To my understanding:

"Religion := The acceptance of something without the necessity of proof and claiming authority based on this premise." p180 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

Since science does require some proof (and we could certainly argue some more on what, exactly constitute such a 'proof'), it would seem that the two concepts, science and religion, is incompatible.

Your earlier thread about defining the concept of "system" certainly contributed to my own understanding. — Astorre

If my little contribution on the concept of system contributed to your understanding, then, surely, my effort is not in vain. And, this gives me hope.

In this thread, you ask about the definitions of "science" and "religion." Separately, I'd like to ask: have you ever found the most precise definition of any word? If so, please share. — Astorre

In my understanding, there is not such a thing as a precise definition of any word. There is my understanding and there is your understanding. So if we want to have a useful conversation or debate on something (for example the possibility of integrating science and religion), we first need to agree on some definitions of words (for example an agreement on what is science and what is religion).

If not, such a conversation or debate would quickly degenerate into a useless play with words.

Hence my request to share definitions.

Comments appreciated — Art48

You claim it is possible to integrate science and religion. This implies, I think, that you know, exactly, what is science and what is religion. Please share your definitions else comments will not be valid.

A purpose to philosophy? Over thousands of years we have decimated forests and plantations to make paper and print books - please tell me there are purpose to this! Please tell me there are purpose to a book that could be read, its content be scrutinised, argued about and understood - perhaps even contribute to this thing we call knowledge. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that philosophy has purpose. And perhaps the question may lead to some interesting conversations.

Perhaps a better question would be if philosophy has utility. To which the obvious answer must be yes - if not, it would have been discarded. But then, what, exactly, is this utility and how could we find more of it?

Take care of yourself!

And ...

From my perspective, there is a new religion popping up, based on Holism and human consciousness. A religion that would be about as good as any religion we have (or had).

Neither am I -

a professional Logician, or Mathematician, or Systems theorist — Gnomon

- just a retired engineer that likes to understand things. If the philosophical notion of holism works well for you ... good. It did not provide answers to my questions, at least not answers that made sense to me (has utility) and are consistent.

I know the work of the Santa Fe Institute - done a few of their online courses. Was very interesting, but did not provide answers to my questions either.

What Is Good and What Is Evil?

Any decision on what is good and what is evil (what is right and what is wrong) is made based on whatever is politically expedient. There is no Law of Nature that provides a basis on which a determination about good or evil could be made. It is, therefore, determined simply by Rules of Man. Examples of the political determination between good and evil are abundant. A salient example is the Second World War:

• For millions of people Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany were good.
• For millions of other people Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany were evil.
• For millions of people Joseph Stalin and Communist Russia were evil.
• However, for the Allied forces, Josef Stalin and Communist Russia were good, at least until the end of the war - a salient example of political expedience by itself.
• To the very large number of private citizens killed in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Allied Forces were patently evil.

All five of these statements are quite valid, actually patently true, but in clear contradiction to each other, giving evidence of my original statement. So, after about 3% of the world population perished due to a single war - the war after 'the war to end all wars' - no determination can yet be made on what is good and what is evil. p123 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

I say again:

"If I show you a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, they are the only things that you will see - a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. I had to build the puzzle to the extend that the picture starts to appear for you to understand the picture that I see." p232 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence.

Yes, this picture is described in more than 200 pages.

Quite so, and thank you for your contribution. Your "assertion" is similar to the general accepted colloquial understanding of a system. But then, there are those that postulate that the notion of a system might reveal more:

In 1994, Aerts et al made 23 proposal for study to help in the development of a world-view. One of them is systems. They state, however: "The status of systems theory itself deserves attention (a useful vocabulary or set of principles and theorems that have exploratory value).
Aerts et al, (1994). World Views: From fragmentation to integration. VUB Press: Brussels.

Then, in 2000, Nicholas Rescher addressed the possibility of a theory-of-everything, and show, logically, that such a theory is not possible. Rescher, however, speculated that an understanding of systems might provide the key to such a theory.
Rescher, N. (2000). The Price of an Ultimate Theory. Philosophia Naturalis, vol. 37, pp 1 - 20

The possibility exist that @Gnomon's notion of a system as a holism might be the key to such a theory - but I doubt that. You see: "To bear Systems Theory in mind one should envision some sort of logical and mathematical basis as a formal unambiguous language."
Backlund, A. (2000) The Definition of System. Kybernetes, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp 444 - 451

I have found, and published, this key. It provides not only a valid world-view, actually a universe-view, but also a valid theory-of-everything. Now I am trying to find a fatal flaw in my reasoning - you see to claim a solution to the impossible is frowned upon from the ivory towers. Engineers do it all the time ... the impossible.

