“Systems Pathology: Review of Conflicts within Historically Unquestioned Concepts”

Abstract

Historically revered concepts could be the focal problems preventing developing a successful single General Theory of Systems.  Certain previously accepted ideas need to be re-analyzed for possible logical incompleteness, for harboring errors based on limited information, or containing logically or relationally based conflicting principles. Conflicting math axioms and hypotheses, conflicted philosophical premises, dysfunctional interpretations of historically accepted models of what was observed and devised using ancient limited knowledge – require re-analysis, reconsideration and correction, based on expanded logic and coordination, in consideration of later knowledge improvements and scientific developments. 

The author discusses problematic logic conflicts he identifies in - and between - the systems relations models of Plato, Descartes, Gödel, Mandelbrot, and Prigogine.  He also describes previously unconsidered relations that exist in certain conventional statistics models that are based on too-narrowly defined real physical systems (including previously omitted important constraint conditions), putting into question the mathematics, which math any viable General Theory of Systems must include to be considered valid. 

The thesis of this analysis is an extension of the Biological Systems Pathology SIG premise that imperfect mechanisms and irregular systems relations also have to be considered, in expansion from modeling only “healthy functioning” (organic) systems.  Logic irregularities and concept deductions based on incomplete information sets are also issues that need to be addressed when composing/achieving a General Theory of Systems, and need to be explicitly considered.

==============  

2019 Systems Pathology SIG  – approved by Len Troncale ;    – pending Journal acknowledgment.   (emailed abstract submission  May 22, 2019)