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

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?

In its most general sense, a system can be understood as an organized interconnected set of at least two or more components that collectively constitute a unified whole. The behavior of the whole is conditioned by the interactions of its parts, while the parts, in turn, derive their functions and significance from their relation to the whole. In this respect, a system is indivisible, as the whole cannot exist independently of its parts, nor can the parts operate meaningfully apart from the whole. A genuine system necessarily gives rise to emergent properties, thereby becoming more than merely the sum of its parts. — punos

In my opinion, a spot-on description. Thank you

So a system is all about stabilising instability. — apokrisis

Please, if a system is all about stabilising instability, where does instability come from? Also, is it not true that "instability" is the root cause of innovation, emergence or evolution?

to establish what the "bare bones" definition or criteria for such are, which I believe I have done for you quite nicely. — Outlander

Please, in terms of your "bare bones", is it possible for

entities or "points" — Outlander

to be a system?

A system is formed of its interactions rather than constructed from its components. So a general systems theory is successful to the degree it takes that idea to its metaphysical extreme. — apokrisis

In my opinion: interactions without components makes no sense at all. Neither does components without interactions. Please, what would entail a "metaphysical extreme"?

A system is a cognitive construct consisting of individual elements that interact dynamically, forming new properties in relation to the individual elements and maintaining stability over time. — Astorre

Thank you for your frank and honest input - this is a good description, one that is generally accepted by the 'systems-thinkers'. But it has a few problems, specifically one that is really a bother to the systems-scientists: How, in general does one determine what is part of a system and what is not. Or in other words, how does one, in general, determine the boundary of a system?

Yes. The modern notion of Systems*1 sometimes gets mired in details. — Gnomon

You answer thus, then, seemingly, concede to my point:

The word is bandied about ad nauseam and I am not convinced that it is always correctly used! — Pieter R van Wyk

This definition looks very similar to one that has been published in 1923 by Lewis, C.I. Facts, Systems and the Unity of the World. The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp 141 - 151. Apparently without much success.

Systems are coherencies of (self-recreating, in the case of autopoietic systems) differences between themselves and an environment — Baden

Please explain then, in terms of your definition, how to determine what is part of the system, and what is part of the environment?

[In general, if posters want non-academic, dumbed-down answers to their questions, why not just ask AI, why ask on a philosophy forum?] — Baden

To my understanding, AI has not achieved the capability of abstract thought (yet) thus asking AI will have no utility - it will only regurgitate. As a really clever guy once said: "Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using memory." - Leonardo da Vinci (1452 - 1519).

I don't think systems <=> coherencies is any definition.

These "irreducible entities", is that the fundamental particle that the physicist are trying to find?

I agree with your definition, even though I have used some different words. Do you know of any theory that backs up this definition?

Thank you for your contribution - I was hoping for a concise definition backed by a general systems theory. Notions of systems are a dime a dozen

My understanding is that Luhmann worked on social systems, thus not a general systems theory

And, did you discovered a new world? I did!. For example: The emergence of wealth <=> technology predate the emergence of modern Homo sapiens. Thus all human systems is fully embedded in the systems whose purpose is to increase their wealth. That is why the 'human condition' includes strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war.

"You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore."
... and good luck to you.

Below is a summary of my work, surely you could glean my line of thought from it:

Chapter 1 - The Problem
The basic problem is that after 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour we are still suffering from strife, civil disobedience, revolution and war. I introduce the concept of a Geodesic of Knowledge where any point on this geodesic is some assumed truth and the lines are inferences to deduced truths. This geodesic is unnavigable so I define a pole, the Pole of Existence, based on the conditional assumption of the existence of physical things.

Chapter 2 – Human Perception
In this chapter I solve the philosophical problem of discernment from two fundamental arguments on existence and understanding. Defining the words: everything, nothing, something, anything, sometime, somewhere, consequential, unique, equivalence, time invariant, perception of data and collections. Collections is defined by ten axioms.

