Yes. The modern notion of Systems*1 sometimes gets mired in details. And Bertalanffy's definition was too technical for the layman. 19th century Reductive Science was unable to see the forest for the trees. Which is what made 20th century Quantum Physics so woo-woo mysterious. The forest is not a physical thing (objective), but a metaphysical collective concept (subjective).I am curious, does philosophy have a definition of a system, or even better, a general systems theory? The word is bandied about ad nauseam and I am not convinced that it is always correctly used! — Pieter R van Wyk
A rock is coherent and there is a difference between a rock and a hard place. — Banno
Well said!. That description implies that a System is not a material thing but an energetic process (individual change or group interaction). For example, the human Mind is not the physical brain (neural correlates of consciousness), but one of many command & control Functions of brain processes. The human brain is 2% of body weight, but 20% of energy usage. What is that energy doing besides processing information?A system is formed of its interactions rather than constructed from its components. — apokrisis
There's a kind of semantic bootstrapping here. — Baden
does philosophy have a definition of a system — Pieter R van Wyk
Does this mean that Systems only exist for rational observers? Does a bear have a "conscious construct" of the forest he defecates in, or just the sensory observation of tree A, B, C, etc? Much of the disputation on this forum is about the reality & importance of individual things (Matter) versus our human tendency & ability to categorize real things into ideal aggregations & hierarchies & ecosystems (Mind). :smile:This leads to the conclusion that a system, in our everyday understanding, is a conscious construct. Outside of our cognition, there can't be a separate system apart from other systems. — Astorre
This leads to the conclusion that a system, in our everyday understanding, is a conscious construct. — Astorre
For Physics, Interaction is an exchange of Energy (causation). And for Philosophy, Interaction is an exchange of Information (meaning). Yet, the relationship of Information & Energy*4 is not well known. { https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page30.html } Perhaps the best way to define a holistic System is to describe it in terms of Synergy*5 : energy + together. — Gnomon
A third characteristic I would name is a certain stability over time. If a collection of something instantly falls apart into separate parts, it's hard to call it a system — Astorre
There's an issue I don't think has been raised yet: "system" often carries a connotation of rigidity, though we can certainly point to systems that are flexible and adaptive. My point is, it's always a question with systems.
In your semantic terms, I was thinking about the use of the phrase "the System" (capital S) in the 60s and 70s counterculture. The imputation was of a particular kind of rigidity, a rigidity that extended to this semantic level. Thus the System was thought to see everything in terms of wealth and power and status, and to be blind to, say, art and feeling, on the one hand, or injustice and suffering, on the other. There were categories of no use to the System, and so it did not recognize them at all. You get the idea. — Srap Tasmaner
I justify this by the fact that a system in the world itself can be both an ordered set of everything and a chaotic one. We have no evidence for either the first or the second approach. — Astorre
There's an issue I don't think has been raised yet: "system" often carries a connotation of rigidity, though we can certainly point to systems that are flexible and adaptive. My point is, it's always a question with systems. — Srap Tasmaner
a misunderstanding that arises if you view Nature as a piece of reductionist machinery — apokrisis
It is for these reasons that I gave my own definition. — Astorre
In this case, if we take a chaotic world order as a starting point, then "system" = A, if we take an ordered world order as a starting point, then "system" = B — Astorre
But what if the system is just our idea? Chaos or order - our idea? Maybe everything is somehow different? Science is built on the basic assumptions that the universe has some kind of order. But this is precisely an assumption, which is confirmed by the existence of paradoxes.
So in this case, all our judgments are nothing more than opinions. — Astorre
Burns's Theorem — Srap Tasmaner
To see oursels as others see us!
But at some point the zooming out needed exceeds the human perspective — Srap Tasmaner
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.