Hoffman uses mathematical models to explore how spacetime and physical laws can emerge from these dynamics of conscious agents. — Gnomon
Thanks for reminding me just how much of a crackpot he is. — apokrisis

Yes. From a Materialistic perspective, Hoffman is a heretical thinker, like Immanuel Kant, postulating a veiled noumenal reality (ding an sich) underlying the obvious phenomenal appearances of the physical senses. :smile:


Yes, Immanuel Kant is considered a profoundly important and influential thinker, often regarded as one of the greatest and most significant philosophers of all time.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=kant+important+thinker

Yes, Donald Hoffman is considered an important thinker for his work as a cognitive scientist and popular science author who has challenged the scientific consensus on perception and reality,
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=don+hoffman+important+thinker

:up:

As a general rule I avoid people who believe they have created system for understanding reality - it's usually the hallmark of a crank and monomaniac. — Tom Storm

Are you saying:

• that it is impossible to understand this thing we humans named reality?
• that only cranks and monomaniacs can understand this thing we humans named reality?

Are you saying:

that it is impossible to understand this thing we humans named reality?
that only cranks and monomaniacs can understand this thing we humans named reality? — Pieter R van Wyk

As you'll note I said :-

it's usually the hallmark — Tom Storm

This does not contain any absolutist pronouncements like the two dot points you’ve provided.

But if I treat these as follow-up questions, I would say that 'reality' is not something waiting to be uncovered but a word we use in shifting contexts to describe what we take to be fundamental. I am not inclined to affirm systems that present themselves as having secured the essence of what is, since what we call reality for me is probably better understood as a contingent product of language, culture, and historically situated practices rather than the disclosure of some underlying foundation.

In my experience, there is always someone on the periphery, doggedly trying to describe reality and reconcile all myths and principles into a single system. They invariably believe themselves misunderstood, refusing to accept that others regard them as cranks.

A fine literary satire of this familiar type was provided by a favourite English writer, George Eliot. In Middlemarch she created the elderly pedant Mr. Casaubon, forever labouring over his great tome, The Key to All Mythologies.

that only cranks and monomaniacs can understand this thing we humans named reality? — Pieter R van Wyk

Maybe that would be better restated as, "only cranks and monomaniacs believe they can undertand reality."

In any case, I don’t rule out possibilities, but I tend to see the idea of “uncovering reality” as an old-fashioned, romantic notion whose prospects are, at the very least, uncertain.

As a general rule I avoid people who believe they have created system for understanding reality - it's usually the hallmark of a crank and monomaniac. — Tom Storm

Mm, surely you see there is ample room for a bit of irony or "reversing the argument" (whichever seems more apt) here.

Challenge: reply first without clicking 'Reveal'.

Nice try, I like this and I can see your reasoning but I think it's an inadequate read of what I said.

I wrote :-

probably better understood — Tom Storm

There’s nuance here. I’m not claiming to have fully solved fundamental questions of reality, nor have I developed a system. I haven’t claimed to have understood the nature of reality, either. In fact, I’m questioning whether 'reality' is even a useful term and provided soem reasons. What I have suggested is a provisional orientation, perhaps a soft form of postmodernism that remains open to revision. Which is why I also wrote:

...I don’t rule out possibilities, — Tom Storm

At any rate, the point we're discussing is comprehensive explanations and system-building where there's a claim made that the precise nature of reality has been described, not whether people can hold certain pragmatic presuppositions or tendencies in their everyday lives. What defines a 'crank' (in most instances like this) I would say is the obsession with elaborate system building to 'resolve' age old questions, not the simple act of having opinions or beliefs.

In my experience, there is always someone on the periphery, doggedly trying to describe reality and reconcile all myths and principles into a single system — Tom Storm

Yes, on the face of it, describing reality with a single system does seem to be far fetched, perhaps even absurd. But then, this would depend on one's understanding of reality - an ambiguous notion it would seem - as well as one's understanding of a system - which is exactly the question contemplated by this discussion - also, it would seem, an ambiguous notion.

Perhaps a better question would be: How do we understand things? Please consider:

"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. In both instances some anything is understood as something. p16 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

Yes, on the face of it, describing reality with a single system does seem to be far fetched, perhaps even absurd. But then, this would depend on one's understanding of reality - an ambiguous notion it would seem - as well as one's understanding of a system - which is exactly the question contemplated by this discussion - also, it would seem, an ambiguous notion. — Pieter R van Wyk

I was just describing something I’ve seen. I don’t think it’s a particularly important point. Whether someone is a monomaniac or not hardly matters. We can always ignore them. Who knows, one of them may eventually turn out to be Kant.