Chapter 3 – Systems of Things
A system is defined cognitively and then, with a valid perception of the collections of things and the arguments that make the Zeroth Argument of Understanding valid, the following is mathematically defined: components, interactions and the Laws of Nature, the purpose of a system, duplicate systems and equal systems. Recognising that in general, systems do not come into being in any algebraic manner, they evolve, the fundamental algebra of the properties (mass or energy and information belonging to) of systems is defined. From this, the fundamental and universal boundaries of all systems can be defined. This, however, leads to the Paradox of the Universe: If anything that is something has a purpose (is a system), then everything must have a purpose (be a system). But if everything has a purpose then this purpose is something else than everything. This paradox is resolved.

Chapter 4 – Evolution of Classes and the Demarcation Meridian
At least two system attributes could be used to understand different classes of systems: a classification based on the interaction between a system and a collection of data and a classification based on the interaction between a system and its purpose. When the two classifications are combined the following, consequential and subsequential, classes of systems can be identified: The foundational class, a class capable of decision-making, a class that could survive, a class that could communicate, a class that could reason, a class that could create and a class with the capability of abstraction. This classification provides a theory of evolution without any tautologies (a long standing philosophical problem) and solve the demarcation problem (an even longer standing philosophical problem). This classification also provides for a speculation on the fundamental function for systems science.

Chapter 5 – General Results, a Mathematical Definition, and More Defined Words
First some results from this understanding, giving evidence that this definition of a system solve a number of problems encountered with current definitions. Then I provide evidence that my definition of a system is, in fact, a mathematical definition. This chapter concludes with some word-definitions based on the definition and understanding of a system: Causality, analysis and synthesis, complexity, technology, economics and jurisprudence, science, engineering, art and war.

Chapter 6 – Universe-View of Systems
Using the philosophical notion of a world-view, I give evidence that this theory of systems provides a universe-view of reality. Amongst some other views, it also provides a definitive understanding of the dangers of artificial intelligence.

Chapter 7 – A Discussion on Salient Results
A discussion on the cognitive understanding of a system, the systems theory of evolution (defined in chapters 3 and 4), a systems theory of wealth, human phenomena, reality in itself and the reality of abstract systems. This chapter concludes with a speculation on the existence of a God.

Chapter 8 – Now What?
A discussion on how this systems theory provides answers to some other philosophical questions: the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics and whether mathematics was discovered or invented, also a systems perspective on prejudice and how this effects politics and its use of the fallacy of human rights as an entitlement. This chapter concludes with a speculation on what, exactly, is consciousness.

Chapter 9 – In Defence
In anticipation to some possible criticisms to this systems theory, I offer four different defences: arguing that this theory is not just plain reductionism, neither incomplete nor inconsistent, a valid systems theory in comparison to a definition proposed by an article published in the IEEE Systems Journal and finally a valid theory of everything – although I would rather name it a Theory of All Human Understanding. I regard two of these defences seminal: the defence that it is neither incomplete nor inconsistent – in contradiction to Gödel’s theorem and that it provides a valid theory of everything – in spite of the philosophical view that such a theory is not possible.

Chapter 10 – The Answer
Here I argue that the Geodesic of Understanding and Knowledge, I proposed in my first chapter – my problem statement, is in fact a viable alternative to 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour. It does not provide answers to all problems but it does provide a fundamental structure for a better understanding of life, the Universe and anything.

Post Scriptum
Not only do I provide the standard nomenclature, a reference list, and a thesaurus of the words I defined in the text. I also provide a list of 13 projects of enquiry that could be contemplated based on my theory

@Tom Storm & @Gnomon

I can provide snippets and quotes from my work as much as I like, you will not see the 'full picture' from this quotes, thus you will not understand the picture that I have AND fully described.

"So, my arguments will not be based on some truth according to: 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. My arguments are based on the (conditional) truth of the existence of physical things - the valid Pole of Existence (on my Geodesic of Knowledge). It is thus a basic requirement that you, the reader, must also apply your intelligence and not merely your memory." p12 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence.

Thank you for the interest you have shown thus far - I do appreciate it. I have confirmed my problem statement and will conclude with that.

