Lewis Works

This open, on-line Newsletter is published weekly, every Friday Afternoon at 4:30 PM PST. It is updated with new announcements and articles each week.

Lewis Works Newsletter*

*General Systems

The E-zine of Applied General Systems Science

By Hugh M. Lewis, PhD, MA, general editor

Vol. I, No. 18

5/28/04 Copyright 2004 ©, Hugh M. Lewis.  Facsimiles of this page or parts of this page may be printed and distributed for non-profit research, consulting and educational purposes only, as governed by fair use policy.

On Top

Lewis Works Systems Essays has now been e-published as volume I, and can be found at the following:

http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Publications/SystemsEssaysI/

The book Robidoux Chronicles, will go to press in just a couple of short weeks.

Criticisms/Comments, then Provide Feedback

On Top

Our newsletter is published once a week at 5:30 PM, Pacific Standard Time, Fridays.

We are focusing this week and the next several weeks upon the problems and issues of Human Meta-systems and the application of systems-based approaches to human systems.

We invite your open involvement in our framework. We are creating a new membership program, open to all comers. The full details below, upon three levels: free membership, basic membership & premium membership. 

Mission Statement

Lewis Works is dedicated to realizing new human adaptive possibilities in order to create alternative long-term frameworks for human & biological systems development on earth and beyond.

The primary mission of Lewis Works is to fundamentally empower all human beings, without regard or reference to their individual or cultural differences, so that they may function in a more constructive and non-violent manner by means of their integration within an applied systems framework that enables them to contextualize and focus their independent developmental efforts toward comprehensive solutions to common problems in resource distribution, environmental adaptation, and social-structural interaction.

• 1. Lewis Works seeks alternative meta-systems based development through applied general systems with the main goals of:

• a. Achieving a mutually stable and harmonic balance between future human systems and earthbound biological systems.

• b. Providing all human beings in unbiased structural or cultural contexts the alternative systems-based frameworks for their individual & social development by means of increased opportunities, productivity, security and resource availability that they would not otherwise have in conventional frameworks.

• c. Developing the infra-structural context and means for the regular extension of human and biological systems beyond the boundaries of the earth.

• 2. Lewis Works is dedicated to achieving a better world for all people and for all life-forms through the implementation and articulation of an applied general systems framework to general and specific problem sets that occur in the adaptive organization of human behavior in a shared natural environment.

• 3. Lewis Works is non-exclusive, open, non-authoritarian, philanthropic and pacifist in orientation.

• 4. Lewis Works pursues a combination of both profit and non-profit programs and projects to the achievement of its main goals.

• 5. Lewis Works protects and promotes universal human rights and human responsibilities throughout its various programs and projects by the systematic pursuit of human development strategies.

• 6. Lewis Works is law abiding and honest in all its dealings and transactions in all contexts, and respects and honors the customs and manners of all peoples and all ethnocultural groupings.

• 7. Lewis Works protects and promotes the confidentiality and legitimate interests of its clients and customers under all circumstances and in all cases.

• 8. Lewis Works seeks to efficiently provide a comprehensive range of profit-based services and related product lines within an open, web-based forum of exchange that is global in scope, regional in character, and local in focus, and that serves as the basis for the development of a structurally open meta-systems based context in the world transcending local, regional and national identities and affiliations.

• 9. Lewis Works seeks to promote non-profit programs in alternative human development for the sake of alleviating human suffering, educating people openly and in an unbiased manner, and promoting pro-social human development.

• 10. Lewis Works seeks to create trans-national meta-cultural orientations in the world through various organizational frameworks that promote open, democratic principles of government, fair-play and the rule of just law, and through the development of anti-structural multi-media based systems that provide humanity a common symbolic context for their meta-cultural integration.

The lack of a basic, general definition of a "system" serves as a critical short-coming in the development of systems-based perspectives, models and applications. 

General Systems Definition:

A system is a finite co-occurring set of event structures that form subsystem components, that are relationally self-organizing between components, and that exhibit mutual constraint such that the relations occurring between them tend to be minimally non-random and recurring within a developmental sequence, and such that the system as a whole exhibits thereby integrative properties of emergence, negentropic growth of order, dynamic-state equilibrium and self-perpetuation under varying sets of external conditions.

In general, a system is any self-integrated pattern that maintains regular order, in some minimal sense, against a general meta-systems gradient or encompassing set of tendencies towards disorder.