Meanwhile, we tip-toe around the margins of Systems as a universal concept. — Gnomon

Quite so, but consider, one of us is standing with his nose to the ground and expect the other one to explain his whole world (Universe?) to the one with his nose to the ground.

I won't take the time to "view the full canvas" until I'm convinced it will be worth the time invested. — Gnomon

So be it, then.

But I do stipulate the following: "It is my claim that our (my) theory is reductionism and holism, not reductionism or holism. p200 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

As I mentioned above, taken together, these characteristics of systems seem to add-up to a Creator God as the System-of-all-systems. — Gnomon

No, it does not. There is no such thing as a system-of-systems. This is a self-referencing abomination that cannot exist.

Hence our space-time world is a sub-system of the Set-of-all-sets — Gnomon

No, a system is not a set. It cannot be a set.

Was that your intention? — Gnomon

No.

OK. Now we have narrowed-down the kind of Systems this thread is about. As far as we know, only physical biological beings*1 are capable of abstracting Ideas from concrete Reality. And only one of those physical sub-Systems has the capability to communicate their intangible ideas in the form of meaningful symbols : e.g. auditory or visual Words. The jury is still out on parrots & dolphins, which apparently can produce two-way communication to some degree. Even dogs can understand a few words of spoken language, but can't reciprocate except via body language, including barking and button-pushing . — Gnomon

I am not sure what you are trying to say here:

• When you refer to "kind of systems", are you referring to my, defined, classes of systems or something else?
• I do not know what you mean, exactly, by a "sub-system"? There exist a class of systems with the capability of communication (Class 4 systems) and there exist a class of systems with the capability of abstraction (Class 7 systems). There are certainly trees (and parrots and dolphins and dogs) that are Class 4 systems. The jury is most certainly still out on: Are humans the only example of Class 7 systems, Are all humans examples of Class 7 systems.

Given that the ability to abstract ideas has evolved on at least one planet, what does that fact imply about Evolution in general? — Gnomon

Only what you are stating - that the ability to abstract ideas has evolved on at least one planet. Nothing else.

Were living & thinking & abstracting entities inevitable, perhaps because that was the Purpose of the evolutionary System from its Big Bang beginning — Gnomon

Perhaps

Was the System programmed or designed to produce Thinking Beings? — Gnomon

Perhaps programmed or perhaps designed

Are you implying that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is based on Tautologies or Axioms? — Gnomon

I am not implying anything about Darwin's Theory of Evolution. To my knowledge it is based on two principles (neither tautologies nor axioms):

• The principle of common descent in that diverse forms of life on earth emerged by the branching of a few or possibly one primitive kind.
• The principle of natural selection in that evolutionary change and the formation of a new and distinct species occur because individuals in a population differ in their ability to survive and reproduce. These abilities tend to be inherited by their offspring.

To my knowledge it is still the accepted wisdom from philosophy that evolutionary theory is, in fact, not an empirical theory with falsifiable hypothesis but rather an elaborate set of tautologies. Refer, for example, to: Hunt, T (December 2014), Reconsidering the logical structure of the theory of natural selection. Communicative & Integrative Biology 7(6), e972848; Published with licence by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

It is my perception that we are starting to diverge from the thread of this discussion. I have the answer to my question. Just as the systems- thinkers, scientists and engineers, philosophers do not have a definition, nor is it backed by a theory, of a general system. I have provided my definition of a general system and mentioned the classes of systems that I have deduced from this definition. This provides a very small part of a big picture:

"This complete work could be described as:

• A canvas, mostly done in black and white. It should be noted that black is symbolic of nothing and white is symbolic of everything. In some places, there might be a little bit of shading done in grey, but it is far from complete. What I maintain is that the picture on the canvas is clear, and the canvas is the whole canvas as it should be. The canvas is complete, but the picture is not yet." p 232 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

It just might be interesting to view the full canvas.

Question : designed (created?) by Accident or Intention? — Gnomon

From the fundamental definition of a system, it is possible to identify seven fundamental classes of systems:

• Class 1 - with foundational existence
• Class 2 - capable of decision-making
• Class 3 - capable of survival
• Class 4 - capable of communicating
• Class 5 - capable of reasoning
• Class 6 - capable of creating
• Class 7 - capable of abstraction

These classes emerged subsequently and consequently with cumulative capabilities. Thus, systems exist only in the real world - that is, all systems are physical systems, but there exist systems with the capability of abstraction.

Moreover, this classification provides a theory of evolution sans any tautologies.

