema]

Part 1

Reflections on Ludwig von Bertalanfy’s "General System Theory:
Foundations, Development, Applications "

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the basic concepts of General System Theory (GST) as they were described by Ludwig von Bertalanfy almost 50 years ago in the book “General System Theory: foundations, development, applications” (1968). All excerpts below are from the above mentioned book.

Source

B. did a great job attracting attention of the scientific community to important and complicated problems in understanding the Nature. “It was the aim of classical physics eventually to resolve natural phenomena into a play of elementary units. This however is opposed by another remarkable aspect. It is necessary to study not only parts and processes in isolation, but also to solve the decisive problems found in the organization and order unifying them, and making the behavior of parts different when studied in isolation or within the whole”.(p.31). We are forced to deal with complexities, with “wholes” or “systems”. (p.5). Here are the main notions, which attracted B’s attention in the 20s and 30s and which promised (in his view) the resolution of modern scientific and technical problems: the whole, the parts, the units, the complexity, the organization. That was similar to the problems raised earlier by the Gestalt psychology. The difference was that the gestaltists treated the “whole” as a psychological phenomenon, the product of our mind, but Bertalanfy thought the “whole” exists independently and tried to create a regular scientific discipline - GST. At the same time B understood that “Gestalt psychology showed the existence and primacy of psychological wholes”. (p.31)

It is true that the time of Gestalt-psychology flourishing was very different from the time of rapid growth of General Systems Theory. The beginning of the century was the “Silver age” of arts (particularly in painting, poetry and theater). The time of GST’s raise – the middle of the century – was the “hour of triumph” of science (particularly in nuclear physics, electronics and molecular biology). That partially explains Bertalanfy’s choice to look for the solutions on complexity problems, wholeness and so on in the exact sciences: “GST is a logico-mathematical science of wholeness” (p.256)


I will continue this topic in the next posts


Reference :

Shelia Guberman
PiXlogic, Los Altos, CA, USA​

 

[anathema]

Reflections on General System Theory : part 2

Reflections on General System Theory : part 2

Definitions

“We postulate a new discipline called General Systems Theory. Its subject matter is the formulation and derivation of those principles, which are valid for “systems” in general” (p.32). GST faces a lot of difficulties trying to define the basic notions. Here are some examples of definitions from his book with our remarks (in cursive).


1. GST is a logico-mathematical science of wholeness (p.256)

2. GST is a general science of organization and wholeness (p.288).

3. System theory is a broad view (p.VII).

4. New science (p.XVII).

5. System thinking (p.XIX).

6. The GST is scientific exploration of “wholes” and “wholeness”, which, not so long ago, were considered to be metaphysical notions. Novel conceptions have developed to deal with them (“wholes” and “wholeness” – S.G), such as dynamical system theory, cybernetics, automata theory, system analysis by set, net, graph theory and others” (p.XX). But that claim does not fit the reality: none of these disciplines had defined such notions as “whole” and “wholeness”.

7. GST is a general science of “wholeness”(p.37).

8. Systems philosophy – organismic outlook of the world as a great organization (p.XXI). That kind of definition leads nowhere.

9. What is to be defined and described (?) as system is not a question with an obvious or trivial answer. It would be readily agreed that a galaxy, a dog, a cell and an atom are real systems, and logic, mathematics and music are conceptual .systems” (p. XXI). One would agree that the first are “real”, and the latter are “conceptual” objects, but one can’t agree that they are real systems and conceptual systems because the notion of “systems” was still not defined.

10. Systems approach (p.4)

11. We are forced to deal with complexities, with “wholes” or “systems”. (p.5)

12. The general theory of hierarchical order obviously will be a mainstay of GST.

13. Gestalt psychology showed the existence and primacy of psychological wholes. (p.31)

14. Systems, i.e. complexes of elements standing in interaction (p.33) . That definition is not acceptable because there is no definition for “complexes of elements”.

15. Systems are “sets of elements standing in interaction” (p.38).

16. System of elements in mutual interaction (p.38). (Defining “systems” by “systems”).

17. Organisms are, by definition, organized things.

18. If we are speaking on systems, we mean “wholes” or “unities”.

Some of his definitions could not serve as definitions as they use other undefined terms (for example, “complexes of elements standing in interaction” (14) or “system of elements in mutual interaction” (p.45). When the definition is non-contradictory (“sets of elements standing in interaction”, (15), it is so broad that any arbitrary set of objects in the universe becomes a system. Such definitions single out no objects for investigation. B made an effort to substitute the definition of “system” by means of another basic notion: “If we are speaking on systems”, we mean “wholes” or “unities”” (11). But “wholes”, or “wholeness”, or “unities” were also never defined. The attempt to define other basic terms was also inadequate:”Organisms are, by definition, organized things”.