At this time, I distinguish three general types of systems, depending upon the degree of non-random constraint that governs their integrative patterns, and that determines the ontological and developmental status of the component subsystems.

Type 1 systems: Internally integrated systems. These are usually the most determined of systems, with highly constrained relations and interactions, and exhibit the most non-random of patterns. If any component parts from such a system that are critical to the functioning of the system are removed, then the system as a whole cannot be sufficiently maintained. The component parts of such systems cannot be maintained outside of the internalized context that the system as a whole provides, and would end when the system ends. Type 1 systems tend to be highly differentiated internally in a functional and structural sense, such that component subsystems tend to take on highly compartmentalized and specialized functions.

Type 2 systems: Externally integrated systems. These are usually only partially determined and with less constraint governing the relationships occurring between the parts. In such contexts it is usually the case that individual component parts of the system may be removed from the system, and the system will maintain its equilibrium without significant disturbance. It is also often the case that individual component parts can be self-maintaining outside of the context provided by the larger system. The basis for the organization of such Type 2 systems seems to be the intervention and condition of external constraints that are tied to the shared meta-systems context or environment in which they subsystems exist. Type 2 systems may be said to be less differentiated than type 1 systems, such that component parts may be to some extent interchangeable, and functional articulation of the subsystems substitutable by alternate components.

Type 3 systems: Heterogeneous systems. These are mixed self-organizing systems that by definition are usually the least constrained and determined, the least enduring and tend to be the most ephemeral. Such systems often involve interactions and regular relationships between component parts across levels or orders of integration of natural reality, or across extensive boundaries of other systems. It is the case in such systems that the component parts are probably parts of other Type 2 systems simultaneously as being involved in a Type 3 system, and such components can be fully self-maintaining independent of the meta-systems context provided by the Type 3 system. Type 3 systems seem to exhibit the most chaos of pattern in their state-path trajectory and are therefore the most open and subject to the perturbation of external influences.

Though we define general systems by a common set of definitions, we must also limit our general definition by stating that, though all real systems may be defined generally as a system, each specific system is unique in terms of its overall patterning and complexity in relation the meta-systems context in which it occurs. Our definitions apply in only a general or non-specific sense, and the understanding of any particular system requires that we specify its unique event pattern.

It makes sense therefore to distinguish what we can call "general systems" or  a single case of "a general system" from what may be referred to as specific or "particular systems" as in "this particular system." All real systems may be said to be both a particular system, and at the same time, a general system of a particular type, kind or level of integration.

The distinction between general systems and a particular system is an important analytical and semantic difference to draw upon in the definition of systems. We must be careful to specify a particular system or kind of system in the statements we make about a system, and to separate those features unique or characteristic of that system or kind of system, from any other systems, or from the general properties or patterns that can be ascribed to all systems. A general systems model and definition provides us a point of entry into the examination and comprehension of any particular system or kind of system, but it is not the final set of statements we want to arrive at about any given set or set of systems.

The general systems principle may be said to be a concept that is rooted in the structural order of the natural world. 

Basically, it states that all non-random phenomena in the natural world are organized as systems upon multiple levels of stratification, therefore we may understand and model any set of related, non-random event structures in terms of some applied general systems model that sufficiently accounts for the variables used to measure such event structures in a consistent and reliable manner.

If all natural event structures cohere into systems, and all systems are organized minimally by a common set of general principles, then we should be able to assume that, similar kinds of systems occurring upon the same level of analysis, share similar systems principles, no matter where they occur, and we can expect certain basic principles to recur for all systems.

The hypothesis of a general systems principle allows us to apply general systems models to all kinds of event structures that occur in reality, at all levels of analysis, with a degree of confidence that our models may be reliable fit to the explanation of the phenomena at hand. This must be seen as a grand assist in our attempt to generally explain a wide range of natural phenomena under a common theoretical umbrella.

The General Systems Principle therefore may be said to implicitly encompass of a paradigm or a set of sub-principles that goes like this:

1. All possible event structures that have non-random patterns of occurrence are the consequence of natural self-organizing systems that fit the definition of general systems of type 1, type 2, or type 3.

2. All possible self-organizing systems that occur in reality exhibit certain basic structural patterns of organization and order that determines the behavioral outcomes and developmental trajectory within a constrained field of possibilities.

