Cosmology is that branch of astronomy concerned primarily with the overall structure of the physical universe. Einstein's general theory of relativity made possible for the first time a self-consistent description of an unbounded self-gravitating medium. 

In general, the general relevance and applicability of science and scientific knowledge depends upon our ability to extend its results and inferences to a larger structure of physical reality. 

A cosmological paradigm I would define as a general model of the structure of reality that we apply to explain the construction of the physical universe. Different models may be developed, leading to different outcomes in cosmological construction.

Basic cosmological principles that we adhere to, either implicitly or explicitly, include the following:

1. Universal Isomorphism of Fundamental Physical Structures: The fundamental structure and dynamics as we encounter this in our everyday physical reality, is presumed to be isomorphic with the structure of physical reality everywhere in the universe, under similar conditions. To put it simply, if we see stars in the distant reaches of space, we presume the basic structures that formed these stars are similar to or the same as the ones that formed our own sun.

2. Universal Statistical Isotropy of Dynamic Event Structures: Matter and motion in the universe is, in the structure of the large, is statistically homogeneous and isotropic--"no average property of the distribution defines a preferred place or a preferred direction." The universe therefore has no center and no main axis.

3. Universal Symmetry & Equivalence of Fundamental Physical Structure: In whatever event structure we may observe, fundamental principles of equivalence and symmetry always apply. For every particle of a certain kind created, we can presume that an anti-particle of the same kind is also simultaneously created. All energy equations always balance to zero. Mass is fundamentally equivalent to energy, so forth and so on.

One of the basic considerations of a cosmological scale has been in the presumed kinds of motion: 1. no motion; 2. contraction; 3. expansion. The presumption of static (non-dynamic) space was demonstrated by Einstein to be inconsistent with his relativistic field equations. He revised his equations to include a new hypothetical constant, called the "Cosmological Constant." Relativistic field equations have been found for instance to admit of two kinds of dynamical solutions to the problem of the distribution of matter in space. Friedmann models show Space to be possibly curved, either positively or negatively. Einstein and Willem de Sitter developed a third solution to the field equations based upon a model of Space that is flat.

Armed with these basic assumptions, we infer by deduction the larger patterning of reality in terms of a total cosmology. We cannot directly see the total universe in an instantaneous or contemporaneous sense. The speed of light limits our observational sphere to a compass of the universe that is severely constrained in space-time. We depend upon the validity of our cosmological inference structures therefore in order to seek to build models of the total universe.

I'm inclined to a fourth cosmological principle, which would be stated in something like the following form:

4. Universal Statistical Complexity of Dynamical Space-Time Structures. In other words, in the larger structure of the universe curvature of Space-time may be encountered in a statistically homogeneous and isotropic manner--either in the form of negative space curvature, positive space curvature and flat space. Models of the dynamical state universe that I have constructed entail that this may be so. In other words, the structure of space we would encounter in a gravitationally unified system, like the solar system for instance, or upon earth, is fundamentally different from the structure of Space as this may be found in deep-space between different galactic clusters, or in other regions situated as these may be between different gravitational systems. We cannot specify universally a preferred orientation of the curvature of space-time. In the total volume of Space in the universe, we expect something like Einstein's cosmological constant to apply, and that the universe though locally dynamic everywhere, is universally static. 

The dilemma of applying a cosmological paradigm to understanding the cosmological structure of the universe in a statistical manner is that we do not have a predefined volume of Space that would meet quantitatively criteria of a "sufficiently large volume."  If we set our sites merely to the limits of our own Milky Way, we would be inclined to reject the cosmological principle. There occurs no magnitude of statistical departures from strict uniformity or isotropy, given that such departures are always locally relative. I am inclined to impose a fifth cosmological principle, stated thus:

5. Universal Relativity of Dynamic Event Structures: All non-zero departures of variation from statistical homogeneity and isotropy of dynamic event structure are relative to the local space-time frame in which they occur. There are no non-relative, non-local,  dynamic event structures that may occur.

It is beyond the scope of this brief note to further develop the argument for this last principle, except to state something like the following, in an open and hypothetical infinite universe, there occur no non-local, non-relative patterns or structures that are deterministically non-random. Any dynamic event structure that occurs, or that may occur, is relative to the local cosmological frame of reference in which it occurs.