Bertalanfy completely understood the situation: “What is to be defined as system is not a question with an obvious or trivial answer” (p.XX). . He admitted the problem and sometimes softened the rank of the GST using such terms as “system thinking” (p.XIX), “systems philosophy” (p.XIX), “systems approach” (p.4)

Because of the difficulties in straight definition of basic notions B tried to define the matter of the theory and the basic notions by examples. On the first page of his book he claimed: “An introduction into the field is possible in two ways. One can either accept one of the available models and definitions of systems (?) or rigorously derive the consequent theory. The other approach – which is followed in present book – is to start from problems as they have arisen in the various sciences, and to develop it in a selection of illustrative examples” (p. XVII).

Such an approach was developed in the second half of the XX century into a technology known as Pattern Recognition. The main idea of Pattern Recognition is as follows. In many fields of science and business the decision making is complicated. It means that there is a lot of information but we don’t know the laws that determine the outcome, so, we can’t make the right decision. That is typical for medicine, geology, economy and so on. The Pattern Recognition technology gives a chance and a tool to improve the decision-making by learning based on experience, on cases with known outcome. The mandatory demand of that technology is the representation of all examples has to be in the same terms, so, they can be compared and a general decision rule can be created. That was not the case in the reviewed book. The example of “system concept” using geometrical objects (pp. 54–55) has no chance to be expressed as a system of differential equations from classical “theory of dynamic systems”. If so, how can anybody generalize them?

Bertalanfy showed a lot of common sense in judging GST. Bertalanfy used a quotation from Ashby to describe the state of art in creating the new science. “Ashby has admirably outlined two possible ways or general methods in systems study: Two main lines are readily distinguished. One, already well developed in the hands of von and his co-workers, takes the world as we find it, examines the various systems that occur in it – zoological, physiological, and so on – and then draws up statements about the regularities that have been observed to hold. This method is essentially empirical. The second method is to start at the other end. It considers the set of all conceivable systems and then reduces the set to a more reasonable size” (p. 94).

It is remarkable that Bertalanfy didn’t deny Ashby’s view on his work as non-theoretical, but essentially empirical. Moreover, he admits that his approach “to the mathematically minded will appear naïve and unsystematic”. Ashby itself choose the second way. He started with the definition of system but didn’t succeed. As showed his definitions were not general enough.

At first, he recruited areas of science that use the word “system” but use them as a neutral word (non scientific term): 1) systems of differential equations, 2) open systems (well defined physical meaning), 3) nervous system, control system and so on. The point is that none of them deal with “wholeness”. Secondly, Bertalanfy pointed out the difficulties in a particular area of science and declared a priori that “system approach” will resolve the problem. These areas mainly represent the sciences which are poorly formalized (biology, sociology, economics, psychiatry, etc).

I will continue this topic in the next posts​

 

[farnaz_sh]

impressive

 

[anathema]

Reflections on General System Theory : part 3

Reflections on General System Theory : part 3

Detailed analysis (mathematics, physics, computers, cognition)

Bertalanfy used a huge number of examples, which illustrated how the system approach works in science and technology. We will discuss in details some examples, which are more familiar to the author.

1 - Elementary Mathematics

The basics of system concept are explained in the very beginning of Chapter 3. We will quote the full text of the example (in bold) and follow it with our remarks (in cursive).

“In dealing with complexes of “elements” (i.e. systems according the definition) three different kinds of distinction may be made …”

The quotation marks on “elements” and use of “may be made” expression instead of definite “There are” reflect author’s understanding that no precise statements can be declared and that the example is weak.

“.. i.e. 1 according to their number; 2. according to their species; 3. according to the relations of elements. The following simple graphical illustration may clarify this point with a and b symbolizing different complexes”.
​

If we forget for a short while that all that has to be about GST, we will find a well-known psychological problem. Three similar problems are represented. In each problem two sets of elements are given. The question is: what is the difference between the two sets in each case? The answers are easy and obvious. In the first case two sets differ in the number of elements. In the second case two sets differ in the nature of the elements. In the third one they differ in geometry. It is obvious that the set a is the same in all cases and all the differences we can see exist in our perception only.

“In cases 1 and 2 the complex may be understood as the sum of elements considered in isolation”

The use of words “understood” and “considered” shows that Bertalanfy was going to analyze a perception problem. It means that he was investigating the system not in the outside world but in our mind. Also it is impossible to understand the meaning of “sum of elements” as the notion of “sum” was never defined in the context of GST.

“In case 3, not only the elements should be known, but also the relations between them.”

What is the reason to know something about the system? The answer is simple: for describing the difference between the given two “systems” (complexes of elements).

“Characteristics of the first kind may be called summative, of the second kind constitutive.”

A question arises: characteristics of which objects are we talking about: elements or complexes of elements (systems)? The nature of the element is by definition a characteristic of an object. The number is a characteristic of a set of elements (it could not be applied to a single element). The relation between the objects is a characteristic defined for pair of objects. As a result one can’t use the proposed classes of characteristics (summative and constitutive) to classify any kind of objects.

“We can also say that summative characteristics of an element are those which are the same within and outside the complex.”

As we note above, between the two “summative” characteristics there is only one characteristic of an element – the nature of the element. According to the definition this characteristic is independent of the place or the position of the element because it is a characteristic of the element in principle. So, the last definition becomes a tautology.

“Constitutive characteristics are those which are dependent on specific relations within the complex …”

More precisely, the constitutive characteristics are not dependent on specific relations but they are the relations themselves (according to Bertalanfy description above).

“… for understanding such characteristics we therefore must know not only the parts, but also the relations”.

It seems that there is a tautology once more, because the constitutive characteristics itself are the relations.

Returning to the examples represented in Fig.1, it has to be noted that these examples lead to deeper understanding of the problem. The essence of the problem can be found by analyzing the set a only. Let us describe the set a so that one can reconstruct the image using the following description: “Four small white circles located on a horizontal line at equal distances situated in the center of the page”. That description potentially contains all possible oppositions between the set a and any other set. To get an opposition one has to change one of the descriptors. For example, changing “four” to “five” gives the difference in number; converting “white” to “black” creates the difference in the nature of elements; changing “horizontal line” to “vertexes of rectangle” creates the difference in relations between elements. One can see that there are not three but four kinds of possible distinctions between sets. The fourth distinction is the difference in the relation of the set a as a whole to the environment. In our case that distinction is represented by the direction of the line (horizontal or vertical) and the position on the page (in the center or at the margin). So, the emergent features (in this case it is the geometrical relations between the elements) don’t arise from nothing in a mystical process of creating the “whole”, but are chosen from the description generated in our mind by the given image.

Finally, it has to be mentioned that in the 60s, M. Bongard has published a book on pattern recognition [2], which contained a file of 100 cases similar to the three cases shown in Fig.1. He questioned if it is possible to develop a program that could find the distinction rule in each “puzzle” (some of them are not trivial to a human eye). Shortly he and V. Maximov succeeded in developing such a program.

I will continue this topic in the next posts
​

 

[reza-ie]

please keep on your disscusion and dont wait us more than it

 

[mahtabi]

please keep on your disscusion and dont wait us more than it

probably he wont to continue this paper but u can if u want

 

[farnaz_sh]

افسوس

افسوس

please keep on your disscusion and dont wait us more than it

سلام جناب reza-ie

فارسی می نويسم تا همه دوستان راحت بخونن
بله خوب می شد اگه ايشون مطالب رو ادامه می دادن و ...

اما نکته مهمی که وجود داره اينه که آقای anathema هميشه اميدوار بودن و فکر می کردن که پايه و بستر و انگيزه ای ايجاد کردن که بدون حضور ايشون هم ، تالار به فعاليت جدی علمی توجه کنه و اونچه رو که ارزشمند ميبينه ادامه بده. به همين خاطر هم به علت مسايل کاملا شخصی ، وقتی ديگه امکان حضور نداشتن ، دلشون خوش بود که مشکلی پيش نخواهد اومد و مباحث تکميل ميشه.

متاسفانه من تمام تاپيک ها و بحث های ايجاد شده توسط ايشون رو نگاه کردم و ديدم که هيچ کدوم پيگيری نشده. شايد اعضای تالار اون بحث ها رو فاقد ارزش دونستن !؟ شايد هم اصلا حوصله اين جور مباحث جدی رو نداشتن و شايد هم ...

