Results 1 to 3 of 3
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By RhythmAnarchy

Thread: Open Systems Theory

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    940

    Open Systems Theory

    Just scand through this. I believe it relates to this Movements ideas. it'sa pdf you can save it for review later if interested.





    1. OVERVIEW
    The version of open systems theory developed primarily by Fred Emery, OST(E),
    has two main purposes. The first is to promote and create change toward a
    world that is consciously designed by people, and for people, living harmo-
    niously within their ecological systems, both physical and social. “Socioecology”
    captures the notion of people-in-environments. Included within this is the con-
    cept of open, jointly optimized, sociotechnical (and sociopsychological) systems,
    optimizing human purposefulness and creativity, and the best options afforded
    by changing technologies. Again, these organizational systems are designed by
    the people themselves. The second purpose is to develop an internally consis-
    tent conceptual framework or social science, within which each component is
    operationally defined and hypotheses are testable so that the knowledge required
    to support the first purpose is created. OST(E) develops from integrated theory
    and practice where the practice involves important human concerns, societal and
    organizational.
    Last edited by RhythmAnarchy; 12-30-2013 at 07:40 PM. Reason: The link is a mov'n target. just search opem system theroy
    Sol likes this.

  2. #2
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by RhythmAnarchy View Post
    Just scand through this. I believe it relates to this Movements ideas. it'sa pdf you can save it for review later if interested.
    http://www.thelightonthehill.com/wp-...n-of-OSTE-.pdf

    1. OVERVIEW
    The version of open systems theory developed primarily by Fred Emery, OST(E),
    has two main purposes. The first is to promote and create change toward a
    world that is consciously designed by people, and for people, living harmo-
    niously within their ecological systems, both physical and social. “Socioecology”
    captures the notion of people-in-environments. Included within this is the con-
    cept of open, jointly optimized, sociotechnical (and sociopsychological) systems,
    optimizing human purposefulness and creativity, and the best options afforded
    by changing technologies. Again, these organizational systems are designed by
    the people themselves. The second purpose is to develop an internally consis-
    tent conceptual framework or social science, within which each component is
    operationally defined and hypotheses are testable so that the knowledge required
    to support the first purpose is created. OST(E) develops from integrated theory
    and practice where the practice involves important human concerns, societal and
    organizational.
    Hmm, if constitutional intent was known, Mr. Emery, may have connected what is paraphrased above as the ideal of the American republic democratically controlled.

    ON EDIT:
    I believe there would be a lot of consistency or potential for it if a flow chart of actions of the "world designed by people" and the "and the best options afforded" to people, were overlayed upon one which matched the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with a similar situation/dynamics.

    Or, no matter which system, a bureaucracy results. Therein, without regular oversight by citizens problems develop. My point: the existing governmental system could be well improved by what is described in the overview, and, it will fit quite well if adapted to apply to existing gov structure.

    Making things easier to change, while proposing change, helps.
    Last edited by ArticleV; 09-09-2013 at 05:19 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    940

    Is massively collaborative mathematics possible?

    Lost this link in the cloud for awhile but I have relocated it. Paste'n up to maybe get an idea/understanding, to apply OST to the some ideas expressed on this forum, grok?

    Is massively collaborative mathematics possible?

    It seems to me that, at least in theory, a different model could work: different, that is, from the usual model of people working in isolation or collaborating with one or two others. Suppose one had a forum (in the non-technical sense, but quite possibly in the technical sense as well) for the online discussion of a particular problem. The idea would be that anybody who had anything whatsoever to say about the problem could chip in. And the ethos of the forum — in whatever form it took — would be that comments would mostly be kept short. In other words, what you would not tend to do, at least if you wanted to keep within the spirit of things, is spend a month thinking hard about the problem and then come back and write ten pages about it. Rather, you would contribute ideas even if they were undeveloped and/or likely to be wrong.

    This suggestion raises several questions immediately. First of all, what would be the advantage of proceeding in this way? My answer is that I don’t know for sure that there would be an advantage. However, I can see the following potential advantages.

    (i) Sometimes luck is needed to have the idea that solves a problem. If lots of people think about a problem, then just on probabilistic grounds there is more chance that one of them will have that bit of luck.

    (ii) Furthermore, we don’t have to confine ourselves to a purely probabilistic argument: different people know different things, so the knowledge that a large group can bring to bear on a problem is significantly greater than the knowledge that one or two individuals will have. This is not just knowledge of different areas of mathematics, but also the rather harder to describe knowledge of particular little tricks that work well for certain types of subproblem, or the kind of expertise that might enable someone to say, “That idea that you thought was a bit speculative is rather similar to a technique used to solve such-and-such a problem, so it might well have a chance of working,” or “The lemma you suggested trying to prove is known to be false,” and so on—the type of thing that one can take weeks or months to discover if one is working on one’s own.

    (iii) Different people have different characteristics when it comes to research. Some like to throw out ideas, others to criticize them, others to work out details, others to re-explain ideas in a different language, others to formulate different but related problems, others to step back from a big muddle of ideas and fashion some more coherent picture out of them, and so on. A hugely collaborative project would make it possible for people to specialize. For example, if you are interested in the problem and like having slightly wild ideas but are less keen on the detailed work of testing those ideas, then you can just suggest the ideas and hope that others will find them interesting enough to test or otherwise respond to.

    In short, if a large group of mathematicians could connect their brains efficiently, they could perhaps solve problems very efficiently as well.

    The next obvious question is this. Why would anyone agree to share their ideas? Surely we work on problems in order to be able to publish solutions and get credit for them. And what if the big collaboration resulted in a very good idea? Isn’t there a danger that somebody would manage to use the idea to solve the problem and rush to (individual) publication?

    Here is where the beauty of blogs, wikis, forums etc. comes in: they are completely public, as is their entire history. To see what effect this might have, imagine that a problem was being solved via comments on a blog post. Suppose that the blog was pretty active and that the post was getting several interesting comments. And suppose that you had an idea that you thought might be a good one. Instead of the usual reaction of being afraid to share it in case someone else beat you to the solution, you would be afraid not to share it in case someone beat you to that particular idea. And if the problem eventually got solved, and published under some pseudonym like Polymath, say, with a footnote linking to the blog and explaining how the problem had been solved, then anybody could go to the blog and look at all the comments. And there they would find your idea and would know precisely what you had contributed. There might be arguments about which ideas had proved to be most important to the solution, but at least all the evidence would be there for everybody to look at.
    Everything Is Possible. Nothing Is True.
    (ψ = Σanψn)
    What do you know when the time is up and the door to the box is opened?
    It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
web statistics
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1