From How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

You are right in that ethical systems are selective. That's why non-vegans murder sentient organisms and think they are doing the right thing, even though there are vegan options that avoid the deliberate exploitation and murder of sentient organisms — Truth Seeker

My apology for butting in from the side and diverging from the thread, but reading your comments on vegans and non-vegans, I am curious as to your views on abortion?

Given the fact that AI lacks abstraction, AI cannot come up with a new idea. Therefore, AI cannot replace us at the pinnacle of evolution. Creating new ideas is fundamental in the evolution of the human species. Humans will evolve further, most probably without an end. I, however, think that AI will reach a threshold in its advancement, so it would be extremely difficult to make an AI that is more intelligent than former AIs. — MoK

:sweat: None of us knows what would happen in the future. I can argue that: "AI cannot come up with a new idea" - until it comes up with a new idea. That is how evolution takes place, not so? Sometime, through the evolution of our Universe, some animal had the first abstract thought. Before this event abstraction did not exist - after this event it does exist.

Methinks only the future knows the answer to this question.

Thank you for this conversation.

The concept of a system can also be understood from the following cognitive axioms:

• There is one, and only one, system that is not a component of any other system. Named the Universal system.
• There is one, and only one, system that is a component of all other systems. Named the Fundamental system.
• Anything in the Universal System is systems in space-time or a component of a system.
• Each and every system has a purpose.

From How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

Just so you don't think it was anything personal, I'll have you know not 3 hours ago I purchased a book written by a new member, one Pieter R van Wyk off an online marketplace (Amazon) for 17.36 USD. It shall be here Wednesday. While I'm questionable as to whether it will be as great as I contend it may, judging by some very critical comments here it may instead only reveal the mind and mannerisms of a confused soul. Either way, I have a morbid sense of valuation so I will likely enjoy it regardless of what I find. That should tell you all you need to know about me. — Outlander

Please don't get pissed off in the first chapter - read the whole book, then please tell me where is the fatal flaw in my reasoning

A system consist of components (things that are) and the interactions between these components (things that happen) contributing to a single unique purpose. p27, p135

• thing := defined by the Zeroth Argument of Existence. For some physical things, I have a valid perception of its existence. p13
• components := includes mass or energy and is perceived to exist but does not change. p29
• interaction := a function depicting a change (transfer of mass or energy) between a pair of components. p30
• purpose := from the colloquial understanding of the word according to the Oxford Concise Dictionary, the reason for which something is done or created or for which it exist.

From How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

IS THIS AN ORGANIZED SYSTEM OR A DISORGANIZED CHAOS? — Gnomon

This will depend on a possible purpose, not so? In my younger days I did some mountaineering, we used stacked rocks (like your picture) to mark a road, thus it was part of a navigation system. Your picture though, looks like a piece of art (A deliberate transformation of the feelings and emotions of the artist [the life form making the art], into a physical form. p96)

That is a big IF. As I argued in the OP, AI does not have access to ideas since it is mindless, so it lacks abstraction. — MoK

We agree that AI lacks abstraction - on this we are saying the same thing. I am not sure what "big IF' you are referring to, all I am saying is that if (or when) AI gains this capability then we humans will loose our place on the apex of evolution. You might agree or disagree with this conclusion.

I don't understand what the interactions between a system and a collection of data mean. — MoK

I don't understand what the interactions between a system and its purpose mean. — MoK

Some classes of systems have the capability to interact with data (data being a collection of representations describing interactions), thus they have a perception of data and some classes of systems have a perception of their reason of existence (their purpose) thus they can interact with their purpose.

Being under the sword of Damocles called ostracisation, I might suggest that you read How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence, it could contribute even more to your understanding.

[

Never getting around to explaining what is so definitive about your own new contribution. — apokrisis

I concede, unequivocally, it is rude of me to ask for a definition of a system in this forum and not offer my own. I will rectify this in a new open discussion.

Kindly reference the mathematical proof of your statement (belief of) regarding the effect of the hypothetical removal of Neptune from our solar system

quote="I like sushi;1014791"]It is pretty run-of-the-mill knowledge[/quote]

At some time it was pretty 'run-of-the-mill knowledge' that the earth is actually flat.

To my recollection, I never dismissed, only questioned. :blush:

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by each classification? — MoK

From a fundamental definition of a system, based on first principles, it is possible to identify seven classes of systems. Five classes are identified by considering the interactions between a system and a collection of data and three classes are identified by considering the interactions between a system and its purpose. The first class in both classifications are equal thus there (currently) exist seven classes of systems. Since these classes emerge consequently and subsequently, based on new identifiable capabilities, it is possible to form a theory of evolution by combining the two classifications. AI still lacks only two capabilities that humans have: survival and abstraction. If (or when) AI gains both these two capabilities we humans will loose our place on the apex of evolution. Chapter 4 - Evolution of Classes and the Demarcation Meridian. How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence.

