In systemstheory there are two answers:
[1] No. Only in open systems.
[2] Yes. In every system. It is constitutive for a system to have an environment.
What is your answer?
this link is useful
https://books.google.iq/books?isbn=1136185054
regards
You have to make a difference between
a) is a System open or closed?
b) is a System alone or does it have surroundings?
You mix it up in your question.....
Dear Franz,
-Firstly, the openness or closedness of a system is 'nicht im Frage'! (see my position: it is constitutive for a system to have an environment, both: inner- and outer!).
-Secondly, 'surroundings' are your word(s). My question to you personally is this: 'surroundings' are by definition 'outer'. How can I imagine an 'inner environment'? Please help my imagination! Thanks, Marc.
Dear Marc,
"inner" and "environment" are per definition semantically opposite characterisations,
"inner" would fit to "content" - "outer" fits to "surroundings".
My opinion is: if you use the term "system", you compound special things to one set (system comes from OldGreek and can be translated by other words into: "the things or terms, put together".
So, for me you need more characterisations for getting a correct answer - your question is too "wide".
Dear Franz,
(i) My use of the concept 'system' differs from that of Bertalanffy himself (see my previous added answer).
(ii) My use of 'inner' and 'outer environment' refers to Herb Simon (see my previous question and added answer) and maybe to Niklas Luhmann.
Thanks anyhow for your attention! Marc.
You see. Bertalanffy, Simon or Luhman had different imaginations. If you give their names you can´t be sure to have the truth by them.
You for your own need the thought to have the truth: so, Marc, take for "inner" (environment) as synonym "Content of your System".
Consequently then any Environment is necessary for every System. That is the direct answer! If you imagine an empty system this term (System) makes no sense.
Genuine logically you need the decision: is any object or term in or out of any System - so, it´s necessary to have objects, elements of a set or terms to compound them (to a system).
Thank you Franz for your nice comment. The only point is that I am consistently going to state (vs. Bertalanffy) that a system is distinguished from a set in that: (a) a set can only have an 'inner environment', otherwise it is an 'empty set'; (b) a system however has both: an 'inner' and 'outer environment'. This has very relevant scientific implications. Let me only mention one, viz. the astrophysical: Does the universe have an 'outer environment'? Mario Bunge says in one (or more) of his treatises: 'everything is a system'. So, my conclusion is: ergo, the universe must have (at least) its 'outer environment'. And what is that? Nowhere in all his treatises he mentions something as that. This is rather curious! Again, thank for your thinking! Marc
Can´t agree with Mario Bunge: everything is a system -
he tries to redefine the physical or even philosophical term System - it´s allowed in philoysophy if you can develope a whole new theory around a term.
But in Nature Science and Information Science we need worldwide unified terms - otherwise we are no scientists. We would make verbal art by writing phascinating texts without relation to reality (truth).
Even for a stopped conversation, in this late replica, I would say that:
Any given simple or complex system (even the universe) had an objective (its components, playing their roles, can have their own objectives too), this system must have an environment, which can be identified, basically, to communication's mediums.
Regards.
Dear Franz and Djamel,
Thanks both for the right answers. I need both outer and inner environment for my research in philosophy of religion in connection with such vast space: the universe itself. This is in the framework of my astro-physical research interwoven in the beginning of the universe. That is the reason of my question. Marc.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication