INTRODUCTION

Involvement in general system theory for the past decade has repeatedly begged to me the question of universality and universal systems. In this question we cannot ultimately or finally separate what is theoretical or only ideological from what is possible or real in some objective sense. A "system" is in the final analysis and in the first hypothesis a construct of our human intelligence--a model by which we seek to depict and understand the patterning of reality. It is a kind or species of theory therefore--one that is not rooted to the presuppositions of Platonic Idealism or Cartesian or Kantian Rationalism. It is a kind of theory in which explanation and description are not clearly separate nor separable, in which simplicity and complexity cohere together always, and in which order and disorder are part and parcel of the same general schema. It is therefore a kind of theory not based upon dichotomous logic or the quest for final verities or abstract ideals.

The question of what is universal also always implicitly begs the complementary question of what is fundamental--for it is found at all levels of the organization of nature that what is universal tends to be fundamental as well in terms of its analytic structure.

There are now several basic levels of comprehension of nature at which questions regarding the universal and the fundamental can be found:

1. The universe as a universal system and what is the fundamental structure of physical reality.

2. The question of the universal basis of living systems and the fundamental structures possible with such system.

3. The question of intelligent system or universal intelligence, which are possible primarily by virtue of our own human but not unlimited intelligence.

The last question begs a further problem of alternative possible systems that are potentially real if not actually so, and the question of how to expand the framework of real systems to encompass new possibilities.

Of course these questions also beg a further problem of the taxonomy or systematics of systems--of the nomenclatural organization of systems based knowledge and kinds of systems into classes, orders, taxons, etc. We may classify systems in various ways--for instance epistemologically or naturally by the stratification of systems--and systems do stratify themselves in various contexts in systematic ways. We may classify systems scientifically or philosophically.

In this business of classification we run into the problem of the limits of our language and the poor use of our language in the description and delineation of systems---often not as precise as we should choose.

An important part of scientific investigation is the discovery of universal laws and precepts that govern fundamental relations in the world. Most of this deals of course with physical systems and is the purview therefore of one form of physics or another. Philosophy is no longer looked at as being a significant contributor to the dialogue about the structure of physical reality, and there is thus a sense of living in a kind of dichotomous world in which physical worldview and metaphysical worldview operate in separate and non-congruent spheres. It is perhaps true though that physicists may need philosophers, objective philosophers, for world vision at least as much as philosophers may need physicists to retain a sense of objectivity.

Theories once received as generally universal will in time become embedded in emerging frameworks of knowledge as "special covering law models," and new candidates to claim the title of universality will emerge from the woodwork. This is to be expected as a normal pattern of the history of development of ideas and new knowledge, particularly in science where there is some sense of a track-record of intellectual achievements, a working comparative baseline and hence of definitive progress achieved in the long run.

Universal systems theory may effectively bridge the gulf between "blind" physicists and "crippled" philosophers. It may serve to revitalize the role of philosophy for science, and to simultaneously open the minds of scientists who are otherwise bound to rather narrow sets of purposes in the world. If events in the physical world appear to organize themselves in terms that are describable as systems, and if "systems" are good to think about, "things" that lend themselves wonderfully to abstract elaboration and reason, then they may provide just the common ground that is needed to effect some kind of amnesty and remarriage between the physics and philosophy, and in a larger sense, mind and body and in an academic sense the sciences and the humanities.

The problems of modern worldview have developed in large part because the scientists and the philosophers quit talking with one another, and could find no common ground any longer to communicate--the former were alleged to be "value free" or at least "neutral" on the topic of values, while the latter were confined to a prison of values, from which there could be no escape. I think there is hope for a renewal of a contract between science and philosophy when we can have a truly secular worldview in which values are important but ultimately unnecessary if we are to understand and comprehend reality. Secretly, scientists were loath to let go of religion, or a default resort to an explanation "by God." when all else might fail. Philosophers, the original atheists and secularists of the world, were put into a prison by "God fearing" theists. Whatever the case may have been, it is clear that hope for a unified and unitary worldview can only best be restored when and if scientists and philosophers resume a meaningful dialog on meaningful issues that transcend questions of value.

We may begin by asserting that in the structure of reality, all event structures are organized as systems. Therefore, all events may be accounted for in terms of the systems that they are a part of. Any explanation of natural event structure we may make, if the event structure demonstrates a sense of order and determination, must be found a relevant and relative systems framework that is appropriate to its explanation.

The happy reunion of philosophy and science in terms of universal systems theory would be productive of new models and potential experiments in answering key questions and problem areas of science that may only be approachable through a systems-based methodology. Key questions at all levels of the natural and human sciences might be thus reframed and reformulated in a productive manner. Potentially, any problem set can be recast from a systems based perspective, but the application of such a framework allows us to go after especially complex and central problem sets that have been key issues in general theoretical development.

If it is ever felt that we are generally overstating the case of systems theory in reality, its importance to the structure of events in reality, or its general relevance to either the pattern of these events or our understanding of them, especially what we refer to as our scientific understanding, then I think a counterargument can be just as readily made that overall general systems theory has not been advanced or developed enough to be satisfactory as a general framework for describing and explaining our shared reality, that it has been either too superficially applied, on one hand, and therefore misappropriated and somewhat misrepresented, or else it has been largely if not completely ignored as anything but a superficial and general description of everything.

To some extent, the fault lies within general systems theory itself, as it largely lacks a central core theory or theoretical-methodological framework as this is normally construed within scientific fields of thinking. My own efforts in the last four and twenty years have been largely to try to correct these kinds of critical weaknesses, and I have succeeded to a minimal extent, though I would suggest that much more constructive work remains to be accomplished before we can make a claim that we have a full-blown and interesting field of general systems theory and application that we call "scientific."

I have elaborated what I consider a successful general systems theory for physical systems, providing a model of the dynamic state universe invoking known evidence, suggesting that the universe is probably much older and much larger than the predominant hegemony of Big Bang theorists want to believe or want the rest of the world to believe. Such a model provides some sense of resolution of the unified field problem, albeit non-mathematically, and an enlargement of the paradigm of thermodynamics to embrace a complementary paradigm of gravitational dynamics--gravitational systems observationally do not behave in strict accordance to thermodynamic principles.

I have sought to elaborate and enlarge somewhat evolutionary theory to embrace eco-evolutionary systems models and the notion of the early formation of an original proto-biotic framework that made possible the evolution and selection & differentiation of life forms on earth. It is expected that anywhere where there are a similar concatenation of complex conditions, then life will develop in similar ways, albeit along different fundamental design pathways, though it is most likely that all life forms will be structured by hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen compounds, and that water will be the likely fluid context for most living systems.

I have offered what I take to be a relatively comprehensive and paradigmatically complete human systems framework, a framework that is in a general sense and in principle reiterated by Ludwig Von Bertalanffy in his development of human systems theory along symbolic systems lines. At the same time, I have sought to extend systems theory in a number of different directions, mathematically, in terms of abstract systems, in terms of applied & automated systems, and in terms of philosophical systems.

Ludwig Von Bertalanffy, originator & founder of General Systems Theory, highlighted two main points in his definition of General Systems theory: 1. there is a critical distinction to be made between what he termed "open systems" and what are conventionally construed in terms of thermodynamic models as "closed systems" and 2. open systems are non-linear and more complex and dynamic in their relational patterning than suggested by simple cybernetic models based upon linear feedback systems.

The presence in nature of what he termed complex open systems that were based upon irreducible transport mechanisms between the internal environment of the system and the external environment, permitted processes to occur which he termed "negentropic" and in reverse of the thermodynamic principles used to conventionally characterize closed systems. The presence of such internal transport provided the bases for the growth of systems, such as living systems, that cannot be easily explained as the result of thermodynamic principles alone.

The theory of open systems demands more sophisticated and complex models than are conventionally and somewhat superficially employed in the invocation of general systems principles in service of explanation and application. This was also recognized by Von Bertallanfy, when he recognized that the nature of such systems and their structural patterning was defined by a host of interacting variables that created complex and non-linear relationships within such systems.

Von Bertallanfy recognized that a general theory of open systems had not yet been clearly stated in a thermodynamic manner similar to what had been defined for theoretically closed systems.

Supercomputing was not as developed in his day as it is today, though he realized the possibility of the application of computer simulation to the description of such complex systems and to systems complexity in general.

I would like to suggest some basic revisions of General Systems theory in light of several important points:

1. All real systems can be defined as semi-open in complex ways, and their internal structured is maintained by what can be referred to as boundary-mediating mechanisms that serve to regulate exchange relationships between the internal components of the system and external variables, and that serve thereby to maintain the integrity of the system in a state referred to as "dynamic equilibrium." These mechanisms in general serve the purposes of maintaining a balancing equilibrium of internal states and behavior of a system regardless of fluctuating conditions or externally changing circumstances of the system.

2. All real systems exist within and are defined within a larger real world meta-systems context that conditions and exogenously determines the outcomes, emergent properties, and long-term behavior of such systems.

3. All real systems can be defined at multiple levels of integration as non-linear dynamic systems, characterized by non-linear control structures.

4. All real systems go through a life-cycle trajectory of development, from origination, latent development or aggregation, fluctuating or dynamic steady-state, to eventual decomposition/demise as a coherent system.

5. All real systems can be characterized symbolically in terms of a set of emergent properties that are distinctive to that particular kind of system, and by a pattern configuration that is unique to that particular system in time and place.

6. The symbolic characterization of real systems renders them available to our comprehension and our manipulation as systems--we are able to influence and modulate the patterning and outcomes of system's behavior.

We may restate therefore Ludwig von Bertalanffy's primary concern over open versus closed systems by stating that there can be no real systems that are totally closed, that "closed" systems are abstract ideal systems tied theoretical to the logic of thermodynamics, without phenomenal instantiation in nature. At the same time, there are no completely "open" system in the manner implied by von Bertalanffy's original deployment of the term. All systems are partly closed, and thereby partly determined in a linear manner, and all systems are simultaneously partly open, and thereby remain partly underdetermined in a non-linear ways. We can arrive therefore at a more basic understanding of a general model of systems of all kinds. We may state for instance that all systems achieve some dynamic equilibrium state after a period of growth and development, during which rates of input & output or loss of heat from the system are more or less balanced. Such a state of affairs in living populations are steady state periods of optimum population balance when birth rates are balanced more or less equally by death rates.

We may furthermore state that all real systems have an effective meta-systems context that link and integrate any such system into a larger system framework, as a component, upon some other level of emergent integration. This meta-systemic context is extrinsic to the system but critical to the state-path trajectory and effects of the system in a larger framework of understanding.

What is a system? When we speak of most systems we are usually referring to things made up of multiple components of different kinds, each perhaps performing a different, specialized function, all interacting together in a manner to form a whole. Such a system shows some measure of inter-dependency of parts in relation to one another and in relation to the system as a whole. When we refer to a system, we usually are not referring to a collection of similar objects, or even of dissimilar objects that bear little or no relationship to one another--the most likely sense of order forthcoming from a collection of things can be considered to be a tendency towards disorder. Sometimes collections of objects are made on the basis of organized selection or are arranged in some orderly way, and this becomes a system, or systematic. Thus we can understand readily that sense of order and organization play an important part in the determination and identification of a system, of any system, as such, and not just as a random assortment of things.

Of course, if we were to define precisely what we meant by "sense of order" or organization then we would be hard pressed. The order in most systems appears to be intrinsic to the system, to the relationship and arrangement and interaction of the parts to one another. Usually, "sense of order" serves what can be thought of as a "functional" purpose. We may qualify this statement by asserting that this "functional" purpose is a working purpose, and by work we mean the organization of energy to directive ends that accomplishes some end result or output state that we identify as different from the initial and input states. We understand the principle of work in an abstract sense in terms of models of working machines, like an inclined plane or a screw, and the classical laws of thermodynamics that requires that we input energy into a system before work can be done, and that the amount of work achieved is always less than the total amount of energy input into the system.

This sense of order really becomes in another sense the emergent property or set of properties that is associated with an "end-state" or "stable state" of a particular system or kind of system, or the synergism of that system. We usually identify systems by such stable or end states that they normally achieved, and not by their components or the input values that go into these states, nor either by the various alternative patterns that may exist for such a system. This state is in turn associated with the "equilibrium" of the system, which we would refer to as the normal functional equilibrium of that system as a typical or prototypical class.

It is seen therefore that a system as a system is not generally referred to or thought of in terms of the individual components of that system, though sometimes a part of a system may symbolically be used to represent the system as a whole, but for other reasons than those intrinsic to the system itself. Systems are to be seen therefore as organized sets of components that work together in a semi-coordinate manner to perform a function or set of functions. These functions could not be completely performed if critical components of the system were missing or absent. In a sense, we can understand how a system is organized and works by learning how the system breakdown in terms of its various components. In very complex systems, for example the study of mammalian brains, up until recent brain scan technologies, the best way of learning how the brain functioned was through the aphasias or point damage that occurred to brains of victims who survived but with limited brain function. We could not perform surgery or dissection on living brains without thereby destroying the functioning of the brain as a living system. Study of dead brains at most gave us detailed anatomical knowledge of the brain, but without specific or detailed knowledge in how it really worked as a complete system.

We find systems in nature wherever we may look, at whatever level we may look. Systems appear to come in all shapes and sizes, at all scales. We find physical systems in nature that function in specific ways--for instance the sun is such a physical system defined by tremendous gravitational energies working on a large volume of matter, primarily hydrogen gases and plasma. It appears to be an extremely stable and long-lasting system, and by current conventional knowledge appears to be poorly understood exactly how it works, especially deep within its interior regions and in terms of the long-term state-dynamics of the long run. That it is a system is indicative by its steady output of tremendous volumes of energy, in fluctuating but continuous amounts. This energy takes many forms, and includes large amounts of ionized nucleonic particles and radiation.

I think though we can find simpler and more available examples of physical systems in our everyday worlds. Weather is a kind of system, as is the climate and the earth's atmosphere in general. We understand the hydrologic cycle as a kind of system that is generated by the evaporation of water, mainly from the vast oceans, and the transport of this water vapor over land where it cools and then precipitates back into water, collecting in pools and flowing downward gravitationally in streams until it reaches sea-level, usually at the sea, or sometimes in "dead lakes" that do not collect to any larger body of water. Many simple chemical reactions that occur in nature are examples of systems--photosynthesis common to green plants is not a simple system, but it is one that is readily available to study and that has become well understood in terms of its photo-chemical dyamics. The dissolution of salts in the ocean constitutes a kind of system as well. Evaporation of salt water in shallow pools leaves a residue of salt condensation that may be redissolved by rainfall or other fresh sources of water input into the system.

All reality is organized on the basis of systems. In fact, it appears that the natural design patterning of all of nature on a basic level has been in terms of systems organization, and nature appears to prefer systems organization, or the consequences of systems organization when and where we find non-random pattern. When we say "prefer" we do not mean in any deliberate sense, of course, but only in terms of what is most prevalent in natural patterning.

Nature is non-randomly organized in all its manifestations and states in terms describable by functional systems models.

Nature stratifies itself stochastically on the basis of systems integration and developmental differentiation. Systems organization is the only basis of natural determinism in reality, and we can only explain events and the rise of things in the world on the basis of the self-organization of systems. Systems organize themselves in an open context, in an environment defined by energy-exchange relationships. The stratification of the natural world becomes a "system of systems" or meta-systemic in the sense that systems are relative to their level and place in a larger context of the articulation of reality.

Science is a systems based methodology to the understanding of reality. Science has developed as a successful form of knowledge because it has worked and it has led to the development of new applied systems that perform work. Conceptualization of science and scientific knowledge in any form as an intrinsic part of a meta-systems paradigm is to shift attention from an analytic to a synthetic and holistic framework that considers not so much the internal organization of systems, especially as these are conceived as occurring in isolation, and becomes instead primarily interested in the external meta-systemic relationships, and boundary-mediation of these relationships, that result in the formation and developmental differentiation of systems and the natural stratification of reality.

We must add a proviso to the above statement about the systems-based organization of natural patterning, and it is this:

No real system is perfectly or completely organized in a totally non-random or "determined" manner.

All real systems therefore exhibit inherent state-variability of pattern that is the consequence of non-random entropy in the system.

Real systems perform work as an "order-maintaining" function, and thereby exhibit outputs that are typical and characteristic of the organization of a system.

Systems are inherently, by definition, limited, in the sense that their work is always imperfectly efficient.

All real systems therefore in the long run tend toward a state of decay and ultimate demise as a system.

From this set of statements we may develop a kind of paradigm of real systems. We may summarize the following conclusions about real systems:

All real systems eventually decay in their life-cycle and end in demise of the system.

This environment is always meta-systemic in the sense that the system is always relative to the environment it occurs within.

All real systems have "boundary-mediating" mechanisms that maintain dynamic state-path equilibrium of the system in relation to its environment.

All real systems are meta-systemically relative to other co-occurring or contemporaneous systems.

The exact or precise state-path trajectory of a system is normally expectable but ultimately unpredictable in the sense that it is chaotic and subject to the interactive influence of other contemporaneous systems.