اميدوارم موفق باشين

 

[sszz23]

General systems Theory-The skeleton of science
General systems theory is a name which has come into use to describe a level of theoretical model-building which lies somewhere between the highly generalised constructions of pure mathematics and the specific throries of the specialized disciplines,mathematics attempts to organize highly general relationships into a coherent system,a system however which dosen't have any necessary connections with the "real" world around us.It studies all thinkable relationships abstracted from any concrete situation or body of empirical knowledge.It is not even confined to quantitative relationships narrowly defined-indeed,the developments of a mathematics of quality and structure is already on the way,even though it is not as far advanced as the classcal mathematics of quantity and number.Nevertheless because in a sense mathematics contains all theories.it contains none; it's the language of theory,but it dosen't give us the content.At the other extreme we have the separate disciplines and science,with their separate bodies of theory.Each discipline corresponds to a certain segment of the empirical world,and each develops theories which have particular applicability to its own empirical segment.physics,chemistry,biology,psychology,sociology,economics and so on all carve out for themselves certain elements of the experience of man and develop theories and patterns of activity,which yield satisfaction in understanding,and which are appropriate to their special segments.
In recent years increasing need has been felt for a body of systematic theoretical constructs which will discuss the general relationships of the empirical world.This is the quest of general systems theory.It dosen't seek,of course,to establish a single,self-contained general theory of practically every thing,which will replace all the special theories of particular disciplines.such a theory would be almost without content,for we always pay for generality by sacrificing content,and all we can say about practically everything is almost nothing.somewhere however between the specific that has no meaning and the general that has no content there must be,for each purpose and at each level of abstraction,an optimum degree of generality.
ادامه دارد...

 

[sszz23]

It is the contention of the General Systems Theorists that this optimum degree of generality in theory is not always reached by the particular sciences.The objectives of General Systems Theory them can be set out with varying degrees of ambition and confidence.At a low level of ambition but with a high degree of confidence it aims to point out similarities in the theorical constructions of different disciplines,where these exist,and to develop theoretical models having applicability to at least two different fields of study.At a higher level of ambition,but with perhaps a lower degree of confidence it hopes to develop something like a 'spectrum' of theories a system of systems which may perform the function of a 'gestalt' in theorical construction.Such 'gestalts' in special fields have been of great value in directing research towards the gaps which they reveal.Thus the periodic table of elements in chemistry directed research for many decades towards the discovery of unknown elements to fill gaps in the table until the table was completely filled.Similarly a 'system of systems' might be of value in directing the attentions of theorists towards gaps in theoretical models,and might even be of value in pointing towards methods of filling them.The need for general systems theory is accentuated by the present sociological situation in science.knowledge is not something which exists and grows in the abstract.It is a function of human organisms and of social organization.Know ledge,that is to say,is always what somebody knows: the most prefect transcript of knowledge in writing is not knowledge if nobody knows it.Knowledge however grows by the receipt of meaningful information-that is,by the in take of messages by a knower which are capable of reorganizing his knowledge.we will quietly duck the question as to what reorganizations constitute ' growth' of knowledge by defining ' semantic growth' of knowledge as those reorganizations which can profitably be talked about,in writing or speech,by the Right people.Science, that is to say,is what can be talked about profitably by scientists in their role as scientists.The crisis of science today arises because of the increasing difficulty of such profitable talk among scientists as a whole. Specialization has outrun trade,communication between the disciples becomes increasingly difficult, and the Republic of learning is breaking up into isolated subcultures with only tenuous lines of communication between them-a situation which threstens intellectual civil war.The reason for this break up in the body of knowledge is that in the course of specialization the receptors of information themselves become specialized.Hence physicists only talk to physicists,economists to economists-worse still,unclear physicists only talk to nuclear physicists and econometricians to econometricians.One wonders sometimes if science will not grind to a stop in an assemblage of walled-in hermits,each mumbling to himself words in a private language that only he can understand.In these days the arts may have beaten the sciences to this desert of mutual unintelligibility,but that may be merely because the swift intuitions of art reach the future fater than the plodding leg work of the scientist.Themore science breaks into sub-groups,and the less communication is possible among the disciplines,however,the greater chance there is that the total growth of knowledge is being alowed down by the loss of relevant communications
ادامه دارد...​

 

[reza-ie]

سلام جناب reza-ie

فارسی می نويسم تا همه دوستان راحت بخونن
بله خوب می شد اگه ايشون مطالب رو ادامه می دادن و ...