Thank you all for your contribution, and the debate that followed from: Does philosophy have a definition of a system? The second question, ... or better, a general systems theory; seemed to be a bit premature for philosophy.

Since the debate seemed to dry up, allow me to summarise the ten definitions that was mentioned. I will do this in the format; A system is ... that ...

@Baden a coherency of differences ... differentiate.
@Gnomon a framework ... possesses properties.
@T Clark a group of elements ... interact.
@MoK irreducible entities ... has a set of properties.
@jgill a set or universe ... explain meaning.
@apokrisis interactions ... is successful.
@Astorre elements that interact ... form properties that stabilise.
@Outlander entities ... recognise with intent of an outcome.
@punos a set of components ... constitute a whole.
@Apustimelogist a Markov blanket ... separate a thing from its environment.

From this I conclude that the answer to my question is NO, only some notions with some similarities. But then, neither does systems- scientist and thinkers have an answer to this question.

Some follow-up questions, if you are thus inclined:

From your definition:

• How do you determine what is part of the system and what is not?
• Is it possible for a system to contain a system?
• If yes, what exactly is a system of all systems?

Does philosophy have a definition of a system? The second question, ... or better, a general systems theory; seemed to be a bit premature for philosophy. — Pieter R van Wyk

Apparently, you didn't get a definition that suited your purposes. Perhaps, you should specify a philosophical problem or application to which you want to apply Systems Thinking*1*2. For me, Jan Smuts' definition of Holism in Evolution*3 can also be applied to various philosophical questions. :smile:

PS___ You quoted Gnomon to say that a System has "properties". But it might be more accurate, for philosophical purposes, to say that an Integrated Whole System has non-physical Qualities, such as Life and Mind.


*1. Systems thinking is a holistic approach to problem-solving that views issues as part of a larger, interconnected system, focusing on relationships, feedback loops, and patterns rather than isolated components.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=systems+thinking

*2. The philosophy of systems thinking is a holistic approach that views phenomena as interconnected systems, moving beyond isolated problems to understand underlying structures, feedback loops, and long-term, systemic consequences. It emphasizes the whole being greater than the sum of its parts and is rooted in biology, cybernetics, and ecology, aiming to create more effective, adaptive, and sustainable solutions by considering the entire web of relationships within a complex situation.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+of+systems+thinking

*3. Holism :
Unfortunately, Holism is still controversial in Philosophy. That is primarily due to the practical and commercial success of reductive methods in the physical sciences. Methodological Reductionism attempts to understand a composite system by breaking it down into its component parts. And that approach works well for mechanical devices, but not so well for living things.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html

Apparently, you didn't get a definition that suited your purposes. Perhaps, you should specify a philosophical problem or application to which you want to apply Systems Thinking — Gnomon

My purpose is clearly stated in my question, nothing more, nothing less. And, it would seem, I got me an answer.

My purpose is clearly stated in my question, nothing more, nothing less. And, it would seem, I got me an answer. — Pieter R van Wyk

Yes, on the face of it, describing reality with a single system does seem to be far fetched, perhaps even absurd. But then, this would depend on one's understanding of reality - an ambiguous notion it would seem - as well as one's understanding of a system - which is exactly the question contemplated by this discussion - also, it would seem, an ambiguous notion. — Pieter R van Wyk

To describe cosmic reality with a "single system" might require omniscience. But that hasn't stopped ambitious philosophers from trying*1, including yours truly. I get the impression that System Building is offensive --- arrogant, absurd, ambiguous --- to those for whom everything is relative, or for whom the universe is random instead of systematic & logical.

Most major religions have diagnosed a broken System, and offer some approach to repairing the break. Many are faith-based, with solutions only available to blindfolded believers. Others are methodical, such as Buddhism, offering a psychological technology for mind control. But even the Buddha admitted that ego-snuffing Enlightenment is a rare achievement. And resurrection & reincarnation merely postpone a final solution to some indefinite future heaven or nirvana. Some religions & philosophies blame the victims for their suffering, due to inherent weaknesses of human nature. In that case, the broken System is blamed on physicality instead of spirituality, the duality of Soul & Body.