The behavior of systems and their dynamic state-path development is normally complex and chaotic. Even otherwise simple or very stable systems exhibit complex developmental behavior.

Implicit to the principles and definitions given above is the notion of "real systems" (versus ideal systems). I would define a real system at this time as any system that demonstrates objective manifestation in reality, independent of our perception or conception of its behavior. There is an inherent dilemma in our knowledge about systems, as we cannot directly know or perceive a system that is truly independent of our own perception or conception of it. This is the anthropological relativity of all systems. But we can infer from our knowledge, observation and rationalization about systems their independent objectivity. What we see or conceive of systems is the product of our response to systems, a reaction to the occurrence of a system state. We see change of some kind in a system. Our very perception of the events of the occurrence of a system is a behavioral reaction to that system. It is a consequence, an effect, of the system. Our scientific instruments are means of systematically generating and measuring effects that are the consequences of state-changes and patterning of systems. In general they extend our normal capacity to see and respond to the world in a manner that allows us to expand our knowledge of the world.

A real system may be said to be that occurrence of a system in reality that is a priori and independent of our capacity to perceive, experience or comprehend its occurrence, but which gives rise to that perception and comprehension. A non-real system is in a sense an artifact of the parallax of the anthropological relativity of our knowledge about systems--it arises as a consequence of our capacity to respond to systems. A non-real system is one that is dependent upon our behavioral response, particularly, to our capacity to see or think about a real system in terms that do not represent realistically that system in an independent way, and that represent it instead in some other, "false" manner. Non-real systems exist in our head, largely as a figment of our imagination, and are the residual by-product of the symbolic capacity of our intellect. Real systems exist objectively in the world.

Real systems are not entirely exclusive of non-real systems. There are two kinds of systems that may occur that represent overlap between real and non-real systems--these are in a sense the most interesting kind of systems that we know of, or may know of, and these include on one hand abstract systems, and on the other hand, applied systems. Both abstract and applied systems refer to kinds of real systems that have a substantive basis in reality, but which are dependent entirely upon our capacity to know and respond to such systems. They cannot be claimed to have any independent, objective basis in reality beyond the fact of their "realization" through human knowledge and behavioral response.

All real systems have an objective basis in physical reality, and, if they are nothing more, are physical systems. All physical systems have basic common characteristics, they are defined by energy relationships and the organization of energy. They are thus constrained by the dynamics of these relationships. They are thus functionally organized on the basis of mechanical principles. They exhibit systematic and measurable physical dynamics and statics. Applied and abstract systems are real systems in the sense that they have physical representation in reality as systems, but they are representations in reality that are tied to human design, predetermination and knowledge.

Some would argue for the a priori and therefore objective nature of some kinds of ideal abstract systems that are inherently true with or without any physical manifestation. This is in fact the case--truth value of some ideal systems of abstraction are internally derived and do not have any external or objective reference. But they do not occur independently in nature and the presupposition of their a priori objectivity in reality would admit a form of predetermination in the organization of reality. The only predetermination in the organization of reality that we may validly claim to exist, and prove to exist in a scientific manner, is that of human predetermination.

Certain ideal systems of abstraction, logic and mathematical systems, may be said to represent special cases of "non real systems" that may nonetheless be claimed to be independently true of our knowledge of them, but to lack any physical a priori objectivity in their existence or demonstration. These systems present us with something of a grand paradox that is difficult to resolve clearly. It may be said for instance that natural real systems, to the fact that their organization is deterministic and non-random, exhibit logical relationships, which, from an abstract point of view, are inherently and independently true, and the basis of design in systems represents this form of idealized abstraction--therefore systems models and explanations that are scientifically true and valid about systems, are independently true and universal to systems.

But we must also understand that such knowledge is ultimately implicit to the patterning and order of the system and not inherently or a priori explicit until our observation and understanding of such systems. Our symbolic models of such systems however valid and accurate, are nonetheless the projections of our sense of order onto systems that are inherently non-predeterministic. We read a sense of logical order into and from the system. Real systems may be said to be functionally organized in an independent manner.

The distinction here is one of the anthropological relativity of informational systems in general. Abstract systems are really forms of informational systems. Informational systems only make sense if there is someone to perceive and respond to "order" or pattern existing in systems. Information is said to be implicit and inherent to all systems, but only under the condition of our apperceptive recognition of such a sense of order. We can of course try splitting fine philosophical hairs on this paradox of the anthropological relativity of our knowledge, but we cannot escape it or the structure of its implications for the organization of reality, our reality.

Information is inherent to order, which is inherent to making sense of things that are non-random. Information is implicit to non-random patterning in reality, but otherwise meaningless unless there is someone or something to respond and make sense of that order. We are not alone in the universe, and we are not the only creature to see and respond to pattern in the world.

The bottom line is that we cannot ultimately or completely separate real from non-real systems and the presence of the latter will always serve to confuse and render problematic our recognition and understanding of the former kind of system. Resolving this kind of dilemma in a satisfactory manner brings us thus to the problem of metasystems.

Nature organizes itself on the basis of systems--everything that has meaningful pattern in the objective world is constituted by, and constitutes, various forms of systems. There are no ghosts in machines, no spirits in life. There are synergistic, emergent properties and patterns that are the consequence of complex systems integration and stratification upon multiple, embedded and encompassing layers of phenomenological happenstance. We cannot go outside of nature, or beyond its boundaries--we are ourselves, even in our imagination, a part of nature, and carry it with ourselves wherever we may travel, and thus remain bound within, constrained by its universal laws and properties of organization.

Synergistic properties attributable to different kinds of systems that occur upon different levels of stratification of reality arise as the consequence of systemic integration of interactions and relational structures between events that occur in the world.

Naturally occurring systems stratify into a hierarchy of relationships upon multiple embedded and encompassing levels of articulation of event structure.

Event structures upon different levels co-occur simultaneously upon these different levels.

No event structure, indeed no strictly delimitable "system" occurs in a vacuum or outside of a natural context that serves to constrain the behavior of the system in critical ways.

Any delimitable system consists of a finite set of relational patterns and entities ("things") that occur in definite time and space, have some form of physical manifestation, involving the exchange of dynamic energy, and always occurs within the relativistic framework of a larger "universe" of physical events and energy patterns.

The subjective experiences of humankind are also the product of the same operations of systems. The state of consciousness, or the many varied possible states of consciousness, are the working of the system of the mind that is the product of the higher order functioning of the human brain, in context to systems of communication and cultural expression that serve to shape and given tangible or objective meaning to such otherwise internal and wholly solipsistic experience.

Nature is self-organizational. It is the result of stochastic process, the concatenation of chance and happenstance, and the rendering of order from disorder, simplicity from complexity, organization from chaos.

The functioning of systems and their epiphenomenal event patterns can be explained hypothetically by resort to logic, but real systems are at best only semi-deterministic and thus the outcomes of these event patterns, of any event patterns, cannot be perfectly predicted.

It has become a quest in the development of a General System Paradigm to achieve a framework that could be considered to be fundamentally universal to the structure of reality. I do not know if such a framework is truly achievable or not, but it opens up the door of possibility to the discovery of systems-based principles that might be truly universal in scope and application. We already apprehend such principles, such as the laws of thermodynamics, which are indeed systemsbased principles dealing primarily with heat exchange in the functioning of mechanical systems. But it is evident that there are other such principles or sets of principles that might be considered to be universal as well, and these sets of principles, collected together, would constitute the foundation for a General System Paradigm.

The challenge is acceptance of these principles by otherwise disparate and academically entrenched scientific communities, not so much as valid principles, but as forming a general systems paradigm that would have any relevance or even a sense of received validity as such by such a community, to the extent that it would inform and to some extent underly theoretization as a fundamental set of governing constraints.

If systems based models are truly universal in scope, then all observable phenomena must in some way conform or be constrained by these models, and must follow developmentally the determinations made possibly by means of these models. Of course, what might count for a determination of such a model upon one level of the organization, might be very different and directly nrelated to what might constitute models upon any other level of articulation of systems.

Universal systems by definition and implication comprehend all phenomena that occurs or may possibly occur in the universe, whether this phenomena may be said to be directly determined by or of a system, or an indirect consequence of what can be referred to as stochastic meta-systems development. The primary presuppositions of a universal systems theory is that all phenomena in the universe is organized, directly or indirectly, in terms of systems, and these systems can be explained theoretically in a general and comprehensive manner. There is no phenomena found to occur or that may be hypothesized to possibly occur that does not occur in the manner of a system, as a part or a consequence of a system. Systems are an intrinsic part of our world, of every part of our world, and we cannot imagine a part or find a part that cannot be explained in terms of the systems that compose it and that it is a part of.

One aspect of real systems are that they are all interconnected, whether directly or indirectly, and while every system, by definition as a finite entity, occurs in relative isolation, no system is completely or totally isolated from any or every other system that occurs. Thus, meta-systems context becomes important to the understanding of the relationships between systems, as interaction between systems and the developmental changes that one system may undergo, may have a remote or indirect influence on the developmental trajectory of other systems, or even sometimes a large number of systems.

Universal Systems Principle 1: All systems occur within a universal meta-systemic context in relation to all other systems.

Corollary 1a: No system may occur in total isolation from any other or all other systems.

Corollary 1b: Each system, as a system, occurs in relative and partial isolation from any or all other systems.

Corollary 1c: The state-path developmental trajectory of each and every system may be directly or indirectly influenced by the state-path developmental trajectories or one or more other systems.

Corollary 1d: No system is completely determined either internally or externally, and exogenous factors tend in the long run and in the large to introduce indeterminate variables to the state-path developmental trajectory of any system which tends toward complex and chaotic outcomes.

Corollary 1e: Each system is unique and particular in and of itself. No two systems are exactly alike in all regards. All systems demonstrate intrinsic and extrinsic variability of pattern.

Furthermore, another aspect of real systems is not only that they are interconnected within a larger meta-systems field, but they are stratified within a field at multiple levels, such that a system at one level is made up of subsystems at another level, that are themselves systems interacting, and in turn tends to constitute another kind of system at yet a higher super-systems level. For any kind of system therefore we may designate the system itself, the super-system that it is a part of, and the direct subsystems that are a part of it. The natural world demonstrates an openness and potential infinity such that there may be ultimately no end or limit in this stratification of systems at either a fundamental or reductionist level or in the largest scope imaginable. We have certainly found no obvious or logical limits to such systems, beyond the limits of our own observability and knowledge about such systems.

Universal Systems Principle 2: All systems are embedded in a stratified meta-systems context, such that for each system we may designate at least one super-system of which that system is a part and one set of subsystems that compose that system.

Corollary 2a: For any given particular system, there are always at least three levels of analysis by which that system can be comprehended and described--the system in and of itself as whole system, that system as a part of a larger super-system, and that system as composed of smaller subsystems.

Corollary 3b: Principles and properties that occur upon one level of relative analysis do not necessarily apply at any other level of analysis, though they may ultimately be explained in terms of the relational integration of the level that it subsumes.

Corollary 3c: Systems subsumed by super-systems may be thus subsumed by varying degrees--the more that a subsystem is integrated as part of a larger system, the more that system is determined by and plays a part in that larger systems framework.

Corollary 3d: No system is completely or totally subsumed by or subsumes any other system. There is no non-relative, absolute determination of a system by either its subsystem or its super-system.

Corollary 3e: Each system at its own level will therefore demonstrate a relative degree of independence as a unique system separate from any other system.

Universal Systems Principle 3: The meta-systems context that universally contains all systems is without extensive or intensive limit--this context appears to be both infinitely large and infinitesimally small.

The last principle is an important one as there is no direct proof of such a principle, and there is possibly no empirical way of proving such a principle in an inductive manner. The only means of proof we have is from limited inference derived inductively from what we can observe about the distribution of systems in reality, and deductive demonstration based upon explicit presuppositions.

All real systems share a basic set of constraints that may be called universal and these serve as limiting factors in the articulation and phenomenal patterning of any system. A real system is any natural or human made system that occurs in objective reality, as opposed to non-real systems (i.e., abstract, conceptual or imaginary systems that lack any demonstrable basis in reality.) Non-real systems may be considered to be systems that are possible but as yet undemonstrated through experience. There is thus an overlap between real and non-real systems, and it is in this overlap that parallax and play exists for the emergence of new systems heretofore unrealized.

The universal constraints of real systems primarily involve energy exchange relationships upon a physical level. This energy exchange, of whatever kind of system, involves both inputs of one form of energy into a system complex, transformation of this energy along different pathways, and output of energy in one or more alternate forms, part of which is always the expenditure of heat. This thermodynamic model of energy exchange is really only part of the larger equation of energy transfer in real systems. It seems, all real systems are also subject to the constraints of gravity and gravitational energy, and these kind of constraints are not exactly thermodynamic by the conventional model. It is apparent also that other kinds of energy exchange transactions may be occurring in all real systems, albeit upon levels or in ways we have very little direct access to, observationally speaking, and at which we have not yet begun to understand what is really happening.

All real systems also contain, by virtue of their non-random organization of relationships, implicit information that is intrinsic to this relational patterning. Because an informational model is almost completely describable in terms of an thermodynamic analogy, many of the constraints that apply in the process of energy exchange transactions in system also apply to the informational carrying capacity of systems. We may venture the hypothesis in fact that all energy exchange events in the universe carry some kind of informational pattern in the structure of the event that is non-random. If this is true, we may further deduce that what is most characteristic of any system is its energy transactions, and all energy transactions in physical reality can be said to be relatively "systematic" in their occurrence. We know this for two sets of reasons. In the attempt to understand any energy transaction, we can always assume that there is always a net energy balance of zero in any equation we come up with, and this exact balance of inputs-to-outputs in any "energy" system is also directly analogous to a model of pure mathematical abstraction. At this point, pure energy transactions and naturally organized informational systems are directly correspondent with purely abstract mathematical models based upon logical equations. Of course, the complexity and chaos of underdetermined natural systems is virtually impossible to replicate by means of mathematical models, but the possibility for doing so is what drives the advance of supercomputing digital simulations of complex natural event structures like wave action or tornados.

What does all this mean? If we put aside the symbolic rhetoric of our own language and conceptual/ideological systems, and we approach any real system in its most basic terms, we can always find an exact mathematical model, however complex and relatively unavailable, that perfectly describes the deterministic behavior of the system in question in terms of its energy transactions. However chaotic and disordered an explosion might be, if we could replay the events in an exact sequence and simultaneously, we would be able to mathematically map the chain of energy reactions that composed such an event.

Some kinds of constraints are obviously connected to the energy transactions of systems--there is always a loss of heat energy in any real system, such that the efficiency of energy input to the used energy output is always less than 100%. And such a system can never be completely ordered in a non-random, deterministic sense, but its pattern will always contain some degree of random "noise" that is essentially unpredictable.

There are other related limitations we may find universal to all real systems. All real systems contain some degree of indeterminacy or variability built into it on a structural level. All real systems are subject to change and dynamic fluctuation over the long term. All real systems change along pathways that are paradigmatically predefined for systems of a similar kind and magnitude. Change in systems is inevitable. All real systems may be said to have a finite state-path trajectory that describes the life-cycle of a particular kind of system. The informational patterning associated with any real system is transformed on the basis of the stage of the life-cycle and the surrounding environmental events that occur to that system.

All real systems achieve some stable, steady-state configuration in an intermediate phase of its development, which state configuration generally defines the system as such taxonomically and categorically. The mature or parent state of a normal system contains the general informational patterning that can be used in the classification and analysis of different kinds of systems. The fact of inexorable change of any real system imposes certain temporal constraints upon that system. Any system can last only so long before it perishes as such and its elementary components become recycled back into that huge physical cauldron of the universe.

All systems, as systems, also have spatial constraints that limit their articulation. Real systems are not only bound in time, but in space as well. The reasons for the spatial constraint of systems are not so obvious as they might first appear to be. The best explanation I can make, and this is only hypothetical and tentative, is that in fact, in nature, we cannot have an infinite amount of energy in one place at one time, though we may have an extraordinary amount of energy thus concentrated in a finite area. Another way of looking at this problem, I believe, is to restate the idea that we cannot completely or clearly separate spatial dimensions from temporal event structures, and when we have the notion of space, we must include in the formula the problem of time. Hence, if anything is temporally limited due to change, that thing must also of necessity be spatially limited as well. The idea that any given spatial area, over a limited period of time, may contain only so much energy, and hence, information that is inherent to that energy patterning, sets limits as to the possibilities of growth and size of systems.

Also, the idea that systems that depend upon energy transactions between an internal and external environment that are fundamentally different from one another, across some kind of threshold, also entails that any real system can be only of finite 3 dimensional size. An infinitely large system could have no external environment with which to exchange energy. All energy would be contained within itself. I think another way of looking at this problem might be to state a precept like "an infinite amount of energy cannot be obtained from an infinitely small point in space-time." We cannot compress or squeeze all the energy of the universe into a single infinitesimally small "quantum" of space-time. We know that there are relativistic considerations increasingly at the lower known limits of size--there appears for instance to be increasing indeterminancy, intrinsic indeterminancy, of event structure on a small enough scale of measurement. I do not think the implications of this are completely understood, but it seems to me even "energy" as we understand this may be something completely different once we get to a small enough level of analysis.

