Meta-Systems Engineering -- Kent Palmer world schema, etc. that help us elucidate META-SYSTEMS phenomena2. Each of these various schema calls for a different response from ENGINEERING engineering, and thus engenders new engineering disciplines, or at least new approaches to the engineering of large scale A NEW APPROACH TO SYSTEMS systems. Among them are Meta-systems ENGINEERING BASED ON Engineering3, Special Systems based Holonic EMERGENT META-SYSTEMS AND Engineering4 and Domain Engineering5, HOLONOMIC SPECIAL SYSTEMS World Engineering6 and Whole Systems THEORY Design7. What is needed is a way to understand how these various kinds of Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D. schema and their associated engineering disciplines fit together into a coherent set of P.O. Box 1632 approaches. In this paper we will develop a Orange CA 92856 USA theory of how this coherence of different 714-633-9508 [email protected] 2 The approach taken in this work is further Copyright 2000 K.D. Palmer. elucidated by several papers by the author written for All Rights Reserved. International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS; Draft Version 1.0; 04/23/2000 http://isss.org) 2000 conference in Toronto. These papers may be seen at Paper for http://dialog.net:85/homepage/autopoiesis.html International Council on Systems Engineering including the following titles “Defining Life And The 10th Annual Symposium Living Ontologically And Holonomically;” “New General Schemas Theory: Systems, Holons, Meta- Keywords: Holonomics, Meta-systems, Systems & Worlds;” “Intertwining Of Duality And Systems Theory, Systems Engineering, Non-Duality;” “Holonomic Human Processes;” and “Genuine Spirtuality And Special Systems Theory” Meta-systems engineering, Special 3 Systems, Emergent Meta-systems, Whole Van Gigch, John P. System Design Modeling and Metamodeling. New York : Plenum Press, c1991. See Systems Design, Autopoietic Systems, also Decision Making about Decision Making : Dissipative Systems, Reflexive Systems. metamodels and metasystems. Edited by John P. van Gigch ; with a foreword (metacomment) by Stafford Introduction Beer ; contributors, John P. van Gigch ... [et al.]. Cambridge, Mass. : Abacus Press, 1987. 4 Jeffrey S. Stamps Holonomy: A Human Systems This paper introduces several different future Theory. Intersystems Publications, Seaside, CA 1980 extensions to the systems engineering 5 See http://www.cse.ogi.edu/~walton/dom_eng.html discipline based on recent developments in and for a bibliography see general systems theory made by the author1. http://i90fs4.ira.uka.de/bibliography/SE/domain.html 6 These recent discoveries recognize that there Dyson, Freeman J.. Disturbing the Universe. New are many different schemas of intelligiblity York : Harper & Row, c1979. See also Emergent Worlds Theory at besides the system schema, such as the meta- http://server.snni.com:80/~palmer/emergent.htm sytsem schema, the domain schema, the 7 Whole Systems Design Association at http://www.earthcorps.com/wsda/ See also Whole 1 See “Reflexive Autopoietic Dissipative Special Systems Design course at Antioch University Seattle Systems Theory” by Kent Palmer at at http://www.seattleantioch.edu/WholeSystem/ See http://server.snni.com:80/~palmer/autopoiesis.html or Whole Systems Design (WSD) web site at http://dialog.net:85/homepage/autopoiesis.html http://www.arashi.com/WholeSystem/ 1 Meta-Systems Engineering -- Kent Palmer approaches based on the various schemas of Mathematica11, which was also further understanding might be achieved. developed by others such as Gregory Bateson,12 who attempted to solve the problem of logical paradox, and we will From Super-system to Meta-system contrast, as they do, the movement up toward higher meta-levels of logical type with the A new trend in Systems Engineering is to movement downward toward lower logical begin to think about the difference between types. When we move to a meta-level it is 8 the “system of systems ,” also known as the very different from moving up or down a super-systems, engineering which deals with series of different nested scales of, for mega-systems or macro-systems, as opposed instance, “systems within systems within to the engineering of normal medium scale systems”. As we move through the series of 9 meso-systems or small scale micro-systems . system levels there is a relative change of In fact, we might think of a whole scale of scale but at each level we are still dealing various levels of different sized systems with a system, which is a template of which might call for different approaches to understanding that we apply to certain types systems engineering due to the emergent of phenomena. But when we move up to a properties that appear at the various scales. logical type meta-level, i.e. to a higher logical However, I would like to contrast this trend type, then there is a strong