Apparently, the answer you were searching for is that Philosophy does not have an answer to "What is a System". Seems you prefer to avoid Systems Thinking in favor of Categorical Philosophy*2, such as Kant's Imperative, or your own "Logic of Existence"*3. Is your theory a complete system, a moral law, or just another "ambiguous notion"? Is the answer "that there is no logical answer" : that Faith is the only answer? :smile:


*1. Philosophical system building is the creation of a comprehensive and coherent worldview that provides answers to major philosophical questions about reality, knowledge, morality, and existence. This approach involves connecting diverse ideas into a unified structure, drawing inspiration from figures like Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, and Whitehead. Systems philosophy also represents a modern philosophical approach that applies systems concepts to construct worldviews, emphasizing interconnectedness and emergent properties.

*2. "Categorical philosophy" most commonly refers to Immanuel Kant's concept of the categorical imperative, a universal moral law stating that one should act only according to principles that could rationally be willed as a universal law for everyone, and always treat humanity as an end in itself, never merely as a means to an end. This means that moral actions are binding absolutely, regardless of personal desires or goals, making them universal and obligatory for all rational beings
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=categorical+philosophy

*3. "How I Understand Things: The Logic of Existence"is a book that questions traditional philosophical and logical frameworks to explore how we perceive and understand existence, challenging the notion that logic can fully capture the nature of being. The work critiques classic systems like rationalism and phenomenology, arguing that their separation of mind and body, or their overemphasis on conceptualization, fails to grasp the pervasive reality of existence itself. Instead, it proposes that existence is signified by the verb "to be" within a judgment, rather than residing in the subject or predicate, and invites readers to re-examine their perceptions of knowledge and reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=How+I+Understand+Things.+The+Logic+of+Existence
Note --- Heidegger's system, Dasein, is interwoven instead of isolated.

How do you determine what is part of the system and what is not? — Pieter R van Wyk

If you subtract a part from the system, does it cease to act as a system?

So one could remove any cog in a watch and it would stop telling the time. But if you got a bucket and tried to scoop out every whorl in a turbulent stream, whorls would just keep reappearing until you changed the whole system. Like cutting off the water flow or cooling it until it changed state and became a frozen block of ice.

You will note this is an easy way to tell mechanical systems and natural systems apart. And so why a mechanical view of nature is felt not to be enough by many philosophers.

Is it possible for a system to contain a system? — Pieter R van Wyk

Topological order tells you that systems form within systems to create a nested hierarchy of order. One kind of thing can become the ground for the next kind of thing. But now your maths and physics has to start getting sophisticated to handle that.

However a simple example might be that if a stream freezes, you can now walk across it. Constraints imposed at the level of H2O molecules become freedoms created at the level of some new system that can construct itself upon them.

If yes, what exactly is a system of all systems? — Pieter R van Wyk

The Greeks called it a Cosmos. We call it the Universe. Metaphysics would try to understand it as the metalogic of existence. A General Systems Theory such as you have already dismissed. :up:

*3. "How I Understand Things: The Logic of Existence"is a book that questions traditional philosophical and logical frameworks to explore how we perceive and understand existence, challenging the notion that logic can fully capture the nature of being. The work critiques classic systems like rationalism and phenomenology, arguing that their separation of mind and body, or their overemphasis on conceptualization, fails to grasp the pervasive reality of existence itself. Instead, it proposes that existence is signified by the verb "to be" within a judgment, rather than residing in the subject or predicate, and invites readers to re-examine their perceptions of knowledge and reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=How+I+Understand+Things.+The+Logic+of+Existence — Gnomon

I have read this response to my work by an artificial intelligent (AI) agent. One should keep in mind that AI has not obtained the capability of abstract thought as yet. Thus, AI is incapable to understand my work. I am still hoping to find an "astute reader", capable of abstract thought and who subscribe to Leonardo da Vinci's dictum, "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using memory."

If you subtract a part from the system, does it cease to act as a system? — apokrisis

Yes!

So one could remove any cog in a watch and it would stop telling the time. But if you got a bucket and tried to scoop out every whorl in a turbulent stream, whorls would just keep reappearing until you changed the whole system. Like cutting off the water flow or cooling it until it changed state and became a frozen block of ice. — apokrisis

I understand what you are saying, but I fail to see its relevance to the question.