Perhaps a simpler way of stating this is that all energy transaction events, and the systems they represent, occur in finite space as well as finite time, and thus require both limited space and time for their occurrence.

We must ask, beyond space-time considerations of energy systems, what other constraints might all real systems share in common?

All real systems appear to maintain an indefinite internal state of dynamic equilibrium that is characterized by a gradient between a larger degree of energy contained internally within the system and the measure of energy outside of the system, which gradient is maintained and mediated by certain mechanisms, specific to each kind of system, that can maintain this gradient by transporting into the system greater quantities of energy per unit time and space than are lost from the system either by work, organization or entropy in the system. This state of equilibrium in a system may be maintained in a stable manner such that it will not be drastically affected by minor perturbations or fluctuations of energy levels or exchanges between internal and external environments.

As a function of the complex internalized organization of systems in a non-random, semi-deterministic manner, it may be said that any system exhibits in its patterning certain synergistic properties that are emergent from the behavior of the system as a system, and that cannot be attributed completely to any single components or set of components of the system. In fact, so much does this appear to be the case that all of nature, and all of reality, appears to have organized and stratified itself on the basis of emergent properties, that, upon finer analysis, simply disappear as a consequence of the disruption of the system that produces the property in the first place. This is as true of protons and electrons in an atom of hydrogen or a molecule of water, as it is in an multi-cellular organism or in a star.

We end up with a paradox of systems in a sense being built of a house of cards, or rather, systems composed of other systems, in turn composed by other systems, based on properties attributed only holistically to systems and never to the component parts of those systems. There is little beyond the enormous intricacies and beauty of natural systems that is more remarkable than how emergent properties attributed to systems integration at one level, becomes the basis for the construction of higher-order systems, and how, in such a way, nature seemingly has constructed itself, in all its intricacies, from apparently almost nothing, to what we know it as, including ourselves in that world.

I would not say that these are the only features that are universal to all real systems. They all share complex relationships between constituent components, and they all occur within an environmental context that is essential to the stability and continuation of similar kinds of systems. Systems cannot arise in environmental contexts that are not conducive to their occurrence and stability. While this may sound like a functional tautology, it is quite true that all systems are environmentally dependent upon the conditions that are conducive to their development as systems of a particular kind.

While it may seem self-evident to claim these kinds of features as basic to all real systems, less evident is the degree to which these same features may be used to describe, for instance, the functioning of human systems at the several levels that human systems articulate and in the contexts in which these systems have arisen and developed. Without the correct environmental conditions occurring, it is like that human systems, as cultural symbolic systems built upon the linguistic exchange and transmission of symbolic information, would have arisen in the way that they did, if at all. And we should pay heed ultimately to the same sets of constraints that drive our global civilization today, the insatiable demand for energy and the capacity to utilize this energy in effective ways.Systems occur in all aspects and levels of our observation of nature. Indeed, systems are universal in the world, occurring everywhere.

All of reality is organized by design that is at once both beautiful and rationally ingenious, and yet this design as far as we may ascertain was achieved as a consequence of the concatenation of chance probabilities without the help of any sense of guiding hand or predetermined plan. This sense of design is even more astounding when we consider the many levels upon which it is recognized and understood, and the vast scope and depth of our universe that it entails. It is design that is intrinsic to the phenomena that we experience in the world, and that is embedded in the patterning of that world at all levels of its articulation.

Articulation is a key term, for it points to the change dynamics that drives all systems in orderly ways, and that also drives the possibility for our understanding of such systems. We know systems by change, because of change. If no change occurred, and if change was not fundamental to all systems, then this work would not have been written, and there would be no discourse on nature, systems or anything else. It is truly beyond our capacity to imagine a completely static universe in which nothing changed. I believe it can be demonstrated that, from a physical standpoint, such a universe would be impossible and could not exist except perhaps in the far reaches of our unbound imaginations, and even then only as a figment of remote possibility hard to hold on to and even more difficult to set to words.

By referring to a universal systems paradigm I do not mean to be calling for paradigmatic closure upon the problems involved in universal systems theory. What I am calling for is an alternative kind of "meta-system" paradigm that can be open, universal and conducive to relatively unmuddled models as well as fairly clear and consistent thinking about basic problem sets in reality. This is a tall order for any framework, one that claims to step somehow beyond the intrinsic symbolic limitations all such conceptual frameworks are prone to. I can make such a claim because the general systems theory and framework is inherently cross-disciplinary and comprehensive as a "universal" perspective. Universal systems theory is predicated on certain principles consonant with scientific methodology--namely natural self-organization of reality and non-predetermination of self-organizing systems--these principles preclude I believe entrapment into modes of thinking that are more rooted in religious philosophy and ideology than in observation and understanding of reality.

As the basis for understanding a framework for Universal Systems I would suggest the following points:

1. A System is defined as a patterned set of events that are interrelated and that form an ordered developmental pattern .

2. Systems are describable in terms of general rules that reliably describe the patterning of relationships between events and the course of development of these events.

3. All sciences deal with systems at different levels of their natural occurrence, and the theory that is the result of scientific investigation is an explanatory description of the systems that are implicit to the patterning of the events--the event "structure."

4. Systems are universal in reality and occur at all levels that we experience or can observe, whether directly or indirectly.

5. Reality is describable in an all-inclusive and comprehensive way in terms of a total physical universe. We call this "Universal Reality." We seek to understand the system or systems that can be used to sufficiently describe this universe.

6. Universal reality has been found to articulate a many different levels simultaneously--any sufficient description must account for as many of these levels as possible, if not all levels.

7. In understanding different kinds of systems that are found to occur in nature, certain kinds of relational patterns recur and appear explainable in a similar manner even if they describe structures that are otherwise unrelated.

8. We seek to understand the general and abstract design principles that underlie the organization of all systems that occur, or that might possibly occur.

9. We seek to generalize from the observation of systems and from the understanding of their abstract design principles the problems and patterns that may be said to be common to all systems and hence universal to systems.

10. There occur basic fundamental problem sets that, if not completely impossible to solve, are at least virtually or practically impossible to solve. There are other kinds of problem sets that, from a systems standpoint, are probably impossible to solve in any satisfactory manner.

This then constitutes a kind of preliminary paradigm for what the central subject and theme of this book. As is obvious already, the name universal systems seems to mean several different things at once. These things may be somehow related, though the nature of this relationship is not straightforward to our knowledge or obvious.

This work on universal systems then constitutes an investigation of sorts, mainly of thought, but also of knowledge and information, into the basic dilemmas and problem sets that comprehending universal systems entails at the different levels of the stratification of natural systems. The value of this work is theoretically toward the unification of the sciences, and the larger organization of human knowledge within a single symbolic framework. I believe such unification to be important to achieve in our world as a consequence of the processes of integration that have been occurring in this world, especially those in the area of information recording, processing, storage and transmission. It is possible to work and live consistently in a single integrated symbolic framework that is non-exclusive, comprehensive, open and basically non-ideological in its primes or its sense of preconceived closure upon the world. Its achievement is consonant with the best that science has to deal, and it provides a basis for the non-ideological symbolic unification of human knowledge in a manner that still admits of alternative points of view and a "diversity of ideas."

If it is true that in real systems everything is interconnected to everything else, that the entire universe is ultimately interconnected, then it follows that in our meta-systems frameworks all ideas connected together on one level or another. Muddled thinking is incapable of seeing the forest for the trees, but the view of the forest is a holistic view of the unitary whole, not of its many parts in isolation, but in unification. Universal systems thus is a way of thinking about the whole in terms that encompass its many parts in a holistic manner. A universal systems theory can be said to be a theory about everything, as a single thing. It is thus a theory of the whole of reality, from the top down and bottom up. It potentially encompasses all of physical reality, nonexclusively, and every possibility that may occur in this reality.

The theoretical problem of universality enters into the definition and explanation of systems when we seek to discover what is common to all systems and to any kind of system, and to separate these from what is unique to particular systems and what is different about different kinds of systems. The quest for systems universality underlies the development of a general systems science and a science of systems in general. It forms the basis for the theoretical and paradigmatic organization of knowledge and understanding about systems as science.

A systems based perspective of reality or worldview is characterized by certain dimensions that are common to a systems point of view but, I would assert, are shared by no other kind or system of knowledge:

1. Comprehensive. It covers all manner and kinds of phenomena that occurs in reality, and is capable of accounting for such phenomena at multiple levels of generality-specificity.

2. Relativistic. It differentiates and identifies systems in situ of the environment they occur within, and accounts for the relationships between the environment and the system.

3. Holistic. It looks at processes and patterns in terms of whole structures, rather than in terms of the parts.

4. Synthetic or Synergistic. It looks at the emergent properties or states attributable to and characteristic of the functioning of systems as an integrated whole.

5. Analytic. Systems worldview is capable of analyzing systems in a systematic manner in terms of its components and accounting for the function and behavior of the components.

8. Dynamic. Systems worldview accounts for change, and all manner of change, in a systematic manner.

9. Developmental. Systems worldview is capable of accounting for general state-changes of all different kinds of systems and for the growth and life-cycle of systems within a normal developmental paradigm.

10. Complex. Systems worldview is capable of accounting and dealing with the natural complexity of systems as it occurs.

What follows is considered an incomplete list of possible universal systems principles and precepts:

All "things" and relations are composed of subsystems, and are parts of a larger super-system framework by which they are functionally related to other things and relations.

No "thing" or relation exists in total or complete isolation from a meta-systems context.

All "events" occur within a structural patterning that defines the behavior of a system or super system.

An event is determined by the meta-systemic relationships and events prior to that event.

A system is a finite and determinable set of contemporaneous and coterminous relations that occur between different things, such that the interaction between the things results in a consistent set of events and states that are self-restoring.

A system is a thing or has "thingness" to the extent that we may attribute a coherent set of emergent or synergistic properties to the patterning of the whole that can be said to be the consequence of the interaction between the parts. This "thingness" may be real or illusory--depending on whether we are referring to the pattern "in itself" or our attributions, labels, and understanding (i.e., knowledge) of the pattern. An event, or set of events, or system of events and relations, always occurs a priori to, before, our experience of that event. Our experience of an event or complex set of events is always our cognitive and behavioral response to the event, influenced by the event structure.

All systems occur within a metasystems context and may be classified as belong to one of four types of metasystem--basic, derivative, extended basic and extended derivative.

All systems, upon whatever level of there occurrence within a metasystems context, are patterned within a developmental paradigm in which the state-path trajectory of the system will be defined by non-linear dynamics that govern the system. Key variables, both internal and external, interact in complex ways to determine the developmental trajectory of a given system at a given time. Inherent variability of systems entails a range of possible outcomes for any given state or state-conditions.

All systems have a finite lifespan that is marked by a beginning, a period of development, a period of mature stability, a period of demise or decline, and an end.

All systems, at whatever level of their occurrence, are physically constituted by subsystems.

The presupposition of what I've referred to as a model of a dynamic state universe is founded upon a fundamental set of propositions about the basic energy exchange dynamics of the universe, a set of propositions I would hypothetically convert into a basic cosmological paradigm of universal dynamics. All systems seek state equilibrium with their environment. All systems exhibit what can be called conservation of energy state transactions. All systems have net equivalence of alternative forms of energy. There can be no such thing as a completely energiless system of whatever form or kind--no zero-state systems. Deductively, this would mean that we cannot have a finite universe or a beginning point cosmosgeny. This alone suggests that we cannot consider a time before the universe when there was no energy whatsoever--energy in its fundamental state cannot be made or destroyed, but only transformed into a new or different form or state. This means that whatever total fund of energy that currently exists in the universe, however it is distributed in whatever state or complex set of states, was the same total fund of energy that existed in the first place.

1. Energy of any form cannot be made or destroyed, but is always conserved in whatever state it is transformed into.

2. The total fund of energy that exists today in the universe is the same total amount of energy that always existed in the universe.

3. The total fund of energy in the universe is unlimited and unbounded--we cannot contain it, store it, or prevent its escape back into the larger system. There is universal energy equilibrium in the large and the long run.

This leads to consideration of a fundamental energy paradigm that might constitute the basis of universal dynamics:

0. Energy Equilibrium: Energy of whatever kind of system will tend in the long run toward equilibrium with the larger system it is contained within.

1. Conservation of Energy:In the transformation of energy from one form or state to another equivalent state, net energy is always conserved.

2. Empty Systems:There is no such thing as a completely energiless system in physical reality.

3. Universal Entropy: In the structure of the large and the long run all physcial systems tend toward fundamental states of energy distribution: i.e., universal entropy.

Consideration of the idea that systems have naturally, spontaneously arisen in the universe that are more highly organized and that contain more information, begs the question of exactly what do we mean by "natural information" from the standpoint of universal systems. I propose a fundamental paradigm of informational dynamics that is parallel and corollary to the universal paradigm of energy dynamics. I would state in the beginning that natural information is in a sense "self-evident" or emanent to the system. In other words, it is implicit to the organization of the system and is intrinsic to the system. Such information is un-predetermined, and does not exist independently from the system.

Natural information is in a sense a measure of the coherence and implicit order of a system, which contains a statement about its efficiency and about its sense of holistic, synergistic organization. Specialization of function of parts is a part of this informational paradigm. It seems that proto-biotic systems on an early earth "discovered" a rudimentary form of genetic information, or DNA, that could be successfully passed along from one system to the next, in a continous round of renewal and regeneration of sytems. Flexibility of this informational process lead to changes and to evolution of new forms in the long run, and to entire "Taxon Cycles." We may claim that an molecule or an atom contains specific forms of information about itself, which we might read in different ways, but as its mass, its atomic number, its place on the periodic table, etc.

We seem to have genuine difficult wrapping our heads around what can be called "non-zero" state systems, or rather systems that are infinitely large, infinitely full, infinitesimally small and eternal without beginning or end. Indeed, for finite systems like ourselves the entire notion of a infinite system is not just unsettling, but impossible to imagine. We seem only to be able to deal with the notion of infinity when we deal with mathematical systems, and I would claim that the relationship between mathematical infinity and universal infinity of physical systems is more than mere analogy, but a form of homology that allows us ultimately to explain the universe in mathematical terms.

I propose therefore a paradigm of informational dynamics that is parallel to whatever paradigm of energy dynamics we may use, whether gravitational, universal, mechanical or thermodynamic. We will start by stating that information is the measure of coherence, or the relatively predictable order of event structures of a system over time and space--the more predictable the events and outcomes of a system's behavior, the greater its informational coherence. Natural information, in other words, arises from the sense of order achieved by a system as a system. This informational paradigm goes something like this:

0. Informational Equilibrium: All other things being equal, a system will tend to become equal informationally to the larger frame of reference it is contained within..

1. Informational Conservation: Information cannot be achieved or maintained in a system without the input of energy in the form of work. The carrying capacity of any informational system is always less than its total potential carrying capacity. No natural or real informational system is perfectly "determined" or ordered.

2. Absolute Disorder: There is no naturally occurring system of energy that is without any sense of order--there is no completely random or totally undetermined system of noise possible. We may speculate that it is impossible to generate a totally random, infinite series of numbers, or that for instance the number 22/7 is a totally unpredictable and unending series of numbers.

3. Universal Noise: In the structure of the large and the long run all informationally ordered systems tend toward increasing noise.

We may state that no possible real event structure may be hypothesized to occur in the universe or in a universal state of reality, that is not constrained or governed by one or more of these principles, and that together, this constitutes a governing paradigm of universal or what I have decided to call "General Dynamics." We may possibly refer to a paradigm of universal systems dynamics as being a composite of one or more of the above paradigms, depending on the kind of physical system we are dealing with. Any systems dynamic paradigm would have to include at least the informational dynamics and one or more of the energy dynamic paradigms. We would say that for any physical, constituent system, these principles become categorically obligatory--they cannot in the outcomes of their development not obey the predictions derivative from these paradigms.

We can say that the state-path trajectories of general dynamic systems tend to follow what can be called non-linear state-path trajectories, and general dynamic paradigms therefore can be said to constitute complex, non-linear control systems governing the event structures of "whole" physical systems. The minimal definition of a non-linear system are mutual coexistence of two or more interacting and interdependent variables that are both underdetermined and uncertain. These two interacting variables, plotted as x and y coordinates in a two dimensional coordinate reference system, would allow us an analytical space of possible outcomes.

We must question if and how fundamental quantum systems and quantum state systems may fit into this framework and we may speculate about adding to this list a hypothetical sixth paradigm of quantum dynamics of fundamental systems. I hesitate doing so because I would be afraid such a list might be spurious. It strikes me that these paradigms govern what can be referred to as unified or whole physical systems, and that when we deal with quanta and quantum reality, we are dealing not with composite or whole systems, but with parts of such systems. The minimum such system we might consider whole, I believe, that is some how subject to these constraints, is the atom. Anything smaller in scale than the atom opens the door to a new set of variables and properties that I do not think can be summarily described in terms of dynamic paradigms--quantum dynamics deal with equally possible alternative event structures, inherent uncertainties, and possibly on some level even the stopping or reversal of time ordered events. To put this distinction more axiomatically as a kind of proposition useful to this digression on universal dynamics, we may state the following:

1. General Dynamics governs composite or whole systems that are structurally unified.

2. The minimum whole system now known to us that is subject to general dynamic principles is the atom, and the smallest atom as system is hydrogen. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and the precursor to the development of all matter in the universe.