Ervin Laszlo identifies a convergence of crises, including environmental degradation, social instability, and economic challenges, as major world problems. He argues these issues stem from a fragmented, ego-driven worldview and call for a shift towards a holistic, interconnected perspective. Laszlo emphasizes the need for a collective awakening and a move towards unity and compassion to navigate these turbulent times — Gnomon

I have no issue with Ervin Laszlo's problem identification. I've had some communications with the Laszlo family (Erwin and Alexander) - they seem to be working hard on their Upshift Movement, which is just a new religion claiming human 'consciousness' as the latest saviour. The do not seem to be interested in a better understanding of the very foundation on which 'consciousness' is built.

So, right off-the-bat, your Problem Statement is over my head, and above my pay grade . . . . hence "un-navigable. :wink: — Gnomon

Methinks you are short-selling yourself. Moreover, giving up without trying will bring you nowhere.

So, it seems that you are trying to communicate with philosophical zombies. :joke: — Gnomon

Yes, it would seem that my definition of philosophy is spot-on:

"Philosophy := The study of questions without answers." p3 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

What I do find peculiar about this is the apparent disinterest in any utility:

I'm not sure what philosophy has to do with world peace or orderly behaviour. — Tom Storm

Philosophy is not really equipped to solve the problems you’ve identified. — T Clark

It wasn't philosophers that contributed to our knowledge. It was scientists and inventors of technology. — Harry Hindu

But the philosopher has yet to provide an answer, and many philosophers do not think it possible. — Fire Ologist

I have stated, categorically, in my opening statement, that I am not au fait with the 'ism' and 'ology' languages - however, I am pretty convinced that no study of "metaphysical philosophy of materialism" would explain to me why the world is as it is; why we still have poverty and hunger, revolution and war.

You could consider the veracity of:

"We humans could argue about the existence of things until the cows come home. The only thing we have is a perception of things, albeit physical, abstract or imaginary things. Through perception, we gain information, glean knowledge, construct abstract things and conjure imaginary things - even play politics." p201 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

Life expectancy has gone up and your book sales have gone down. Is this why philosophy has falied, because you cannot sell your book!? — I like sushi

Your logic is most impressive - a prime example of excellent philosophical reasoning.

No, I do not blame philosophy for all the problems of the world and no, I do not think some "holistic/systems philosophy" will cure any ills of we humans.

To my knowledge there does not exist any example of communism that has not failed OR is not failing.

Nowhere AND never, did I claimed to have any solution to the problems of the world. What I do claim is a better understanding of why the world is as it is. An understanding that just might succeed where 2,600 years of philosophy has not succeeded. And, NO, my understanding is NOT based on any philosophy. It is based on the conditional assumption of the existence of physical things, the things that consist of mass OR energy. You can either agree with this logical assumption OR not. If you do agree - my theory is built on this - read on, it might be worth the price. If you do not agree - sit back and watch the future unfold.

In conclusion to this discussion then: Philosophy have no defence against "The only results I see from philosophy are a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipe dream." — Pieter R van Wyk

As for the rest of the discussion, I can only give the following "two naive but fundamental logical statements:

1. Attempting to define or study any ambiguous notion by describing it in terms of other ambiguous words; is inevitably doomed to ambiguity. Adding more and more ambiguous words to this effort will never change this result.
2. Trying to define or study any ambiguous notion by defining and studying its perceived attributes is a self-referencing exercise. The only possible result of this exercise is that this specific notion ... is this specific notion." p5 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

I have sent a contact request to your academia link.

I can post a sentence or even a paragraph summary of any of my concepts - it will only be a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle OR a small part of a big painting, virtually useless.

I could say to you:

"System := Components (things that are) and the interactions between these components (things that happen), contributing to a single unique purpose." p27, p135

and

"The Demarcation Meridian then states that there exist no shared collection between the Rules of Man and the Laws of Nature" p69 Solving the demarcation problem.

and

"Law (of nature) := If the sum of mass, energy and information is conserved over space-time for (more than one) pairs of interacting components; all the interactions that exist between these components can be described by a unique, specific law, a law of nature. The collection of all these laws then comprise the Laws of Nature." p34

and

...

I can even tell you that holism and reductionism is simply two sides of the same coin. "It (my systems theory) describes a logic of understanding any part of a whole and any whole as a part." p200

and

discriminating between Good & Evil — Gnomon

is simply philosophical musings used and misused by politicians in order to motivate the decisions they are selling to the hoi polloi.