You will note this is an easy way to tell mechanical systems and natural systems apart. And so why a mechanical view of nature is felt not to be enough by many philosophers. — apokrisis

You cannot tell me, exactly, what is a system, yet you maintain that your notion (of a system) can distinguish between mechanical systems and natural systems. Then you complain that philosophers finds this insufficient. How odd.

Topological order tells you that systems form within systems to create a nested hierarchy of order. One kind of thing can become the ground for the next kind of thing. But now your maths and physics has to start getting sophisticated to handle that. — apokrisis

Really, 'systems form within systems', how does this happen? By your definition interactions forms a system (by some unspecified process, I assume), then somehow decide to form a system within a system. How odd.

The meta-mathematics required to describe a fundamental general system is actually quite simple.

The Greeks called it a Cosmos. We call it the Universe. Metaphysics would try to understand it as the metalogic of existence. — apokrisis

You did not answer my question. From your definition then: some interactions formed a system of all systems and you call it the Universe. And this Universe is your 'metaphysical extreme'?

A General Systems Theory such as you have already dismissed. :up: — apokrisis

"Those who say it cannot be done, should not interrupt those who are doing it."

If you subtract a part from the system, does it cease to act as a system? — apokrisis


Yes! — Pieter R van Wyk

I believe the answer to this question is not as simple as yes or no. Removing a single part from a system does not necessarily mean it ceases to be a system, although it might. Removing a part may simply change how the system functions. Likewise, adding a part to the system will result in a functional change, or the new part may completely disrupt the system and cause it to collapse or break.

It seems to me that there exists a minimal construct that represents the simplest form of a particular kind of system. Subtracting any part from this minimal system will destroy it, while adding parts may or may not destroy it, depending of course on the compatibility of the new part with the existing system structure. This essentially allows a system to either evolve or go extinct.

So i do think your answer to the question is correct, but only in the context of a minimally viable system.

Thus, AI is incapable to understand my work. I am still hoping to find an "astute reader", capable of abstract thought and who subscribe to Leonardo da Vinci's dictum, "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using memory." — Pieter R van Wyk

Is anyone on this forum capable of understanding your work? Have you found an "astute reader" elsewhere? If so, how do they answer your challenge : "what is a system?" Has anyone found a "fatal error" in your reasoning?

I don't consider Google's AI Overview to be an authority, but it is a good sifting filter for combing through complex verbiage, abstruse terminology, and esoteric discourse, in order to provide a capsule summary for non-experts. And it provides links to human-authored sources, where abstruse abstractions may be defined in common language.

Your cryptic descriptions in this thread seem to convey what your non-system is not, but leaves undefined (nebulous) what it is. Apparently, whatever-it-is is not General Systems Theory, as defined by Bertalanffy, to distinguish Holism from Reductionism, and to broaden science's focus on isolated parts & sub-systems.

This thread has devolved to a sideline debate on whether "rocks have beliefs". Could you give us a dumbed-down hint, for us non-astute readers, of your ingenious definition of a System, to get us back on track? :smile:


*1. General Systems Theory :
Systems theory is an interdisciplinary field of study that views the world as a complex network of interconnected and interdependent parts, where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It emphasizes how these components interact and influence each other within a larger system, providing a holistic perspective that contrasts with reductionist approaches. Originating in biology with figures like Ludwig von Bertalanffy, it has been applied to diverse fields such as psychology, sociology, ecology, and engineering to understand and address complex problems.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=general+systems+theory

*2. How can you determine what is part of a system?
first define the system's purpose and boundary, then identify its interrelated components (elements, interconnections, function) that, when working together, produce a whole greater than the sum of its parts. An essential component is one whose removal prevents the system from achieving its goals.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+to+determine+what+is+a+part+of+a+system
Note --- If the universe/cosmos is a System, what component is essential to its purpose? If the system has no function or purpose, is it actually a System? Is that your point?

How do you determine what is part of the system and what is not?
Is it possible for a system to contain a system?
If yes, what exactly is a system of all systems? — Pieter R van Wyk

In the Markov Blanket perspective, there are no strict boundaries and systems under this definition can be recursively nested within each other, which is natural; molecules in cellular components in cells in organs in people in societies, ecosystems, solar systems, etc, etc.

