by Hugh M. Lewis

Life is a matter of organization, both literally and figuratively. All of nature coheres in terms of systematic patterns. The organization of nature is built up from the organization of component subsystems. This natural organization of the world was not achieved in the blink of an eye or the span of a day--evidence reveals that the present configuration of nature was arrived at only after billions of years of development. This development was not completely random, though we hypothesize that it was ultimately founded upon random process. It was the gradual emergence of increasingly non-random pattern of order from a random background--as non-random formations appeared, they may at some stage have become stabilized and self-perpetuating, building upon themselves such that not only were non-random structures derived from non-random event patterns, but began being built on top of other non-random structures.

Understanding the organization of reality, or the nature of organization, gets at the heart of our theoretical understanding of the natural order or our explanations of it. Our theories ultimately are theories about the organization of nature. Within such theories are embedded explanations of function and the causal determination of event structures. It is the central basis for all general and theoretical concerns of our scientific worldview, no matter how tangential or specialized our interests may be.

All natural systems are in the final analysis self organizing systems. They arise as the result of a fortuitous combination of dependent events that are based upon a complex set of stochastic probabilities of occurrence. No predetermination or intention is involved in the design or function of such systems. Nor can we hypothesis the a priori existence of predeterministic structures or designs that can be used to account for the patterning of nature as we see them. Furthermore, all real systems are in fact a subset of all natural systems, though this is not how we normally or conventionally construe the real world. We are prone to seeing for instance, the alternative systems represented by the class of artificial or "man-made" inventions and designs as somehow not of a natural class, or as being artificial rather than natural, even though they are real systems. This would suggest that real systems would be a larger class than natural systems, when in fact we can see the problem in another way. Because human beings themselves are natural systems, the products of their intelligence and cultural and symbolic construction can be thought also to be extensions of natural systems. Though they are not strictly speaking in a direct way "self-organizing" as systems, they are built upon systems that are strictly speaking self-organizing, and in the larger framework, they remain bound within self-organizing realities.  If we were to discover an anomaly in the universe, a parallel dimension of the universe, or even another universe, we would be pressed to answer the question of whether this alternative universe were a part of the natural world as we know it, or whether it would belong to a separate class of system or world outside of what we consider our natural boundaries. Would our sense of reality and what it contains not be fundamentally enlarged and rendered more complex by such a discovery, such that we would have to embrace the notion of an alternative universe as a part of the larger natural system?

It may be a relatively moot point though to try to figure out whether the class of events and structures we call "real systems" is entirely isomorphic with the class of "natural systems" or whether one contains or is the subset of the other. It is also a moot point to strongly distinguish a subclass of alternative or artificial systems that are human-made as outside of the natural order or scheme of things because they are ultimately inventions.  By their invention, design, construction and operation even human-made systems become a part of a natural world, albeit as an alternative extension of human systems. They become a part of the larger scheme of things, and must then be taken into account within the larger framework of reality. While this may seem like equivocation over relatively esoteric matter, these kinds of consideration have bearing on our structures of knowledge and therefore have important implications and consequences for how we construe the world.

The material universe, the universe of matter, has been built no doubt on the stability of the proton. Without this extreme stability, it is unlikely that large formations of matter would have accreted and become organized as they have been in far-flung galaxies. But if we exam the structure and context of the proton more closely, we realize that it is as itself not so stable, but that it exists in a dynamic relationship within a nucleonic complex, that involves transition and transformation with neutrons and radioactive decay and accretion of alpha particles. Like all other structures we encounter in the physical world, it appears in fact to exist in a kind of complex equilibrium within a larger framework involving other particles and interactions.

From this example, it is apparent that derivative non-random organization can only be arrived at on the basis of underlying non-random structures that are relatively stable--the more stable such fundamental structures, the larger and more stable the derivative patterns of organization that can be obtained from them. At the same time, it is a common observation of nature that at whatever level we observe organization, patterned structures are never over-determined, and have always a degree of built-in flexibility or variation within limits about them that renders them and the derivative structures not weaker, but paradoxically stronger as a consequence.

