Bye! At least I got an answer to my question.

Bye! At least I got an answer to my question. — Pieter R van Wyk

Oh, don't mind him. He's just a bit miffed his series of YouTube video lectures on philosophy didn't quite take off as he may have wished or expected. :wink:

Are you really that nice old man in your profile picture? What a fascinating life you must have lived. I do wish you'd share more, perhaps in the Lounge or Shoutbox? It's fine if not. Time is no commodity, for any of us, really. :confused:

@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?

What exactly is the purpose, extent and method of the Lounge and Shoutbox? — Pieter R van Wyk

Oh, my good sir, that depends wholly and entirely upon whom you ask! Some people consider the Lounge a metaphorically graveyard of sorts, where threads that are less than popular are sent to die. Others consider it a place to test one's ideas and theories to see how weighted they are, as far as value. Sort of a "throwing what have you at the wall to see what sticks" kind of free for all arena. As for me? I just use it to play Chess. :smile:

The Shoutbox is a bit of a random, sort of free-for-all chat. Not unlike the Lounge. Just a social element for "social-ness" sake, I suppose. That said, I've read many a great tale on such a venue. Just a place where if you have something on your mind you think others might find of value, no matter how small, so long as it's genuine, you might wish to comment on and just see what others have to say. Mutual engagement and mutual entertainment, one might reduce such to. Not unlike the regular forum, in which strict rules and prose are to be expected. Just a bit of a fun place really, to speak with others like-minded who may generally hold such concepts to a bit lower standard of necessity than the common person these days.

Could it help me get a decent, critical, honest review of my work? — Pieter R van Wyk

It most certainly could. Though, and I don't mean to impose, are you familiar with recording and uploading video? It might do wonders to get your message across. It's quite simple these days, really. Why, even opening up YouTube almost explains the process perfectly. One side note, however. 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. But if done with tact, subtly, perhaps in a link in one's profile or as I said, interesting and engaging videos, such might occur. Such might occur.

It's great to have a published author engaging here, I'm sure @Jamal would agree. That said, there's a bit of a taboo in regards to self-promotion as far as links and book names and whatnot. But anything short of that, let this venue be your oyster, not unlike the market squares of olde! :smile:

You think this is at all accurate?:

Our solar system is a finely balanced many-body problem, quite difficult to solve mathematically. A two-body problem can be solved analytically but a many-body problem can only be solved numerically. However, please consider the gravitational force exerted on system earth by the following celestial bodies and by system earth on these bodies:

F(sun) = 3.52E22 newton
F(moon) = 1.98E20 newton
F(Neptune) = 2.21E15 newton

In comparison, the worlds total population exerts a force of 4.86E12 newton on system earth.

If any of these celestial bodies would be "removed" from the solar system this fine balance would be catastrophically disrupted and the expected environmental disaster would not be a political talking point, it would be de facto. Or if our solar system evolved sans Neptune, our system earth would have evolved completely different to what it did. — Pieter R van Wyk

Really? :D

As for the "nice old man" ... that would depend on whom you ask: my grandchildren might agree, ↪I like sushi might not. — Pieter R van Wyk

I am not at all concerned about your character. Maybe you are a saint for all I know. Regardless, you are wrong. That is what matters here.

You think this is at all accurate?: — I like sushi

I tend not to involve myself in matters of which I am unfamiliar with. These are titles, vernacular, and above all formulae and mathematics I have never made the decision to study or be informed of, but above all remain ignorant of.

I do agree he is correct as to the "if one planetary body, no matter how minute or seemingly insignificant is removed, great disarray and unrest would follow" claim. I'm fairly certain that's scientific knowledge. Whether those great vanguards who protect such wish to promote it or not.

I suggest you learn a little about gravity first and the scales we are talking about. It would do next to nothing.

I suggest you learn a little about gravity first and the scales we are talking about. It would do next to nothing. — I like sushi

Gravity will be there. It was there before humans and will surely be there after. Why the rush? Why the offense at human error? You act as if you couldn't be an example of such. Couldn't any of us? At least at some point in life? :confused:

I do agree he is correct as to the "if one planetary body, no matter how minute or seemingly insignificant is removed, great disarray and unrest would follow" claim. — Outlander

So we better not send anything from the Earth to the Moon or to Mars and leave it there, because doing so would result in the solar system flying apart.

Oh wait, we're doomed.

Maybe I should have been nicer.

I will keep in mind what you have pointed out here in the future.

So we better not send anything from the Earth to the Moon or to Mars and leave it there, because doing so would result in the solar system flying apart. — wonderer1

No human being has ever created or destroyed a planetary body. That would be space debris. Or a satellite, at best.

You're a fun one, now aren't you?

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.

I ask a simple question about a definition of a system and end up arguing about absurd nonsensical planetary questions. How odd. — Pieter R van Wyk

Is it really, though? They do call it "the solar system", after all. Surely there's some relevance. Fleeting or not. :grin:

@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?