Because its a rigorous formal framework, it can be put into practise. An interesting proposal in this paper where they do this, producing algorithms for distinguishing systems and components of systems - "a Markov Blanket detection algorithm".

https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.21217

It seems to me that there exists a minimal construct that represents the simplest form of a particular kind of system. Subtracting any part from this minimal system will destroy it, while adding parts may or may not destroy it, depending of course on the compatibility of the new part with the existing system structure. This essentially allows a system to either evolve or go extinct. — punos

But this is just dumbing down the idea of a system to make it fit our idea of a machine as the canonical system.

The metaphysical definition of a system dates back to Aristotle's view of causality which said the natural world is formed of its four causes – efficient and material cause coupled to formal and final cause. So a system has all four causes, and thus functionality is part of its essence. But a machine is merely, in itself, just a "system" of material and efficient cause. It is a severely reduced system in that half its reason for being has gone missing in the larger story that metaphysics would want to tell.

So consider this. Is a watch part of a system for telling the time?

And then is a cog also part of a system for telling the time? Or perhaps only a part of a system for the more general task of constructing clockworks and other systems where control over gearing ratios is off prime functional concern?

So a watch can be part of a time telling system. Humans can have this need to measure out the day as if time were itself a mechanical process. And then quite naturally, mechanisms that can do that job will start to emerge in the world. The desire is realised as a form that becomes imposed on material being as some precisely engineered arrangement of efficient cause.

The word "system" properly applies to the four cause level of analysis. The whole of what is going on. The systems view is what closes some set of interactions so that they exhibit emergence and self-organisation.

Humans want to tell the time. They might start by dividing the passing of the day using a sun-dial. Then clockwork might do the job better. Eventually a digital circuit can use the vibrations of a crystal to count out time beats with incredible precision.

But these devices just tell the time. That is, there is someone for whom the information matters. The someone that closes the system of causes by having a goal and determining its form.

If the watch on your wrist breaks – say a cog snaps off – then do you wait forever to see if the watch starts to heal itself, evolve its way back to functionality? Or do you take advantage of there being shops that fix watches, and shops that can sell you better watches – in short, a general human system for time-telling that is self-organising in ways that come together to serve that general purpose.

So then a General Systems Theory would extend that very human-centric view of causality to Nature at its most generic level. The minimal system in that "whole of nature" regard.

We would get back to Aristotle's four causes, but now equipped with what modern science and maths has to say about self-organising complexity and dissipative structure.

But this is just dumbing down the idea of a system to make it fit our idea of a machine as the canonical system. — apokrisis

I wouldn’t call it a “dumbing down”, but more of a “focusing in”. For me, a system is a kind of machine, and a machine is a kind of system, so i don’t really make a distinction between the two terms.

As for the rest of what you wrote, i mostly agree, although i don’t use Aristotle’s causal framework. I think you’re right about the watch. The watch is both a product of and a part of the larger system of human timekeeping, and it serves the purpose of that larger system. The cog is to the watch as the watch is to the system of time keeping.

For me, a system is a kind of machine, and a machine is a kind of system, so i don’t really make a distinction between the two terms. — punos

Well exactly. But system science does.

So at best you can argue that there are mechanical systems that exist as a subset of the more general metaphysical notion of a system, which is the Aristotelean four causes one.

You personally might not make this distinction. And indeed it is quite common for folk to fail to make this distinction. Yet it is a distinction that exists in philosophy and was about Aristotle's most important contribution to the history of ideas.

The cog is to the watch as the watch is to the system of time keeping. — punos

As I also have said, systems can form nested hierarchies of systems. Aristotle's four causes describes the basic structure of a hierarchy – a system that marries top-down formal and final constraint to its bottom-up material and efficient freedom. Then within this cosmic-level structure, you can have any number of systems within systems. Galaxies, stars and solar systems. Plate tectonics, landscapes, the paddocks of a farm.

So a cog is to the watch as the watch is to time-keeping. Except the watch as a system is caught between the clockwork that is its material and efficient causes, and the world of watch-wearers with their keen interest in keeping an accurate count of the passing of the hours, minutes, and even sometimes the seconds.

So yes, the watch has to be made of something – its cogs as toothed disks of brass that can be locked into patterns of efficient cause. And it also has to do something in a functional sense. It exists in the final analysis as there is this top-down constraint in the form of a society of creatures who have the burning need to make a count of the passing of time.