Stability with flexibility seems to be the order of natural systems. Pattern variation within limits is allowed at almost every point of instantiation of nature. Both the pattern variation and the constraints controlling this variation appear to be semi-determined in such a way that we are able to formulate a set of rules that reasonably explain the structural patterning of the system and that can reasonably account for its normal dynamics. In this case, "dynamics" refers to the range of possible variation of pattern that a particular system or kind of system can achieve given a set of operating constraints. Furthermore, it is apparent that dynamics are built into the entire structural patterning of nature itself such that not only is patterning of systems continuously changing, but the structural constraints and rules that govern this patterning also appear to change dynamically as well.

Analytically, we can look at controlling "limits" or limiting factors from both an external or internal point of view. External limiting factors are those controls residing in the contextual environment of a system that serve, directly or indirectly, to restrict the developmental behavior of a system, usually through what can be called minimal rate determining inputs.

If we are to reach for a more fundamental model of the organization of reality, then I believe we must get down to the basics of contrasting a random and a non-random system. We know that all natural systems have some measure of randomness built into their implicit and immanent design. We know as well that no real system can be completely non-random by design or by outcome. We know that natural systems tend toward a default state, overall, of increased randomization, or what might be called the random organization of disorder. A completely random or totally randomized state, though seen as more basic and the most likely of all possible outcomes, is also understood to be almost as unlikely, in any absolute sense, as a completely non-random state. It makes a critical difference as well whether we are referring to small and limited sets, or to very large or ultimately infinite and unlimited sets.

It is very basic and true that in all states of reality, random and non-random go hand-in-hand, and we cannot have one state without some relative measure of the other, nor can we have a reality that is completely one way or another without a sense of also being the other way at the same time. The question in my mind, especially when we speak of the origination and self-organization of natural systems without any sense of predetermination or arbitrary purpose being inferred or projected into our theoretical models, is how can non-random systems that are to some degree stable and self-maintaining, emerge spontaneously from larger encompassing more random sets of alternative possibilities.

There is little room here for a sufficient theoretical exposition of this problem. How can a non-random system become self-organizing on a random base? If we have for instance a very large number of coin-flips, each an independent event, the likelihood of getting a hundred or a thousand heads in a row would remain very remote, but not impossible in the structure of the long run. Though a hundred heads on independent trials in a row would seem a deterministic event structure, the likelihood of a random sequence of 100 heads remains small though possible. We must conclude that non-random patterns may arise as a matter of chance and happenstance even if the possibilities of such self-organization are astronomically remote. 

There appear to be conditions that arise in nature, as a matter of complex organization of happenstance, in which factors may coalesce spontaneous to create conditions in which the change events that occur are no longer independent, but become interdependent, and hence the outcomes become no longer randomly determined, but non-randomly determined. We expect the possibility for such things to occur, for instance, in supersaturated solutions. It is possible that conditions may fluctuate and occur such that the relative density of event structures or the relations that occur in event structures varies over time, and the likelihood of spontaneous self-organization of systems occurs under conditions of increasing relative density or saturation of systems.

At the same time, we must recognize in the organization of reality that many systems and structures are analytically determined by the component parts that compose systems. We do not need to fetch an explanation for spontaneous self-organization from systems constructed of other systems that have already been determined on another level of analysis. Normal science proceeds under such presuppositions of analytical conditions, and by and large postpones or defers indefinitely questions of ultimate cause or origination. In a similar way, we must understand that the normal dynamic structure of reality is somewhat feed-forward, and event structures that occur at this moment, today, in reality, are not totally independent of event structures that occurred at the moment just previous, or yesterday in reality. To a great and largely unknown extent, the structures occurring today were preceded and predetermined by structures that occurred previously, and that inherited the pattern from previous states. This deterministic dependency of temporal structure is built into the present state of reality now matter how we conceive of its origins or ultimate structure. The entire universe does not pop fresh into new existence at each new moment or spin of the temporal dial. In a sense the entire basis of our positivistic logic that underlies a conventional scientific worldview and received methodology rests on this presupposition of direct causality--that we may derive logically a consequent from a known set of antecedents, but not necessarily the other way around. Obviously, we intuitive understand that a puppy born a dog today will not suddenly turn into a cat or an opossum tomorrow. We expect that it will mature into an adult form of a dog and lead a normal dog life until it eventual gets old or otherwise dies by car, disease or by neglect.

Consideration of what we may call abstract systems of spontaneous self-organization are what we can call abstract problem sets for heuristic purposes in the main, without any real or necessary referents in our everyday experience. We can safely assume inheritance and deterministic dependency of events in our everyday lives--we must do so if we are to survive--we push the pedal, our car goes faster. We turn the wheel right, the car turns to the right. At the same time, we cannot afford to wait around for the unlikely to occur spontaneously, especially under conditions that are not conducive or precipitative to spontaneous self-organization. 

