I will here debunk the dogma of systems dynamics, the pathetic discipline dominant amongst those pretending to be systems designers.
First, what are complex systems? Complex systems are those that are difficult to understand. It is systems dynamics dogma that complex systems are impossible to understand.
It is systems dynamics dogma that all complex systems are alike in that they are all impossible to understand. And that each of them is unique as "understanding" (computer simulations) of one complex system doesn't transfer to another.
I will debunk this by proving that there exists categories of complex systems, that each of them has a basis of common knowledge, and that any highly trained half-wit is capable of understanding a complex system.
PHYSICAL SYSTEMS
Consider a simple chemical system of a liter of pure nitric acid added to a liter of pure hydrochloric acid at a temperature of 20 degrees centrigrade. What is the mass of this system? What is its density? How much energy do you need to accelerate it to half the speed of light? These questions are easily resolved by anyone half-trained in physics with internet access.
Notice that "what is the mass of a solution of 1:1 nitric and hydrochloric acid?" is a perfectly meaningful question which can be answered by the information given about it. Information in chemistry solves questions of physics. This is in contrast to such completely meaningless questions as "what is its information capacity?" and "what is its value?"
Physics and Chemistry are thus tightly related in a way that chemistry and computer science, or chemistry and economics ... are not! In fact, physics and chemistry are so tightly related that they share a foundational concept between them: energy!
It is thus obvious that physical systems are a category of complex systems, and their foundational field is mechanics. The defining characteristics of the category are the presence of matter and the absence of value.
It is equally obvious that any highly trained half-wit, such as the typical physicist, is capable of fully understanding a complex physical system and that understanding of one such system helps enormously towards understanding of another.
SOFTWARE SYSTEMS
It is widely believed that the foundation of software systems is computability, or temporal math as I call it. This belief is WRONG. Computability has nothing to do with any software systems, in practice or in theory.
The foundation of software systems is computer science. The defining characteristics of the category of software systems is the absence of matter in favour of pure information, and the absence of value.
Computability is a branch of pure math, which lies entirely outside of the four categories of complex systems dealt with here. The systems here while complex compared to the human mind, are miniscule compared to math.
Shannon's information theory and quantum theory are both on the edge of both software systems and physical systems. I'm not even talking about quantum computing or computational QM here, but simply QM.
These are not the only hybrid complex systems. And as with all hybrid complex systems, in order to do any interesting work in them, you must be competent in BOTH categories of complex systems.
Quantum computation by itself is uninteresting. Quantum computation that breaks public key cryptography is very interesting. Quantum computation that proves Many-Worlds correct is equally interesting.
MENTAL SYSTEMS
The category of mental systems includes psychological and political systems. The defining characteristics of this category is the absence of matter in favour of pure information, and the presence of value. Value provides strong coupling. Stickiness.
Psychologists do so little good at best that the worst among them do far more harm than good. Many of their greatest "insights" are entirely circular reasoning (Stanford Prison Experiment) or fraudulent crap (Six Degrees Of Separation).
The fact that psychologists are operating on the same basis as alchemists before Mendeleev created his table adequately explains why they are all without exception incompetent clueless nitwits.
I say this authoritatively since the basis of all mental systems is micro-psychology, the field that describes the construction of minds and their functioning from second to second.
A field I invented out of nothing, with no reference whatsoever to anything known as psychology. Asch's conformity experiment for instance while extremely insightful properly describes mindlessness, not minds.
I am the first and so far only even half-trained psychologist in human history. And I'm a systems designer, not a psychologist, by vocation.
My understanding of human minds is precisely why I despise most of the human population and grieve for the rest.
Finally, yes this does mean that I am the only person on Earth even half-qualified to talk politics, let alone design political systems. So, you really all should elect me tyrant over the Earth.
?HARDWARE? SYSTEMS
Industrial, ecological, and biological systems all fall into one category. The defining characteristics of this long unnamed category are the presence of matter and the presence of value.
I have no interest whatsoever in such systems. As such, I can only guess that the foundational concepts of this category of complex systems have to do with niches and flows of matter & energy. Also flows of value (price or fitness). And of course (value) selection & evolution on the meta-level.
Urban systems are hybrid ????-mental systems. I might be able to figure out whether they're the edge between two categories or whether they're an implementation of one on top of another, if I knew what the fuck ???? was about.
The fact that micro-psychology had not been invented, and that a foundation for ???? lies undiscovered, explains adequately why urban designers are all evil-minded destructive morons. Even the best of them such as JH Crawford are regressive idiots.
A provisional exception is drawn for Jane Jacobs who wrote The Life And Death Of Great American Cities as an indictment and condemnation of everyone working in her field.
DIFFICULTY OF MASTERY
In order of descending difficulty to master are, 1. mental systems, 2. software systems, 3. ???? systems, and 4. physical systems.
The conservation laws which matter is subject to (energy, momentum, inertia) all conspire to slow everything down while greatly simplifying it.
Spacetime, a static 3+1 dimensions in which events are uniquely located, has the same effect of vastly slowing down and simplifying everything.
And then of course is causality, another law which software systems designers consider strictly optional, although greatly desirable, as it greatly simplifies everything.
Value, like a high coupling constant in physical theories, causes every calculation to rapidly become intractable. Value causes things to stick together. Different values causes different kinds of things to stick together.
Another reason why value complicates things is that systems which process the value of their own elements are meta-circular. And meta-circular systems are inherently more complicated than those not.
Note that meta-circularity alone does not value make, and processing value adds another layer of complication above and beyond meta-circularity.
Thus, it's easy to see why physicists and their ilk are the intellectual midgets of the systems design world. And equally, why physical systems are the best designed by far. They're simply the most easily designed.
MY SPECIALTY
On the border of mental systems and software systems are AIs, well-designed OSes, well-designed FSes, and well-designed UIs.
The fact that a systems designer needs to be equally competent in mental systems and software systems BOTH in order to work on the edge of those fields is the reason why every implementation of UIs and OSes felches excrement through a straw.
There is only ONE systems designer on Earth with mastery of mental and software systems both, me. Everyone else is woefully incompetent and should be put out of the misery I feel watching them pretend to know what they're talking about.
Notice that unlike that fourth-rate pathetic excuse for a creative genius this hell-world has spawned, Albert Einstein, or the third-rate creative genius Nikola Tesla, I did not create a new scientific discipline. I created a new FOUNDATION of science. While working alone. In the most difficult of all categories of complex systems. And I count Tesla as third-rate only because my apprentices have yet to exceed the rank of Leonardo da Vinci. I assure you they will.
