Dissipative structures and Friction flow through, constrain and influence all local systems. (Modified from; System Theory in Community Development by Andy Tamas.)
There are four levels of systems environments. Each system creates it's own boundary, (a rule of Autopoietic systems) therefore each system defines it's own internal and external environment.
* The system under consideration and the internal environment of which it is aware. A person is aware of what they perceive, i.e. respiration, tactile sensation, stomachache.
* The deeper internal environment of which the system is not aware. The bacteria living inside the GI tract is alive, active and unnoticed. People are ecosystems for bacteria.
* The systems external environment of which it is aware. The constant flow of sensations, (matter and energy) that enter perception and rise to the level of cognition. The “real world.”
* The systems distant external environment of which it is not aware. The surprise party inside the house or the ice forming on the wing of a plane.
Energy and matter flows around and through each level in an unpredictable fashion. Each local application can seek out, incorporate, get rid of, exchange matter and energy to meet it’s own goals. (The search for negentropy.) Since each application can act independently their ‘choices’ constrain and influence other local applications as to what matter and energy is available for selection. (See Peyton Manning’s influence in the NFL. An unpredictable cascade through numerous teams.)
At the local, human level the influence of other people over different time scales, (genetic heritage, cultural traditions, previous experience and new experience) provides unlimited opportunities for Friction to develop. That plays a role on the ‘selection’ process and decisions within systems.
This poses a problem with the definition of what a system boundary actually is. To freeze a system with point logic isolates the matter but misses the pattern. The map is not the terrain argument. To focus on the patterns using interval logic means borrowing the entities to focus on the interactions. The water held behind a dam is an example. The matter is continually changing but the pattern remains the same. Finally to remove Friction removes humanity from consideration. There are no people left in the equation.
To deal with this constant state of cross-boundary flow of matter and energy between systems “Bertalanffy coined the German term Fliessgliechgewicht (“flowing balance”) and Nikolai Bernstein “the flowing edge.” We must borrow the entities in order to create and maintain the energy flows through the system. Without energy, there’s no work or life. Without replacing the entities there is no energy source or target. The act of replacement itself requires work. This produces a self-serving need for change in an unfolding and uncertain environment.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
"Hell is other people."
I mentioned that as humans in interaction we have to deal with the Clausewitzian idea of a "unified concept of of a general friction (Gesamtbegriffeiner allgemeinen Frikition)"
He identifies eight sources which I'll modify from the original;
* Danger, which brings and breeds fear.
* Physical exertion, "fatigue makes cowards of us all."
* Uncertainties and imperfections in information. Add to that the limits placed on the time and power for computation.
* The resistance within one's own team, group or system.
* Chance. It cannot be eliminated. This confines the use of any "optimal" program or plan to the past. Optimal ideas or systems have no place in the future.
* Physical and political limits. There's no free lunch and someone else decided on the menu.
* Unpredictability in dealing with other systems. Consider how the rest of the world has to view dealing with North Korea.
* Disconnects between ends and means. In human enterprises the application of linear thinking to wicked problems, using hope as a method, thinking that the past perfectly predicts the future, cultural biases, i.e. Rhetorics of thinking are just a few examples.
Friction is "a structural feature" of all local level organic systems. Like the Dissipative structure from which all energy and matter comes out of and returns to friction is everywhere. Only the degree and type can be controlled and that comes at a cost, usually an increase in any of the other areas. For practical purposes we are dealing with people and people in interactions cannot escape friction.
He identifies eight sources which I'll modify from the original;
* Danger, which brings and breeds fear.
* Physical exertion, "fatigue makes cowards of us all."
* Uncertainties and imperfections in information. Add to that the limits placed on the time and power for computation.
* The resistance within one's own team, group or system.
* Chance. It cannot be eliminated. This confines the use of any "optimal" program or plan to the past. Optimal ideas or systems have no place in the future.
* Physical and political limits. There's no free lunch and someone else decided on the menu.