3. An alternate universal paradigm of quantum dynamics may govern and constrain the possible behavior of what can be called fundamental constituents or part-processes of whole systems and are not subject directly to the constraints of general dynamics.

4. Quantum dynamic systems may in effect be systems that are both self-constituent and composite systems made up of even smaller part-process phenomena.

5. From the standpoint of observational realities, quantum dynamic systems appear to be inherently ambiguous of identity, exhibiting both field and particularistic properties.

We might only here speculate generally and briefly what the properties of quantum-dynamic states might entail. It appears that all such states have a unique property referred to as Symmetry--there are no non-symmetrical states at this scale. We might speculate that for whatever particle process that appears or occurs at this level, there is some at least hypothetical anti-process particle that cooccurs as well. Furthermore, there is a sense that the strict rules governing systems mechanics and dynamics of whole systems do not apply as strictly or strictly in the same way. We may talk about a range of equally likely outcomes for any given event structure. Whereas for whole systems outcomes of known event structures are at least in theory precisely predictable, this is never the case for quantized systems. Events occur as a set of possible outcomes, and we can only specify the range of these possible outcomes.

Universal dyanamics, as a coherent paradigm, would combine the General Dynamic paradigm given above, with a paradigm of Quantum Dynamics. In other words, as a comprehensive paradigm of universal systems, it would encompass the dynamic behavior of both general systems and the particular or fundamental processes that compose these systems.

In the conception of the dynamic state universe, we may suggest that though energy in the universe was never created nor destroyed, it has in its state transitions evolved in complexity and patterning, and this evolution has been in the structure of the very longest and very largest, in the general direction of increasingly complex and increasingly "informative" states; i.e., stochastic states that can be considered less random and more non-random than before. An example is the rise of black holes in the universe. In an early state of the universe, or at least an earlier state, we could conjecture that there really were few if any black holes. If what we know about black holes is true, they arise in very large stars as the end-product of a stars state-path trajectory and at the end of a stars normal life-time. They are themselves, once they have formed, relatively permanent and enduring entities, with the promise of only growing somehow stronger and larger by consuming all star material that comes within its huge zone of gravitational induction. So, in time, in the long duration of time, black holes must have become increasingly abundant, and become increasingly larger and larger, with the possibility even of multi-black hole systems that in time swallow one another whole. It is quite true that we may not understand black holes well enough, and they may return much if not most of what the swallow as pure gravitational or even quintessential energy back into the depths of interstellar space. It is furthermore believed that very large black holes may exist in the centers of galaxies and may be the dominant basis for the gravitational unification of such gallaxies as extended second order systems. It is hypothetically possible that in a very long time, increasing numbers of relatively permanent blackholes will swallow up larger and larger quantities of matter and energy, whatever it does with all this star stuff. The expectation is that the universe will in time become eventually reorganized in a completely different state than we observe it today or in its remotes past that is observable.

The argument here is not the conjecture about blackholes or the evolutionary development of cosmological states of the universe, but the argument that, all other things being equal, energy based physical systems in the universe will go from a general state configuration of maximum disorder towards one of increasing order and integration, even if this is the least likely outcome. How to explain this strange expectation?

We may start by saying that, however remote the odds of a certain particular set of events happening, on the basis of pure random outcomes of either independent or dependent events, something that is possible, however remotely, will eventually happen. We may say this more strongly, what is initially only possible, will eventually be inevitable. What we will see is that whatever may be the case in a hypothetical universe of independent, totally random event structures, becomes even more true in a universe where events are dependent on prior event structures and therefore cannot be claimed to be totally random.

From the standpoint of our alleged general dynamics, we may state that natural physical systems are inherently entropic and they are also stochastically self-organizing as systems. The definition of a general system is that it must perform some form of work, that is connected to its organization of parts, in order to maintain itself against a background that tends to run towards disorder. Natural physical systems are in a sense not just underdetermined stochastic systems, but they are ultimately "blindly" determined systems. They arise, maintain order against an energy gradient, and disappear largely because they are however improbable stochastic possibilities in a greater sea of probable randomness and disorder.

In the structure of the long run, stable and enduring natural systems have arisen stochastically against all odds, and these systems have resulted in the development of even more highly organized systems. Life as we know it, only on earth as we know it, is one such system that shows, in its four plus billion year evolutionary history, a remarkable genetic unity and stability as an enduring system. The apparent scarcity of life in the known regions of the universe suggest that the spontaneous development of life and biotic systems from pre-biotic contexts is an exceeding rare and improbable happenstance.

To put it succinctly, from the standpoint of Universal Dynamics, God continues to play dice with the universe. This does not mean we must embrace a fully atheistic view of our world, only an atheistic worldview of science.

All events and things in nature have pattern and form. We bring a sense of order automatically to our experience of the world, no matter what that experience may be. Nothing that happens in reality does not have a part to play in the larger scheme of things in the world--nothing that is not a part of a larger plan that governs what occurs and what may not happen at any given moment. Some would like to say the grand design is the work of one God or another. It is justifiably unacceptable to most people, even many scientists, to say that a scientific viewpoint cannot entertain such a conviction, that it must work on the premises that natural design was essentially an accident waiting to happen, a product of chance happenstance, a stochastic possibility. And yet, from a strictly objective point of view, this is the attitude and premise we must adopt when dealing with things in the world if we are to be true to an honest scientific worldview. This is as true of the Universe as a total "system" and our "total sense of reality." Even things that happen by accident or by happenstance, unexpectedly, it may be argued, are part of a grander sense of design, that, though by design completely rational in order, are still lacking any ultimate sense of purpose. Things even that appear random and chaotic demonstrate a sense of design but no final purpose in their happening. They just happen, even if they happen for a reason that lacks a purpose. And yet this sense of order and design cannot be prescribed to the natural world, but only described by science.

There is thus a grand sense of paradox about reality. It pervades and underlies all of our world. It has order and makes sense, and yet lacks the kind of purpose and intention we are want to ascribe to things that work by design. The sense of order intrinsic to natural event structures cannot be said to be predetermined, but stochastically self-organized, and the concept of stochastic self-organization found to be inherent to all natural pattern can be clearly contraposed as mutually exclusive to the notion of a priori design or predetermination. Perhaps this defies our faith or sense of credibility. I think it really only defies a very basic and common fallacy we as humans are prone to--the attribution of structures of intentionality to events that occur in the world, whether those events are the consequence of intention or not. Still, just the same, it seems mighty tempting to think about in that way.

A grand design concerns all of reality. The sum total of reality seems to be something more than the total universe, which is primarily a physical collection of events and things. Not to split hairs on fine and meaningless points, but we can say that total reality encompasses and includes the total universe as a subset, as well as anything else that might possibly exist. We can reasonably argue that even things like human dreams and feelings belong in the physical universe, of which we are a part and of which we are composed. But at the same time, there is a sense that some abstract systems may exist that cannot clearly be classified as part of the physical universe, nor even as necessarily just part of our overactive imaginations.

The quest of all science is the discovery of universal principles and laws that govern reality. Even the possibility of such laws and their discovery excites the scientific imagination. It is nothing less than sublime and incredible that the natural universe could be so ordered as to be ultimately definable in terms of basic sets of rules and propositions about reality. Universal laws are regarded as by themselves immutable, true for all instances, applicable under all conditions. We have discovered many principles and laws in all areas of science, but we have almost invariably found them to be "covering law principles" rather than universal laws. They are universal in a limited sense of the kind of system they apply to, under the limiting frame of reference they are defined within. Such laws invariably become encapsulated into a larger theoretical framework and embedded into a knowledge structure framed in terms of alternate rules and propositions about reality. Laws of Gravity, "action at a distance" for instance, as articulated by Isaac Newton are not intrinsically falsified, but rendered relative to the classical mechanical worldview of which they were a part and from which they originated. These laws remain true and intrinsically immutable, but not in an unrestricted or unlimited sense of application. The entire paradigm in which they were first defined has been subsequently superceded by new paradigms and theories about gravitation and gravity. This has been the case with all the sciences and all human knowledge of reality. It will probably always remain the case as we explore and continue to learn about our world. I see no limit in this way.

Universal systems theory is not the kind of general theory that has been the quest of the analytical sciences--the two sets of interests of course are related, intersect and overlap on common ground, but I think they serve different kinds of needs and different communities defined by different values and goals. Universal systems theory derives from general systems theory, and extends hypothetically to all possible or real systems that exist or that might possibly exist in the world. It is not by itself theory that is differentiated according to the kind of system or level of system being dealt with. It leads into this kind of theory, and has an influence upon it, potentially, from a general systems standpoint, but it is not theory that is generated from within scientific disciplines or that normally directs such scientific inquiry and research. Elaboration of universal systems theory has lead to and leads to development of key theoretical models in a number of areas of natural and applied systems stratification.

The primary perspective of "universal systems" is that we deal with systems alleged on some level to be universal in compass. We require a kind of comprehensiveness of perspective, even if this comprehensiveness is only presumed and never proven. We may argue reasonably whether or not the Universe as a whole is a single well integrated system or just a random collection of otherwise unintegrated systems. This we really do not know and may never finally know. We assume with principles like the Cosmological Principle that systems we observe and understand scientifically on earth and in our corner of the universe apply with equal force and validity elsewhere in the Universe. Even if basic frames of reference shift fundamentally for mechanical systems in ways we do not yet understand, we should be able to systematically account for these kinds of shifts once all the details and facts of the matter are in. We cannot clearly say if there is a single "Universal Frame of Reference" that upon some fundamental level perhaps applies with equal measure to all systems in the total universe. At this time, we simply cannot say unequivocally one way or another.

A fundamental presupposition of universal systems theory is that ultimately all systems in reality are interconnected, however indirectly or remotely. Even if some systems develop randomly or independently of other systems, they share remotely the same meta-systems context in which their development proceeds.

There is another principle I have evoked, that I refer to as "Universal Instantaneousness " and this is the principle that "now" happens simultaneously everywhere in the same "Zeno's instant" in the Universe, in a continuous manner, even if the rate of events that unfold is fundamentally different at different levels or for different things and contexts. Looked at in a completely phenomenal way, all developmental events, all changes that occur in the universe, happen at the same instant, and this "instant" is continuous and probably, never ending. In a sense then the universe appears to "hang together" somehow. The idea of Universal Instantaneousness cannot be directly proven through observation, but it can be arrived at by deductive logic. It is part of an inferable universe and an inferable property of the universe.

The principle of Universal Instantaneousness underlies implicitly our experience and presumption of continuity of physical reality, and is the foundation of our symbolic apprehension of our world even if we cannot immediately comprehend that world. We assume, on the basis of faith drawn from past experience, that people exist on the other side of the planet, or in our neighbors house, "at this immediate moment" even if we cannot directly see them or experience them. Our sense of continuity of reality and experience depends upon such a presupposition applying at least in our human-sized everyday worlds. We count on the probability of their existence to make sense of our world and to deal with that world in a reasonable way. Our sense of past event structures, and of the past in general, may be critically linked to this sense of the implicit simultaneity of event structures in the world. It is our memory of events and things in the world, remote from our own experiences, by which we construct a map of the world in our mind's eye.

The principle of universal instantaneousness provides the universal frame of reference for all systems, if we can safely presume that it in fact exists. It may in fact be the only universal frame of reference applicable to all event structures in the universe if it is a correct presupposition to make. All event structures may be said thereby to exist in the same instantaneous moment of "now," this instantaneous now is continuous and on-going. It is "ever-present" and it is as far as we know, everlasting. It seems to connect an endless or infinite amount of space together and we can assume the three dimensions of space to be endless or "dimensionless" dimensions.

The presupposition of universal instantaneousness of event structure implies that all events proceed on their independent trajectories of development at the same moment everywhere. About the only way this can be explained is if we posit a fundamental structure to the universe that can be said to occur simultaneously everywhere.

All changes that occur within this universal frame of reference would be relative to this framework. Relativistic considerations of time dilation for example notwithstanding, even if "now" transpires at different relative rates, the now would still be universally synchronous. This is how the universe would hang together--changes could only occur in this framework if they are constrained by the limitations imposed upon this framework. At whatever speed an object may be traveling, and whatever rate of transpiration of the clock traveling with that object, the objects existence in an instantaneous sense would be coequal and coeval to all other events and things cooccuring in the same universal frame of reference, whatever their relative speeds.

If our presupposition is correct, we can surmise that any event that may be possible in the universe, must occur within this same universal frame of reference, and must occur relative to the constraints of this frame of reference. We might hypothesize that there might possibly be multiple such frames of reference in parallel dimensions, and then we might expand our view of reality to encompass a realm larger than what is hypothesized for our own physical universe. Such universes may occur in their own independent universal frames, and may occur in a manner totally parallel and disjunctive with one another. The problem is that it is not very obvious how we might be able to prove such an hypothesis.

Thus the entire universe can be seen as evolving everywhere instantaneously and simultaneously, and the universe everywhere can be thought to be of the same age or lapse of total time of development. This results in a basic frame shift in how we see change and event structures in the universe. The juxtaposition and movement of objects in the universe relative to one another can be seen as a continuous stream of development by which such objects are reproduced in a new position/configuration at each new point in time. The example has been used of a thick sheet of rubber, without edges, that bends and twists in all or any manner of directions locally, all at the same time, but which as a whole retains its same basic configuration as a sheet of rubber. If we are like tiny ants on the surface of this vast sheet, we would not necessarily notice its bending or curving. It may appear everywhere to us as similarly flat, whatever direction we moved in. If a topographical set of cross-sections can be made completely across this sheet periodically, the configuration of the resulting topographical lines on our map would be different with each period, but the sheet as a whole would remain of the same absolute mass and size no matter its current configuration. If we drew a straight line on the surface of the sheet, extending in any single direction, then this line would remain the same and go on forever, and no matter which way the sheet itself were folded or convoluted, the line would seem as straight and remain of the same total length.

We may recast this problem with the speculation of an infinite and eternal "present" within which all change must occur simultaneously. This "present" is in a sense without time, thus it lasts forever because time does not impede upon it in any intrinsic or inherent sense. If our universal frame of reference occurs everywhere simultaneously, in an ever present manner, then perhaps it is something that has no sense of time, and if it has not sense of time, it may last forever in and of itself. And if it is eternal, outside of time so to speak, we may conclude that it can also be infinite in its extent, occurring everywhere.

It is one thing to hypothesize that Pluto occurs in an instantaneous now contemporaneously with Earth. It is an entirely different matter to conclude on the basis of this the deduction that in an homologous way our galaxy occurs in an instantaneous now with all other galaxies, however remote, in the entire universe. If this is true, we know we cannot observe their contemporary "now" states in any direct way. In fact, the presupposition of the distance and speed of light travel is essentially a derivative corollary of the notion of instantaneous "now" states occurring in the universe.

We may refer to the universal structure of the universe on the basis of the presupposition of the Principle of Universal Instantaneousness as being a structure that is in itself without dimensions of space or time, itself eternal and infinite, and which is intrinsically changeless, but which contains and constrains in basic ways all change events and structures of space-time in a dynamically relative manner. Taking our example of the universal rubber sheet, it doesn't matter how convoluted or twisted we make the rubber--in its intrinsic sense it remains the same size and distances within itself.

A discrete sense of time, like what we measure, as a rate of change, might be relative to the local frame that it is determined within. It is essentially something we bring to the experience of events in the universe, if an event is defined as a happening or a process of change from one state into some other, alternative state. Change in the universe appears to be fundamentally continuous and not discontinuous. This may be more appearance than truth of the matter upon a fundamental level, at which level change may well occur in a discontinuous series of states, each different from the previous and punctuated by an interim void. We can define change as a transformation from one state into a different or alternate possible state over a period of time.

No change in the universe appears to occur instantaneously, all at the same moment. Change occurs through time, over a period marked by the measurement of time, or a duration. An event is not instantaneous, but again occurs continuously over a period of time. We may hypothesize that in knowable reality, no change can occur instantaneously in more than one infinitesimally small momentary point. We end up with the paradox of Zeno's arrow. Time thus appears to tie together event structures in the Universe in common frames of reference.

The universe, and reality, may be said to occur everywhere instantaneously, simultaneously in the "ever-present." It may be said to be continuously changing and dynamic in its patterning. Beyond the principle of universal instantaneousness, there is no sense of change or occurrence of event structure this happens in an entirely non-relative manner. All change may be said to be relative to the event structure it occurs within. There do seem to be certain universal absolutes in physical reality--the speed of light is presumed to be one, and absolute zero another. The systematic structure of space-time that we attribute to event structure wherever and however it may occur, at whatever level, is only possible due to the relative nature of its occurrence.

