The general problem of systems integration is central to the entire challenge of understanding systems of any kind or of framing a coherent and reliable general systems theory. In its most basic form, the problem of general systems integration concerns how systems form and behave, articulated as they are in larger meta-systems contexts, composed of component parts that interact with one another in ways that result in the synergistic patterning of the system. The general problem of systems integration involves the problem of systems relations, which refers back to the issue of general systems relativity. Also, from another perspective, it involves the problem of the stratification of reality and the differentiation of systems from one another and from the environmental context in which any particular system becomes articulated. Put another way, the problem of general systems integration concerns how reality comes together and how it works, and it becomes therefore a central problem for all fields of science to address, albeit at the levels and in the particular areas of their specific research subjects.

One of the central dilemmas of systems integration is that on one hand it involves bringing things together, and on the other, and simultaneously, separating things apart. With the problem of the integration of reality comes the concomitant question of the differentiation of reality. Just as we see things coming together in certain ways, and not in others, so we also tend to see things falling apart in some ways, and usually not in others. A great deal of differentiation observed in the word can be referred to as developmental differentiation that has a sense of historical precedence of previous states and the future-ward consequence of  possible or even probably states. Most developmental differentiation to which no outside chance forces may be attributed, seem to follow a fairly deterministic or even over-deterministic pattern of dynamic ordering. Much of the qualities we associate with "systems" of any and all kinds at whatever level of reality we are referring to, demonstrates this kind of dynamic ordering through developmental differentiation. We have not yet figured it out in the physical sciences, but call it Evolutionary theory in the biological sciences, and argue over progressive human civilization in the social sciences.

We can say some things about the problem of integration in a formal sense, and this relates to the structure and informational capacity related to all systems of any kind or level of analytical description, and forms the foundation for a general systems approach to science. For instance:

1. A totally undetermined system is one in which all possible causal relations, and hence all possible outcomes, are equally likely, and the outcomes are completely stochastic in a chaotic sense.

2. A totally determined system is one in which there is only one set of causal connections between components and only one possible outcome from the system. Such a system can be said to be anti-chaotic.

3. The observation of nature and of any real system reveals that systems may be neither totally determined nor completely undetermined--in fact, no natural phenomena appears to occur that is either completely determined or undetermined.

4. All real systems as coherent and differentiated entities appear to be finite and limited in physical parameters of both time and space. They achieve a limited degree of deterministic order, for a limited frame of time and space, and in relation to both internal and external constraints.

5. The limited integration achieved by real systems are neither completely self-organizational nor organized as a consequence of meta-systemic interactions in the environment, but as a complex combination of both sets of factors in interaction.

6. All real systems are in a state of continuous fluctuation that is describable in terms of non-linear dynamics and control theory, and hence such changes follow probabilistic pathways within a paradigm of possible alternatives that are available to statistical measures of description.

We may describe for any system a unique informational paradigm in which the dimensions of order to disorder are contrasted with the dimensions of internal to external constraints:

The profile of any system's informational paradigm may be said to be unique to that particular system, if we can define in a precise way the constraints that constitute the system. In other words, the problem of systems integration boils mathematically (i.e., physically) down to a problem of complex mutual constraint between discriminating factors, both the degree and direction of constraint. These variables may only be modeled in terms of complex differential equations, and the changes that factors undergo within a system paradigm are continuously in fluctuation, such that we may only identify in iterative states discrete instances of a system in developmental transition.

The description of systems integration may be best modeled by the mechanism of a periodic inter-harmonic resonance amplification device, or more simply, as a pendulum, or rather as a set of pendulums each oscillating at a different frequency and rate.

This paradigm is somewhat deceptive though, because it disguises the true complexity of systems interaction and behavior in a discrete sense. It presents measures of order, disorder, internal and external constraint in a composite sense, disguising the complex and uncertainty factors that would make up each measure, and not accounting for the internal variables and relationships that affect the overall measures. It is precisely these sets of variables that render the entire system one of continuous fluctuation and change, and one that is rooted in complexity of interrelationship. 

In other words, it is quite unrealistic to consider that we can obtain at any one point in time a true and accurate measure of internal or external constraint or of relative order or disorder, much less to reliably describe these in any consistent manner. We in fact lack the language or the logic to do so in a simple manner, and even the descriptive analysis of the simplest of systems rapidly breaks down under the weight of the exponential increase of complexity entailed by the extension of such a paradigm. But our language does provide us with the trick of symbolic magic, the fallacy of being able to talk about systems, and components and measures of systems, in a composite manner as if these are in fact real and true to life.

And if we think about it all information is really this way--the information we have is that of the past stream of events, and never the current condition of reality. The problem of integration is the paradox of change, and the dilemma of having to describe change in terms that are intrinsically static. Of course this is also our saving grace, as we are permitted to speak qualitatively about reality, in terms of inaccurate or imprecise generalities and implicit generalizations, when it becomes impossible to speak about reality otherwise or in terms that are "really real." This does not weaken our scientific knowledge, but only strengthens it by a realization of its own relativities.

The rub of the matter is that in fact real systems do come to exhibit stable states and configurations, and even stadial patterns of development from one stage to another, and it is the symbolic structure of our language and logic that lends itself most readily to the description and understanding of these conditions. We see this as the emergent patterns and properties associated with systems of all kinds and as important to their identification as such. We may not easily understand the problem of integration directly, fundamentally, in a completely analytical manner, but we can readily approach the problem in terms of the consequences and results of integration.

General Systems Essays, Vol. II