It is almost like a child being told 3x3=9 not 10, and then turning around and saying "I was wrong, but numbers are stupid anyway!" — I like sushi

Quite so, but then there is absolutely no utility in arguing with a person that believe an AI story on face value and then try to sell it as fact.

I feel like I have wasted my time here for the most part — I like sushi

No problem. I see you have also wasted some time on Youtube with some philosophical ramblings.

So, is an engine your "metaphysical extreme", conforming to your definition of a system?

All this seems quite normal and sensible. One doesn’t demand that there be one Margaret Mead level of definition that would suit a small and impatient child. — apokrisis

Please do not misquote me or Margaret Mead.

I would say that you are looking for a quantifiable definition, so one that is mathematically framed. One that is a geometry of relations. And a geometry that includes the tricky thing of quantifying the notion of what a system is even for. A theory of systems has to account for finality or purpose in some useful way. — apokrisis

Yes, I have such a definition. A definition with a theory behind it. A theory that is translated into the language of mathematics. A theory that is based on a geometry of relations. A theory that has definite utility.

Another tricky thing is that a theory of systems has to capture its ability to develop and self-organise. To grow and to scale. — apokrisis

Yes, my theory contains an understanding of emergence <=> evolution, based on the understanding of mathematically framed classes of systems.

So a systems scientist understands that they are seeking to mathematise and quantify this Aristotelean package. There are then quite an array of such models. And it is a work very much in progress. — apokrisis

I have contributed to this work in progress and I claim my contribution to be definitive. Subject to somebody finding a fatal flaw in my reasoning.

We had a burst of activity in the 1980s with chaos theory, complexity theory, dissipative structure theory, fractals, scalefree networks, and so forth. Category theory added an angle that set theory couldn’t provide. And things continue. Topological order for example. — apokrisis

Yes, and "compartment theory, graph theory net theory, game theory, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera!" "Systems are a fundamental thing: it requires a theory of its own. Our understanding is such a theory." p140 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

So it is curious that all this has been happening to advance systems science and yet you seem not to even know what the field is up to. — apokrisis

Wrong assumption, I know what the field is up to. At least from: Lewis, C.I. (15 March 1923). Facts, Systems, and the Unity of the World. The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 20, No.6, pp. 141 - 151. to Mobus, G.E. (2022), System Science: Theory, Analysis, Modelling, and Design. Springer Nature.

I have a handbook on the science of electricity, written in the 1890's. In which the authors, in the introduction, concede that they know about this new theory of electrons. But this theory is too new and not fully developed and not necessary to understand the science of electricity. All science is a work in progress - this includes systems science.

An engine is a system that converts energy into work.

It would be like asking you as an engineer to give me one fundamental definition of an engine. — apokrisis

At least an engineer knows what is mass, and energy, and entropy, and ... damn, we even know what is a set!

As for the question, what is a system? You (or rather your AI summary) only added one more definition to the list I gleaned from this thread:

A system is ...

• a coherence of differences
• a framework
• a group of elements
• irreducible entities
• a set or universe
• interactions
• elements that interact
• entities
• a set of components
• a Markov blanket
• a hierarchy (your AI definition)

So which one is the correct one or are they all correct or perhaps only a particular sublist of this list?

Your whole schtick about “give me a fundamental definition” is crackpot talk. — apokrisis

Perhaps so, but then, if we cannot agree on what this thing is we are talking about, then how the hell can we talk about it?

Systems science is a large and varied field of study. — apokrisis

Quite so, but then, systems science is only 100 years in the making (the first logic-mathematical definition I found was published in 1923) - and the systems scientists still disagree on what exactly is a system.

On the other hand, philosophy is more than 2,000 years in the making but if there is one thing that I realised is that one should not ask a philosopher for a definition of philosophy.

Please consider:
"If one cannot state a matter clearly enough so that even an intelligent twelve-year-old can understand it, one should remain within the cloistered walls of the university and laboratory until one gets a better grasp of one's subject matter" - Margaret Mead (1901 - 1978)

Yes, you are right (I am wrong) — Pieter R van Wyk

I am still, eagerly, awaiting your definition (or at least your understanding) of a system. — Pieter R van Wyk

I get the drift. But, in my humble opinion, a complementary view that renders the complexity of systems more comprehensible, is neither a definition nor a fundamental understanding.