In giving consideration to universal structures, it becomes important to point out a few observational conclusions. First, it appears, that space-time dynamics are completely relative to the context that they occur. We may hypothesize that at any instantaneous point, change in an event structure may occur in only one finite direction, but that over time, this change may occur over an infinite number of different directions. If we consider an object in motion in empty space as our example, at any instantaneous point that object can be moving in one direction and one direction only--the same object cannot move in two different directions simultaneously. It is also the case that the speed and direction that an object is moving in is relative to the system that it occurs within. If we are walking on a train headed east, and we are walking to the back of the train going west, then we can say we are going in one direction at a certain speed, minus the speed of our walking in the other direction. Consider at the same time that on the earth we are moving from west to east, and that, as part of the planet we are in orbit around the sun at an even faster rate of speed. We must speculate that as part of the solar system we are moving around the galaxy at some rate of speed, and it is possible that the galaxy as a whole is moving in some direction at some rate of speed. If we take all these motions and directions into account, it describes a very complex state-path trajectory and set of speeds that we may be traveling in at any given instant. We can argue that we are moving in a number of different directions and speeds simultaneously, or that our total net direction and speed is a composite of all the different directions and speeds combined, and describes an extremely complex absolute pathway through the universe.

Any event can change in an infinite number of directions from any one instantaneous point.

The second hypothesis derives from the geometric principle that an infinite number of lines can pass through a single instantaneous point, supports the idea of the Cosmological Principle, that there is in the structure of the large and long run no preferred direction, that the total is made up of a random number of directions. It may also lend weight at some point to the argument for an infinite universal structure. If we hypothesize an infinite universal structure, we can conclude that even if the universe as we know it, as a number of galaxies composed of matter and energy are finite though extremely large, this finite structure would still be contained within, constrained by and part of a larger universal structure that would extend in all directions infinitely and for which time would have no real meaning.

Furthermore, we may observe that change events occur in physical reality at many different levels of size scale, and the occurrence of these change events at different levels seem to some extent to co-occur in a manner independent of one another.

What are the implications of these kinds of observations for a paradigm of universal systems?

The universe is one total meta-systems framework that is in all likelihood infinite and eternal, and that contains all change events and pattern structure possible in physical reality. There appears to be no preferred sense of direction or orientation in this total framework, hence the system appears to be randomly omni-directional. The entire universe is referred to as a meta-systems framework rather than as a super-system because it does not appear to occur in a unified manner of the systems it contains. It may be unified in ways we do not yet know about, it may at one time have been unified, or it may become unified in the future.

The natural process of systems at all levels upon which they are observed is one of development and stratification. Continuous differentiation of systems, due to intrinsic variation, leads to stratification, primarily it seems through boundary mechanisms of integrative processes and emergent properties associated with systems. Continuous differentiation of interacting systems results in the discontinuous stratification of independent systems. Stratification can be seen as a natural meta-systems outcome of the self-organization of systems.

Systems that become unified as single integrated framework share common properties, like instantaneous unidirectionality of motion, and omnidirectionality of change dynamics, that can be used to characterize the entire system. The change dynamics that characterize such a system are relative to the framework that they are a part of.

A system can be considered to be a unified framework in which all the component parts share the same set of unification or integrative properties relative to that framework. We can refer to this principle as a form of systems relativity. Properties are relative to the system that constitutes their principle frame of reference.

Such systems are made up of subsystems which, if not integrated into the larger framework, would share similar properties in an independent way. Properties that appear to apply at one level of systems integration apply differently and independently at other levels of systems integration. For those inside a train, the motion of the train down the tracks is mostly undetectable except for the rocking and occasional jolting. Passengers can move freely about the train even if they along with the train are moving down the tracks at a high rate of speed.

Integrated systems at one level interact with other systems at the same level of integration, and constitute a meta-systems framework that tends towards greater complexity and chaotic variation of pattern. Such meta-systemic frameworks can lead to unification of higher level systems over time in which the behavior of the parts of the system becomes deterministically subordinate to the behavior of the system as a unified whole. Systems that are unified at one level tend to be fundamentally independent of systems that occur on other levels of unification, as well as with other systems that occur at the same level.

The unification of systems, at whatever level this may occur upon, is based upon the deterministic integration of the parts of the system, usually accompanied by some form of functional stratification, differentiation and specialization as well as by development of generalized control mechanisms that are capable of monitoring and adjusting the rates or volumes of interaction between components. Emergent or synergistic properties are the product of systems unification, and the behavior associated with these properties is relative to the level of unification that it occurs upon or arises from.

The primary system that appears to occur on a physical level is what can be called gravitational unification. On another level we can speak of chemical bonding, and, at yet a more basic level, nuclear fusion. All kinetic and motional dynamics of mass based systems appear relative to the predominant frame of gravitational unification that they occur within. Energy dynamics at a chemical level appear independent of this, as well as the nuclear dynamics at an individual level.

We find at each level of physical systems unification, gravitation, electro-dynamic, nuclear and fundamental, a characteristic and distinct kind of "force" that has an associated form of energy. The energies associated with these forces appear to be characteristic field-perturbations that can be broadcast away from a source that is usually associated with the action of a subatomic particle or set of particles within a particular context. These field perturbations are like signatures the handwriting of which is unique to the kind of force and configuration that produced it. I suspect that if we knew enough about gravitational energy or could easily sense it and transcribe it in some visual form we would find a continuum and characteristic patterns like spectral lines and bands that are associated with electromagnetic or light energy derivative of a broad range of molecular sources. These would be like multiple parallel energy continuums or spectrums that did not intersect or overlap with one another, but in a sense ran each along its own set of dimensions in terms of change dynamics that it gives rise to and affect its patterning.

It is possible that we can think of the gravitational field not as a uniform field, but as a relatively heterogeneous continuum of energies that may occur across a broad range of differential frequencies and wavelengths. Furthermore it is evident that the fields that gravitational energy may occur within or give rise to may not be so homogenous or uniform as we may at first have thought, but that they may occur in a more dynamic and variable manner than we can imagine.

What is evident is that all four forms of energy appear to give rise and act upon common physical constructs, like objects of matter and space-time, albeit in different ways that nonetheless intersect in terms of the derivative behaviors of these constructs. The atom itself, the basic building block of all known matter, appears to be a fundamental physical construct upon which and within which system all four forces appear to occur and act in certain ways. Usually in fact the source of these forms of energy in terms of the broader field affects appear to come from the atomic construct. Kinetic energy and motion appear to be forms of energy that are expectable outcomes of the interaction of the different forms of energy--I would assume phenomena like pressure, acceleration, momentum and spin are also related outcomes of the actions and interactions of these basic forces. These energy forces appear to act at different levels and in different ways upon common heterogeneous, resulting of course in complex net outcomes.

All natural systems are real systems that are originally self-organizational and unpredetermined in structure. The precept of self-organization is basic to the patterning of nature and precedes the complex development and stratification of all kinds of systems at all levels of articulation. There is in this a powerful paradigm for explaining the origin of universal systems, or what we might refer to as universal origins of reality. The direction it points in is a process of gradual organization and stochastic differentiation of very basic structural patterns based upon very simple variation that led to compartmentalization and organization of increasingly complicated systems. This is basically anti-thetical to an "all at once" kind of "big bang" of the universe. A big bang model implicitly presupposes some form of preexisting structure or sense of order, even if this sense of order is rationalized into some kind of "homogeneous" condition and it smuggles into our explanation a kind of predetermination that is not allowed. It presupposes a form of concentrated energy that does not itself become explained, especially from the point of view of natural thermodynamics which is predicated on disorder underlying order instead of order underlying disorder. The alternative is a relatively empty and flat universal structure, more or less uniform, that, for whatever reasons, became increasingly turbulent--turbulence of this structure resulted in pattern variation that led over the structure of the long run and the large to the production of basic structures in increasing abundance. If this process eventuated in the production of protons, or even "pre-protonic" structures, it is evident that this process continued and may be continuing now in an on-going manner in the background of the universe. That we have not yet observed this process directly doesn't mean it isn't occurring. What we do observe are huge fields or cosmic "clouds" of hydrogen gas, the origins of which are insufficiently explained. These vast formations of hydrogen gas appear productive of new stars, and appear themselves to be commonplace and abundant throughout the observable universe. These clouds are not necessarily gravitationally unified as intrinsic systems, and hence the hypothesis that they may be moving as such gravitationally unified structures as a result of Hubble expansion, cannot be clearly derived by deduction.

It is uncertain whether hydrogen gas alone, below a certain density, could become thus gravitationally unified. These clouds appear to me to be super-massive aggregations that are pre-unified as systems, and hence indicators of the early formation of new galaxies or even gallactic clusters. The distribution of hydrogen gas in the structure of the larger universe appears discontinuous and to follow certain matrix patterns, but appears also fairly uniform and even in its distribution. Hydrogen gas would be the expectable outcome of the mass production of protons by some as yet unexplained mechanism or set of mechanisms. Much of this hydrogen may in fact be "secondary hydrogen" produced by other pathways than the original routes being hypothesized--in fact it might be hydrogen that has been recycled through star systems many times over.

It seems that the physical structure of the universe, at least as much as we know and can ascertain about it, built itself from the stability of the proton. We live in a protonic universe--why it was protonic, and not anti-protonic or some other structural pattern, one cannot say. I would really claim it was a "nucleonic" universe, but this introduces a level of variability and complexity that is perhaps unnecessary. If we accept this kind of model of cosmological origins, then we must ultimately then explain how protons were created in the first place, without any preexisting structures occurring, and why they are the super-stable and super-abundant kind of entities that they seem to be within our astronomical observational sphere.

All systems that happen can be said to be relative to the framework in which they occur. There can be no non-relative systems in reality. Other characteristics which seem to be of importance in understanding the universal aspects of systems derive I believe from this.

If I were to elaborate a kind of paradigm of systems relativity, it would be something like the following:

All real systems are de-facto limited and thus constrained by their environmental contexts.

All environmental contexts are open-ended upon the level of articulation that they occur at, and connect ultimately to all other environmental contexts upon that level of stratification.

All real systems have a developmental trajectory of some kind, of variable length and direction, that are marked by a beginning, one or more intermediate phases, and a conclusion or ending, at which the system ceases to be a system.

All real systems perform some kind of work, and contain some kind of informational organization, hence all real systems are basically anti-entropic in the duration of their state-path trajectory.

All real systems are unique instances of a particular kind of system--no two systems that occur in the universe are exactly alike in every specific detail.

Systems occur in relative isolation, but not in total separation from other systems.

All systems have mechanisms that serve to mediate the relationship with the environment of the system and to maintain equilibrium of the system in that environment.

Most systems, as true systems, do not occur only once in isolation but recur as a member of a set or family of similar kinds of systems. If we find a particular kind of system occurring, we should expect to be able to find a similar example of such a kind of system co-occurring under similar kinds of conditions in the world.

A "kind" or "category" of a system is defined on the basis of shared facets of a system at the same level of articulation. Different categories of systems usually if not always imply a theoretical framework implicit to the system of categorization and superimposed upon the organization of the information of which the system is derivative, and based upon a recognizable "type" or configuration of key dimensional characteristics, usually that occur within a definite range of pattern variation.

A stipulation must be asserted that types and categories are conceptual constructs that organize our experience of events phenomenologically and rationally, and are not in themselves intrinsic to the phenomenal event structures that we are observing and seeking to comprehend. Ultimately, all systems as finite entities or as general sets or classes of such entities must be said to be anthropologically relative to the knowledge structures of the informant or participant in the knowledge representation process. Sense of order that we bring to a system or the descriptive explanation we use to characterize a system is a function of our symbolic knowledge that is superimposed upon our experience of that system. This is not to say that systems do not exist objectively beyond our comprehension of them, but that, for our selves, they have meaning when we bring meaning to our experience of them.

Systems development in the long run tend to go from simple to complex as a function of increasing order and determination in the system, coupled with the extrapolation of the inherent variability in the system. Though this is the reverse of what we might expect of natural event structures in the universe, observation will bear out that systems start of in relatively simple states, and tend to increase in differentiational complexity over time until a "steady-state" equilibrium is achieved.

The natural variation of successive systems of the same kind over the long run and over the large in general leads to the differentiation of these systems into two or more different kinds based upon the inheritance of variable traits along alternative dimensions.

Over the long term, all possible variations of a system are likely to occur, no matter how unlikely a particular configuration of a system may be, and in the long run, the total population of similar kinds of system that have occurred will tend to define the complete paradigm of developmental possibilities for that kind of system. Within a large and representative population, it is possible to define what can be called a complex norm of such a system based upon the modal and mean patterns that occur across the dimensions of a system, and this complex norm we can refer to as the system prototype of that complex.

Systems tend to vary continuously over time and space, and though discrete variation tends to be both multi-dimensional and continuous, our frameworks of classification for systems tend to be discontinuous, and it is something like a matrix screen that we superimpose upon phenomena for the sake of sorting things into respective categories. Natural categories do not sort themselves, and in nature tend to come in mixed up packages, so to speak. Natural organization is always functional, not formal, though we have a tendency to overlook this and sometimes even to forget it.

We may distinguish systems generally on the basis of the following kinds of dimensions that can be used to characterize and grossly compare all forms of systems:

· Relative complexity of the system compared to similar systems, in terms of its compartmental organization into subsystems, relationships between these subsystems,

· Relative behavior of the system in its environment, including interactions with other systems.

Systems must also be identified in terms of the degree of extensive integration and scope that we find them articulated upon. I have set up a basic classification system of Basic Primary, Derivative Primary, Basic Secondary and Derivative Secondary Systems, with the idea that within meta-systems frameworks basic and fundamental systems that are true systems from the standpoint of internal integration coalesce in systematic ways at particular levels to form larger order systems with their own dynamic properties.

There is an order about this framework--1 leads to 2, 2 leads to 3, and 3 leads to 4. We may identify with natural and real systems in general a certain pattern and hierarchy of organizational complexity and scale:

1. Systems occurring at the lower level are subsystems and subsets of systems occurring at the highest level.

2. Basic primary systems at the next lowest level are secondary basic systems from primary derivative systems of the higher level.

3. The smallest basic systems produce the largest secondary systems, while the largest basic systems produce the smallest secondary systems.

4. While variability is found to occur at each level, there tends to occur greater pattern variability and developmental possibility at the derivative primary level than the basic primary level; while it seems that there may be just the inverse occurring between the basic and derivative secondary levels: i.e., there are more kinds of molecules than atoms, and more kinds and examples of star systems than kinds of galaxies within which star systems are found.

5. Secondary Derivative Systems appear to be the highest level of systems organization achieved at respective levels of systems stratification. We may identify for instance galactic clusters and presuppose some form of gravitational unification occurring between the individual galaxies of such systems, but this is a fairly moot point, as such clusters seem more like a collection of galaxies minimally organized or unified, than as any well organized astronomical system.

It is also the case that there are a much broader range of basic secondary systems that occur as a result of variable integration of primary derivative systems than are suggested by the names of the classification above. Star systems would include planets, moons, meteor belts, comets, etc., as well as gas clouds, etc, as part of general classification framework. We would include in "biomes" a full range of possible ecosystem communities that develop, and I would include the full spectrum of ethno-cultural variation and patterning that can be ascribed to human communities.

I have included a general class of Alternative systems beyond Human systems, as I see these as a special case of systems that have been derivative of human design efforts, though I consider this class to be non-exclusive to human-made systems only. I have included also a level beneath physical systems that I have simply referred to as "fundamental systems" with the suggestion that there may occur levels below what we conventionally construe as physical reality, that we hardly yet comprehend.

All living systems that we know of are composed of cells, and cells are the fundamental building blocks and hence systems of all living forms. Only viruses and viroids are entities that can be considered to occur without cells, but they are dependent and parasitical to the cellular environments and machinery of other organisms--it is questionable whether they are in fact living systems, or a unique instance of living systems. Similarly, upon a physical level, we may identify atoms as the basic building block of all known elements and the wonderful order of the periodic table makes clear the systematic relationships that occur at this level. At the human level, we find human systems non-reducible below that of the individual, and the individual human being becomes the building block of all forms of social organization from the family to the largest communities that have ever occurred.

In the literature, the term meta-system refers generally to a system of systems, though this is ambiguous in regard to received systems theory. Meta-systems has become in my use of the term a general concept with several different meanings. In terms of general system theory and systems philosophy, a clear definition and understanding of the term metasystem becomes indispensible.[1]

In the most general sense, the meta-system can be referred to as a grand design strategy that views all of natural reality as being ordered complexly but systematically, and all knowledge relative to understanding this order as being potentially integratable. In theory a meta-system becomes therefore a comprehensive system of knowledge relating to the scientific understanding of reality, and it offers the potential for the articulation of this knowledge relating to complex problem sets at different levels in reality in what can be considered a coordinate and consistent manner. Work in meta-systems theory and design has approached this ideal in a very approximate manner and yielded more or less a single comprehensive knowledge system with teleological design extensions. But this work is far from complete and even further from a grand sense of refinement, much less perfection. The expectation becomes to articulate such a meta-system in real terms, even if in reduced and rudimentary contexts in an embryonic manner, and to eventually develop and refine its framework to the point that it approaches its ideal of being an effective comprehensive system.