3. All systems have a developmental life-cycle marked by a beginning, a period of increase of complexity, a period of dynamic-state stability, a period of increase of simplification, and an end.

4. All event structures occur within a larger meta-systems context and the field of possibilities for each system are constrained by the unique meta-systems context in which they instantaneously occur.

5. There is only a single meta-systems context that comprehends all event structures and this is isomorphic with the physical reality of the total universe.

6. This comprehensive meta-systems context is hierarchically stratified upon three known orders of integration: 1. physical; 2. biological; 3. symbolic.

7. Each known order of integration can be analytically subdivided into sub-levels of stratified organization based upon integrative emergent properties characterizing each level.

8. There may be more orders of integration occurring, at either a sub-physical level or a super-symbolic level.

In short, we may say because all real patterns in nature are minimally organized in certain recurrent ways, they may all be defined and explained in terms of systems-based models that are adapted to the particular level and area of observational analysis and measurement.

We may say that all natural systems are self-organizing, partially determined (hence partially open), and are always constrained within a larger meta-systems context in which they occur and are developmentally determined.

We may hypothesize that there is only one grand meta-systems context that comprehends and encompasses all natural systems that we know of or that may possibly exist. An extension of the general systems principle is that, if there are multiple meta-systems that are disconnected from one another, we cannot know these alternative meta-systems, and therefore unless there is some relationship, however indirect, to our own meta-systems context, we cannot presume or act as if such alternative meta-systems exist. And if they are some how, however indirectly connected with our own meta-systems context, then they are ultimately part of the same larger meta-systems framework.

This grand meta-systems context, as far as we know or may know, is to be considered to be isomorphic with what we can call the total universe upon a physical level of order, and it leads us to see the larger structure of order of the total universe as what is known as a meta-state system. This is an important relationship to consider, as it grounds all real systems in the physical order of nature. We may say, as an extension of the General Systems Principle, the following:

9. All real systems are physically constrained, and there is no real system that is not so constrained by the physical order of nature.

Furthermore, such a meta-systems context is hierarchically stratified upon what can be considered a well system of nested derivative systems. This fact of derivative, nested stratification of all systems is significant for the extension of the general systems principle to an understanding of basic and comprehensive realities. It means that the accounting for the original organization and process of integration of systems must be upon the most fundamental physical level possible. We are left to consider the possibility of how physical systems may become organized into non-random structures from a field of what may ultimately have been totally random possibilities.

All systems arise as the result of the stochastic possibility of self-organization, which means that self-organizing systems having non-random negentropy of patterning are semi-deterministic possibilities occurring in a larger field of undetermined possibilities. If we generate a very large set of random numbers, there remains a remote possibility that some of these numbers may actually fall into non-random sequences. Given a large enough set, some of these non-random sequences of numbers may fall into patterns of non-random order at more than one level. Once such systems have become organized in a non-random, negentropic manner, then it is likely that they may become self-sustaining or self-reproducing, as long as the original conditions continue to persist that led to their organization in the first place.

Because all systems occur bound and constrained within a larger meta-systems context, we need hypothesize the non-random organization of structure from a larger random field of possibilities only on the most basic and original level of organization of systems. Once non-random sets have been organized from an original ground of random possibilities, all other systems derivative from this original level may be based upon both random and non-random factors. Thus, the fundamental level of original systems may have acted like 'seed systems' upon which all derivative systems eventually developed.

All known systems obey basic fundamental laws of systems dynamics. For instance all known systems obey what I would call energy or force dynamics, and these include at least the paradigms of thermodynamics and gravitational dynamics.

We may therefore state a tenth proposition regarding the General Systems Principle:

10. All general systems are dynamic relative to the meta-systems frame they occur within, and therefore are subject to systematic change.

The consequences of this last principle entail that ultimately, though we have homologically or analogically similar kinds of systems, all real systems are unique in the profile of their complexity and specificity of internal dynamics or relative context. 

We may furthermore stipulate that because all real systems maintain a sense of non-random order, they convey a general systems principle of design:

11. All real systems may be said to be self-organizational by integrated, implicit design which carries information about the instantaneous state and developmental/relational solution space occupied by a given system. 

Finally, the last principle alluded to by points above involve the principle of the intrinsic relativity of general systems in the sense that our awareness of such systems conditions their behavior and therefore this behavior exhibits a built-in complementariness of perspective related to the problem of holistic integration, that is unapproachable by a logical model based upon direct or simple linear causality.

