An engine is a system that converts energy into work.

So which one is the correct one or are they all correct or perhaps only a particular sublist of this list? — Pieter R van Wyk

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

An engine is a system that converts energy into work. — Pieter R van Wyk

Correct. So it is a thermodynamic system, a mechanical system and an intentional system. Or at least part of a social and economic system that values free energy as “work”.

So somehow it is both a part and a whole. It exists in a world that is a multiplicity of systems and yet also a system in itself. Each its own little world of maths and quantification for the engineer.

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.

This is you saying you are wrong?

Here:

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

And here:

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 — Pieter R van Wyk

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!"

As for a defintion? I guess something like: When items (physical or abstract) interact and/or organise resulting in a reasonably persistent cohesive pattern. This is called a System. All Systems are necessarily limit bound.

I have already given you an example of a physical system and one that straddles both the abstract and the physical. The means by which you can understand the effects of gravity is by using the abstract system of mathematics. I am System. You are a System.

Anyway, enjoy yourself here. I feel like I have wasted my time here for the most part. Should have left it, but I am an eternal optimist about the capacities of others and my ability to communicate (much less so the later!).

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.

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.

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.

I claim my contribution to be definitive. Subject to somebody finding a fatal flaw in my reasoning. — Pieter R van Wyk

So you self-publish on Amazon and try to drum up attention on some random philosophy forum with aggressive demands for definitions of “what is a system” that you can then dismiss. Never getting around to explaining what is so definitive about your own new contribution.

Doesn’t seem crackpot at all.

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

I see you have also wasted some time on Youtube with some philosophical ramblings. — Pieter R van Wyk

:D

It was very useful actually.

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. — Pieter R van Wyk

You were wrong. AI story? It is pretty run-of-the-mill knowledge. Is a secondary school grade understanding of gravitional fields really something people need AI to understand? for you it seems, but even then you do not believe it because you lack the basic understanding

At least you are showing what you are plain and clear for everyone.

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.

No problem. I see you have also wasted some time on Youtube with some philosophical ramblings. — Pieter R van Wyk

Hey now, let's be fair. What the heck else is anyone here doing? He's the only one I've seen so far who actually puts his face and voice behind his belief aside from mindless typing to strangers in states of various dishevelment (I assume that's how everyone else posts, but perhaps that's just me).

And what a shame that is! Why doesn't the site owner post videos. Or the mods, especially the ones who have great things to say. It's a tragedy. That's what it is, a tragedy. That most of us are either so shy or so non-dedicated we refuse to put ourselves out there.

So I do praise @i like sushi for doing that much. At the very least. And you too, what with your book. However, and it may not be your fault as certain people are not good under pressure and not able to "instantly respond" and require a quiet, relaxed environment and steady pace to do so, especially with age... I mean, why not post a few videos promoting your book and what you have to say? It's not going to kill you! Will it? :chin:

[

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.

Now look what you've gone and done. You made a poor old man "concede". How noble. Surely all great men wake up each morning with such a desire in their heart.

You're a slick talker. I can admit I've been fooled by your veneer here more than once. Nevermore. But I'll tell you now. If I wasn't retired. The lesson me and my sword would teach the likes of you, would be legendary. Nothing short of cataclysmic.

What’s with the twee NPC soliloquies?

We speak of the solar system.
We {you} 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. — Pieter R van Wyk

Perhaps, to retain an air of mystery, you have avoided defining the key term in your thread*1. But you seem to have in mind a simplistic concept of a system : like the game Jenga, where players try to avoid removing the essential part of a stack of static wooden blocks. That's a simple gravitation system.

The solar system though is a complex and dynamic system of bodies moving in space, within a larger system of galaxies. It's not likely to fall apart if one planet was destroyed by an extra-solar asteroid. Who has ever made such an "absurd postulate"? Various theories have attempted to explain the asteroid belt as the debris from a collision that "removed one planet from the system". But nobody postulated that the Sol-dominated system itself would fall apart and fly off into space. There is a mysterious organizing force that holds the system together.

One problem with the solar system example is "where do you draw the line" : the boundary between planetary system and inter-stellar space? The other issue is "what makes a bunch of blobs arrayed around a medium yellow star into a system worthy of a name"? Why not include all the rest of the Milky Way galaxy in your system? What is the "function" of our local system that makes it unique for Earth-bound observers? Could it be that the "purpose" of a planet in the habitable zone is to provide a habitat for humans? If not Earth, perhaps an extra-solar planetoid could serve the purpose. In modern evolutionary theory, the solar system as-a-whole functions as a life-friendly gravitational system, allowing biological stuff to emerge.

Systems are like logical Sets*2 : there are sets within sets within sets : a nested set hierarchy. But the set is simply a definition . . . created by a human mind. So you can include as many elements (parts) as you like. If you remove one keystone element, that set may vanish and become a member of a larger set.