difference in of considering super-systems as a special characteristics and interrelationships which class needing peculiar methods, with another cause us to understand that we are no longer approach which instead emphasizes meta- dealing with a system, per se. Anthony systems (as another special class needing Wilden has written a book called The Rules peculiar methods) and calls for the Are No Game13, which expresses this development of a particular sub-discipline of qualitative and quantitative phase change systems engineering that is not concerned very well. A game is seen to be a model of an with the effects of scale, so much as the idealized system that is of a higher logical effects of moving up a series of logical meta- type than all the specific instances of playing levels from a system at any scale. This new a particular game. Thus if the game exists at discipline would be called meta-systems meta-level one, then the rules are at the meta- engineering, as opposed to systems level two. This is very different from moving engineering. As our basis for understanding what a meta-system might mean, we will take the Russell-Copi10 concept of logical meta-levels developed in Principia 8 “Toward a Unified Systems Methodology for Australian Defense Systems-of-Systems” S.C. Cook, E. Lawson and J.S. Allison, INCOSE 1999 page 17; A Systems Engineering Process for Systems of Systems, Charles L. Roe, INCOSE 1999 page 20; 11 Whitehead, Alfred North and Bertrand Russell, “Archetecting Principles for Systems-of-Systems”, Principia Mathematica, Cambridge, University Press, M.W. Maier 1997 on line at 1910 http://www.infoed.com/open/papers/systems.htm 12 Bateson, Gregory. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. 9 By this is meant very small scale systems not micro- New York : Ballantine Books, c1972 computer systems. 13 Wilden, Anthony. The Rules are No Game : the 10 Copi, Irving M.. The Theory of Logical Types. strategy of London ; New York : Routledge & K. London, Routledge and K. Paul, 1971. Paul, 1987. 2 Meta-Systems Engineering -- Kent Palmer to a different game in the ontic14 scale, say in one finds the categories of properties that a “game of games of games”. As you move exist which define a realm of possibility that up a level of ontic scale, one is still the variation in the rules may take advantage confronted with a game at the higher level. of to define variations of the same game. For But when you move up an onto-logical15 instance, a card deck is the basis for the meta-level from any particular template of invention of many different kinds of games of understanding, like the system, then you are cards. The rules of different games take confronted not with a game but with rules, advantage of various aspects of the i.e. something very different from a game differences between the cards. With respect which is intrinsic to the game but not the to language, one finds at the meta2-level the game itself. We call the rules the essence of categories of properties that constrain the the game. Rules describe the way you play a grammars of all languages. These are game and are definitely not the game itself as properties like the various sounds that human an abstraction(1) (meta-level one) or any beings can make with their vocal organs. concrete instance(0) (meta-level zero) of the play of the game. Rules exist at an onto- Quickly we realize that moving up to higher logical level(2) (meta-level two) beyond the and higher meta-levels of onto-logical typing game(1) where no players, pieces, or board takes us into a very different realm from the exists except as terms of reference in the systems of any ontic scale. Ontic systems of rules. Rules are static while games are any scale may be characterized by an (1) dynamic. Rules seem arbitrary from the abstract gloss that is a higher logical type (0) 2 viewpoint of other games whose rules appear than the concrete instances . At the meta - idiosyncratic or different. To take another level one finds the rules, or constraints, that example, the meta-level above spoken(0) determine the essence of the system, game or language(1) is the grammar(2) of the language. language of whatever ontic scale is under Grammar is not a language itself but consideration. If we move up to the next (3) something else that describes the essence of a logical typing level we find the meta- language by offering a set of constraints on constraints that appear as categories of the play of language. The idealization of a properties that determine the things that may game(1) constrains the play of a particular function within a game, system or language. game(0). If you go up another meta-level(2) These meta-constraints underdetermine the lower level rule-like constraints which in turn underdetermines all possible particular 14 Ontic is a term introduced by Heidegger in Being instances of games, or systems or languages.