12. All real systems are relative to the context of their observation and measurement, as well as to the meta-systems context of their instantaneous behavioral articulation. We may say, for instance, that similar kinds of systems, under similar kinds of conditions, can be expected to behave in similar ways with a high degree of probability. A part of these conditions are by definition the frameworks of observation and understanding we impose upon a system or kind of system.

There is something that is basic about systems. If all natural phenomena can be claimed to be part of a system of one form or another, there is then something in nature that lends itself in a very fundamental and universal manner to the organization of systems. Of course, we may say, how else could it have been done, if not in terms of a system. I would claim that there is a basic environmental responsiveness of all things in nature, and things in nature are in a process of continually interacting with and adjusting to a larger context of occurrence. Natural relations appear to respond to non-random phenomena.

Meta-systems Context & the General Systems Frame of Reference

If all systems are related to other systems, and if the multiple levels of analysis of reality are interconnected, then we can conclude that any real system must have a concurrent meta-systems context based upon direct and indirect relations that components of a system, or the system as a whole, has with its effective environment. Another way of putting this is to state that no real system may occur outside of or bereft of the effective meta-systems context the interactions of which will determine the alternative possible developmental trajectories that the system may assume. A meta-system for a particular system may be defined therefore as the super-systems context of that system. We may assume that all meta-systems context share basic structural principles of relationship, regardless of what level they occur upon or their size or order of complexity, and we may thus derive a common set of general meta-systems principles that defines a frame of reference for general systems.

We may say some things about meta-systems contexts as a general frame of reference. 

First, meta-systems are hierarchically stratified and arranged based on the principle that the emergent systems-based behavioral properties characterizing subsystems become organized at the next higher level as non-random systems, which in turn lead to newly emergent or integrative properties at the next higher level, subsuming all subsystems below it, and in turn forming the basis for a new super-system at the next level. These are what I refer to as Type 1 systems. 

Second, multiple co-occurring systems at the same level of integration, interact through time to produce heterogeneous, open meta-systems that may exhibit extensive integrative properties. These are what I refer to as Type 2 systems.

Third, the two forms of integration, intensive and vertical in the first case, and extensive and lateral in the second, may interact in complex ways, across levels and extensive systems boundaries, to produce complex patterns of behavior and determine outcomes of state-path trajectories of otherwise independent systems. We may speak therefore of emergent meta-systems that are the consequence of the extensive integration of subsystems. These are what I refer to as Type 3 systems.

Systems do not occur in isolation, but usually arise and interact with other systems, and a system itself arises as the consequence of the interaction of subsystems.

What we observe normally as "human sized" systems or systems that fall within our normal range of observation, are what can be called derivative systems, or systems that are built up from other subsystems. 

There is a built-in hierarchical stratification of natural systems. The basic levels of order that we are aware of at this time may be divided into the following:

1. Physical systems

2. Biological systems

3. Symbolic system

Each of the subsequent levels are rooted in the level below it. All real systems we are aware of fit into this framework. It is apparent as well that biological systems comprise a very small subset of the total set of physical systems, and that symbolic systems we are aware of comprise only a small subset of the total set of biological systems. Furthermore, higher order systems that we are aware of are derivative of, based upon and contained by the lower order systems. We may therefore take known symbolic systems, for instance, which are human beings, and deduce both biological and physical qualities from them. We may take any biological system and derive underlying physical traits, patterns and processes. 

Furthermore, each basic order of hierarchical stratification of natural systems may be subdivided into multiple distinctive sublevels of derivative organization. Systems at each basic level also tend to be compartmentalized laterally into extensive systems and larger super-systems. The patterning of this extensive organization of systems is fundamentally different upon each level of integration.

We must at this point only speculate, without further evidence, of the existence of basic self-organizing systems that are sub-physical, on one end, and super-symbolic, on the other end. We are inclined on either end of the spectrum to adopt symbolic ideologies of supernatural forces and entities, but from a systems standpoint we know this to be incorrect.

We must only ask ourselves, how can we imagine a sub-physical system to be, that results in the occurrence of physical systems as we know this upon a fundamental level. What would we even call such a sub-physical order of reality, and if it existed below the known physical level of occurrence, then how could we sense it, measure it or derive its existence empirically?