So, you are correct that there is no such thing as a System. It's just an idea, not an object : a definition, not a ding an sich ; an organization, not a mess.. :smile:

*1. Philosophical Systems :
To determine what is part of a system, you must first define its purpose and boundaries, and then identify the interacting elements, interconnections, and the system's environment that together produce a unified whole. The process involves a self-determined definition of the system's scope, focusing on the parts essential for fulfilling its function rather than the entire universe of possibilities.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+to+determine+what+is+a+part+of+a+system

*2. Logical Sets :
In logic and mathematics, a set is a well-defined collection of distinct objects (called elements or members) that are thought of as a whole. Set logic refers to the use of logical operations within set theory, where basic logical connectives like "and" correspond to set operations such as intersection, while the study of sets itself is a foundational branch of mathematics for precise definitions.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=set+logic+definition

IS THIS AN ORGANIZED SYSTEM OR A DISORGANIZED CHAOS?
What is the purpose of stacked rocks?

I recommend you try it yourself even if you do not publish. It can be an eye opener to watch and listen to yourself trying to explain something as concisely as you can on the fly. I recommend it to everyone I meet when discussing more intellectual claptrap :)

I have had several video calls from members on this site with the intent to record and publish on youtube to perhaps help boost interest in the forum--which I hope they enjoyed as much as I do. Only one was happy to be recorded though, and they were in academia. Sadly I accidently lost/erased the video, but it needed editing anyway due to the natural rambling (which I did not have time for).

I prefer a more face-to-face dialogue as it usually cuts through the BS and is usually more time efficient, as well as genuine: can get just as messy as threads here though but certainly more amicable.

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)

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) — Pieter R van Wyk

So, you agree that the seemingly haphazard stack of irregularly shaped rocks is a "system", in the sense that it was produced, not by Nature, nor by mountain goats, but by a sentient agent with a future purpose in mind : navigation aid or abstract art???

Hence, a "System" can be defined as the deliberately organized result of imagination or intention? That would imply some ultimate intent, not an accident, that arranged a collection of rocky & gassy planets into a life-bearing arrangement of factors necessary for animation to emerge. Yes? :smile:

PS___ Astrobiologists have produced theories of necessities for extra-solar life to emerge. But, for most, divine or design Intention is not one of the essential requirements for a Living habitat or System to coalesce from random patterns of stars & planets .

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

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

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 — Pieter R van Wyk

Now we're getting somewhere : a definition of "System" that may be relevant to the covert purpose of this thread. Example : A System is a collection of things designed for a specific purpose or function*1. Question : designed (created?) by Accident or Intention? Or, in the case of universals*2, not designed, nor contingent, but eternal & self-existent, like Plato's Form. But is the Purpose/Function top-down intentional, or bottom-up inferred, or both? :chin:

Note --- I've learned a new mathematical or logical symbol ":=" for the purposes of this work, the word to the left is stipulated to mean the description on the right.

There is one, and only one, system that is not a component of any other system. Named the Universal system — Pieter R van Wyk

Traditionally, "The Universal System" has been labeled God, or some variation like Brahman (ultimate, unchanging, and infinite reality) . But is that unique set-of-all-things Real (tangible) or Ideal (conceptual) ; Quanta or Qualia ; Immanent or Transcendent? Spinoza and Smuts*3 identified the "one and only one" System with the immanent Universe or Nature. But the Big Bang theory has raised the question of some prior or higher Set or System. Alas, Multiverse & Many Worlds systems seem to water-down the notion of uniqueness. :smile:


*1. A "whole system" refers to an entire, self-contained entity consisting of numerous interconnected components and their relationships, working together to achieve a specific purpose or function. It emphasizes the totality of the system, including its structure, behavior, interactions, and the environment in which it operates. The concept is central to systems thinking and highlights that changes to one part of the system can have cascading effects on all other parts.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=definition+of+whole+system

*2. In philosophy, universals are repeatable characteristics or qualities that can be shared by many different particular things, such as the "greenness" of two green apples or the "humanity" shared by all people. The philosophical problem of universals questions whether these abstract universals actually exist in reality, and if so, how they exist and relate to the particular objects that embody them. Key positions include realism (universals exist independently), nominalism (universals are just names or concepts), and conceptualism (universals are concepts in the mind).
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=philosophy+universals

*3. Holism is the philosophical idea, coined by Jan Smuts in his 1926 book Holism and Evolution, that the universe has a fundamental tendency to form wholes that are more than the sum of their parts through a process of creative evolution. This concept describes an inherent, unifying, and organizing activity in nature that drives the emergence of increasingly complex structures, from molecules to minds, in a progressive series of "wholes".
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=smuts+holism+def

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

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. — Pieter R van Wyk

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 .

Given that the ability to abstract ideas has evolved on at least one planet, what does that fact imply about Evolution in general? Were living & thinking & abstracting entities inevitable, perhaps because that was the Purpose of the evolutionary System from its Big Bang beginning? Was the System programmed or designed to produce Thinking Beings?

Are you implying that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is based on Tautologies or Axioms? For example "survival of the fittest" is a generalized definition from limited observations. And it only specifies reproductive success, not technological prowess, such as that of the world's most successful species of idea abstractors : homo sapiens. Do you have a non-tautological Theory of Evolution, that might explain how & why immaterial Abstract Ideas could emerge from a physical thermodynamic system? Is homo technologicus the acme of abstract evolution, or just an incomplete intermediate solution to the ultimate purpose of the cosmic developmental System? :smile:


*1. Abstract Thinkers :
Animals such as primates (including chimpanzees and baboons), dolphins, pigs, dogs, crows, and even ducklings and chicks have shown evidence of abstract thought.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=animals+capable+of+abstract+thinking

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.