107
Foundations in Systems Integration
“complexity” which has evaded attempts to operationalize—in formal mathematical terms. Further, systems can be constructed through their recursive
(Schiemenz 2002) and recombinant conceptions, the natural result could be
the appearance of hierarchy and can be modeled as such. While some notion
of hierarchy is relevant and perhaps inevitable, we have concern about commensurability of levels across fields. Cross-field abstractions are different
and identifying corresponding levels of abstractions is both contrived and
problematic. Further, systems theory was predicated on inductive rationales
and the observations of nonlinear actions (von Bertalanffy 1968). The supporting structure for inductive thinking applied conforms to the adaptations
and conveniences of the authors (Holland 1986). We take away the generalized form that includes eight characteristics of theory and principle for systems integration:
• Knowledge can be represented by rules of condition to achieve
action (initial, operating, and output conditions are made up of force
and mechanism).
• Rules are based on current and future events (rather than states),
suggesting that causality is related to multiple kinds of inputs and
partitioning of objects and processes.
• Rules regarding automata are similarly defined and enacted in
lower-level and higher-level structures.
• Superordinate relations value the metasystems with more structure
than those objectively associated with lower levels.
• Synchronic and diachronic rules promote superordinate relations.
• Multiple sources of weak interactions as initiators result in measurable outputs, the result of which is integration.
• Two classes of mechanism are possible—those that revise parameters (for objects) and those that generate plausibility useful rules (for
processes).
• Mechanisms require initiators that fall within bounds of the required
thresholds to result in measurable outputs (and losses).
We build on these characteristics to develop the framework for objective
causalities and to investigate the workings of interaction and integration. We
promote inductive thinking to explore the depth and breadth of knowledge
associated with actions and events (regardless of discipline), the Gestalt
principles of similarity, and the notional construct of models of how interaction and integration show their effects. The one and the many, that is, the
considerations of integration, are describable from quantum mechanics
(Aerts 1983); to cosmogony, referencing Parmenides (Fairbanks 1898); and
cosmology (envisioning grand organizations) (Senge 2006). That description
is systemness.
Foundations in Systems Integration
“complexity” which has evaded attempts to operationalize—in formal mathematical terms. Further, systems can be constructed through their recursive
(Schiemenz 2002) and recombinant conceptions, the natural result could be
the appearance of hierarchy and can be modeled as such. While some notion
of hierarchy is relevant and perhaps inevitable, we have concern about commensurability of levels across fields. Cross-field abstractions are different
and identifying corresponding levels of abstractions is both contrived and
problematic. Further, systems theory was predicated on inductive rationales
and the observations of nonlinear actions (von Bertalanffy 1968). The supporting structure for inductive thinking applied conforms to the adaptations
and conveniences of the authors (Holland 1986). We take away the generalized form that includes eight characteristics of theory and principle for systems integration:
• Knowledge can be represented by rules of condition to achieve
action (initial, operating, and output conditions are made up of force
and mechanism).
• Rules are based on current and future events (rather than states),
suggesting that causality is related to multiple kinds of inputs and
partitioning of objects and processes.
• Rules regarding automata are similarly defined and enacted in
lower-level and higher-level structures.
• Superordinate relations value the metasystems with more structure
than those objectively associated with lower levels.
• Synchronic and diachronic rules promote superordinate relations.
• Multiple sources of weak interactions as initiators result in measurable outputs, the result of which is integration.
• Two classes of mechanism are possible—those that revise parameters (for objects) and those that generate plausibility useful rules (for
processes).
• Mechanisms require initiators that fall within bounds of the required
thresholds to result in measurable outputs (and losses).
We build on these characteristics to develop the framework for objective
causalities and to investigate the workings of interaction and integration. We
promote inductive thinking to explore the depth and breadth of knowledge
associated with actions and events (regardless of discipline), the Gestalt
principles of similarity, and the notional construct of models of how interaction and integration show their effects. The one and the many, that is, the
considerations of integration, are describable from quantum mechanics
(Aerts 1983); to cosmogony, referencing Parmenides (Fairbanks 1898); and
cosmology (envisioning grand organizations) (Senge 2006). That description
is systemness.