Why does a watch exist? We can't answer that question fully without following Aristotle's four cause approach. The hierarchical logic that defines the holism of a system – even if it is a sub-system within the system that is Cosmos as a whole.

Well exactly. But system science does.

So at best you can argue that there are mechanical systems that exist as a subset of the more general metaphysical notion of a system, which is the Aristotelean four causes one. — apokrisis

Why would that be the best i can argue?

And yes, i understand that systems science, and others, may or may not distinguish between a system and a machine, but i do not (for a reason, not out of ignorance), and that approach has not failed me so far. I’m also certain that the Aristotelian way of looking at it is an excellent method for making these system determinations, but i prefer to use my own energy-information framework to work these things out. Each of the four Aristotelian causes is fundamentally an energy-information system, or the product of a one. Each one is some mixture of formative information and causal energy.

Why would that be the best i can argue? — punos

What would you be arguing over? The mathematical notion of subsets? That the set of two things is a subset of the set of four things?

And yes, i understand that systems science, and others, may or may not distinguish between a system and a machine, but i do not (for a reason, not out of ignorance), — punos

So what is this reason?

but i prefer to use my own energy-information framework to work these things out. — punos

Did you mean entropy-information? Kind of like holography, dissipative structure theory, and other examples of physics turning to explicit use of systems metaphysics?

Each of the four Aristotelian causes is fundamentally an energy-information system, or the product of a one. Each one is some mixture of formative information and causal energy. — punos

Uh huh. So Aristotlean hylomorphism as the way his four causes cash out as a hierarchical systems view of substantial being?

Except probably not as hylomorphism arranges things into form/finality as top-down constraint and material/efficient causality as the bottom-up constructing degrees of freedom.

So what you describe is the division into the global structure that constrains and the local potential that gets thus shaped up. The whole produces the parts that are of the right type to (re)construct the whole. But then in contradiction, both the whole and parts are mixes of constraints and potentials themselves?

Perhaps you can explain what you would mean by formal and final cause, and material and efficient causes, being mixtures as you describe. Like what are the proportions in each case and how does that explain the differences between the four causes?

I mean one does want to be able to see how the four causes become the dichotomy of material and formal cause in the hylomorphic formulation. But that doesn’t appear too hard to explain in terms of the local-global distinction being paired with a particular-general distinction.

Finality as the long-run general goal and formal causal as the immediate and particular structure achieving that goal. Then materiality as the long-run general potential and efficient cause as the immediate particular action that results from that general material possibility.

So four gets “reduced” to two x two. You get a global vs local division. But now also a particular vs general division that cuts across that.

This could be what you are angling at. Each of the four causes is itself a mix of the two directions in which the pie can be sliced. Local-global in scale and particular-general in terms of, well, scale.

Material cause would become the raw global potency that is also the sharply individuated possibility.

Efficient cause becomes the sharply particular action which is itself a general long-run feature of the causal order.

Likewise finality is the generality of a purpose that is then also being narrowed to a specific aim, while form is the specific structure that could in fact be a generic class on answers. You can any kind of drainage pattern to empty your bath or organise your thunderstorm, but actually it has to be vortical.

So yes, even duality looks to require duality to complete its duality. What gets broken one way must in return break that which could have broken it, thus returning everything to a unifying whole.

Kind of just like the BIg Bang universe as the double inversion of that which starts out ultimately hot and small in scale to become the ultimately cold and large. The story of a constant doubling in spacetime extent that produces the constant halving of its energy density content.

So hot=>cold because small=>large. And in the end, nothing has changed even though everything has indeed changed. You have inversions of scale in two different directions - extent and content - but each also cancels out the other. Least extent and maximum content become maximum extent and least content.

I’m just pointing out that this kind of doubled inversion is both really complicated to imagine when it is an unfamiliar idea but also that systems logic is how we are now finding our universe to actually be.

It might be where your own metaphysics was headed. That might be why the four causes seem also to have their own further internal structure. As indeed I agree that they do. Each is defined by its positioning within a pair of reciprocal contrasts. The local-global and the particular-general. The kind of complex matrix multiplication that modern physics does need to employ to keep track of the symmetry breaking that is fundamental to the story of the Big Bang cosmos.