There is an important caveat in this--all systems, as knowledge systems, are human based and therefore they are prone to the variables and foibles that are inherent to the nature and cultural differentials of human beings. All institutional systems are only as strong as their weakest linkages, which are invariably human linkages. The meta-system must be therefore designed in a manner that effectively takes this human element into realistic account, and is capable of adaptively compensating for it and countering its negative effects at every point that this influence may be felt. The design of the meta-system from a human standpoint then becomes something similar to the design of the American federal government on the basis of the United States Constitution.

But there are several other alternative meanings for the term meta-system as I have used this in my various writings on the general topic, all of which have validity in special frames of reference. It is important to highlight these alternative uses and meanings of the term as well, within the overarching framework of the general definition just given above. In another comprehensive sense, all of reality can be considered to be hypothetically a grand meta-system. The universe as an open and possible multi-state system can be referred to as a meta-system and this meaning can be extended to embrace a wider definition of what is reality. Implicit to the term meta-system in the grandest sense is an implied underlying sense of order, even in spite of lack of direct or obvious relationship and the obvious presence of a great deal of disorder or random chaos in patterning, or the inherent under-determination of systems in the first place.

But for the most part, meta-systems refers to the more applied and practical problems on several levels that concern bringing to reality and articulation behaviorally and materially of the possibilities that are otherwise only implicit within the framework and general conceptioning of meta-systems. Therefore, meta-systems refers as well in a special scientific sense to the methodological and operational design to experimental applications derivable from natural systems theory. Meta-systems refers as well in a slightly different framework to a special class of theoretical and or applied problem that is exemplified most characteristically by being hetereogenous and stratified systems, or "mixed" systems that arise as the consequence of the interaction of several subsystems from different levels of natural stratification.

I define a meta-system as a logical model of a delimited system that is based upon a philosophical and scientific understanding of the primary concepts and variables underlying the structural patterning of the system. It is therefore the study of the logic, the pattern, the structure, the philosophy and knowledge relating to our understanding of what we define as a system. How we define and delimit a system is critical to our final understanding of that system and how we choose to relate to it in the larger scheme of things. Definition and delimitation are normal parts of analysis that is preparatory to learning about and understanding a system. It is clear that we may begin with different presuppositions and primes that are implicit to our definitions of things in reality, and these will predetermine the outcomes of our knowledge and relationship to these things. Part of the purpose therefore of a meta-systems approach is to explore the conceptual foundations and implications of the models that we employ to understand our world, and to not only question these foundations, but to test them for their validity and accuracy in relation to the real world. This is by no means the only purpose or definition of a meta-systems approach.

I define meta-science as the logical and philosophical concern with the conceptual foundations of scientific knowledge and practice, both in a general sense as well as in specific applied senses of the term. Meta-science becomes a systematic approach to meta-systems understanding, and becomes a methodology for approaching natural systems in reality. [2]

Metasystems science is the methodological and operational outcome of natural systems theory. All real things are parts of systems. These systems can be analytically classified according to natural problem and pattern sets based upon the stratification of these systems in nature. Thus we can identify physical, biological and human systems, and these three types are the generally occurring systems that we know of at this time. We can further analyze these three general types of systems into wider classes of subsystems that these labels incorporate. Such sub-classifications can be made in a number of different dimensions, depending upon which dimension of such systems we construe as being important in our analysis and synthesis.

Natural systems theory was based upon the identification of these three natural types of systems and their explanation and elaboration within a larger systems framework. This tripartite model of natural systems is bound to change especially as we discover extraterrestrial life forms and forms of alien intelligence that is comparable to our own. We should expect and anticipate this kinds of changes and their reverberation for our world view and how we relate to the world in the future, at least so that we will not be caught completely off guard with the unexpected when it does finally occur. I believe a metasystems approach provides a fruitful and constructive methodology to systematically extend our knowledge and understanding of systems to heuristically embrace what can be called possibilistic systems.

We may extend the classes of systems along another basic dimension to include what can be called real systems as well as abstract, ideal or "non-real" systems. These are larger encompassing sets and subsets of natural systems. Human applied and artificial systems, especially those that achieved some degree of autonomous function, can be referred to as real systems of a special form. A rocket ship and a toaster oven are examples of real applied systems that would not be naturally occurring if they were not invented and designed through human knowledge and work. At the same time, certain forms of knowledge system that underlie the sciences and our understanding, can be referred to as abstract and non-real systems. At this time we cannot clearly say if these systems are strictly the product of our own human knowledge and thinking, and hence subject to the constraints of anthropological relativity, or whether these systems might be appropriate to non-human intelligent systems, and hence part of a broader framework than we can prove at this time. Clearly, if we achieve contact with alien intelligence, then they will have acquired a form of technology, or real systems, that were based upon a creative intelligence that required both real and non-real forms of knowledge and understanding. We would expect at least a common ground of agreement in terms of mathematical language and possible in terms of sensory-awareness systems.

We may say that all systems are in the first place physical systems. We may reduce the human brain to cells, thence to molecules and atoms, and thence to even more minute physical structures and processes. But in the process of analytical boiling we remove and lose permanently what it is about human brains in functional contexts that make them special and central to human systems. Thus all biological systems are seen as a subset of physical systems, and consequently all human systems are seen as a subset of biological systems. As mentioned, the composition and boundaries of these sets are liable to change as we discover new naturally occurring systems in the universe. Systems of these types cohere together because they are bound within special contexts or frameworks of their articulation. We construe such systems therefore from the standpoint of the organismic principle--that systems and their components achieve their identity within natural contexts as parts of a whole, and that therefore exhibit what are called emergent or synergistic properties. Composite and derivative patterns that occur as a function of the whole, and cannot be explained through analytical reduction to the parts.

Metasystems science therefore is primarily about synthesis of the parts into the whole, and the understanding the patterning of the parts in their formation of the whole. It involves an attempt to understand not only the real state-path trajectory a system takes, but the likely and alternative state-path trajectory such a system may make, under varying circumstances. This is the basis for systematic observation and controlled experimentation of systems.[3]

A metasystems framework constitutes the basis for what I would call a paradigmatically informed or reformed general field of the sciences that transcends the problems of analytical specialization and limitation of worldview. I would make the claim that all forms of science, as applied knowledge systems, represent not only the articulation of natural systems theory, but are essentially a form of metasystems science, or meta-science, in their own articulation and in their relation with the larger world.

The entire sphere of reality, or total universe, may be said to be one grand metasystem, of which all other systems are subsystems. Any general problem set we encounter may be looked at from a metasystems point of view, and the nature of the solutions we offer to such problem sets are meta-systemic from the standpoint of both the understanding they bring to the problem and in terms of the application of the solution itself. From this perspective, the solution becomes part of a larger metasystem that we are seeking to construct or develop in fulfillment of this grand design.

Ecology in the field of biology, and to a lesser extent conventional evolutionary theory, constitute synthetic metasystems approaches in a field that has been largely and at times almost exclusively analytical in orientation. To date both ecology and evolution as general problem sets lack a comprehensive unifying theory or synthetic point of view that sufficiently accounts for all aspects of these rather broad and eclectic areas of biological systems. Similarly, in the physical sciences, cosmology represents an area that is particularly meta-systemic in character--and it is perhaps for this reason, and for the lack of training of physical scientists in meta-systemic approaches, that cosmological knowledge remains so uncertain and controversial and paradigmatically prone to ideological influence. Similarly, most of the human sciences remain fundamentally meta-systemic in orientation and hence naturally prone to multi-paradigmatic interpretation and failed attempts at paradigmatic closure of general problem sets around certain "schools" of inquiry.

It is clear that the symptoms of the failure to address metasystems frameworks for what they are, in a methodological and operational manner sufficient to their problem sets, include paradigmatic closure or the lack of paradigmatic unification, the plethora of alternative and often conflicting points of view that point to a fundamental lack of certainty over basic knowledge areas and a lack of agreement over common terms and terminology, reflecting incomplete systems of classification, categorization and propositional organization of reality. In a sense, all the sciences and any particular scientific field may be characterized in this manner, what has been termed by some as epistemo-pathology, but it is evident that there are certain areas of scientific inquiry and certain natural problem sets or dimensions occurring in reality that are particularly prone to these kinds of relativistic issues, while other areas of science have made remarkable progress, largely through theoretical development, that have transcended these limitations.

There is a sense that knowledge that is articulated primarily at a physical level is more readily expressible in a purer mathematical form, and the principles and laws that govern physical phenomena are therefore more amenable to logical and mathematical formulation and proof, than derivative and higher order systems that are more difficult to express in clear or elegant or meaningful mathematical formula. Mathematical systems applied to any biological system, upon any level, rapidly breaks down in its applicability and generalizability. There are some basic mathematical formula that are quite useful in a fundamental sense in the biological sciences, but they generally cannot be extended in an unexceptional manner to cover all cases. This difficulty to some extend guides and constrains research and research methodologies in the biological sciences. Even more so is the case of the human sciences, where very few if any mathematical formulas carry any great theoretical significance beyond narrow contextual boundaries. We may say in general that the more derivative and higher order the emergent properties of a system, in terms of its integration and articulation in reality, the more difficult and problematic it is to simplify its structural rules of operation in purely mathematical formula. We must recognize though that even such simplicity upon a fundamental level or cosmic scale may be more apparent than real, when we discover for instance quantum and other relativistic phenomena that tend to complicate our equations and indicate the presence of underlying systems characterized by derivative, rather than basic, properties. It is clear though that the higher up the great chain of order we go in the natural world, the greater the interpretive parallax and hence paradigmatic uncertainty that we encounter in our knowledge about such systems.

We can say that such a grand design is essentially non-arbitrary and therefore contra-ideological in its development, if we can make the assertion that it is derivative of natural and logical consequences of general processes of human development. It is not to say that human decision-making and normative valuation does not enter into the picture of its shape and construction, but that such systems are either bound to develop regardless of whether we deliberately strive to implement them or not, or else it is likely that the human species will eventually fail, as an exceptional, intelligent species.

Meta-systems science attempts therefore to pick up the theoretical and methodological ball where the conventional sciences have tended to leave off. The main characteristics of meta-systems science and natural systems theory are the following:

1. The holistic emphasis of the contextuality of constructed frames of reference, complemented by analytical reductionism and resolution of particular or specific instances or events.

2. The cross-disciplinary or inter-disciplinary "hybridization" of knowledge systems that follow lines of least resistance in the natural ordering of phenomena in the world, paying respect to the emerging social and historical stratigraphy, landscape and boundaries of knowledge systems.

3. An emphasis upon the theoretical construction of alternative frames of reference derived both deductively from natural and rational reason, and inductively from empirical observation and experimentation.

4. The use of both a "systems" modeling or heuristic approach to learning, design and problem solving, in a framework that is itself meta-logically contextualized by a meta-systems framework that serves to contextualize such approaches within a comprehensive knowledge framework.

5. An emphasis upon the comprehensiveness of objectified knowledge systems, or of a "scientific worldview," that nonetheless does not exclude or preclude or occlude an interest in the particular or the specialized frame of reference and that does not factor out necessarily or methodologically other possible ways or forms of knowing reality.

Whether or not our "total reality" is ultimately disheveled, a cosmological hodge-podge and a fateful crap shoot, or it is quintessential clockwork that Einstein and others dedicated their lives to discovering, becomes from the meta-logically perspective of meta-systems science and natural systems theory a "hen or egg" kind of dilemma. It is a form of paradox that we cannot answer, like Goedel's Theorem or like the Cretan liar, in the terms of its own intrinsic logic, but can only resolve if we are able to step outside of its conundrum and contextualize the complementariness of its relationship. Niels Bohr wrote especially the importance of the recognition of complementariness of structure in reality and its consequence for our scientific worldview and he applied this to the biological and anthropological sciences as well as to his own fields in physics. In this sense, meta-systems science and natural systems theory therefore follows directly in the footsteps of Niels Bohr's observations about the changing ontological and epistemological status of science in human reality.

The theory embraced by this approach is not without its methodological madness. I have sought a combined systems approach that includes information theory and communication theory with nonlinear dynamics, alternative control theory, theory of automata and alternative intelligence. I have sought thereby to define a legitimate role to the understanding of knowledge systems and knowledge systems theory, the role, function, status and structure of knowledge in our reality, and the possibility and probability of non-human forms of knowledge. Such an approach allows us the opportunity to both grapple with the terms of our arguments, however paradoxical they may seem, with one arm, while keeping the other free to stand and work beyond the terms and terminologies implied by an particular argument or problem set.

The objective of such an approach ultimately is to integrate any such knowledge into a larger working system of understanding. A system that is ultimately comprehensive in a total, but relative, sense. Knowledge systems science has many interests and many applications, and knowledge theory leads to both experimental methodologies as well as to knowledge engineering applications. There are many pressing issues in our humanly ordered world that are well addressed through these kinds of applications, and particularly when it comes to the problems of the translation and reconstruction of our knowledge systems, and the use of such systems in the inculcation, integration and adaptation of human reality.

Thus we arrive at a final definition of meta-systems science, and that is of a knowledge systems theory and methodology that has the fundamental problem of the integration of reality and the description and explanation of all real phenomena, whether this is natural or humanly constructed:

All "things" and relations are composed of subsystems, and are parts of a larger super-system framework by which they are functionally related to other things and relations.

No "thing" or relation exists in total or complete isolation from a meta-systems context.

All "events" occur within a structural patterning that defines the behavior of a system or super system.

An event is determined by the meta-systemic relationships and events prior to that event.

All systems occur within a metasystems context and may be classified as belong to one of four types of metasystem--basic, derivative, extended basic and extended derivative.

All systems have a finite lifespan that is marked by a beginning, a period of development, a period of mature stability, a period of demise or decline, and an end.

All systems, at whatever level of their occurrence, are physically constituted by subsystems.

I use the concept of meta-system in several different ways and at several different levels of meaning. Thus the idea of the meta-system may be defined symbolically at more than one level, and this serves the purpose of reconciling the kind of dilemma between real and non-real systems quite well, for the concept of the meta-system allows us to dialectically transcend the question and problem of what is a system and what is a true system and to deal with systems both in terms of the observation of phenomena--in terms of themselves, and in terms we assign to them as ideal representations of reality.

In the first case, a "meta-system" is "beyond a system" and "about a system" and hence is a manner or means of stepping outside of a system in order to describe it and deal with it in a semi-objective manner. This is less obvious when we are dealing with a car engine or a hot-water heater in a home than when we are dealing with the psychological complexities of our own identity, for instance. Being able to get outside our own heads in a consistent manner to reflect upon what is going on in our heads, is more of a meta-system thing than trying to match the model of a working car-engine with the problem of troubleshooting a non-working one, but I think it ultimately serves the same kinds of end.

A meta-system in the first sense therefore is a dialogue about systems in general. Human knowledge is a symbolic metasystem in the sense that it represents a coherent dialogue about all kinds of systems. Human language too is a meta-system in this sense--almost all forms of human expression except the most basic exclamations, refer symbolic to some larger system or some part of a system, either in reality or in the non-real world of the mind's imagination.

The second sense of a meta-system refers more formally to the context in which any given system is naturally embedded, and which by relational extension becomes the natural field within which that system is configured. This second sense of meta-systems includes relationships to other systems, and if we explore the issue, we would discover that all systems are interconnected, not just at a single level, but upon multiple levels.

Thus in this second sense meta-systems is the framework of relationship between different kinds of systems at different levels, and the focal reference point is decentered away from a particular system, though that point of view could be part of a larger meta-systemic frame of reference. Systems cohere together and interact more or less deterministically, and it is often the case that such interaction leads to meta-systems integration at a higher level of stratification, and the emergence of new systems at that higher level that incorporate the systems in question.

In general, most meta-systems are thought of in a sense as being pre-systemic in that such frameworks are not usually as well integrated as full-blown systems, and hence tend to be more chaotic and complex in interaction than what passes for a prototypically integrated system. Such meta-systems contexts are common in larger contexts in reality, and it seems that it is a consequence of the extensive organization of systems that must interact in terms of their systemic behaviors and emergent properties. Much that goes on in the science of chemistry for instance can be thought of as meta-systemic in that different kinds of physical systems are being manipulated in relation to one another, to produce new results and interactions.

In the second sense of a meta-system, there is a larger meaning, which refers to what can be thought of very large, comprehensive systems. The universe in the total sense can be thought of as such a grand meta-system, within which all real systems are expected to occur. We do not really understand this grandest of all meta-system frameworks very well and our theories, based upon what we know and can see, are very limited. Similarly, there is a sense that the earth itself constitutes a kind of grand meta-system, in that all life that we know exists on this planet only and, so far as we yet know, nowhere else. The earth in a sense is an integrated whole that provides the necessary context for life to flourish and develop. That it has been stable and successful is attested to by the fact that life appears to have had a consistent and steady run of regeneration and multiplication on earth for almost four billion years. There may have been moments, like giant meteorite impacts, at which the rope of life may have been brought down to a thread, but it appears remarkably responsive and adaptive and in the long run capable of quick evolutionary diversification to explore and exploit almost every eco-trophic niche available to it.

