Holistic As Apposed To Reductionist Science

Sounds most interesting, and thanks for the heads up tip on further reading. Actually I do not believe there is anything which is not a system. Many people seem to have difficulty with the statement that there is no such thing as a closed system, to me that is almost a spiritual realization.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 308808776#
For those who have not seen it, the movie, "Mind Walk."

I'll try not to draw unwanted tangents. Is it useful to suggest that an example of a closed system is mathematics? I'm not suggesting maths is all tautologies, I do not know what the philsosophy of mathematics is. I am asking whether or not a 'closed system' is an abstraction from real life as mathematics is an abstraction for measuring quantity, a tool, a go-between.

Another example of a 'closed system' may be chemistry, which views real life in terms of molecules, elements and compounds and their properties.True, but true only as far as it goes and where it goes is towards abstracting certain facts, by the use of specified methods,from the whole world.

I am trying to get to grips with what systems theory is.

Hi Belinda,

A "closed system" can be defined as a system of which the internal properties in investigative question can not be modified through existing external influence.
In reality this is impossible.
As such, a "closed system" is a fictional, idealized state of isolation, though very useful in certain examinations.

Remember you said that you liked the idea of throwing a ring around the subject of question, this is much the same thing. In reality we cannot fully appreciate that which is contained within the ring, but is the best we can do for our limited mental capacities. The totality is beyond our comprehension we must limit our focus. There is no closed system so we do what we can to accomadate the limitations of our minds. I cannot comment on mathematics, as I have little abilities or understanding in this area. I would say also that yes, general systems theory is abstracted from real life/reality.

The interesting thing to me is that David Bohm suggests that the public at large has been condition/programed by the method of reductionist science. Reductionism takes the whole apart to study it, believing that the whole can then be understood this way, when in fact it cannot. This approach is very limited though useful at times. Systems science says the whole is greater than the sum of it parts, indicating there are many properties which arise or are emergent from the complexity of the relations of those parts, 1+1=3. At any rate he attributes much of the problems of the world to this rather scattered approach to science as contributing to fractured and/or scattered thinking. I think he is right, and the consequences are far reaching into every aspect of world culture.

Are you referring to 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order'?

I owned this book at one time and gave it away as I could understand only the one or two philosophical chapters, the physics and maths were beyond me.I think I may have something about David Bohm on my favourites .

http://www.fdavidpeat.com/interviews/bohm.htm

Found it!

Extract-

About the time I was looking into these questions, a BBC science program showed a device that illustrates these things very well. It consists of two concentric glass cylinders. Between them is a viscous fluid, such as glycerin. If a drop of insoluble ink is placed in the glycerin and the outer cylinder is turned slowly, the drop of dye will be drawn out into a thread. Eventually the thread gets so diffused it cannot be seen. At that moment there seems to be no order present at all. Yet if you slowly turn the cylinder backward, the glycerin draws back into its original form, and suddenly the ink drop is visible again. The ink had been enfolded into the glycerin, and it was unfolded again by the reverse turning.

Omni: Suppose you put a drop of dye in the cylinder and turn it a few times, then put another drop in the same place and turn it. When you turn the cylinder back, wouldn't you get a kind of oscillation?

Bohm: Yes, you would get a movement in and out. We could put in one drop of dye and turn it and then put in another drop of dye at a slightly different place, and so on. The first and second droplets are folded a different number of times. If we keep this up and then turn the cylinder backward, the drops continually appear and disappear. So it would look as if a particle were crossing the space, but in fact it's always the whole system that's involved.

Belinda,

I shall read the link. I was thinking of buying that book, "Wholeness And The Implicate Order", until someone told me there were a lot of equations and math in it, that is definitely at turn off for me. He was a most intriguing chap David Bohm, he was already deceased when I discovered his work. I shall get back to you about the content of that link.

'Wholeness and the Implicate Order was a source book for a second level undergraduate course I did. The course was interdisciplinary between arts, technology, and social sciens and it impressed me quite a lot. The course had a lot of experiential work which taught me quite a lot, I hope,but I could not read most of Bohm's book.

Yes, just as I suspected. I do however still get a great deal from listening to his dialogues with others. The implications towards the universe as a holographic universe is intriguing, apparently now they are considering this holographic model when trying to understand the human brain. It is the only model which explains much that otherwise would remain a puzzle.