30
Engineering Systems Integration
of unity to modern-day thinkers. Parmenides, the first protagonist of unity
as the object of knowledge, and Feyerabend, the harbinger of an anarchistic
view of method (Lakatos and Feyerabend 1978), sparked the foundations of
my reasoning. The result was a realization that thinkers of systems (e.g.,
systems theorists, systems biologists, and systems engineers) may have
tried to answer a question that is unanswerable, and further, they may have
struggled against an objective that is unachievable. The way of Parmenides
has been debated, contracted, and supported. Yet the fundamental notion of
unity, that of integration, has persisted in its historical form. The result is a
rather commonplace view of integration that the whole is made up of the
parts. At the most general level, a central question posed by the thinkers of
systems directed interest to principles that could be gleaned from widely
observed patterns, behaviors, and properties. The goal was to interpret
said patterns, behaviors, and properties in a prophetic manner. This presentation endeavors to build a consistent, congruous, and symbiotic set of
concepts that reveal the robustness of integration as well as its subtle, yet
important, qualities.
Boundaries
All objects have boundaries that exhibit piece-wise continuous attributes in
the spatial,* functional, and behavioral domains. Some objects have continuous physical boundaries, while a system is comprised of objects that are
interconnected and exchange EMMI. Some objects have continuous functional boundaries, while a system is comprised of pair-wise objects that have
continuity of functionality. However, from a neophyte sociologist’s perspective, the behaviors of objects may have deep-seated relations but may appear
as quite discontinuous. The physical, functional, and behavioral boundaries
can be characterized by different traits, different properties, and different
attributes. But the differences do not negate the requirements for object-toobject connectivity—the matter-to-matter joining that forms the boundary.
Connectivity is the condition that is determinable when two objects have
had an interaction. The send object is aware of the interaction only if the
receive object in some manner communicates actively or passively with the
send object. An object that changes its EMMI because it receives a communication from another object is said to be aware of an interaction with that
object. Awareness may be due to an acknowledgment from the receiving
object (a change observed in the receive object is an acknowledgment).
* The term “spatial” is used to indicate the physical world; “spatial domain” is used to indicate
the physical world of objects that they may be interpreted differently if the context suggests
a difference.
Engineering Systems Integration
of unity to modern-day thinkers. Parmenides, the first protagonist of unity
as the object of knowledge, and Feyerabend, the harbinger of an anarchistic
view of method (Lakatos and Feyerabend 1978), sparked the foundations of
my reasoning. The result was a realization that thinkers of systems (e.g.,
systems theorists, systems biologists, and systems engineers) may have
tried to answer a question that is unanswerable, and further, they may have
struggled against an objective that is unachievable. The way of Parmenides
has been debated, contracted, and supported. Yet the fundamental notion of
unity, that of integration, has persisted in its historical form. The result is a
rather commonplace view of integration that the whole is made up of the
parts. At the most general level, a central question posed by the thinkers of
systems directed interest to principles that could be gleaned from widely
observed patterns, behaviors, and properties. The goal was to interpret
said patterns, behaviors, and properties in a prophetic manner. This presentation endeavors to build a consistent, congruous, and symbiotic set of
concepts that reveal the robustness of integration as well as its subtle, yet
important, qualities.
Boundaries
All objects have boundaries that exhibit piece-wise continuous attributes in
the spatial,* functional, and behavioral domains. Some objects have continuous physical boundaries, while a system is comprised of objects that are
interconnected and exchange EMMI. Some objects have continuous functional boundaries, while a system is comprised of pair-wise objects that have
continuity of functionality. However, from a neophyte sociologist’s perspective, the behaviors of objects may have deep-seated relations but may appear
as quite discontinuous. The physical, functional, and behavioral boundaries
can be characterized by different traits, different properties, and different
attributes. But the differences do not negate the requirements for object-toobject connectivity—the matter-to-matter joining that forms the boundary.
Connectivity is the condition that is determinable when two objects have
had an interaction. The send object is aware of the interaction only if the
receive object in some manner communicates actively or passively with the
send object. An object that changes its EMMI because it receives a communication from another object is said to be aware of an interaction with that
object. Awareness may be due to an acknowledgment from the receiving
object (a change observed in the receive object is an acknowledgment).
* The term “spatial” is used to indicate the physical world; “spatial domain” is used to indicate
the physical world of objects that they may be interpreted differently if the context suggests
a difference.