I believe the answer to this question is not as simple as yes or no. Removing a single part from a system does not necessarily mean it ceases to be a system, although it might. Removing a part may simply change how the system functions. Likewise, adding a part to the system will result in a functional change, or the new part may completely disrupt the system and cause it to collapse or break.

It seems to me that there exists a minimal construct that represents the simplest form of a particular kind of system. Subtracting any part from this minimal system will destroy it, while adding parts may or may not destroy it, depending of course on the compatibility of the new part with the existing system structure. This essentially allows a system to either evolve or go extinct.

So i do think your answer to the question is correct, but only in the context of a minimally viable system. — punos

Perhaps an interesting argument but, surely, a valid definition of a system must answer the question that is implied by your argument, not so?

If you read this "thread" carefully you should find that I did not offered any definition of a system. In fact I asked whether philosophy has such a definition:

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

Also, I think I have proved my point: The word system is bandied about ad nauseam without any agreed upon understanding, only some ambiguous notions.

Then, AI might be a good "sifting filter" but it cannot recognise a valid new contribution to knowledge. Yes, of course, it could tell you whether a certain understanding is in agreement with the understanding of: Aristotle, Jean Baudrillard, Georg Cantor, Charles Darwin, Kurt Godel, Douglas Kellner, Nicholas Reschar, Bertrand Russel, Ernst Zermelo or any other name one could add to this list; or not. Any new knowledge, real, abstract or imaginary is quite beyond its current capability. For these things you will have to use human intelligence.

It would depend entirely on your use of the word 'system'. A quick look at a standard dictionary entry will reveal that the term can be applied in different ways.

Removing something from a system may or may not render it useless. A cog from a clock would likely render it useless, whereas removing the planet Neptune from the solar system would not result in the Solar System no longer existing.

Words can have mulitple meanings and used in an infinite number of sentences.

Abstractions are abstractions. How and why you apply them is up to you. The uses of doing so have limitations.

Perhaps an interesting argument but, surely, a valid definition of a system must answer the question that is implied by your argument, not so? — Pieter R van Wyk

Not so. The manner in which we use language need not be rational. If anything it helps to either obscure or highlight irrational thoughts and deal with (or not).

A valid definition has nothing much to do with a valid argument.

P1: Potatoes only Eat People.
P2: A Potato has Eaten.

C: A Person has been Eaten.

How I am defining Potato/Potatoes, Person/People and Eat/Eaten is irrelevant.

If the term 'system' can be used in various ways for abstract and physical systems. What you are trying to ask for is something like the height of a human being. There is no definite answer to this, only a set of limits. Which is, ironically, probably a valid definition of what a system necessarily is. Such a definition also deals with the Set of All Sets, as this could not be a definition according to what I have just said as it has not limits.

A totally concede that the colloquial use of the word system is ambiguous, hence my question whether philosophy has a definition of a system. A definition that would remove this ambiguity.

Let me explain with an example: The colloquial use of the word set is just as ambiguous. But in mathematics, therefore also in engineering as well as technology; an ambiguous understanding of set is totally not acceptable. If I may quote the mathematician Charles Wells: "The word or phrase being defined may involve a word that already exists, but the connotations associated with that word are worthless when one undertake to prove something about the concept that the definition defines." or Alexander Backlund: "To bear Systems Theory in mind one should envision some sort of logical and mathematical basis as a formal unambiguous language."

The ambiguity of a set is removed, for example, with axioms such as those by Zermelo and Fraenkel. It would seem that no such understanding of a system is available.

I merely enquired whether philosophy has "some sort of logical" definition of a system - philosophers bandy the word around just as most other people. In fact, in 2000, Nicholas Rescher proposed that concepts such as: cohesive systematisation, systemic order, systemic role, system of explanatory understanding, ... just might pay The Price of an Ultimate Theory, but failed to define what he understood with the word system.

I have asked my question, I have my answer. Thank you for your participation.

By the way, if Neptune is removed from our solar system, all life on earth will cease to exist - we would not know whether the solar system would still exist or not.

By the way, if Neptune is removed from our solar system, all life on earth will cease to exist - we would not know whether the solar system would still exist or not. — Pieter R van Wyk

How so?

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.

I assume your question was just out of curiosity, or do you want to make a point?

Just chekcing to see how knowldgeable you are in terms of basic phsyics.

Looks like you are lacking in multiple fields and still not worth talking to.

Bye