How can we imagine a derivative super-symbolic systems to behave and be organized? Our closest correlate perhaps is the arise of physical based alternative systems that manifest artificial intelligence--in these frameworks we have at least the possibility of constructing symbolic or super-symbolic orders of systems that would, in the final definition, totally eliminate any biological components. We are not in a position yet even to determine the possibility of such systems, but they are imaginable.

We must then speak about a fundamental condition of general systems relativity, that all systems are relative to the meta-systems context in which they occur, such that, all other things being equal, two or more systems that are similar in design structure, will, under the same meta-systemic circumstances, follow the same sets of governing principles and will thus follow similar behavioral trajectories. 

Because systems vary, and all real systems are particularly unique, no two real systems will have exactly the same state-path trajectory of developmental order or outcomes. We may systematically compare systems in a number of different ways, but overall in terms of the total degree of similarity, or isomorphism of pattern, that two systems may exhibit. 

General Systems Dynamics refers to the problem of universal change that underlies all systems. In our conventional models of systems we are inclined to view such structures as synchronous, temporally repetitive of patterning or recurrent in process (recursive), and therefore as basically contemporaneous and non-changing. To hypothesis that non-random change processes are at the heart of all systems flies in the face somewhat of common sense and our received wisdom of systems models. We may say that all systems are ultimately defined by the arrangement of event structures that they are constituted by. Such event structures, by definition, refer to a change of state, or a basic transformation, from one pattern into some other pattern. We call such transformation "dynamic."

General Systems Dynamics therefore refers to the understanding of the structure of change that is intrinsic to all systems at all levels of integration. Such change is seen first and foremost to be systematic and to follow either a basic trajectory of increasing complexity or increasing simplicity of design. Another way of seeing this is that any possible systems state may change or transform into either a more or less complex state, by design.

General Systems Dynamics therefore refers us to a theory of change that is characteristic of all systems. 

I would hypothesize several distinct kinds of dynamics by which we can characterize systems generally, with a basic covering law paradigm relevant to each kind, listed below and dealing with each in turn:

I. developmental or relational dynamics.

II. energy or transformational dynamics

III. design or informational dynamics

I. Developmental or relational dynamics:

Developmental dynamics concerns the state-path behavior and trajectory of systems as a whole, and we may state the following principles:

1. All real systems may be characterized in terms of their state path trajectories that they assume.

2. All real systems have at least five basic stages of their development: a. beginning or birth phase; b. rising or growth phase; c. equilibrium or steady-state phase; d. falling or declining phase; e. ending or death phase.

3. All real systems are complexly underdetermined such that the state-path trajectories of particular systems are ultimately unpredictable, but tend to follow the pattern of non-linear dynamics of a second order system. There are four meta-states of solution space (equilibrium) that all general systems fall within--1. a stable center; 2. an unstable saddle point; 3. a node; 4. a spiral that can be either stable or unstable.

4. Different kinds of systems have typical patterns of state-path behavior characterizing each of their developmental stages, and all systems tend toward "normal" trajectories referred to as equi-final states regardless of a variety of alternative starting conditions or intervening variables. It is in terms of the typical or expectable state-path behavior of different kinds of systems that we can taxonomically and homologically classify systems.

II. energy or transformational dynamics:

In a physical sense, we refer to the dynamics of energy as this pertains to alternative system states, and in particular the transition or transformation between states, which is in reality always continuous, and it appears, to always occur in a condition of reciprocal equilibrium. Energy in this sense implies "force" that results in transformational change of state.

In nature, we cannot have an system that is completely without energy. A system maintains itself through doing work, which I will define as the constructive organization of energy. Work is always accomplished at less than perfect efficiency, and hence all systems, as energy systems, tend to "leak" energy to the environment in which they occur. In order for work to be accomplished, energy must be taken into a system from outside by some means or transport mechanism, and there must be a sufficient reservoir of energy to allow the system to maintain its energy budget in an equilibrium state.

Conventionally, on a basic level, the paradigm of the laws of thermodynamics are the most widely applicable set of statements on energy state changes that we have. 

I will reiterate these principles briefly:

0. The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics:

If two systems are in equilibrium with a third system, they are in equilibrium with each other.

1. The First Law of Thermodynamics:

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only transferred to and from a system.

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics:

The state of entropy or measure of disorder of a system can never decrease unless work is done.