But just because the concept of spontaneous stochastic self-organization is not a common part of our everyday experience of reality does not mean that it is a thesis that is not centrally important to our fundamental understanding of the organization of reality. Science ultimately cannot explain the organization of reality in any other way except through systems-based dependency and inheritance of structures that originated under precipitating conditions through spontaneous, stochastic self-organization.

An alternative worldview or framework that is systems based, in stead of a conventional or received scientific frame of reference, refers to what can be called a complementary perspective or point of view rather than one that is based upon presuppositions of direct causality of experience. This alternative perspective is entirely a relativistic one, rather than one that can be construed deterministic, and it asks questions about the relative dependency/independence of event structures in reality, rather than about questions of cause and effect or direct logical inheritance of structure. Time in the conventional scientific worldview is largely absolute, linear and irreversible--time in the systems-based worldview is mostly cyclical and recurrent, relative to the event structures and analytical levels at which events occur.

A systems-based scientific worldview furthermore cannot presume in any form or manner any kind of original predetermination of event structure, or any kind of preexistence of non-random structure that can be used to account for all subsequent events. We assume for instance that the organization of biological life on earth was fundamentally random and blind in terms of its teleological outcomes, even if it tends to follow systems based teleological patterns. We assume that its origination was a purely stochastic process that was the result of the right concatenation of conditions that resulted in spontaneous self-organization of systems that fit the minimum structural definition of living organisms. We cannot hypothesize or presume the action of the hand of god for instance in vitalizing systems with life. Similarly, human intelligence and culture arose largely as a matter of happenstance and conditioning in our remote evolutionary history, a process of biological adaptation to overarching environmental and meta-biotic conditions. Similarly, we should expect the self-organization of fundamental physical processes and forms as well, and we should not seek to explain their creation or predetermination by some other a priori structure.

We must also conclude that when such self-organized deterministic pattern occurs, the framework within which it occurs may no longer remain strictly speaking an independent random set of events, but rules of dependency and inheritance begin playing a part in the dynamic articulation of such systems. The systems become constrained in some minimal manner, and the outcomes may become weighted in an increasingly non-random manner. At some point in the development of natural systems, deterministic rules based upon dependency begin becoming a stochastic outcome of otherwise randomized sets of events. A system is largely defined in terms of the relative interdependency of the parts that serve to exclude random variables or alternative possibilities and thus to constrain the development of the system to a particular pathway or paradigm of possibilities. The emergent properties associated with the stratification of reality and the realization of systems are the direct consequence of the interdependency of relational event structures that occur in nature. 

Once a degree of non-random constraint enters into the dynamic structure of a set of events, this can lead to a crystallization of structure and a growing imbalance of weighted factors in favor of increasing determinancy and reduction of alternative possibilities. In a completely randomized system, we must remember, all events are equally likely and equally unlikely. Likelihood is distributed as evenly as possible between all possible alternative outcomes. Such a system contains no predictive information about its patterning that would allow us to predict its patterning or dynamic articulation from one period to the next. 

An example would be a supersaturated solution of salt or sugar in water. Fully dissolved by heat or mechanical action, we expect a maximally random distribution of salt ions or sugar molecules within the aqueous solution. Such a state would be thought to be a maximally randomized distribution. Given a slight trigger effect--the suspension of an object in the solution, we can expect rapid crystallization of structures in the distribution of the molecules that goes from a random to a non-random state. This trigger effect is a "butterfly" effect in chaotic systems--introduction of a non-random constraint has the consequence of precipitating out a non-random structure in a chain reaction within an otherwise randomized distribution. Such a butterfly effect may occur, furthermore, within the solution spontaneously without the introduction of an outside deterministic trigger. In other words, by principle it may become completely self organizing. The same principle appears to hold true whether we are discussing the origin and realization of subatomic particles and forces, or whether we are talking about the origin and organization of biological life forms, or the development of large scale human social systems.