Then ... I don't mind sideswipe's from the "TPF Inquisition"; the only utility from philosophy is that from time to time their musings coalesce into some new political movement. And, we all know where 'politics' are leading us - apparently a perpetuation of poverty and war. But then how do we make our world a better place to live our lives? A new political movement based on human consciousness? This 'consciousness' that nobody, not even philosophers, can define - thus simply a new religion:

"Religion := The acceptance of something without the necessity of proof and claiming authority based on this premise." p180

I can go on with such excerpts for as long as you like, it will still be only a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. I am quite sure that my work would be quite within your range of understanding, the only question outstanding is:

if it is A> of interest to me — Gnomon

but that can only be determined by you yourself.

I will try my very best to respond encouraging enough - I don't meditate nor do drugs either - rather play chess.

Your *1 Thank you for putting this on this forum. The one issue I have is that the responses you quote (Core argument, Beyond conceptualisation, ...) is generated by artificial intelligence, which is (currently still) incapable of abstract thought. I will address your notes:

Note --- If we can't understand the world conceptually, and put it into words, do you think we can only explore the world system experientially, via meditation or drugs? — Gnomon

We can understand the world conceptually AND put it into words - this is exactly what I claim to have done - now looking for a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning.

Note --- Again, this "argument" seems to dismiss rational Western Philosophy as incapable of dealing with the ontological problems of humanity. Are you recommending something like Sartre's "being-in-itself" or the spiritual awakening of Ram Dass : "Be Here Now"? — Gnomon

This is one of the big misunderstandings that I found from both some of the respondents in this whole preceding conversation AND from artificial intelligence's responses to my work. I do not dismiss rational Western Philosophy per se - I concede unequivocally to its contribution to where we are and what we have today - I merely state that 'philosophy' seems to be unable to solve some of the dire problems that we are facing: such as hunger, curable diseases that is not available to the poor, war, the dangers from artificial intelligence and an environmental disaster of cataclysmic proportion. THEN I propose an understanding that is NOT based on 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour BUT on a fundamental, deduced from 'first principles', definition of a system - now looking for a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning.

Note --- My own amateur personal philosophy questions both "established" philosophical concepts, and "classical" concepts of Newtonian Physics. — Gnomon

Very valid questions, but easily resolved with a valid solution to the "demarcation problem" in philosophy. The only "solution" from philosophy is Popper's self-referencing definition: science is whatever is discovered from some scientific method. From my definition of a system and classes of systems I was able to solve this demarcation problem - now looking for a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning.

Note --- I don't know if my Information-theoretic worldview provides a "more fundamental understanding of being", but it is certainly different from both traditional religious & scientific ideologies. If your responses seem encouraging, I may even attempt to read your book. — Gnomon

From my understanding there is certainly some utility in a "Information-theoretic worldview". Some years ago I had some very useful conversations with a savant mathematician on his information-theoretic worldview. He, unfortunately passed away, but I do honour him with my understanding of "consciousness" - he pointed me towards this understanding - now looking for a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning.

I have started reading some of your musings on 'enformationism' - my first response is: be very careful of what I call a "philosophical trap", you only end up with oxymorons like "ethics of science". "The Laws of Nature have no morality, no honour nor any legal standing." p111 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

IF you decide to read my book THEN please read the whole book before you start shooting holes in my reasoning.

And again, thank you for your openminded response.

Who needs enlightenment when you’ve got freshly popped popcorn and a good seat in the cave. — praxis

"He that will not reason is a bigot; he that cannot reason is a fool; and he that dares not reason is a slave." William Drummond
To which I would add; he that does reason just might gain understanding, perhaps even knowledge.

Thank you for this - yes it would seem some are still stuck in Plato's cave watching the shadows play out against an empty wall.

I suggest you stay in your cave and watch the shadows play out against the empty wall.
From the "troll spammer."

Frankly, it appears that you're looking for an 'obtuse buyer' of your book and that's why you avoid openly discussing its contents. — praxis

No. I am looking for a reader that can think outside the box, who reads and understand my theory then helps me find a possible fatal flaw in my reasoning.