3. The Third Law of Thermodynamics:

Absolute Zero, a state of zero heat, cannot be achieved, only approached by infinite degrees of closeness.

The implications of these laws are manifold and of considerable significance when we consider the conventional mechanics of physical systems. From this, for instance, we may deduce that any system that is capable of maintaining order or increasing order against a natural tendency towards disorder, can only do so through work, or the effective organization of energy transactions. Work is never 100 percent efficient, and requires energy to be consistently realized in a usable form. There can be no systems that occur or work without some continuous expenditure of energy, and there can be no "perpetual motion machines."

I would postulate a general systems paradigm for gravitational dynamics that I consider to be entirely complementary to a thermodynamic paradigm, based upon the observation of event structures common in nature that do not clearly fit within a thermodynamic framework, and that appear to be based primarily upon gravitational energy relations. I will try to state this paradigm in a manner I consider to be more or less equivalent to a thermodynamic paradigm, point by point, but a full development of a gravitational dynamic paradigm is beyond the scope of this present context. In order to explicate this paradigm, it must be briefly mentioned that in gravitational systems, motion of bodies of mass are considered to be equivalent to the effects of gravitating bodies.

0. The Zeroth Rule of Gravitational Dynamics: if two bodies are in gravitational equilibrium or motion relative a third body, then they will be in gravitational equilibrium with one another. We may state that one or more bodies in motion will seek a state of zero gravitational equilibrium in relation to one another.

1. Second Rule of Gravitational Dynamics: gravitational energy or the energy of momentum cannot be created or destroyed, but only transferred between physical systems of mass. We cannot increase the gravitational energy intrinsic to an object of matter. We can increase its mass or acceleration in the gravitational field of another object of matter.

2. Third Rule of Gravitational Dynamics: Gravitational differentials between two or more objects of mass, or acceleration of an object of mass in motion cannot increase unless work is done. We cannot have an "anti-gravity" machine, made of matter, that can reverse the functions of gravitational force on that matter.

3. The Third law of Gravitational Dynamics states that Absolute Rest, or a zero state of motion that is non-gravitational, cannot be achieved. I consider Absolute Rest to be the gravitational equivalent of Absolute Zero.

Gravitational Dynamics requires a certain amount of rethinking of our models of physical reality, and of course the idea will not be well received or embraced by all people. The paradigmatic statements of gravitational dynamics above are not to be considered to be set in stone, either. They are rather tentative, and intended to provide people with an entry way into an alternative model of physical reality that is based upon systems-design principles.

It is to be legitimately wondered whether or not there may not be more forms of energy dynamic paradigms that we may associate for instance with the strong or weak forces or that we may associate with all four known forms of energy collectively in a general sense. Further, I have in my models hypothesized a fundamental quintessential form of energy that is constitutive of the four known forms, and it would seem that we would need a paradigmatic statement of principles concerning these fundamental energy dynamics as well.

III. Design or informational dynamics:

A paradigm of informational dynamics is rooted in the fact that all real systems carry a non-random sense of order to which we attribute meaningful pattern or information. This sense of order changes as the patterning of the system develops, and the change dynamics attributed to the informational design of a system thus

1. All systems have a non-random pattern of relational order that is subject to alternation.

2. The pattern of alternation is systematic in a non-linear manner, and hence is subject to description by rules that define the sequential event structures or the synchronous relations between the components of a system. These rules of a system constitute an implicit grammar of a system.

3. A system cannot increase its sense of order except through the organization of work.

4. A system may never be totally random. Complete randomness may not in fact exist in the natural scheme of things.

A system may never be one hundred percent integrated. We cannot in reality have a perfectly organized system, and I suspect such an organization would be equivalent to an energy efficiency of 100 percent.

General Systems Dynamics implicitly necessitates consideration of what can be called General Systems Design--state-complexity may be considered a measure of relative order of a system that is organized by a design or configuration of pattern. This design or pattern occurs as a non-random possibility in a field of alternative possibilities, and carries therefore what can be referred to as informational value about any particular system.

Though achieving a design configuration may occur by chance or stochastic process alone, the likelihood of this happening is usually astronomically residual. Design configurations themselves are usually achieved through organizing or self-organizing processes that themselves require work. Furthermore, the maintenance of the non-random design configuration always requires some rate of energy input, otherwise the tendency would be for the design configuration to change into one that is increasingly random and "noisy." 

