Where does systems theory fit into philosophy?

BWE · Post by **BWE** » Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:27 pm

What can't be defined and modeled systemically?

Koyaanisqatsi · Post by **Koyaanisqatsi** » Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:47 pm

[quote=""BWE""]What can't be defined and modeled systemically?[/quote]

I guess that would hinge on what is doing the modeling as opposed to what is merely experiencing the model.

BWE · Post by **BWE** » Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:41 pm

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]

BWE;683425 wrote:What can't be defined and modeled systemically?

I guess that would hinge on what is doing the modeling as opposed to what is merely experiencing the model.[/QUOTE]

That's sort of among the general points that make philosophy relevant at all. Unless, I suppose, you have a viewpoint that assumes some sort of externalized objectivity is possible.

At any rate, assume it has to do with human knowledge.

BWE · Post by **BWE** » Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:00 pm

http://www.radiolab.org/story/91712-limits-of-science/

Jobar · Post by **Jobar** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 5:05 am

[quote=""BWE""]What can't be defined and modeled systemically?[/quote]
How about the relation of models to what is being modeled? To paraphrase Lao Tzu, 'The Tao which can be modeled is not the true Tao.'

lpetrich · Post by **lpetrich** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:51 am

[quote=""BWE""]What can't be defined and modeled systemically?[/quote]
I must first ask: what is "systems theory"?

BWE · Post by **BWE** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:09 pm

[quote=""lpetrich""]

BWE;683425 wrote:What can't be defined and modeled systemically?

I must first ask: what is "systems theory"?[/QUOTE]

The modern extension of cybernetics. Principle thinkers are probably ludwig bertelanffy, donnella meadows and Peter senge. It was given a philosophy edge by Ervin Laszlo in a book called introduction to systems philosophy.

Jobar, thanks. I will think on that for a bit.

BWE · Post by **BWE** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:15 pm

Also, jay forrester should have been named there.
Btw, speaking of cybernetics, for anyone who is interested in reading the notes of w. Ross Ashby, his entire set of notebooks has been published on the site maintained by his estate. Because he indexed them himself, the index links are really good navigation tools.

I'll see if i can dig up the link. It's an exercise in brilliance.

BWE · Post by **BWE** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:25 pm

http://www.rossashby.info/journal/volume/index.html

Here ya go. His book introduction to cybernetics is also available free online. It's definitely dated now but it's a fascinating read still.

BWE · Post by **BWE** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:31 pm

[quote=""Jobar""]

BWE;683425 wrote:What can't be defined and modeled systemically?

How about the relation of models to what is being modeled? To paraphrase Lao Tzu, 'The Tao which can be modeled is not the true Tao.'[/QUOTE]

Jobar, this is a thought provoking post. I hadn't really thought of the question as an ontological position before you said that. Basically, I was thinking methodologically or epidemiologically. Laszlo's book has an ontological bent to it but I sort of skimmed over that part because I use a fairly Buddhist ontology (or Taoist) myself and hadn't connected systems thinking to it. Your question proposes a way in to that I think.

Jobar · Post by **Jobar** » Sun Feb 04, 2018 7:53 pm

I'm sure you're aware that I am all for attempting systematic understanding of all things, including ideas. Though there seem to be limits on how much we can understand that way-

In the world of the large
And the world of the small
We approach stunning mysteries
Forming hyperbolic walls.