Where Do Systems Belong Among the Sciences?

[BillTre]

Assemblies of various components can have properties as functioning systems.
Systems can be composed of various kinds of components, like atoms, molecules, maybe interacting energy things, maybe bits of code, or higher level components.

Since it is not linked to only a single kind of component (abstracted from a physical substrate, so to say), how do people think of systems, with respect to the classical hierarchy of science: physics, chemistry, biology, etc.?
Branch of math? Something else?

 

[fresh_42]

You mean mechanics and automata theory?

 

[BillTre]

You mean mechanics and automata theory?

In a sense, yes.
As a field of study free of the particular substrate in which it is manifested.
I guess a similar question could be asked about engineering (many things can be engineered).

 

[Frabjous]

With a caveat that I have not thought about this before and a later post might change my mind.
I think systems are still embedded in the classical hierarchy because the emergent behavior is still basically viewed from the hierarchy. I will grant that there is a body of knowledge on “complexity,” but I view it as a set of tools currently.

 

[BillTre]

I guess I am not familiar with classical hierarchy theory, at least not by name.

Would this mean it gets thrown in with math?

 

[fresh_42]

So you are actually asking about the inner structure, the chapters in mechanics, or about the Chomsky hierarchy, and newly network architectures? I'm afraid I don't understand the question very well.

 

[Frabjous]

I guess I am not familiar with classical hierarchy theory, at least not by name.

Would this mean it gets thrown in with math?

Your word choice not mine.

how do people think of systems, with respect to the classical hierarchy of science: physics, chemistry, biology, etc.?

In general, I think all of the fields are still basically defining systems in their own terms.

 

[fresh_42]

Mechanics: from the six classical simple machines, over robotics to self-driving cars
Automata: Chomsky
Networks: (I don't know enough about them, but it should include everything between graph theory and AI)
Biology: probably the size of the life-forms (from cell kernel to forests, reefs, and vertebrates)
Chemistry: they only count carbon atoms

 

[BillTre]

@fresh_42, I am not familiar with these terms:
inner structure
chapters in mechanics
Chomsky hierarchy
newly network architectures

I don't understand the question very well.

I guess I am wondering about where this stuff is considered a field separate from the sciences of physically manifested things.

I am now kind of thinking its more like a part of math.

 

[Frabjous]

There is a book that I picked up, but never got a chance to read
”an introduction to complex systems“ by tranquillo whose existence implies some sort of unification.
Here‘s a review
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/PT.3.4344

 

[Frabjous]

While there are other examples, I am not sure what I would call Didier Sornette, so maybe it is a field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Sornette

While I would describe the Sante Fe Institute as mathy, it is clearly more than that.
https://www.santafe.edu/

 

[BillTre]

While there are other examples, I am not sure what I would call Didier Sornette, so maybe it is a field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Sornette

I guess you edited your post, but one of your wikipedia links lead me to this:

General systems theory is about developing broadly applicable concepts and principles, as opposed to concepts and principles specific to one domain of knowledge. It distinguishes dynamic or active systems from static or passive systems. Active systems are activity structures or components that interact in behaviours and processes. Passive systems are structures and components that are being processed. For example, a program is passive when it is a disc file and active when it runs in memory.[2] The field is related to systems thinking, machine logic, and systems engineering.

Which makes sense to me and indicates to me it is part or like math in respect to the physical sciences.

 

[Frabjous]

I guess you edited your post, but one of your wikipedia links lead me to this:

Which makes sense to me and indicates to me it is part or like math in respect to the physical sciences.

Someone else posted and then deleted their post.

 

[BillTre]

Someone else posted and then deleted their post.

Well it confused me.

 

[fresh_42]

@fresh_42, I am not familiar with these terms:
inner structure
chapters in mechanics
Chomsky hierarchy
newly network architecturesI guess I am wondering about where this stuff is considered a field separate from the sciences of physically manifested things.

I am now kind of thinking its more like a part of math.

That was my fault. 'Newly' should have been 'recently', i.e. Network Theory is not that old, and despite, we are already dealing with AI. With 'inner structure', I meant how mechanics is organized. It starts with simple machines (lever, wedge, screw, ...) and is now already at robotics and self-driving cars. Automata theory deals with theoretical "machines" like a Turing machine or a cellular automaton, and the Chomsky hierarchy organizes the grammar of formal languages.

We need certainly many of the more advanced concepts of all of them in self-driving cars: robotics, self-learning networks, AI, and probably a complicated language to code all this.

 

[BillTre]

Where does cybernetics fit in with these terms?
Its my (rather vague) impression that cybernetics is more oriented toward engineering actual things, rather than being theoretical concepts.

 

[fresh_42]

Where does cybernetics fit in with these terms?
Its my (rather vague) impression that cybernetics is more oriented toward engineering actual things, rather than being theoretical concepts.

I would count it to robotics, or vice versa. Cybernetics sounds more sophisticated though.

 

[Frabjous]

Where does cybernetics fit in with these terms?
Its my (rather vague) impression that cybernetics is more oriented toward engineering actual things, rather than being theoretical concepts.

Don’t point out to @fresh_42 that the wikipedia page for cybernetics says
“Second-order cybernetics is associated with a radically constructivist approach to epistemology and the philosophy of science.”

FYI
Earlier today he responded to

Galois died at 21, in a duel over politics. Can't imagine a Mathematician dying that way today.

with

Ever started a discussion on constructivism?

 

[fresh_42]

DYK that "robot" stems from the Slavic word for "work"? The Russian noun "work" is рабо́та.

Cybernetics stems from κυβερνήτης, second mate, or the steering regulation in general.

Hence it depends on whether you want to focus on the actual work or theorize how it should work if it would work.

 

[BillTre]

I thought the word "robot" came from some science fiction story.

 

[fresh_42]

I thought the word "robot" came from some science fiction story.

Czech is a Slavic language.

 

[WWGD]

Isn't Cybernetics just Systems Theory? Not sure if it includes applications, though. IIRC, 'Robot' originated in a story, R.U.R , by Karel Capek. I remember that from like 15 years back. But I can't remember where I put my keys 5 minutes ago. Wonder if Cybernetics can address that.

 

[BillTre]

Isn't Cybernetics just Systems Theory? Not sure if it includes applications, though.

I though it was control oriented and physically implemented.
But that's a vague impression.

 

[fresh_42]

According to its founder Norbert Wiener, cybernetics is the science of controlling and regulating machines and their analogy to the behavior of living organisms (due to feedback from sensory organs) and social organizations (due to feedback from communication and observation). It has also been described as "the art of steering".

Systems theory is an interdisciplinary approach in which fundamental aspects and principles of systems are used to describe and explain phenomena of varying complexity.

 

[fresh_42]

Isn't Cybernetics just Systems Theory? Not sure if it includes applications, though. IIRC, 'Robot' originated in a story, R.U.R , by Karel Capek. I remember that from like 15 years back. But I can't remember where I put my keys 5 minutes ago. Wonder if Cybernetics can address that.

There is no contradiction to what I have said.

 

[WWGD]

There is no contradiction to what I have said.

Yes, I know, I was trying to refer it to something that seemed simpler, at least to me.

 

[BillTre]

This might make all these terms clear ( ):

from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system#/media/File:2018_Map_of_the_Complexity_Sciences_HD.jpg

 

[fresh_42]

It somehow fits that I first read "chaos theory".

 

[Jarvis323]

The cynic in me looks at that diagram as a jumbled inaccurate mess that was made by a couple of social scientists trying to paint themselves as being at the forefront of modern complexity theory. But it does contain a lot of useful search terms.

 

[sysprog]

Where does cybernetics fit in with these terms?
Its my (rather vague) impression that cybernetics is more oriented toward engineering actual things, rather than being theoretical concepts.

The term 'cybernetic' was coined by Norbert Wiener $-$ etymologically, it references a Khyber Pass pilot (Greek netos = pilot) $-$ the Khyber Pass is treacherous, and it takes a highly skilled boat/watercraft pilot to navigate it safely enough $-$ the term was originated for technical discussion about machines doing things that require decision-making ability that formerly required a human to make the decisions while the process was in progress.

 

[Klystron]

Assemblies of various components can have properties as functioning systems.
...

Assembly aptly provides the operative description of emergent systems throughout STEM.

Take a simple mechanical example such as 'nut and bolt'. By themselves neither object provides useful organization. Assembled together, correctly paired nuts and bolts produce a 'fastener system' able to join many different mechanical objects to perform disparate functions.

 

[WWGD]

The term 'cybernetic' was coined by Norbert Wiener $-$ etymologically, it references a Khyber Pass pilot (Greek netos = pilot) $-$ the Khyber Pass is treacherous, and it takes a highly skilled boat/watercraft pilot to navigate it safely enough $-$ the term was originated for technical discussion about machines doing things that require decision-making ability that formerly required a human to make the decisions while the process was in progress.

Last part sounds a lot like Machine Learning.

 

[WWGD]

Assembly aptly provides the operative description of emergent systems throughout STEM.