We cannot clearly separate questions of design from questions of dynamics and change therefore, as they intrinsically imply and necessitate one another in their realization in any system we may consider.

We may stipulate expectancy values attached to the transformations that occur within a given system, based upon the rate of decay of ordered relations toward disordered states on a random basis. We cannot predict the occurrence of such patterns--but we can assess stochastic expectations of the likelihood of occurrence of random events in a given system. Different systems that are order maintaining have different rates of decay, and different components of such systems also have different rates of decay that may effect the net-values of transformation occurring in the system as a whole.

The basis for understanding a theory of general systems design is to understand that the "structure" of a system that underlies its patterning and developmental dynamics is a kind of grammar based upon rules implicit to the sequence of events and relational directions that occur in a given system. We may refer to points of articulation of a system as structural switching points that exhibit non-random patterns of systematic transaction.

It may be well argued that the "purpose" of any system is the effort expended towards the maintenance of its sense of order, its design, over the long run and the large, though this is somewhat of a circular argument. No real, naturally occurring system may be attributed a sense of "purpose" beyond the fact of occurrence of its own behavioral existence. It would be great to spin a child's top on a table and interpret our failed attempts to knock it on its side to a "ghost in the machine" with the implicit intention of staying upright on its spinning point. It can be argued that any system achieves self-maintenance and perpetuation of its design pattern in some minimal and sufficient manner, for that is the definition of what a system is. Living or biological systems for instance, and unlike purely physical systems, have achieved self-maintenance not only in terms of the life of a single instantaneous system, but over a successive series of systems that are self-replicative and regenerative as systems. How they do this is an interesting and complex point, and we have been prone to try to attribute the 'miracle' of life to some "spirit" that resides in living things and that defines the sense of purpose that we attribute to such things. 

Non-random pattern is intrinsic to the design of systems, and hence important to the definition of systems. A totally disordered system may be said to be a system lacking any meaningful pattern or information. It is a system that has zero design efficiency and 100% design potential or possibility. The design of such a system may be said to be completely undetermined. A totally ordered system is one that can be said to contain maximum information, and may be said to have 100% design efficiency but zero design potential or developmental possibility. The design of such a system may be said to be completely determined.

No real system may achieve a maximum state of information, or 100% design efficiency, nor may any real system exist beneath some threshold of minimum design efficiency or at a level of zero design efficiency.

It therefore follows that a system at any instantaneous point of its trajectory, cannot be completely described with 100 percent accuracy or reliability. We may say there is an intrinsic parallax of uncertain in the structural order of any real system that is part of the relativity of general systems, that is a function of the inherent indeterminancy of such systems. If we observe for instance DNA molecule, we note for instance that the same amino acids can be constituted by usually more than one set of triplet codons. This in itself has little to do directly with error of transcription or random mutation that may affect the information on a given strand of DNA, but indirectly it can be the source of fundamental change as a result of point mutation occurring.

We are left therefore with a certain complementariness of perspective regarding different systems and different kinds of systems that may be attributed to all systems in general. Another way of looking at this is to say that we may have more than a single correct solution or model of the same system, even for otherwise very particular systems, and this would in part depend upon the point of view we adopt about the system.

The design of any system must be seen in whole or in part. If seen in part, then it is to be seen in terms of the principal subsystems that are constitutive of the system, and these subsystems may be seen both in whole, in and of themselves, and in relation to the other subsystems that occur synchronously with them. To look at a specific system as a self-constitutive whole is to adopt a "holistic" frame of reference toward that system, and to look at a specific system in terms of its composite parts is to adopt an "analytical" frame of reference. This leads to a certain basic dichotomization of perspective that is inherent to our knowledge and our scientific approach to understanding systems. Traditional sciences have been dominated, sense Aristotle, by an analytical frame of reference to systems. It has only been in recent decades, with the rise of digital information processing technologies, that an alternative holistic frame of reference has come into vogue, there being computational methodologies now available that permit us to model complexity in a reliable and representative manner.

All real systems may be seen as self-constitutive, or as composite, and all real systems are, depending upon the frame of reference we adopt, to be construed either as being self-constitutive (holistically) of design or as composite (analytically). The problem is really the systems hen or egg type of dilemma--nevertheless it has real consequences what frame of reference we adopt in looking at and solving a particular problem set, or even for how we define a problem set in the first place.