اما نکته مهمی که وجود داره اينه که آقای anathema هميشه اميدوار بودن و فکر می کردن که پايه و بستر و انگيزه ای ايجاد کردن که بدون حضور ايشون هم ، تالار به فعاليت جدی علمی توجه کنه و اونچه رو که ارزشمند ميبينه ادامه بده. به همين خاطر هم به علت مسايل کاملا شخصی ، وقتی ديگه امکان حضور نداشتن ، دلشون خوش بود که مشکلی پيش نخواهد اومد و مباحث تکميل ميشه.

متاسفانه من تمام تاپيک ها و بحث های ايجاد شده توسط ايشون رو نگاه کردم و ديدم که هيچ کدوم پيگيری نشده. شايد اعضای تالار اون بحث ها رو فاقد ارزش دونستن !؟ شايد هم اصلا حوصله اين جور مباحث جدی رو نداشتن و شايد هم ...

اميدوارم موفق باشين

فرناز خانم. می دونید مشکل ما ایرانیا چیه که قدر چیزهای خوب رو نمی دونیم.همه چیز رو آماده می خوایم و هیچ تلاشی برای بهبود وضعیت نمی کنیم. البته استثناهایی مثل جناب آناثما هست اما بقیه رو نگاه کنید همه مطالب کپی پیست هستش و ادامه داده نمی شن.ما که مهندس صنایع هستیم باید تلاش کنیم که مهارت در زبان خارجی و پشتکارمون رو در ارتقا سطح اون افزایش بدیم تا با مطالب به روز وناب این رشته در سطح جهان آشنا بشیم.من هم سعی می کنم اول از خودم شروع کنم و برای همین در تاپیک خودم سعی می کنم تا اونجایی که میشه مطالبی که یاد گرفتم و منابع مورد استفادمو قرار بدم. ممنون از لطفتون امیدوارم در تاپیک:http://www.www.www.iran-eng.ir/showthread.php?t=102578 شما و دیگر دوستان رو ببینم.امیدوارم همیشه موفق و موید باشید در پناه حق.

 

[sszz23]

The spread of specialized deafness means that someone who ought to know something that someone else knows is not able to find it out for lock of generalized ears.
It is one of the main objectives of general systems theory to develop these generalized ears,and by developing a framework of general theory to enable one specialist to catch relevant communications from others.Thus the economist who realizes the strong formal similarity between utility theory in economics and field theory in physics is probably in a better position to learn from the physicists than one who does not.similary a specialist who works with the growth concept-whether the crystallographer,the virologist,the cytologist,the physiologist,the psychologist,the sociologist or the economist-will be more sensitive to the contributions of other fields if he is aware of the many similarities of the growth process in widely different empirical fields.There is not much doubt about the demand for general systems theory under one brand name or another.It is a little more embarrassing to inquire into the supply.Does any of it exist,and if so where?what is the chance of getting more of it,and if so,how?The situation might be described as promising and in ferment,thought it is not wholly clear what is being promised or brewed.something which might be called an"interdisciplinary movement" has been abroad for some time.The first signs of this are usually the development of hybrid disciplines.Thus physical chemistry emerged in the third quarter of the nineteenth century,social psychology in the second quarter of the twentieth.In the physical and biological sciences the list of hybrid disciplines is now quite long-biophysics,biochemistry,astrophysics are all well established.In the social sciences social anthropology is fairly well established,economic psychology and economic sociology are just beginning.There are signs,even,that political economy,which died in infancy.some hundred years ago,may have a re-birth.In recent years there has been an additional development of great interest in the from of multi***ual interdisciplines.The hybrid disciplines,as their hyphenated names indicate,come from two respectable and honest academic parents.The never interdisciplines have a much more varied and occasionally even obscure ancestry,and result from the reorganization of material from many different fields of study.Cybernetics,for instance,comes out of electrical engineering,neuro physiology,physics,biology,with even a dash of economics.Information theory,which originated in communications engineering,has important applications in many fields stretching from biology to the social sciences.Organization theory comes out of economics,sociology,engineering,physiology,and management science itself is an equally multidisciplinary product.On the more empirical and practical side the interdisciplinary movement is reflected in the development of interdepartmental institutes of many kinds.some of the these find their basis of unity in the empirical field which they study,such as institutes of industrial relations,of public administration,of international affairs,and so on
ادامه دارد...​