Systems theory first emerged in the late 1920's and the 1930's. Scientists from many disciplines were becoming frustrated with disciplinary boundaries, and coming to realize that similar kinds of problems were being confronted, and dealt with, in similar kinds of ways in otherwise separate and independent spheres of activity. The Second World War both interrupted attempts to form cross-disciplinary Systems based frameworks, and at the same time provided big boosts to the development of systems frameworks in a number of fields. Aspects of general systems frameworks emerged after the war and in the 1950's through the 1960's. Systems frameworks have been known by many different names, and applied in different ways to different kinds of problem sets. It was in the early sixties that Systems approaches were beginning to be advanced and to have revolutionary implications in many fields of science. Noteworthy during this time was the impact the Louis Binford made in Archaeology by the application of systems based principles to archaeological theory and method, effectively ending over a century of paradigmatic dominance by the Culture Historical approach in American archaeology. It was in the later half of the 1960's that Ludwig Von Bertalanffy published his most concise and definitive statements on a fully self-conscious general systems framework. He had worked out many of the implications for this framework for various areas of science, most notably I believe for the human sciences.

Since that time, there have been various developments under the guise of Chaos theory, non-linear dynamics, Complexity, Cybernetics. Overall, since the sixties, it has been advances in computing and supercomputing architectures that have perhaps most dramatically influenced Systems based approaches and perspectives. Progress in computing has been steady, relentless and itself non-linear in its development. Half way through the first decade of the 21st Century, we find ourselves in the midst of a full-blown Information revolution and a continuation of steady advances in computing. At the same time, within the last decade we have made revolutionary advances in biological work with genetics and the structure, composition and dynamics of the large molecules that constitute living systems on a very basic level. There has been a more quiet revolution going on in Astronomy with the introduction of digital imagining techniques and the use of interferometry in telescopes. 

Systems have not yet come of age in the world. Indeed, resistance to and ignorance systems based frameworks continues to be the norm here in the US, particularly among Academic scholars and researchers. Systems based frameworks have been more readily received I think in big business and in some sectors of government due in part to the organizational nature of problems involved, but I think more importantly due to the applied and functional nature of these areas of involvement.

I think at this time we are on the verge of a General Systems revolution in the larger world, as the idea is slowly sinking in, perhaps at many places at the same time, that we might be able to finally dispense with some out-dated and out-moded ways of thinking and doing things, and that we can work in far more productive and efficient ways without all the extra symbolic baggage attached to things. This realization is becoming increasingly common in the world, and I think the information revolution is having a similar effect upon people's thinking everywhere.

How long this revolution will take to occur, or its exact pattern of development, is impossible to tell. It will undoubtedly happen at an accelerating pace of development. The full implications of such a revolution are yet to be ascertained. It seems to be a process largely in the background--like the working of the stage props while the actors strut and banter. I think we will ultimately know it by its results, by the things made available to more and more people, by the convergence of thinking on common meta-cultural ground. It is certainly a revolution in which the resort to violence and the threat of violence will become less and less necessary--"obviated" is the word--as the means to peacefully resolve issues through the application of appropriate advanced technology becomes not only feasible, but available. Availability of course, and appropriateness are big words in problems of International development. We must recognize a dangerous trend in the world toward escalating violence and increasing frequency of warfare, and I attribute this in the main to authoritarian power structures seeking to monopolize and hold on to their little resource hierarchies as long as they are able, in the fact of an accelerating rate of global change.

Mainland China is a perfect case in point, as well as its cousin, North Korea. The Chinese communist regime is savvy enough to know that if they do not change, do not allow the Chinese people to change, then the members of their little totalitarian party would have been strung up about a decade ago. China moves forward with a controlled plan of acculturative development, orchestrated from above, and motivated from below. North Korea is an example of an archaic form of human system that is attempting at all costs to maintain its one-man totalitarian organization--it can only do so by maintaining a completely closed society. The trouble is, all systems leak, especially human systems. So change even in a nightmare land like North Korea is inevitable in the structure of the long run.

The primary rate determining factors of the on-going Systems Revolution at this point are not technical, but human factors at all levels of behavior and organization. The human variables also are perhaps the least predictable about it all. The realization is also being made at the same time that the human factor is central to the formula and no system can factor the human element out completely. Systems frameworks that fail to take into central account the challenges of human sized and human kind problems are frameworks that are doomed to fail. There is no system advanced by people that is not first and foremost, and in the final analysis, a human system.

There is a principle in modern development. Simply put, technologically based development  is inevitable, given time. Social development always lags behind, and often far behind. There is also a recurrent historical pattern we must deal with--development is uneven, and it is the case that over-development of some regions may be tied by interdependency to underdevelopment of other regions.

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.