Take a simple mechanical example such as 'nut and bolt'. By themselves neither object provides useful organization. Assembled together, correctly paired nuts and bolts produce a 'fastener system' able to join many different mechanical objects to perform disparate functions.

Emergent properties?

 

[Ygggdrasil]

Assemblies of various components can have properties as functioning systems.
Systems can be composed of various kinds of components, like atoms, molecules, maybe interacting energy things, maybe bits of code, or higher level components.

Since it is not linked to only a single kind of component (abstracted from a physical substrate, so to say), how do people think of systems, with respect to the classical hierarchy of science: physics, chemistry, biology, etc.?
Branch of math? Something else?

I'm approaching this from the point to view as one trained in biophysics who has seen some of these ideas develop in studying biological systems.

This topic is definitely interdisciplinary and draws from many different disciplines. Many of these studies are focused on biological systems and biologists who call themselves "systems biologists" are the ones most directly researching the topics. There is also a long history of physicists working on complex systems and I've definitely seem people talk about "the physics of complex systems." I don't know physics departments as well as others on the forums, but many of the people working on these types of issues would tend to be in condensed matter physics. The topic also falls quite well into various areas of chemistry as some chemists are interested in creating such complex systems or taking apart existing complex systems to study them. There probably isn't anyone area of chemistry that does most of the research on systems, though one would find it in physical chemistry (esp statistical mechanics) and probably those studying materials and nanosystems/nanotechnology as well (these areas also overlap substantially with physics as well).

The idea of abstracting concepts and ideas of systems to a generalizable set of rules that applies beyond the details of the specific system probably falls under (applied) mathematics or theoretical physics.

 

[Klystron]

Emergent properties?

Consider early research into using radio (Hertzian waves) to communicate information across a river.

A radio transmitter (tx) sent coded signals to receivers (rx) tuned to the tx waveband. Operators correlated signal interruptions with ships passing along the river between the tx and rx's. Radar systems emerged from radio communications technology.

 

[jsgruszynski]

Assemblies of various components can have properties as functioning systems.
Systems can be composed of various kinds of components, like atoms, molecules, maybe interacting energy things, maybe bits of code, or higher level components.

Since it is not linked to only a single kind of component (abstracted from a physical substrate, so to say), how do people think of systems, with respect to the classical hierarchy of science: physics, chemistry, biology, etc.?
Branch of math? Something else?

There are some specific areas that are strongly influential to systems as a science include:

• Graph Theory
• Network Theory
• Statistics and Probability
• Stochastic Systems
• Chaos Theory
• Complexity Theory
• Control Systems Theory
• Statistical Mechanics
• Quantum Theory
• Information Theory

Ultimately we still have to use reductionist theories to address even holistic things like systems because we fundamentally must "name" things reductionistically. You can however learn a lot about holistic aspects of systems by studying non-technical areas of knowledge such as Eastern Religions and Philosophies. This can help "take your framing" out of traditional Western reductionist norms just enough to start seeing the big picture (IMO).

Often we deal with systems in real life using "Systems Engineering" which unites science and engineering disciplines with various management techniques to successfully work together toward a common goal of understanding, controlling and building complex systems.

Aerospace systems are where "systems engineering" was required to be invented and developed during the 1960s and 1970s. When I worked at the eponymously named Aerospace Corporation (which is the military think tank for space technology) we did primarily systems engineering and I worked with literally every branch of STEM knowledge and people. The president during my tenure, Eb Rectin, is generally considered to be the father of systems engineering. Lots of details about how that actualized that are beyond what can be written here.

 

[Rive]

how do people think of systems, with respect to the classical hierarchy of science: physics, chemistry, biology, etc.?

I think it's more like a methodology or approach, maybe: viewpoint. Although it comes with some dedicated support from math, but not really part of science on its own right: only though the subject it got applied onto.

 

[InkTide]

This whole discussion is a good example of why I think we need more Philosophy of Science. Physics is, after all, fundamentally an attempt to robustly and completely formalize Natural Philosophy. The materialist interpretation would contend that such a complete formalization would completely describe everything, but I think it's important not to see the prevalence of materialism in physics as an indication that they are synonymous.

I do sometimes worry that the prevalence of materialism has done some damage to the relationship theoretical fields have with epistemology and philosophy of science (e.g. Hawking's declaration that philosophy is dead).

Systems, if generalized to describe a group of components and the interactions between them, should be limited only by how you define a component and an interaction; in this way I think "systems theory" most clearly belongs in epistemology/philosophy of science as a basic framework for understanding rather than as an extension of a field where it is applied (i.e. network theory, statistics, information theory, etc.).