I gave an example of a physical change that did not alter the physiccal system, in any significant way, with the removal of Neptune from the Solar System. — I like sushi

I deduce that you have read the AI assessment of "If Neptune disappeared". Since AI is incapable of abstract thought I would regard this assessment as highly suspect. This is apart from the fact that your example is still absurd - it is in the same league as: If the heaven should fall, then we will all be waring blue caps.

I am still, eagerly, awaiting your definition (or at least your understanding) of a system.

So far, this is rather rudimentary. — apokrisis

Quite so, but if we do not agree on the basic principles, then we cannot agree on where we are going.

Now, could we agree on the following:

"Physical things exist. We will most certainly argue on how or why they exist and how, exactly, we could understand this existence, but we cannot argue on the fundamental truth of this statement. This is so because I must assume that my perception that I exist, physically, is valid perception. Also, I must assume that my perception that you exist physically, is a valid perception, as are these words that I am typing on a laptop that you are reading, and the table that I am working at, and the chair that I am sitting on. You see, if these assumptions of mine are false, then I do not exist, you do not exist, and the understanding that I am trying to describe to you cannot exist. - then nothing else would make any sense, only our non-existence. However, if and only if we could agree on this, then we could continue with this discourse." p12 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

Stanley Salthe distinguishes compositional (or scalar) hierarchies, which are based on spatiotemporal scale, from subsumption (or specification) hierarchies, which are based on developmental history or logical relationships. The two models help to analyze complex systems from different perspectives.

So, according to this AI summary, a system is: two models, one a compositional hierarchy the other a subsumption hierarchy. Do you agree with my understanding?

Pluto is no longer a 'Planet' it is a 'Dwarf Planet'. Systems can change without losing structure. — I like sushi

I would humbly suggest that you rethink your statement, carefully. Are you suggesting that changing the name or our understanding of a thing, indicates a change in the system that contains this thing? Surely not! You could change the name of Pluto to Sushi and our solar system will stay exactly as it is!

While you are rethinking your statement, perhaps you should rethink your understanding of a system - or, even better, share your definition of a system in this thread. Perhaps that would help us to understand you better.

Regardless, you are wrong. — I like sushi

Yes, you are right (I am wrong); but then, anything can be proved from an absurd statement.

@Outlander
Okey-okey, I get your point. But consider this:

We speak of the solar system.
We cannot agree on what, exactly, is a system.
We make the absurd postulate that one planet could be removed from the solar system.
This could tell us whether the solar system is in fact a system.

Which clever philosopher stated that from a false (absurd) statement, anything can be proved?

This website has an odd reputation for people "promoting their work" (which, unlike yours, is generally not of high quality) so the site owner, and as a result his staff, tend to frown upon self-promotion in general. — Outlander

I have been warned, quite sternly, about self promoting, but was informed that I may reference my own work. I am trying my level best to adhere to this, quite ambiguous, rule.

Interesting place, this forum. I ask a simple question about a definition of a system and end up arguing about absurd nonsensical planetary questions. How odd.

'As of lately a fierce debate has started, even in the public domain, regarding the potential benefits and dangers of artificial intelligence. From our understanding of evolution described in Chapter 3, it is quite easy to understand this debate: Please recollect that there are two attributes of systems that could be used to understand different classes of systems: a classification based on the interaction between a system and a collection of data, and a classification based on the interaction between a system and its purpose. Both these provide an understanding of the evolution of systems. It is my perception that artificial intelligence has progressed quite well in the classes that require interactions with collections of data. It is a very valid and open question if or when artificial intelligence will obtain the capability of abstract thought (Class 7 systems) and even surpass humans.This will not necessarily keep me awake at night, perhaps we humans can learn something from artificial intelligence with this capability. But then, in the worst-case scenario, this might lead to a world war that would surpass any war in the history of Homo sapiens. What most definitely keeps me awake at night is the possibility that artificial intelligence might obtain the capability of survival (Class 3 systems). p117 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence.

@Outlander
Thank you for your kind words and yes the picture in my profile is actually mine. As for the "nice old man" ... that would depend on whom you ask: my grandchildren might agree, might not.

At the moment I do not have any more pertinent questions for this forum. I will comment on some of the other discussions though. It is difficult to share more of my work: 'If I show you a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, they are the only things that you will see - a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. I had to build the puzzle to the extent that the picture starts to appear for you to understand the picture that I see.' p232 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

What exactly is the purpose, extent and method of the Lounge and Shoutbox? Could it help me get a decent, critical, honest review of my work?