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

Thus - there is absolutely no utility to try and explain a few pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. I got the answer I was looking for from my opening statement - my problem statement in Chapter 1 is a valid problem and philosophy is unable tp solve it.

... and good luck with your endeavours.

Thank you for your welcome, I do appreciate it.

I do not have any issue with the substantial contribution that philosophy has made on the progress of humanity - there is no denying this. My problem is with the established fact that through this 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour, philosophy was unable to solve the most pressing problems of humanity. Problems like poverty and war. Nor can philosophy suggest any solution to the more modern problems like the danger posed by artificial intelligence and human's efforts to destroy our planet with a self inflicted environmental disaster. "The bottom line is if we cannot find an agreed upon answer to the question: Why are all these problems so pervasive and seemingly unsolvable? Then systems of artificial intelligence will surpass humanity, and our human ideals of Liberte, egalite, fraternite will not exist anymore. It will only be the history of humankind." p2 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence.

The question that I claim to have found an answer to is: Is there a different foundation from which answers, to this question (why are all these problems so pervasive and seemingly unsolvable) and these problems (poverty and war), could be sought. I claim the answer is in a general systems theory deduced from first principles, but then; in a quest that lasted more than 100 years, such a general systems theory has not been found.

I claim:

"Unless a fatal flaw is uncovered, this understanding (fully described in this discourse) is not only a valid systems theory but also a valid theory of everything." p227 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence.

I neither have a problem with an initial response to this claim that I must be smoking some really good s#@t or be totally off my rocker. All I am looking for is one fatal flaw in my reasoning - a flaw that would render my theory inconsistent or without utility. Also, If I am merely daydreaming under the influence of some really good s#@t, then surely a fatal flaw will stand out like a sore thumb.

The only thing that I ask from any "astute reader" is an agreement on the perception of the conditional truth that physical things (the things consisting of mass or energy) exist. All my understanding follows from this assumption.

With all due respect to philosophy and the members of this forum: If philosophy could not arrive at a better understanding of "human nature", an understanding that would render a better chance for solving humanity's problems, then it is high time that we consider a different understanding. An understanding that provides a valid speculation on the existence of God, a valid definition of knowledge, an understanding that: ethics, justice, human rights, value, human action, ... are merely political rhetoric and art is simply "A deliberate transformation of the feelings and emotions of the artist (the life form making the art) into a physical form." p96 How I understand Things. The Logic of Existence

... which frankly I would not read even if you paid me at this point ... — I like sushi

No problem - I am trying to find a reader that could think outside the box and with the capability of understanding what I have written and (most importantly) assist me to find a possible "fatal flaw" in my reasoning.

A Bedouin was caught in a box canyon by a desert lion. He started to pray: Allah, if you are on the side of the lion, let him kill me quickly so that I do not suffer too much. If you are on my side let me kill the lion quickly before he hurts me too much. But if you are on no one's side - stand aside because here is a big fight on its way.

I am like this Bedouin.

Don’t you believe that it would be good if I did understand it? — praxis

It would be awesome if you could understand it - I am looking for the "fatal flaw" in my understanding.

Is it that only an elite class of people are capable of understand (sic) it? — praxis

I am not sure what you mean by "elite class", but if my editor could understand it - although she had some difficulty with the metamathematics - I am pretty sure most members on this forum is capable of understanding it.

Also, you say that solutions might be found from this foundation. Aren’t humanity’s problems important enough to present a foundation that you have more confidence in? — praxis

Absolutely!

I have confidence in my work but it needs to be stress-tested. That is why I am looking for an "astute reader" that could help me find a possible "fatal flaw" in my reasoning. The statement that I posted in my introduction is only part of my problem statement, in an effort to solicit some stress-testing of my work.

From the responses I received in this conversation I conclude that my problem statement is a valid problem - unsolved by 2,600 years of philosophical endeavour.