Self-organizing systems also have a tendency over time to become increasingly determined and increasingly complex in the interdependencies of their state dynamics, until they reach what can be called a supercritical state that may be said to be effectively over-determined--at this point trend in the system can be expected to reverse itself such that increasing disorder, rather than increasing order, becomes the trend. Such highly determined systems may be stable for a relatively long period of time, but forces of randomization gradually erode such a system in the long run, and the likelihood of increasingly random events begins to grow and outweigh non-random events.

I believe this is true of all natural and real systems, and may be observed in all phenomena no matter what form they take, and really no matter what the anticipatory structures that occur. There is a pendulum effect in the organization of systems that swings between total randomness on one extreme and total determination on the other--systems of whatever kind oscillate periodically between these extremes, no matter what the rate or the variation of rates that may occur. This is tied, I believe, centrally to the idea that all natural systems have a life-cycle or finite state-path trajectory. We see this in the birth, life and eventual death of a single organism, or in the emergence, adaptation and extinction of a species. Systems coalesce and crystallization, seemingly from no where, to play their parts, only eventually to return to the random soup from which they arose in the first place, not as whole systems, but in parts and pieces. It is true that the chance emergence of biological life forms occurred some 3.5 to 4 billion years ago on planet earth, and we do not see the emergence of new life today, but the continuation of the same forms of life that emerged originally on earth. In such a case, the structures we observe to hold true are a perpetuation of structures that were predetermined. We can predict though the eventual extermination of all life on earth, though we cannot predict when or exactly how this will occur. The life forms we do observe on earth though do embody, at the level of the organism and at the level of the species, the same principles of a natural life-cycle or trajectory of development. We can predict the emergence of life-forms in other solar systems in the universe in ways very similar to how they occurred here previously. Life might have taken hold, or at least could have taken hold, for instance, on Mars, if the right combination of factors were conducive to its occurrence. There may well have been such a window for the spontaneous origination of life on Mars at some point in its earlier natural history, but for whatever equally likely reasons life either never happened or was never able to take hold firmly in a continuous way.

Finite systems coalesce and become organized for only a finite period of time, and then eventually "die" as systems. This is as true for a crystal formation in water as it is for a star in space or for an organism on earth. Black holes for instance are thought to be relatively stable and permanent structures, as are protons. I do not know if this knowledge is a function of our ignorance about physical reality or in fact true. These kinds of structures appear to violate our just stated principles about finite systems. Indeed, very stable and long term systems do appear to occur in the natural world. There are many species for instance like the cock roach and the shark that appear very stable in their adaptation and that appear not to have evolved in any structural or fundamental way for millions of years. But we have not been around long enough to know or witness the whole story, so we really cannot tell if in the structure of the really long run black holes somehow disappear or change their form as basic astronomical systems, or whether in fact some of the great forces they vacuum into their gravitational maws are not somehow given back up to the larger thermodynamic reservoir of deep space. I believe they do eventually extinguish as systems, somehow--they must do so if we are to accept basic postulates of natural self-organization. And as energy systems in a thermodynamic world they must somehow yield their energy to a larger system, even if how this occurs remains at this time a mystery to our science. This leads to some very basic presuppositions about the universe. For instance:

1. All things are in the most fundamental sense made of a basic form of energy, or alternate forms of energy, that cannot be made or destroyed.

2. Things in reality, like energy of which they are formed, cannot be made or destroyed, only transformed from one state into some other state or set of states.

3. All things change and all things are subject therefore to state transformations.

4. If something exists in some finite state of reality, then that thing had some beginning as a system that arose from some alternate state of reality, and will have an end, a such, resulting from its transformation into some other state of reality.

5. All things are bound within a larger context of reality that constrains the transformational pathways in critical non-random ways.

Things like protons and black holes do not lead me to doubt the efficacy of such fundamental statements about natural systems, or the model of spontaneous self-organization of reality, but such structures only lead me to believe that very stable systems that do occur in reality reveal something very basic and important about the deterministic structure of that reality. Exactly what this things are remain to be understood with any reasonable degree of certainty. I suspect that the more basic and stable a structure of reality is, the more likely that structure will become a central feature of the organization of reality, or will be representative of a set of principles that is basic and central to our understanding of the organization of reality. I somehow in fact see a proton like a tiny tiny small black hole, with these unusual gravitational effects, and a black hole like a huge proton or at least a mass of protons nucleated all together without any electrons occurring between them. There is of course more to the larger picture than this, but exactly what this larger picture really is cannot yet be said, at least not at this time.

General Systems Essays, Vol. I