Regardless, you are wrong. — I like sushi

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

The Solar System is a system.

You were just factually wrong. Absurdity has nothing to do with this.

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

Double Post

How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence — Pieter R van Wyk

Ah. You have a self-published theory to push. And you don't seem to have any interest in placing it within the 2500 year old tradition of systems thinking. Explains a lot.

"If and when we consider things, contemplate things and try to understand things, we can consider anything. In doing this we must convert some anything into something. And there are only two ways we can do this: First we could designate some name (perceive some possible purpose) to some collection of anything and then contemplate some valid description of this specific collection. If we can agree on the unique things in this collection we have named, we could have a meaningful conversation about something. This is then the notion of a system, how we understand all physical things, even those physical things that give us a perception and an understanding of abstract things. Let us name this Systems-thinking, for future reference.

If it is not possible to name something and agree on its constituent parts - we could consider some anything in terms of something else. If we could agree on such a relationship, a meaningful conversation could also ensue. This is how we form an understanding of all conceptual things. And this we could name Relation-thinking for future reference. — Pieter R van Wyk

So far, this is rather rudimentary. But it does lean towards the kind of distinction that a contemporary systems thinker like Stanley Salthe makes. The difference between compositional hierarchies based on the relation: "Is-a-part-of" versus subsumption hierarchies where the relation is: "Is-a-kind-of".

I'll let AI generate an instant summary for you....

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.

Compositional (or scalar) hierarchies
This hierarchy is based on nested parts of a whole, defined by differences in magnitude, size, and rate of activity. It provides a snapshot of a system at a given moment in space and time.

Relationship: "Is-a-part-of".

Structure: Portrayed as boxes within boxes, or levels within a system. For example, a population contains organisms, which contain cells, which contain macromolecules.

Dynamic relationships: Lower-level components are constrained by the next higher level. Importantly, downward regulation is not transitive across the entire hierarchy but must be converted at each level.

Way of knowing: Understanding a system involves subdividing it into its constituent parts (a reductionist approach).

Subsumption (or specification) hierarchies
This hierarchy is based on logical or historical sequence, where earlier, more general conditions are subsumed by later, more specific ones. It describes how a system develops over time or how different fields of knowledge build upon one another.

Relationship: "Is-a-kind-of" or "develops-from".

Structure: Portrayed as nested brackets, with more specific classifications contained within more general ones. For example, the biological world is a special type of the material world, which is itself a part of the physical world: {physical world {material world {biological world}}}.

Dynamic relationships: Control or influence from a higher, more specific level (e.g., biological forms) can extend down through all lower levels (e.g., physical forces), as the higher levels impose new informational constraints on the lower ones.

Way of knowing: Understanding a system requires looking at its history or ancestral conditions.

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.

The physical thing does not change. 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.

With the example of Pluto we have seen, in our life times, the conceptual tweaking of how we regard Pluto. In this case an abstract part of the system has changed, but it has not undermined the whole system.

Systems are refined to better encapsulate our understanding. Removing key blocks from a system can undermine it entirely, but not necessarily.

What is often hard to distinguish with the term system is how it can remain wholly abstract, wholly physical and everywhere in between.

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?

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? — Pieter R van Wyk

Two models as two perspectives on the same thing. One offers the synchronic view and the other the diachronic. So one focuses on how a hierarchical systems is, the other on how it developed. One speaks to structure and the other to process.

You get the drift. Complementary views that help make the complexity of a system comprehensible.

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.

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.

If you are still unwilling to admit a simple and plain mistake you made I will you leave you to wallow in disbelief.

I would even make a guess a say when all the planets in the Solar System aligned, back in the 90's I believe, the gravitional impact on Earth was greater than what would happen if Neptune disappeared. I might be wrong, but my basic understanding of gravity tells me this is a correct statement--and the world has not ended.

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

But, in my humble opinion, a complementary view that renders the complexity of systems more comprehensible, is neither a definition nor a fundamental understanding. — Pieter R van Wyk

Opinions are worth shit. Make the argument if you can.

Your whole schtick about “give me a fundamental definition” is crackpot talk. Systems science is a large and varied field of study. It would be like asking you as an engineer to give me one fundamental definition of an engine. One that unifies all the types of engineers that there are.

Oh my. What ever is brewing on your kettle tonight? Something fierce, no doubt. Let us not mistake the strength of one's drink, that it may correlate as such to one's validity.

As an interesting point of fact, most of the fresh foods we eat are grown from manure. I'm not sure if this was the point of your critique or an unintentional backfire, however I leave this here to be judged as it may be.

It would be like asking you as an engineer to give me one fundamental definition of an engine. One that unifies all the types of engineers that there are. — apokrisis

Seems simple enough. A reliable machinery or other thing similar that can predictably intake an expected input and produce an expected result. Not that complicated really, now is it? :confused:

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)