You are absolutely on the right track:

"Our reality consist of systems:

1. Real systems - consisting of perceived, measurable mass or energy.
2. Abstract systems - consisting of neurons and neurotransmissions (a real system) - perceived by analysis of real systems.
3. Imaginary systems - consisting of neurons and neurotransmissions (still a real system) - that cannot be perceived by analysis of any real system." p178 How I Understand Things. The logic of Existence

Please observe that there is no consciousness necessary in this encompassing statement. "... consciousness is the ability of a functional brain, capable of abstract thought, to manage itself." p195 How I Understand Things. The logic of Existence

You claim to offer a foundation from which solutions to humanity's problems might be solved and then proceed to describe this foundation in an obfuscating manner. — praxis

You certainly seem to be obfuscated, my foundation is an understanding of systems (something, it would seem, you have no understanding of), defined from first principles - founded on the "... basic, seminal, fundamental, primordial truth of the existence of physical things ... If we cannot agree on this, that physical things exist in fact; our only option would be somewhere between the philosophical areas ... called nihilism and fatalism. And, for sure, solutions to our problems cannot and will not be found in these areas." p9 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence - words in italic (from the quote) is defined unambiguously!

Snake oil salesmen have always been part and parcel of humanity's problems. — praxis

So for philosophers with their heads in the sand

I agree with you:
"Who am 'I' and what is the relation between mind and body? According to my understanding, there exists a specific, changeable state of some components in my brain. The perception of this specific component is called by some, my mind. This mind provides a perception that I am me. Conversely, my body, as well as its being, is perceived by some component in my brain. So, my body is telling my mind that I am, in fact me. As a result of evolution, I have this wonderful capability of having a perception of the states of some of my components and a few other capabilities as well." p185 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

"... consciousness is the ability of a functional brain, capable of abstract thought, to manage itself. We could agree that the human brain manages the human homeostatic processes, organs and all sensory functions of the human body. This human brain also has the ability to manage all our responses to our environment. These responses include our responses to our physical environment (our understanding and response to the effects of the Laws of Nature) as well as our political environment (our understanding and response to the Rules of Man perceived). Surely, all of this requires some self-management from the brain itself." p195. How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence

In conclusion to this discussion then: Philosophy have no defence against "The only results I see from philosophy are a world in which we are: unable to have peace, unable to eradicate poverty and hunger, and a world in which a well-balanced coexistence with our environment and among ourselves is but a pipe dream."

Perhaps it is simply due to the "human condition", the allusive 'nature of man' - a condition or nature that philosophy can do nothing about. But, surely, this human condition, this nature of man, has changed in the last 2,600 years - during the time philosophy has contributed to human understanding and knowledge - and if it can change it could change to a better world, not so?

Perhaps it is unfair or wrong to blame philosophy for these long standing problems. It would make more sense to blame politics - "The only result I see from politics are a world in which ..." But then, is politics not a result of philosophy? Case in point, the philosophy of Karl Marx that lead to the most devastating politics in our world. Who nows where post-modernism or meta-modernism will end up? A better world? Not if one consider the track record of philosophy.

Then, perhaps, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow have a valid point:"Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge." But if I look in the light of the torch of the scientists, into the future, I see at least two major dangers: The environmental disaster we humans are bringing over ourselves, fuelled by the consequential efforts of science => engineering => technology => wealth and The danger posed by artificial intelligence. This artificial intelligence that only require two more capabilities in order to take over our world, abstract thought and survival.

What then? If neither philosophy nor politics nor science could solve this human condition, this nature of man, who can? Surely not religion - this human endeavour has been around even longer than philosophy!

Please consider an alternative foundation from which solutions to humanity's problems might be solved. A foundation that is not based on philosophy, religion, politics or science. A foundation based on a fundamental understanding of systems, a definition of a system from first principles. A definition that provides for a classifications of systems that provides a theory of evolution without any tautologies and which solve the demarcation problem. An understanding that clearly shows that the emergence of wealth preceded the evolution of modern Homo sapiens.

If I understand your prose correctly, you agree with my problem statement.

'Please consider the following two naive but fundamentally logical statements:

1. Attempting to define or study any ambiguous notion by describing it in terms of other ambiguous words; is inevitably doomed to ambiguity. Adding more and more ambiguous words to this effort will never change this result.
2. Trying to define or study any ambiguous notion be defining and studying its perceived attributes is a self-referencing exercise. The only possible result of this exercise is that this specific notion ... is this specific notion.

To me these two statements make sense, and they seem to be consistent, perhaps even seminal.' p5 How I Understand Things. The Logic of Existence