The two forms of meta-system, meta-system as dialogue and meta-system as a kind of systems frame of reference, are in fact interrelated to one another in much the same manner as we attempted to interrelate real and non-real systems previously. In one sense we are a part of a meta-systems context of any system. Whatever system we may objectively specify, our knowledge, awareness and interaction relating to that system becomes a part of that systems meta-systemic context. In so doing, or so being, that system becomes relativized, both systemically and anthropologically, in terms of the context within which it occurs. If I were to offer a diagram of this kind of interaction, it would be something like the following:

We must in this regard seek to understand how, in our observations, we are ourselves part of the same meta-systems context in which the object of our observation exists, and we interact both with the context and with other systems within the framework that the object of our observation interacts with. In this regard I am not necessarily referring to observer bias or contamination of observational or experimental results, though it can lead to this. Rather I am primarily refer to the structure of implication that is found in knowledge about reality, and how this implication is biased by our own presence in the system, as well as by the interactions between different systems.

Ultimately, there is no separating the objective reality of a system from the structure of our knowledge about that system. Relatively speaking, though, we can produce versions of that knowledge which are more realistic and objective compared to other versions, and this is what happens when science progresses towards more truthful versions of reality, and more powerful models of understanding reality. This occurs through the mediation of the meta-system context always, whether we understand this or realize it or not. We have tended to look at science as an exclusively object centered activity, but I think it can be fairly demonstrated that science has never in a strict or actual sense been this, but this is really a kind of popular stereotype of how science normally becomes conducted. In all science there is a creative play between new ideas and new ways of seeing reality, and new observations of that reality. This play drives scientific discovery and even the "invention" of new scientific knowledge.[4]

Meta-systems dialogue therefore can be seen to provide the symbolic framework for our understanding and representations of systems of all kinds. It is our recognition that we can have no non-relative knowledge of a system in a completely objective, a system in and of itself, kind of way. Knowledge is human, and human knowledge just does not work this way. There is no knowledge of anything that may be said to be totally objective. Maintaining a meta-systems framework allows us to make explicit what might otherwise remain implicit about our models of systems, and allows us thus to bring these insights into question in a systematic manner.

Without our awareness of systems, the entire universe would exist and unfold without any sense of awareness of it. It cannot and does not know itself. It just happens, and it would continue happening regardless of whether or not anyone was there doing it for them.

From a meta-systems standpoint, in whatever scientific endeavor we may attempt, we can employ a basic metasystem frame:

1. All structures of reality, at whatever level they occur, exhibit systems behavior

2. All structures of reality, at whatever level they occur, cohere to form extended meta-systems that can be analyzed and accounted for in terms of the systems that lie at their base.

3. All behavior that we may observe, are a consequence of basic systems, or of the derivative meta-systems that arise from the interaction of basic systems.

The basis of systems theory is clear, unmuddled thinking. One must be capable of thinking through all problems to the nth degree, and set aside the "common sense" of received but muddled viewpoints, largely taken for granted, for the willingness to toy with ideas and play with alternative interpretations.

Dynamic metasystems may be said to be at theoretical frameworks that concern foremost the process of change in the natural order. Different dynamical systems occur at different levels in the natural world, with different sets of outcomes and different kinds and levels of antecedents to change. The process of change in much of the natural world, though often complex and therefore usually unpredictable in any precise manner, is also usually systematic and apparently at least "semi-determined."

These dynamical metasystems and the theoretical frameworks by which we seek to understand them can be said to constitute formal or at least quasi-formal paradigms by which our understanding of natural order and process is explained and made sense of. For at least what we might refer to as basic or fundamental dynamical metasystems, these paradigms may be said to be truly universal in the sense that they apply equally in all contexts of the universe, as long as the conditions for their application are given as true. It is in keeping with the cosmological principle, inferentially at least, that this is always so, without known exception.

We may divide dynamic metasystems into two broad types--what I refer to as fundamental metasystems include those that are universal and basic to the structure of reality, and include the dynamics of space-time, of energy, of gravitation, of matter and of motion. These systems may be said to be truly universal, in as broad terms as we can possibly understand this to be at this time. The other group include what I would call the developmental or derivative dynamic metasystems, and include biological life forms, human symbolic culture, technological civilization, informational metasystems, and cybernetic automation systems. It is not insignificant that all of these systems are unique to the patterning of those strictly found on earth, and four of five are those that can be said to be the product of human constructive realities. These derivative metasystems are complexly developmental, and they are unique in their patterning to those instances found upon earth.

It is this apparent universality of the fundamental dynamical systems, and the apparent uniqueness of the other derivative dynamical metasystems, that make them worthy of this digression and the elaboration of their paradigms for science, especially if we are to consider the general problem of what constitutes a universal system versus a general system model. When we talk about the idea of universal dynamics, as some kind of all encompassing paradigm or metaparadigm, then our purposes in this regard might be at least initially served, if not ultimately best served, by considering known forms of dynamical metasystem for which the presumption of universality is regarded as true or at least likely to be true.

Of course, we may ultimately find our presumption of the universality of such systems to be mistaken, to find exceptions in our universe to our presumed paradigms, and to find contexts in which such paradigms apparently do not seem to apply--already, for instance, when we consider the phenomena of super-conduction, normal thermodynamic considerations no longer seem to hold.

There are at least ten sets of naturally systems occurring in natural reality that can be considered to be either fundamental or derivative dynamical metasystems. These include from the most basic to perhaps the most complex and derivative: 1. Space-time Dynamics: 2. Gravitational Dynamics: 3. Thermodynamics: 4. Mechanical Dynamics; 5. Nuclear-Chemical Dynamics; 6. Bio-evolutionary Dynamics; 7. Symbolic-Cultural Dynamics; 8. Civilizational Dynamics; 9. Informational Dynamics; 10. Automational Cyber-Dynamics. I will undertake the explication of each type of dynamical metasystem in turn, and will seek to elucidate in detail how these metasystems are interrelated and interact with one another upon various levels.

The first five dynamical metasystems may be said to be universal and all encompassing--the second five metasystems may be said to be general, and possibly universal, depending upon our ability to scientifically redefine them in a manner that would enable us to account for all such possible systems whereever and however we might encounter them. So far, our knowledge of such systems seems constrained by the simplicity and narrow gauge of our own collective understanding, and by the limited experience with such systems.

These ten metasystems provide an all encompassing framework for our understanding of natural order in physical reality, as we understand physical reality at this time--upon the margins of the very small and the very large, and of the very far flung and complex, we may encounter or imagine the possibilities of additional dynamical metasystems--I have proferred at one point a infinitesimal metasystem, and upon the other extreme, of a universal metastate system that may in fact consist of multiple universes somehow interconnected. These kinds of possible systems, as well as extremely complex alternative systems, remain the stuff of scientific imagination, speculation and science fiction, rather than of sound scientific method. The imagination of such alternative systems constitutes the basis for an open scientific worldview and an inquiring frame of mind upon which healthy and progressive science critically depends.

I will seek to outline in sufficient detail each of these ten dynamical systems, and then I shall seek to summarize how these ten systems appear interconnected and interact with one another to create unusually and complex outcomes in the patterning of the natural world. Finally I shall seek to further elucidate the possibilities of additional dynamical systems that appear, at least for the time being, to be beyond our basi or even most advanced capacities for observation and calculation, with the understanding that this present state of our lack of knowledge and understanding, or the tools by which to achieve such insight and wisdom, may not always or even for very long hold true.

Fundamental dynamic metasystems may be said to be universal and to constrain all natural systems in basic ways. In other words, any system that is by definition finite and de facto limited is fundamentally constrained by such dynamical metasystems, and cannot behave otherwise, in such a manner that violates the fundamental principles of universal dynamics. This is not the same as saying that there may not exist a set of systems in the natural world, upon a given level, which fundamentally do not behave as expected according to fundamental dynamic principles--we have not scientifically yet met up with many such systems, with a very few possible exceptions. Superconduction and certain behaviors of quantum particles and phenomena do not appear to follow normal expectations of dynamics, and these kind of exotic phenomena lead us to the conclusion that universal dynamics, as much as we currently understand these, may not constrain and hold true for all events occuring in the universe, and that there may always be a residual set of events that violate one or more of these principles. It is not because our universal dynamics are not universal, but that they are more or less general covering law models, and that they stand in need of revision, and probably expansion and elaboration, with the discovery and addition of new knowledge about our natural world.

Space-time dynamics is based upon the fluid pattern of space-time, and the capacity of otherwise empty-space time to exhibit properties in the transmission of various forms of energy. Gravity might be construed as the flow of space-time in the reverse direction of gravitational radiation. We may understand the dynamics of space-time flow dynamically in terms of the inverse relationship between space and time--the more space that is involved, the slower the rates of time involved. When we wish to consider the fundamental dynamics of the flow of space-time, we are left with a huge dilemma, for it is difficult to construe space time in any but the most conventional and common place sense as if it were a vast expanse emptiness containing a number of planets, stars, galaxies, etc. To hypothesize that space-time, that we normally construe as vacant and devoid, may be constituted by some form of strange fundamental substance, and this peculiar substance may flow somewhat like a liquid or a plasma through space.

Space time may very in relative density--the denser space-time, the greater the effect in terms of the speed of motion of objects, and the dilation of time and size of an object. Density of space time may be achieved through differentials of strong gravitational fields--there is a consequence of the compression of space-time.

The notion that space-time might actually consiste of a kind of "substance" or at least force, that it may have upon a very fundamental level certain physical procperties inherent to it and it alone, the idea furthermore that this self-same fundamental substance is all pervasive in the universe and is the source of all matter and energy, may seem some what incredible. It is much easier, and logically, much simpler, to assume that space-time is merely empty and that the universe was once an empty-state void--an infinite nothingness, to which somehow energy and matter were added after the fact.

Within the paradigm of space-time dynamices, we may see that space-time (portmanteau Spime) is a substance that recycles itself on a regular basis. It transforms itself, and constitutes the common clay from which energy and matter is shaped. Energy and matter contain spime in highly concentrated form--energy as light is an expression of spime,a kind of turbulence that occurs within the spime matrix.

All change processes are spatio-temporally coordinate and relative within the context of the spime-matrix. The universe may be said to be universally contemporaneous, even if relativistically non-simultaneous and causally independent in event structures. If the universe were seen as one vast rubber sheet, it would always be a present, that is continously reproducing itself with each reiterative moment--the process seems continuous, though it may become, upon fundamental scales, increasingly discontinuous or even quantum statistical and multidimensional. This vast sheet may be stretched and bent in a numberless variety of ways, but ultimately, it will seem, if one is on a local surface, to be the same flat and continuous expanse.

It is difficult to imagine this in four dimensions, in which the three spatial coordinate-reference systems are not compressed to a single plane--if we see time not as a sense of past, but of continuous presence, of a constant self-renewal, we come to a closer picture of the dynamics of space-time. Because we cannot gain an immediate observational image of the contemporaneous state universe, which we can infer to exist according to the cosmological principle, a realistic cosmological view of the universe in an omni-present state is next to impossible to infer or even imagine. Fortunately, structures in the universe seem stable and long-lived enough that our view at some distance coincides credibly with an inferrable present-state universe to a considerable degree, and by further inference we can project this view further and further beyond into the contemporaneous relams that we cannot immediately apprehend. Though we may never be able to see the contemporaneous, present state universe in the large, we may project a probably view that contains enough scientific credulity to figure as a central cosmological model and theory.

Evidence from such systematic deductive inference suggests that if the hypothesis of an original empty-state universe existed, then the universe is both much larger, probably infinitely large, and much, much older, probably infinitely old, than we have been otherwise wanting to accept. Science must halt at the edge of physical infinity, because it can recognize no boundaries within which to contain or account for such infinity, even if mathematics, the language of science, easily comprehends infinite sets and systems. The problem may be more vexing because if any system like universal space-time is infinite or eternal, then we cannot account for its origins or how it came into being, and the central explanatory project of science, then becomes impossible. We need to be able to explain how space-time, even if infinite and eternal, came into being and took shape, and arose from some previous unknown state. It becomes even more problematic when we consider the possibility that the matter and energy contained in space-time may also be fundamentally infinite and without beginning or end. We wish to explain how the first matter and energy arose, and this requires, it would seem, a basic finite set, a starting point.

One of the central problems cosmological science must come to terms with sufficiently therefore is an adequate, sufficient explanation for the possibility or probability of infinite state systems.

Infinite sets can only be explained as arising or being caused by infinite sets. We cannot explain an infinite system with resort to finite causes--finite antecedents can only beget finite consequents, no matter how large.

Our first question then is to ask if the universe was originally a zero-state or non-zero state universe--it arose from a finite set, and is finite, being ultimately closed, or else it arose from an infinite, and always infinite, set of antecedents, which would be precursor infinite states. We have developed a science that has always dealt with zero-state systems--non-zero state or open systems remain somewhat of a mystery and an enigma for scientific theory or methodology. A non-zero state universe would necessarily have to be an open-state and therefore ultimately an infinite-state system. Such an infinite state system may be infinite in a number of ways--temporally and spatially extensive, and infinitesimally infinite as well--it may also be on some unexplained but not unimaginable level multidimensionally infinite.

Scientific theory has been based primarily upon the study of closed, finite systems. If the universe is non-zero state, and open, then the only explanation for a infinite system was the transformation from a previous state that is also open and non-zero, presumably the latter system being a subset of the former. In other words, though finite zero state systems may arise from infinite systems, infinite systems cannot arise from zero state systems. If our systems in the natural world of energy and matter are infinite, then whatever precursor state giving rise to them had also to be infinite.

Though this may sound like begging the question, we can offer some evidence suggesting the infinity of the universe. The fact that Olber's paradox exist suggests that the background space-time framework that holds the stars may be infinitely deep, containing and engulfing in darkness an infinite amount of starlight.

Evidence for an open, infinite system exists in the principles of physical dynamics themselves--thermodynamic systems demand always an open reservoir--there is no such thing as a totally closed energy system and any energy system we may envision, no matter how large, is always contained within a background energy sink. This implies, indeed necessitates, essentially an infinite background within which to contain an infinitely large energy system. We can apply the same but converse principles to gravitational systems--any gravitational system, no matter how large, always demands an energy source, rather than sink, from the background field.

The state transformations that give rise to the emergence of infinite subsystems from previous infinite start-states must be developmental state-path transformations that involve the system as a whole, generally. We can speak of general, system wide transformations that arise as a self-constituting developmental process--a natural and logical outcome of a series of complex transitions.

An infinite state universe may contain an infinite number of subsystems that may also be infinite. Such systems cannot be explained in finite terms, or by resort to the explanation of systems that are finite, closed or zero-state. If we wish to seek evidence in the observable and inferrable universe, we might consider the question of the radiant diameters of observational spheres--if we are observing through our most powerful telescopes light of 15 billion lightyears depth, then we can conclude that that light was cast 15 billion light-years ago, with such a radius, in all directions. If we can conclude that the observational diameter of this field in one direction is 30 billion lightyears depth, and we look in the opposite direction for the same depth, we find our own observational sphere expanded inferentially to 60 billion lightyears depth. It would not be too difficult to infer an even larger observational diameter, of 120 billion lightyears, if we consider both radii in opposite directions together, and in this manner it is not too difficult to make a series of inferences that would expand the universe to enormous depths omnidirectionally. From the standpoint of an hypothesis of an infinite, open-state universe, we might conclude that we could continue expanding an infinite number of observational diameters, omnidirectionally, an infinite number of times.

We do not have to resort in a holistic science of universal systems that are open and infinite to questions of original causation of such infinite systems--explanation of such systems can only proceed from the position of the preexistence of some previous, infinite and open-state system. We must allow a form of scientific explanation that will permit us to depart from the reduction of closed systems to zero-state realities.

There exist in the natural world a general class of open, infinite state systems.

Such systems have always existed, albeit in some dynamic, developmentally alternative form.

These open, infinite state systems appear to contain other systems that are both infinite and finite subsets of the larger system.

These systems are universal in that they contain all other systems as subsystems, either infinite or finite, in such a way that:

a. all subsystems obey basic dynamic principles that define the structural dynamics and limits of all subsystems.

c. universal dynamics inform the fundamental structure and developmental organization of all universal systems and subsystems.

There is a sense that we cannot ultimately prove or disprove in an analytical scientific sense whether the universe is infinite or not, but from the standpoint of infinite systems, there is a sense that we may not need to prove this, rather than to demonstrate that such systems do exist by means of inductive and deductive proof, and to then seek to explain the developmental and dynamic processes that define and underlie such systems. It becomes important that we look for sufficient evidence to help explain the following:

1. Universal dynamic systems and their structural articulation in a broad range of systems.

2. Sufficient forms of empirical evidence for the developmental consequences of such systems.

3. Empirical evidence of open and infinite subsystems as part of a larger natural contextual patterning.

Unlike a finite system that may be contained by another system, finite or infinite, but contain only smaller finite system, an infinite system may contain but may not be contained, except by another larger infinite system of which it is a subset.

