S U B S Y S T E M S - V I E W

This writing exposes some thoughts about frequently used concepts and their recently changing context in the changing scientific environment. Some of the semantical identifications are reviewed, especially the extent of "open systems", of "boundaries" and of "interconnection".

Introduction

In 1997, at the "ZiF" Conference (From Simplicity to Complexity, at the Bielefeld University in Germany) Gertrude J. Klauer delivered a talk with a biological aspect of an "internalization" in cellular organisms, introducing the term: 'semi-open systems' from the topological point of view of cells, even of the total organism. In differentiating between "Self" and "Non-Self", the importance of semipermeability of biological membranes was emphasized. Through the cell- membranes (like a skin in general) a permeability transmits some outside (or surface) phenomena while these and their control gets "internalized" into the inside complexity of a biological system. This writing aims at a generalization of such idea from the biological aspect into the entirety of nature's overall systems view.

The holistic systems view holds that all complexities [elements] of nature are interconnected to all others in an exchange of the dynamics of the processes of formation/dissolution. An interchange with the environment is a spatial/temporal connotation, the speed of the interchange is a temporal connotation leading to a competition (seen as stability) in the quality, i.e. the characteristics of the assembled and disassembled complexities (units). We like to accept the resulting variety of nature and its propensity to change the qualia - observed as 'given'.

Let us visualize ourselves, human beings as just one among the other marvels of the observable nature: we ARE "units" in the evolutionary variety of change, individually characterizable as entities with proprietary activities and qualia. We, humans are subsystems in the holistic systems view. Is this fitting into the overall "system" - and if yes, HOW? or are we some (religiously?) drawn-up exclusivity, as children of God? Of course at even the first level of generalization, all animals can be deemed as similar units by themselves, having proprietary activities, or at least proprietary bodily substantiality. Then we can go on to plants and on and on: there is no point to stop. In a generalization of the quality in complexities, i.e. the differentiating between self and non-self, we may arive at differences in both the ontological and the structural details.

Let us start with an ontological view of "bangs" i.e. the breakage of symmetry in the overall invariant dynamic system of the zero-information sea of variations (the Plenitude). These occur as occasional assemblages of "identical" elements in the ever changing and differentiating dynamics of assembling/disassembling "all kinds of (different?) elements". A compacting of identical elements cannot be excluded from the unchecked exchange, in a continuous reshuffling of unlimited variations in all kinds of ALL elements. Such occasional fulgurations occur and dissolve back into the invariance of the timeless - spaceless Plenitude. However, a 'bang' IS a symmetry-break, a variance -even if transitional - and in its inside there is a chance for "observables" to exist. We call the asymmetry of the assembling 'identicals' a complexity, with 'characteristics': it forms a "system". Transitional and a timeless/spaceless fulguration - as viewed from the Plenitude-side, but a "physical(?)" system - as viewed (=observable) from the inside of such system: In OUR Big Bang, in our universe the inside complexity developed into (our) 'space-time-causality' physical system. Other such fulgurations (unlimited in number - in the unlimited Plenitude) may form unrestricted varieties of universes, assumably of different complexities, assumably of different "physical" and also "ideational" capabilities (in the terms we know of) evolving according to the specific, unrestricted circumstances. The multitude of the bangs comprise the universes as "The Multiverse". The Plenitude-assigned fulguration is observed within our universe as a history of the formation and dissipation of complexities, a zero-sum process of buildup - the tectology - and dissolution. The insider view of this zero-sum process is being projected as 'extensional' - as in space - and as dynamic/durational - as in time - and in a causal sequence. The various kinds of complexification-groups are 'ordered' from simple to complex to simple, for the inside observation. The momentary fulguration is projected as a history of the buildup and builddown as an overall view, but not ordered in its details: some aspects dissipate while other aspects (still: in the timely and/or spatial view) assemble. It is a result of the unadjusted scaling: time occurs as aeons, down to nano-nano-nano-giga(etc) seconds (still time), while space takes scales from (below?) the Planck-scale to billions of parsec - in our measures. We think in anthropocentric measures, comfortably from sec to year, from mm to km but nature in this virtual view does not consider preferences. The zero-sum history of the inside view of the bang may be called "evolution". We, humans, fit into this evolution story somehow, somewhere, sometime. All our life, buildup, (genetic, etc.) and demise (death and dissipation), all the evolution is a projection of a symmetry break in a (Plenitude aspect-) fulguration. Not a flattering ontology for our self-esteem. Now let us concentrate on some "structural" details in the evolutionary assemblages of the complexities, the tectology of assembling and their dissipation: the 'system'.

