Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- one_word_to_unite_them_all [2024/05/17 21:17] – brucelerner
+++ one_word_to_unite_them_all [2026/07/17 16:55] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1
@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 Essentially a return to first principles which might open the playing field to a broader audience yielding a better answer.
-a
 I expect that a major (and likely correct) push back on this initial proposed definition is that it is too simple. Even if true, it can be used to agree that we are discussing a 'system', even across representative from the different system disciplines, and from there determine what is unique about THIS system, so we have a sub-class. As we work through these specializations, we will be forming the Taxonomy for systems which can form the base for a set of Ontologies and associated Schemas but with broader involvement.
+====== Definition of a system ======
+**A system is a bounded interval of spacetime for which the the inputs and modified outputs, consisting of matter and/or energy and/or information, can be observed and specified.**
+\\
+\\ If we accept this definition, then:
+  - Since a system exchanges inputs and outputs with "something",  "something" can be labeled as another system
+  - Systems can either exist alongside a system in some environment or within other systems
+===== Questions =====
+. Does this proposition provide a way to determine if "what we are observing" is a system?\\
+. Does this proposition capture everything we currently think is a system, up to the "Universe" (discussion about what is beyond 'space-time' to exchange with or 'wrapping around' and exchanging with  itself  is philosophy not science at this time) and down to "fundamental particles" (things not composed of smaller things)?\\
+. Do the proposition and theorems  "feel" like they "makes sense"?\\