April 12th, 2004
OK, OK. I know it's been a while, but March 24th (see below) is the crux of it all these days for me. I mean, I have lots to rant about, but not a whole lot that gets me down. But here goes:
I've been thinking about systems, a lot lately.
I work in the software business. Software is something of a sham, really, because it's all about prescribing a company's system as the solution to all that ails you. Long gone are the days when a clever analyst could look at a workflow and say, "Gosh, that problem could be solved by the clever application of software." You see, while software producers continue to change the way in which people work, the improvement is now outweighed by the learning curve to adopt such a new system. While companies make harder and stronger attempts to capture the "pain" (oops, I've misused that word again) of the user, the truth is that so-called solutions are far from helpful. It's ironic that the stronger one pushes his or her system, the worse the system works for others.
So it's got me to thinking about systems in general. I thought about the mathematical meaning of the word. Which is, off the top of my head: A grouping of elements or descriptors to explain the behaviour of numerical and logical phenomena. (If you disagree with my definition, please don't send me emails. I could just as easily have looked it up in the dictionary, but I want to stick to my own understandings of the word for now.) In mathematics, one derives a system to come to terms with the seemingly chaotic and random, or the difficult-to-understand but seemingly symmetrical. But, all mathematics is based on convention, so at some point the system breaks down. Even in the simplest case: 2+2=4 is only true if one is to remember that "2" means two things, "4" means four things, "+" means "add them together," and "=" means "equals" or "the same as" or whatever.
So, even in what I consider to be the purest system humans have devised, mathematics, the system breaks down. I've seen the mathematical proof that 1=0, and nothing is wrong with each step; just that the assumptions made are loosely defined in some cases. The definitions are as important to the form of the system as they are to the content. Hmmph. Mathematics ain't perfect. C'est la vie; nothing is perfect. And the only people who really get their fur up over that are those people in search of a god, in this case The God of Mathematics.
But then I got to thinking about other human systemic constructs. Political, religious, ideological, philosophical, engineered (including software-engineered), etc. are all systems and all are imperfect. So my not-so-stunning thought was, "No system is perfect." Q.E.D.
Which led me to thoughts of nature. Well, I am sure that before humans started really mucking with the environment, even woolly mammoths and sabre-toothed tigers occasionally got cancer and died. Or slipped and fell off cliffs. (Question: Did a few unfortunate dinosaurs get cancer?) The much-vaunted Earth system is not perfect, and if one gets sillier and larger in scope, one eventually determines that although the stars may circle each other in galaxies for a good chunk of Eternity, eventually all good things, including the ridiculously long-lasting and large galactic super-clusters, must come to an end. Planets don't last forever, and even, according to Steven Hawking, black holes have something nasty to fear in their futures.
So no system at all, physically or ideologically, is perfect. Great, I've enlarged my scope, but not come up with anything particularly profound.
I guess the only reason all of this is percolating around in my mind right now is that I am fascinated with this idea that life is only possible by taking advantage of transitions. No static state can produce life, in any sense of the word. I think there is a fallacy in the thinking that, geologically, life only started on Earth when the conditions became right for it. As a modest example, think of how algae, bacteria, and other tiny creatures formed the debut of life on Earth. There was no oxygen kicking around our atmosphere until <Current_Theory>they'd produced enough oxygen that other life-forms could get a fin-hold in the oceans</Current_Theory>. So, in that example, the conditions changed and life rose in complexity and stature.
And when I think about it a little more, here, there was no system; just a progression (an imperfect progression at that) leading to ever-more-complex patterns.
Hmm ... I got it: Systems are artificial constructs of the human mind, the inevitable outcome of wishful thinking.