* Unpredictability in dealing with other systems. Consider how the rest of the world has to view dealing with North Korea.
* Disconnects between ends and means. In human enterprises the application of linear thinking to wicked problems, using hope as a method, thinking that the past perfectly predicts the future, cultural biases, i.e. Rhetorics of thinking are just a few examples.
Friction is "a structural feature" of all local level organic systems. Like the Dissipative structure from which all energy and matter comes out of and returns to friction is everywhere. Only the degree and type can be controlled and that comes at a cost, usually an increase in any of the other areas. For practical purposes we are dealing with people and people in interactions cannot escape friction.
"Boundaries exist in time as well as space."
Metaphors make for weak models but this will do for now. Computers function on two systems levels. An operating system that we don't see but is the starting point for usage and the applications that we actually use. Without both systems the computer is useless.
In systems thinking many discussions revolve around the local or applications level. Education, business, cognitive, communication, cooperative, competitive systems are simply local applications of systems thinking. They, like computer applications are a very limited subset of principles, ideas and constraints. Like a spreadsheet these systems address and are useful within a limited field.
On the global or operational level something much larger is happening. Without the global operating systems running unseen in the background the local applications cannot function. So what are these global operating systems? I see a trinity.
Dissipative Structures or system per Pregogine. Stuff exists and things happen. Initial starting point is the big bang or the uncaused cause, take your pick. The end point is the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
Autopoietic systems that recreate themselves out of this mess and define their own boundaries. These systems tend to use energy and matter to maintain the status-quo. They are incapable of goal-driven evolution but subject to internal errors, i.e. genetic mutation. To stay at this level invites eventual decay and death.
Allopoietic systems that are goal-seeking. These systems use matter and energy to create something other then themselves. Novelty, adaptability and change are their reason for being. These systems provide the motive for the active 'hunt for negative entropy.'
I have adapted this model from Fritjof Capra's Web of Life. The last system is my take on his idea of consciousness.
Why this trinity of operating systems? Because stuff exists and interacts. That stuff and the interactions are suspended between the decay towards entropy and the drive towards emerging complexity. That suspension creates tension and bifurcation points between the status-quo and change.
Applications are governed by these operating systems. It is unseen and unavoidable. Since the applications that humans are really with contain organic systems, esp. other people they must deal with the notion of Clausewitzian friction, reason, emotion and chance. Any discussion of local systems must take into account the global constraints and friction. Without these elements the problem cannot be framed nor can a solution be found.
Two short papers that I'm inferring a lot of this from;
Principles of Systems and Cybernetics: an evolutionary perspective, http://pcp.lanl.gov/papers/PrinciplesCybSys.pdf
and Destruction and Creation, http://goalsys.com/books/documents/DESTRUCTION_AND_CREATION.pdf.
In systems thinking many discussions revolve around the local or applications level. Education, business, cognitive, communication, cooperative, competitive systems are simply local applications of systems thinking. They, like computer applications are a very limited subset of principles, ideas and constraints. Like a spreadsheet these systems address and are useful within a limited field.
On the global or operational level something much larger is happening. Without the global operating systems running unseen in the background the local applications cannot function. So what are these global operating systems? I see a trinity.
Dissipative Structures or system per Pregogine. Stuff exists and things happen. Initial starting point is the big bang or the uncaused cause, take your pick. The end point is the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
Autopoietic systems that recreate themselves out of this mess and define their own boundaries. These systems tend to use energy and matter to maintain the status-quo. They are incapable of goal-driven evolution but subject to internal errors, i.e. genetic mutation. To stay at this level invites eventual decay and death.
Allopoietic systems that are goal-seeking. These systems use matter and energy to create something other then themselves. Novelty, adaptability and change are their reason for being. These systems provide the motive for the active 'hunt for negative entropy.'
I have adapted this model from Fritjof Capra's Web of Life. The last system is my take on his idea of consciousness.
