by Hugh M. Lewis

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

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

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

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

I. developmental or relational dynamics.

II. energy or transformational dynamics

III. design or informational dynamics

I. Developmental or relational dynamics:

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

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

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

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

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

II. energy or transformational dynamics:

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

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

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

I will reiterate these principles briefly:

0. The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics:

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

1. The First Law of Thermodynamics:

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

2. The Second Law of Thermodynamics:

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

3. The Third Law of Thermodynamics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. Design or informational dynamics:

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Systems Essays, Vol. I