The challenge of science in dealing with infinite systems is that the questions of origins of something infinite is fundamentally inexplicable, except in terms of developmental evolution from other infinite systems. There is a fundamental difference between an infinite system and a very large system that remains basically finite. The trouble is that we do not know, and may never know, whether if the number of stars and planets and other bodies in the universe, the sum total of known matter, is finite and incredibly large in number, or if it is truly infinite and endless in extent.

The problem of infinity in natural reality is a central dilemma to a clear theoretical discussion of the universe. It is a question that ultimately cannot be avoided, though I think in many hypothetical constructions it is a problem conveniently side-stepped, and hence dismissed. There seems no clear resolution to this dilemma except perhaps a strange cosmic leap of faith to accept the presence of infinite systems as originally given, or otherwise. There is though a residual sense remaining that an original empty system might be universal in that it is not containable or contained by anything else, but is itself all containing. It would thus have been the great nothingness before there was anything or the great Something of the Universe itself. There is a sense that this primordial cosmic emptiness can stretch out in all directions forever. This view of an empty state system seems to lend credence to an Einsteinian cosmology and sense of space-time as somehow relative to the systems of mass and energy it contains.

There is a sense as well that we stand in our infant science dwarfed and rendered powerless before the grandness of the seemingly infinite universe--the problem of infinity thus seems too large for us to clearly or sufficiently deal with in our very limited and essentially finite powers of calculation or even imagination. Might there not be some region of the vast universe, unbeknownst to ourselves, the structure of which might be fundamentally different than anything we've encountered before, and there is some mysterious boundary separating that part from our own physical sense of the world? Such a possibility is neither impossible nor implausible.

Yet it is not enough to write that the universe simply always existed, at least in some basic form. Any scientific explanation must account for causes and explain how and what the universe came from. There must be something to have caused the infinite to come into being, to become what it became. And this kind of explanation cannot resort to a divine determinism. There are vast amounts of mass in the universe, produced by ever vaster quantities of energy, which may have itself been produced by some tremendously vast amount of essential something.

Gravitational dynamics is universal and all encompassing--it is a consequence of the formation and aggregation of mass based matter in the universe. It affects in terms of motion all bodies of matter in the universe, regardless of how small or large the intrinsic mass of the object.

With gravitational dynamics, there is a sense that systems in the long run tend toward gravitational unification. Gravitational unification may be defined as the tendency for multiple bodies of mass within a common gravitational field to become self-organized in the most efficient and ordered manner. Gravitational unification may involve the collision of mass bodies, which results in destructive outcomes for the bodies involved, but more often it seems to involve the capture and mutual rotational adjustments of bodies in space to stable long-term trajectories.

The capture of distant bodies in stable orbital trajectories from long-period or hyperbolic trajectories may involve a step-wise process in which the oribting body is brought increasingly into the system in decreasingly eccentric and increasingly stable trajectories. A comet coming into a solar system from far out upon the edges of the gravitational field of that system, may first become caught in a highly parabolic orbit--a chance encounter with some planet or other orbiting body may serve to shift this trajectory enough to result in a shorter term period closer into the nucleus of the system. Further interaction over time with other bodies, which seems possibly a key factor in the adjustment and unification of complex gravitational systems, toward an increasingly stable state-path. Eventually an object would approach a near circular trajectory upon the plane of ecliptic, the most stable orbital position such a body could attain.

In such a manner, a solar system that is upon some kind of orbit itself through a galaxy, serves as a kind of cosmic vacuum cleaner, catching up stray objects which happen within its gravitational field--most such objects either pass through, sling-shotted back out into the depths of space, or crash eventually into one orbiting body or another. A few such objects may, by pure chance, happen to become caught semi-permanently (for all intents and purposes, permanent) within a stable orbital trajectory around one or other major gravitatin body. For all the many thousands, indeed, millions of such bodies that have probably passed through our system sense the time it was a system, only a very very small percentage appear to have been effectively captured, and though we are discovering more and more irregular moons and other bodies and even micro-planets on wild trajectories, we can conclude that many many more have arrived into our system to be consumed one way or another, most likely into the sun itself, or else managed to escape to be flung far back out into space.

Gravitational dynamics constitutes a paradigm that is in many ways the inverse of thermodyanmics, in this superficial sense, at least, gravitational systems appear to violate every principle and implication of the laws of thermodynamics, and it is in the consideration of gravitational systems that we can see that thermodynamics does not apply unequivocally to all kinds of energy systems in the universe, but namely to light energy and systems that are the consequence of electromagnetic radiation.

Gravity and gravity based systems are not gravitational systems, but arise as the consequence of gravitational systems operating primarily upon objects of mass in motion. From the standpoint of space-time, we may state that gravity is the flow of space-time directed by gravitational energy toward the source of gravitation, or the relative center of gravity. Objects move towards a source because they flow and accelerate in the flow of space-time. They change position and speed largely as a result of their inertia.

The weight of an object is its relative measure of mass in a given gravitational field--i.e., it is the amount of energy required to counteract the effect of gravity on the object, to lift it from a resting position and to counter-act its tendency to fall toward the center of gravity.

Unified systems gain a state of inertial equilibrium unless disturbed by some outside contravening force.

Submotions within a given gravitational frame of reference are independent of the frames of reference in which they occur.

In the long run, all systems tend toward gravitational unification. Unified systems are organized by a hierarchy of gravitational dominance, based upon the absolute masses of gravitational bodies and their relative densities in space-time.

A gravitationally unified system will, in a larger gravitational frame of reference, move in a single direction as a single, complex body. Internal movements of sub-bodies of this unified system will move independently of this external motion. The clocks governing the relative internal motions are independent of the clocks governing the unified system as a whole, even though both sets of clocks occur simultaneously.

An objects net motion is the complex function of all its motional trajectories combined. There is no object in the universe that is not in some complex pattern of net motion.

Gravitationally unfied systems become increasingly ordered over the long run. Rotational bodies tend either towards increasingly stable orbital trajectories, or towards degenerate trajectories. The time-space axii of Keplerian rotational focii tend to be non-parallel, and non-linear, and to be in the long run either convergent or divergent.

Complex gravitational systems tend to be non-linear in their dynamic trajectories. In empty space-time, there is no preferred inherent direction of motion.

The principles of thermodynamics have relevance to undestanding universal dynamics to the extent that electromagnetic radiation is not only pervasive and intrinsic to almost all events occurring naturally in the world, but it is by means of this kind of radiation that we have our primary and most important means of remote observation of the universe--it is the source of factual knowledge upon which our understanding of physical reality and the universe are based.

The mechanical dynamics of motion and change of position and state are another energy-based paradigm of the universe that might be considered in relation to gravitational dynamics and thermodynamics. Mechanical dynamics are summarized by Newton's three laws of motion.

Mechanical dynamics are the mechanical principles of motion and work, and are basically defined by Newton's three laws of motion.

There are no absolutely motionless systems in physical reality--all systems are in motion, though all motions are relative to the gravitational frame of reference in which they occur.

Any mass based system may be part of any number of gravitationally unified frames of reference, if these unified frames are nested hierarchically within one another in a well system.

In empty space, any direction of motion is possible, and there is no obvious preferred motion absent a gravitational field by some gravitating body of mass.

We do not normally think of matter as being part of a dynamic system, as least not intrinsically, as we know matter to be normally one of the most stable and static products of the natural universe. A non-radioactive rock may be itself millions, if not billions of years old, and the atoms and molecules composing that rock may in fact be much older, presumably first formed in the nuclear furnace of some ancient and long extinct star.

The notion of Nuclear-Chemical Dynamics of matter follows from Einsteins famous equivalence of mass and energy. We know a small amount of matter containes huge amounts of energy. If we can go back one more step, if energy cannot be made or destroyed, only transformed from one kind to another, then we can conclude that the original universe may have been a vast empty reservoir of vacant space-time, that this reservoir contained an infinite amount of energy. Matter, like energy, was not made or destroyed, but merely, gracually, transformed from one state into another state that we more typically associate with matter based systems. These processes of transformation may be occurring beneath our very noses without our awareness.

Matter may be made and destroyed, but the stuff of which matter is made is forever, at least relatively speaking.

We do not really know the pathways in the original production of new, pristine matter during earlier epochs of the universe.

One conjectural pathway is new mass created in the furnace of a star, cast off regularly into the depths of space in the form of solar wind. The star itself maintains a stable equilibrium, and thus throws off the new mass it produces in prodigious and continuous quantities. Thus an average star is over the course of its life time producing new matter at extraordinary rates, enough matter to make many more stars. This model is based upon the presupposition that space-time, consistent of an ethereal substance, is consumed by a star through gravitational inflow, and this is regularly transformed into pristine forms of matter, namly new nucleons which migrate to the surface of the sun and then become cast into the depths of space.

By such a mechanism, we can explain the possible production of new mass from preexisting hydrogen-helium formations in stars, but we cannot explain where and how the original hydrogen was formed that consstituted the first stars, and presumably, there was an original set of first stars. Hypothetically, vast currents may exist, or have existed, in the vast depths of empty space-time--these currents may have on occasion converged in a manner to produce what might be called a gravitational cyclone, with a false center of gravity--enough pressures may have been involved inthis convergence to have the effect of what I would call a "white source" that would radiate light energy and possibly large amounts of nucleonic particles. Such white sources may in fact be quite vast, and they may, relatively speaking, become fairly long lived.

Any cosmogony theory must deal with a central dilemma of not being able to explain the first mechanism, or original state, from which all other states subsequently derived. If we push our theory of the production of matter from the somethingness of the seeming nothing of empty space-time, then we are left ultimately with a long early epoch of cosmological time in which the universe was essentially empty. We can hypothesize that hydrogen clouds gradually accumulated and aggregated, forming small stars that were relatively long lived. With the formation of long duration stars, the universe began to heat up. I've called this the "cold fusion" universe, compared to the "Big Bang" theory. The time frames we are talking about, relative to our own, are astronomical, simply ginormous. We can say that the universe is both very, very, very old, as it is very, very, very large.

Even if the pristine state of the universe was one vast emptiness of space-time, containing an unlimited amount of negative or potential energy, which gradually transformed into light and matter, we must ask still the question of where this original space-time substance originated from.

In other words, the universe as a whole may well be gradually trending from a long primordial period of vast emptiness, through a continuing cycle of the production and destruction of matter, until the systems produced become increasingly organized and consolidated into what can be called "black hole universes"--basically super-galaxies and galactic clusters organized around a few giant monster black holes. The exact history of its development would have been complex, chaotic and undetermined, but it would have become increasingly dense in terms of matter per amount of space-time. Star systems would have grown, in larger average size, as well as in number.

We may look a t a neutron and a proton, a nucleon or nucleonic pair, as a mini-blackhole. It is a structure in which mass is concentrated at a single small locus at any given moment.

The origin of pristine or nucleonic matter, outside possibly the production of stellar nuclear furnaces, remains a great unanswered mystery in the universe. The rate of production of new mass in the universe must be indeed prodigious but largely invisible, formed as it seems to be originally as a very sparse cloud or nebulae of hydrogen nuclei.

Once formed, such nebulae collect in regions in denser and denser formations, until by shear volume of mass, they begin to form large gravitationally focused aggregates that coalesce into stars. Once formed into a star, the nuclear furnace is produced that eventually resultes in the production of every element in the periodic table, probably more, all enriched and radioactively "white hot." Such elements are in a more or less pure plasma state, and thus do not occur as normal cold matter. The relative ratios and densities of elements in stars probably varies considerably over the life span of a typical sun-sized star--producing larger quantities of heavier atomic nuclei closer to the end of its cycle than at the beginning.

So far, the dynamics of systems discussed have involved physical systems that occur on the basis of physical principles or laws that provide order to observable reality. By and large, these dynamics are amenable to mathematical description and explanation. Derivative systems concern basic levels of natural systems stratification involving emergent properties that are not so simply describable in terms of mathematical equations.

Living systems as we know them on earth have been on earth for approximately the last four billion years, almost as long as the earth has existed as a "cold" terrestrial planet. These systems have in that time evolved along a single grand tree of life, such that all organisms on earth share a common fundamental genetic structure and means of replication, and all organisms ultimately share a common ancestry and a common protobiotic origin.

Living systems have evolved and the dynamics of this evolution, based upon natural selection and random mutation, has been explicated by Charles Darwin's theory. This evolution in the form of speciation has resulted in the relatively continuous differentiation of cellular and multi-cellular life forms, and the intermeshing of these life-forms in complex webs of interdependency, within a larger bio-geophysical metasystem framework that has been at least in part shaped by the pattern of evolving life forms.

Hominid evolution has given rise, particularly in the last 100,000 years, to what can be called symbolic-cultural systems of human adaptation that are founded upon the complex abstract functioning of the human brain, and our language capacity to communicate and convey complex understanding to one another. Cultural systems are dynamic in the sense that they have evolved with human gene-culture coevolution, and they have differentiated into a vast variety of forms.

Human societies, rooted in the symbolic cultural organization of the world, tend to aggregate and to form larger institutional frameworks and systems based upon the development of applied alternative systems technology. Human civilization can be said to be the rise of advanced human social systems founded upon the development of applied alternative systems.

A fourth paradigm worthy of consideration in this regard is informational dynamics, which are critically tied to human knowledge systems.

Human beings are creating computer-based systems of artificial intelligence and robotic automation which at some point in their development should begin to be self-organizing, truly "automaton," with emergent properties of automation and intelligence not accountable by the human programmer or the machine code.

[1] I have worked with the concept for a couple of years now, coining the term as the result of theoretical development in natural systems theory, though the spirit and gestalt of the meta-systems framework existed in a rudimentary manner before this time. The concept has subsequently developed in several directions and has thus come to take on a wide multiplicity of meanings that reflects its wide range of adaptability and functionality as a conceptual tool and framework for the comprehension of reality at multiple levels. It has therefore become something of a metaphorical catchall and general purpose term that can cover a wide range of specific meanings that are not necessarily or at least directly connected. I offer the term dialectically to provide a systematic means for stepping outside of the hermeneutic and possibly ideological circle of our own systems thinking and thereby to gain a greater sense of objectivity and reality in relation to the definition and articulation of systems.

[2] I have adopted the term meta-science as the use of a general meta-systems approach when applied to methodological and operational issues in the application of the sciences. I have also adopted the term "meta-culture" to refer primarily to human applied meta-systems, or what can simply be called human-made or constructed systems, which may be scientific as well. It is something of a misconception to suggest that these terms designate meanings that are mutually exclusive as it is quite apparent that all knowledge systems are de facto human made systems, and therefore meta-cultural, even those that can strictly or generally be called meta-scientific or meta-systems. Similarly, meta-cultural systems may be called meta-scientific to the extent that they involve systematic understanding and articulation of applied systems in a consistent and realistic manner.

[3] Metasystems has been a spin-off and direct consequence of this involvement in natural systems theory. In fact, a metasystems framework and approach is implied throughout natural systems theory, especially in terms of the application of this theory to real world problem sets. It has concerned in particular those hybrid and inbetween classes of systems, or mixed systems, as well as the problem of the inter-level integration and organization of complex systems. Furthermore, it has involved the understanding of the class of heterogeneous systems that occur in the natural world, systems that incorporate all or some of the different levels and types of natural systems. It has offered a systematic methodology, through extension of set and number theory to cover a diverse range of real sets and phenomena. It has also lead to a concern with applied and what can be called the development of artificial metasystems, which are humanly-constructed systems that extend the compass of reality as well as our knowledge of reality.

[4] I think in this regard that this kind of meta-system dialogue that has under-laid scientific activity and progress has largely gone unrecognized in and of itself, and left systematically undefined as a process of any true consequence in scientific inquiry.

Perhaps diagrams like that above provide a start to a more systematic framework for maintaining and developing such meta-systemic dialogues and models about reality.

	Thermodynamics	Mechanical Dynamics	Gravitational Dynamics	Universal Dynamics	Informational Dynamics
0^th Law	Equilibrium of Heat	Equilibrium of Inertial Systems	Gravitational Equilibrium	Equivalence of Energy	Equilibrium of Order
1^st Law	Conservation of Work	Conservation of Momentum	Conservation of Mass	Conservation of Fundamental Energy	Conservation of Information
2^nd Law	Absolute Zero	Inertia Free	Absolute Rest	Empty Systems	Absolute Noise
3^rd Law	Entropy	Randomness	Unification	Simple Chaos	Noise

	Basic	Derivative
Primary	1	2
Secondary	3	4

	Basic Primary System	Derivative Primary System	Basic Secondary System	Derivative Secondary System
0 Fundamental Systems	?	?	Fundamental Structures	Energy Fields
1 Physical Systems	Atoms	Molecules	Star Systems	Galactic Systems
2 Biological Systems	Cells	Species (Organisms)	Biomes	Biospheres
3 Human Systems	Individuals	Families	Communities	Nations?
4 Alternative (Automated) Systems	Machines	Hubs	Networks	?