Why this trinity of operating systems? Because stuff exists and interacts. That stuff and the interactions are suspended between the decay towards entropy and the drive towards emerging complexity. That suspension creates tension and bifurcation points between the status-quo and change.
Applications are governed by these operating systems. It is unseen and unavoidable. Since the applications that humans are really with contain organic systems, esp. other people they must deal with the notion of Clausewitzian friction, reason, emotion and chance. Any discussion of local systems must take into account the global constraints and friction. Without these elements the problem cannot be framed nor can a solution be found.
Two short papers that I'm inferring a lot of this from;
Principles of Systems and Cybernetics: an evolutionary perspective, http://pcp.lanl.gov/papers/PrinciplesCybSys.pdf
and Destruction and Creation, http://goalsys.com/books/documents/DESTRUCTION_AND_CREATION.pdf.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
“Everything you know about is not a problem.”
Any decision/action/learning model has to deal with problems. It needs to work on both sides, to solve them for your own team and to create them for the opponents. So it appears that any discussion on these should begin with framing what problems are. Here is a breakdown on Problem Types from the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst. I've changed the military examples in the original to football.
"Effective problem solving often hinges on recognising the type of problem that
is being faced. In general terms, there are four main problem types: simplistic,
deterministic, random and indeterminate (or ‘Wicked’):
1. Simplistic problems: where there is one and only one answer. For example, what teams are playing or what is the score?
2. Deterministic problems: where the answer is arrived at by the application of a formula, algorithm or protocol. For example, was he offside or what is the velocity of the ball?
3. Random problems: where there is only one answer, but there are a number of possible correct answers. For example, where will the corner kick be played, short, long, near or far post?
4. Indeterminate problems: where the answer itself is complex, hard to identify or
changes in time. For example, what is the best tempo for a team to play at or when do you introduce a substitute? Answering such a question means taking into account a huge range of factors including how others see the issue, how the issue has changed and how your earlier decisions and actions have themselves affected the issue. To use Rittel and Webber’s terminology, these are ‘wicked problems’."
All four types manifest themselves in the game and require decisions/actions which can lead to learning. Indeed, the type of problems that players face are in continual flux and change. Consider how quickly the problem type morphes everytime the ball is put into the air in an indeterminate fashion. So the decision-making process is not one size fits all but must be adaptable to meet the evolving scene.
"Effective problem solving often hinges on recognising the type of problem that
is being faced. In general terms, there are four main problem types: simplistic,
deterministic, random and indeterminate (or ‘Wicked’):
1. Simplistic problems: where there is one and only one answer. For example, what teams are playing or what is the score?
2. Deterministic problems: where the answer is arrived at by the application of a formula, algorithm or protocol. For example, was he offside or what is the velocity of the ball?
3. Random problems: where there is only one answer, but there are a number of possible correct answers. For example, where will the corner kick be played, short, long, near or far post?
4. Indeterminate problems: where the answer itself is complex, hard to identify or
changes in time. For example, what is the best tempo for a team to play at or when do you introduce a substitute? Answering such a question means taking into account a huge range of factors including how others see the issue, how the issue has changed and how your earlier decisions and actions have themselves affected the issue. To use Rittel and Webber’s terminology, these are ‘wicked problems’."
All four types manifest themselves in the game and require decisions/actions which can lead to learning. Indeed, the type of problems that players face are in continual flux and change. Consider how quickly the problem type morphes everytime the ball is put into the air in an indeterminate fashion. So the decision-making process is not one size fits all but must be adaptable to meet the evolving scene.
The first two types are fairly simple, the third involves a rising degree of judgement and expertise while the forth is a total mental furball. That’s just what you want to avoid for yourself and create for the opponent and this is where the Boyd cycle comes into play.
Link to original article, http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/RMAS_An_Officer_and_a_Problem_Solver.pdf.
Link to original article, http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/RMAS_An_Officer_and_a_Problem_Solver.pdf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)