In earlier considerations I erroneously boasted that in view of an overall holistic interconnectedness, it is only artificial, how the reductionist science separates small "units" as restricted domains of study. I considered such 'layering', such 'stratification', or 'entity-acknowledgement' a mere technicality to reduce the size of study to chapters small enough so that the human mind can handle them in our restricted capability. Erroneous it was, because the qualia of complexities are not our inventions. The much maligned and often denied (nested?) hierarchy, its layers (strata) and units seems to be real. A point to consider is: how does it fit together with the idea of the 'dissipative open systems'? We have to give up some of our (pragmatic) anthropologic restrictions and indulge in some 'fuzzy' thinking. An 'open' system is not quite open, not quite dissipative, while it is also not quite enclosed in (by) its boundaries. We, humans, constitute a 'system', enclosed in the boundary called 'skin'. Or are we? Our skin (with all its internal structural details) is a semipermeable membrane structure, permeable to physical impacts (heat, pressure, UV, electricity) and to chemicals (gasses, solutes, aggressive reactives, vapor, even water to some extent) if we only consider it in the usual, physiological/physical sense. In the sense of a psychological 'skin', we are also 'SEMIpermeable' to thoughts, emotions, triggering of and triggered by memories, all the "mind" - functions. The 'boundaries' of our human self are both mentally and bodily transient(?) as in a receptiveness and (semi)permeability, and closed(?) as restrictive separators. Human boundaries are selective pathways in the various in-and-out interconnections with the rest of the world of the complexity human. By no means is such a 'skin' a human peculiarity. Not even some animal or plant specialty. An atom, a societal organization, a galaxy, a chemical molecule: all have their own 'skin' with similar characteristics in their own right. The selective openness and closedness in-and-out. Even thoughts are selective in transfering effects and in absorbing modifying inputs. Functions have their limitations in modifying the environmental connections and being modified by such. Even the engineered, the 'designed' artifacts have their controlled receptivity to impact and affectiveness to their environment in their restricted complexity (call it rather: complicatedness). What we try to call a 'skin-effect' in this sense, is a controlled interconnection - as opposed to the overall connectivity and holistic openness (?) of a generalized systems view. It is organizational as Gertrude Klauer put it referring to the biology of cells: internalized surface phenomena. Or in vice versa: surfacing internal complexity. Which is just natural: if the surface is part of the system (complexity), it bears similar characteristics - as modified by the special difference between "the embedded" and the "contacting different phases". It is part of the self-organization (an underdeveloped expression) of a complexity. Why underdeveloped? because a "complexity" does not organize "itself": it gets organized by the circumstances and the rules - many of them still undiscovered. (Such ignorance leads to the term "emergence" as well, the appearance of qualia, phenomena, organizational specifics, so far unexplained, surprising, "mystical", while it is just beyond our present knowledge.) The skin-effect is ubiquitous in our universe. It is obvious in living organisms, even of a higher complexity: in societal organizations. An extension to physical entities is straightforward: a galaxy resists or succumbs to external cosmic influence and exudes such influences into its environment from inside activity. A molecule guards its integrity as a unit, unless it gets impact that transcends its guarding shield - also emits effects that may impact other molecules or the environment at large. Even a thought is "skinned in" composed into its content, unless invaded by arguments, considerations, facts(?) just as it can be conveyed to compare to other thoughts with/without an impact. A nested hierarchy of complexities requires skins unless they merge into a soup of no specificity in details. The way of thinking is anthropomorphic: we visualize an organ in a living organism, as a component in a machine. It does not have to be an enclosure: it can be a layer in any sense. The levels of complexity are separated by skins (qualia), irrespective of their getting closed or staying open (again our visualization). When we observe qualities, characteristics, we separate in our observation some connected unit within a skin. Reductionist study includes the qualia observed only according to specific aspects: the ones that stay within the assemblage and duly disregards the result of the (partial) openness in that unit (stratum). It is the first level of observation, restricted to the (physically?) obvious. It was very effective and resulted in our technology. The disservice arose from reductionism, when it was considered an absolute, things consisting ONLY from parts observed, with qualia as given. The rigidity of such view was quantized into equations and mathematical rules, the fuzziness was totally excluded from the formalism, the openness was not even considered. The 'subsystem' view of the semipermeably skinned interconnectedness accepts the merits of the reductionist achievements and includes them with the open potential of the interconnection through the boundaries. Assemblages (complexities) have their discernible characteristics, the observable qualia, yet selectively interconnected and partially open to their environmental neighbors. Semipermeable boundaries (skins) allow certain transmittals of effects, phenomena, in material systems: matter, energy - in ways of yet keeping the 'unit' together (unless destroyed). It is a 'live' system, enlivening both the rigidity of reductionism and the billowing unspecificity of holism. It is an extension of a view we know (more or less) in biology. The rules of a generalized semipermeability are yet to be found, to eliminate the obscurity in the concepts now conveniently covered by terms of self-organization and emergence.

July, 2000, John Mikes