Ventana software support forum

This note seems to indicate a different view of the word "systems." It is
true these noted individuals did grab a system with large boundaries
(although Einstein only assumed one simple steady-state universe rather than
the multiple dynamic ones we now "know."). But the boundary is not the
system. ALL of these people wanted to look at one problem. Einstein was
only after the self-consistency of physical law (special relativity) and the
extension of it in gravity (general relativity.) Einstein did not worry
about galaxy formation (still a problem), or black hole formation (his
equations did allow such research that he tried to originally discredit).
Einstein hated most of quantum mechanical theory. (There is no "whole
system" without both.) Watson and Crick were only interested in the
geometry of the DNA molecule. They had no vision of polymerase reactions and
how to understand isolated genetic material. Newton was only interested in
the basic laws of force. These "ideas" were more like the, in vogue, SD
"molecules" than a system.

Darwin applied one mechanism to the changing biota. He did not understand
genes. He only vaguely understood its relation to economic and politics.
Again this would be a "molecule." Gell-Mann simply wanted to find the
pattern reflecting the primary forces of physics. The quantum mechanical
implications of theory required other researches and theoreticians. He
modeled the connections of several "SD molecules" to allow the making of
sub-systems (particles).

ALL the examples you will ever find of a successful "discoverer," will show
the search for the solution(s) of a small (WELL-DEFINED) problem set. Only
those aspects of the system needed to solve the problem are included in
their thinking or their theory -- and nothing else. They were spectacular
systems thinkers. They could determine what was important and only focus on
those dynamics.

The size or importance of the system is irrelevant. Any real system is
infinitely complex with infinite interactions and mechanisms (even it they
simple need to be repeated 10 godzillion times as in a crystal lattice
simulation). Infinity tends to be rather overwhelming to finite beings with
finite-lives. You are only interested in a few aspects of the system (those
relevant to the problem of interest), so why waste time modeling those
aspects not concerned with THE PROBLEM?

In summary you can model problems that imply systems with big boundaries and
"global" impacts, but you only model a (very) small part of that system.
That part contains only the components that solve the problems and contains
only those components that you actually "believe" you can understand (your
hypothesis).

As an aside:

We havent yet gone to discussing "belief" systems modeling: We cant even
prove the hypotheses in our simply models. We simply select those components
based on our best understanding. We can call it postulates, axioms, or can
call it guided blind-belief. We use data but that just gives us confidence
in the use of the model, not in its real validity (Something about
"paradigms" vaguely come to mind here....) We cannot really model a "system"
because we can never truly understand any system. We can, at best,
understand our idealized (made up) view of it. Thus, the mechanical and
practical impossibilities of "whole systems modeling" still pales to the
philosophical limitations.

G


George Backus, President
Policy Assessment Corporation
14604 West 62nd Place
Arvada, Colorado, USA 80004-3621
Bus: +1-303-467-3566
Fax: +1-303-467-3576
George_Backus@ENERGY2020.com