All known real systems are in fact both composite and self-constitutive as integrated systems. Therefore we may treat their design in both a manner as a single, summative variable, a general monomial, or as a complex composite set of variables, or a polynomial.

We may apply the general concept of a systems grammar to the patterning and change dynamics of systems that is inherent to the structure of their design.

General Systems Relativity refers to a fundamental condition of the limits of our ability to know systems in either certain detail or in a general sense. It may be thought that general systems relativity comprehends and encompasses all identifiable forms of relativity of knowledge or information, including the forms of physical relativity that have been identified. Therefore, general systems relativity may be considered to be inherently complex and heterogeneous in its implications and significance.

Any particular system may be considered from multiple points of view in a complementary manner. A system may be analyzed discretely upon any level of order that it encompasses.

All general systems are relative to the general meta-systems context in which they instantaneously occur.

All general systems are relative to the integrative order and level that they occur upon.

All general systems are unique when considered in terms of the specific features of their state-path trajectory. We may say that the grammatical structure of any particular system, or any given kind of system, is unique and particularistic to that system. Therefore, we cannot take the transformation rules of another kind of system and apply it in an unmodified way to a system of a different kind. Incompatibility of structures will result in a misfit and destructive interference between the different models or representations. Take for instances two different languages--we would find them incompatible upon a number of levels of their structural articulation, and this is the basis of the mutual unintelligibility of two such different systems. In order to be a human language, all such systems are constrained in similar kinds of ways, but the actual patterning of these kinds of constraints varies considerably between different languages, and even within a given common language that is widely shared.

We may have a billion leaves upon a single tree, and a thousand of the same kind of tree in a single forest, but no two leaves, or no two trees, will be exactly alike. Each will have specific sets of features unique in pattern and arrangement to each unit or entity of our analysis.

The general relativity of systems is a fundamental condition of our reality and our knowledge of reality. Systems are themselves relative to the contexts in which they occur, and our ability to understand these systems depends upon our interaction with them such that our interactions influence the behavior of systems. Fortunately, many natural systems are relatively robust as such, and hence we may claim a basic sense of objectivity of our knowledge of them.

In consideration of the cultural dynamics of contemporary American society, as well as the social dynamics of human systems worldwide, we have altered our manner of presentation and our strategy of development, primarily to protect our interests from people attempting to take undue advantage of us, and secondly to promote our interests in an open and fair manner that represents the best, not the worst, of human possibilities.

Products/Services

Lewis Works strives to offer a genuinely comprehensive range of services and products for the global e-consumer in an informed, non-aggressive manner. It has taken us time to develop our resources into an integrated framework that will provide largely automated self-service to our members and other customers, bolstered by one-on-one account management and attention to personal details. But persistence & a great deal of patience is finally beginning to pay-off in terms of the emergence of a real web-system with an active presence on the Internet.

We act both as a reseller for other providers, and we also are increasing the product range that we actually own or buy ourselves wholesale and then resell. We also provide a range of peripheral options through associate/affiliate accounts.

We will soon be adding a comprehensive product service catalog link here.

We will be offering an increasing array of type of service and product we can make available to our clientele within the consolidation period. This services will include:

• Systems-based Consulting & Troubleshooting
• Systems-based Computing and Web-Design Development
• Systems-based Meta-scientific research & development services
• Systems-based Digital Publication and Production Services
• Systems-based Development Services in a range of areas, including Non-profit, Consolidated Business Services, Education & Human Development, Organization, Production & Engineering

What areas are currently Non-Profit in Lewis Works?

We have several non-profit domains organized, though these have not yet been developed for content:

Human Coop: promoting development of non-exploitative, grass-roots based, cooperative development & resource exchange network frameworks.

Aid Systems: organizing and deploying critical resource management & rehabilitation teams

Human Development Systems: promoting programs for alternative human development.

Lewis Library: promoting conventional & electronic literacy worldwide, developing an open, distributed-integrated common reference resource & comprehensive knowledge compendium resources.

Human Synergetics: promoting health in holistic, alternative lifestyles

We also recommend our current Link Palette for related links & portals, though most of these are as yet unfinished.

For external topic-organized links, we recommend Hugh's Hot Links

For popular, top-search links, we recommend Haut Lynx

Query us for advertising on our Advertising Pages that are shown throughout our web-system on more than a eleven hundred distinct URLs.

Subscribe to our Newsletter below: