Where Do Systems Belong Among the Sciences?

[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.).