I was a monk in the Tibetan Gelug tradition and this is what we were trained in. We used these lists as antidotes to negative mental states. Thank you for your amazing work, you are awesome!!!
I have the same connection of knowledge building through my Chan/Soto Zen Buddhist monastic training. Dogen's teaching is the language of system thinking.
The advice to literally make the picture smaller with the Holistic / Global View is what I have to do. I naturally REQUIRE seeing things globally in order to understand the details. I cannot even absorb the details unless I can understand how they fit into the big picture. I have to step back, organize the information into functional categories and shrink it down into a physical map / chart / list. If I can't "bumper sticker" everything into a holistic system, nothing makes sense. I don't have autism, but something in my brain needs this. It's all chaos unless I can do this. Thank you for this series.
In systems' dance, emergence weaves, Substrate-free, behavior cleaves. Connections bloom, patterns thrive, Unbound by form, they come alive. In every node, a world's decree, Complexity sings, wild and free.
The given passage is from a text titled "Collective Beings: A Lyrical Exploration of Networks, Complexity, and Emergence." It's a creative expression of concepts related to complex systems, networks, and the emergence of patterns within them. Here's a brief breakdown of the passage: "In systems' dance, emergence weaves": This describes the dynamic interactions within systems, leading to the emergence of patterns and structures that cannot be predicted solely by understanding the individual components. "Substrate-free, behavior cleaves": This emphasizes the abstract nature of these systems, focusing on their patterns and behaviors rather than their physical components. "Connections bloom, patterns thrive": It highlights how networks and connections foster the growth of patterns and structures, allowing complexity to develop. "Unbound by form, they come alive": This suggests that these complex patterns and systems are not limited by their physical form, and their essence lies in their behaviors and interactions. "In every node, a world's decree": This refers to the intricate network of interactions in complex systems and how each node (individual component) contributes to the overall system's behavior. "Complexity sings, wild and free": This portrays the beauty and richness of complexity in these systems, emphasizing their dynamism and the idea that they are unbound by rigid constraints. The passage provides a poetic view of the beauty and complexity of emergent systems and networks.
The thinking in fractals thing just blew my mind as soon as you said it I knew what you meant. I think in terms of levels of abstraction and have described it that way for years. This is a better way to describe it.
Great video. Thank you. I have always liked interconnectedness naturally, holistic approach has helped me a lot, but the rest was new... woow ... amazing .. (a fun fact - I am a political science major, with a favourite topic - geopolitics :)
I am a mathematician and I've been thinking about that last question you left us on, and the real answer is that it is indeterminant. Its like dividing by zero. The answer is independent of any formal system we can think of to prove it. This is a result of a 100 year old revolution in mathematics in the 1920s as a result of a crisis in the foundations of mathematics when mathematicians discovered math suffered from paradox and inconsistencies. Renown mathematician David Hilbert responded with a proposed solution which attempted to ground math in 3 complete set of axioms - Completeness, Consistency, and Decidability. This comes up in you're first principles video as the modern idea where science and math can prove anything. Unfortunately for Hilbert, Complete and Consistent were proven incapable of getting to some areas of math by themselves, making them unsuitable for axioms, and interestingly enough decidability is not decidable. From Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, it was shown that a consistent formal system that can do basic arithmetic cannot be complete, because there will be true statements that cannot be proven from within the formal system. Similarly, Turing's Halting Problem showed there are algorithms that can't be decided ahead of time if they will stop at some point assuming that the computer is Turing-Complete. So, a system that is consistent, and Turing-Complete, is not decidable. This is still a problem today, and the different models for Quantum Computers are also Turing-Complete. Why is this important? Hilbert's proposed a set of problems he considered to be the most important, with the very first being a restated problem from Cantor - the Continuum Hypothesis. The Continuum Hypothesis was from Cantor's Diagonal argument, where if you assume you can find every number between 0 and 1 and place them on top of each other, then changing the first digit in the first number, second digit in the second number, and so on, you would get a new number that wasn't on the list, causing a contradiction. Cantor posited that there are no types of infinities between these two. This Continuum Hypothesis has been shown to be both consistent and inconsistent with set theory axioms, and so it exists in some third space, which I just heard used while listening to in your first principles video and it fits pretty well. This has shown that even in a mathematical framework there are some statements that are neither true or false. HOWEVER, the way this answer was gotten was really interesting and groundbreaking. Godel showed that the Continuum Hypothesis cannot be disproven with the accepted axioms of set theory, but then Godel's incompleteness theorems show that its not guaranteed to be consistent even if it can't be disproven. In the 1960s, Paul Cohen won the fields medal proved that the Continuum Hypothesis is independent of the axioms of set theory when he developed the method of 'forcing' to start with a model of set theory in which the Continuum Hypothesis holds, and then *constructs* another model from this one which contains more sets than the original, to which forces the Continuum Hypothesis to not hold. The math that came from this is constructive mathematics, and in the philosophy of mathematics is utilized by Intuitionist logic, and is characterized by rejecting the law of excluded middle, that being that double negation does not automatically imply that something is true. Every time I think about it, it blows my mind. But it gets better. I recently started learning Category theory, the so-far most abstract topic of math. Godel's Incompleteness theorems, Cantor's theorem, the Barber's Paradox, the Halting Problem, and the Liar Paradox are all the exact same thing, because they share the same structure of self-reference. Mathematicians spent 30 something years or whatever talking about the exact same thing in different contexts, which wasn't revealed until later. What a world. So no, we have no idea of ever being able to determine the reality of mathematics in comparison to the real world. It does do a lot, but that doesn't imply that it really exists. But it still could. We just can't tell because our understanding is self-referential. Its an abstraction from our own mind.
I love to share what I read in a Time Life book of Mathematics: once upon a time, people did not possess the zero. There was no placeholder like it. That's just basically mind-blowing imo.
I took IQ tests as a troubled child. I took a test again after spending my life as a programmer (30 years) My math sections went up a LOT. My overall score improved by 10 points which is a pretty large change. I wonder why there isn't more long term studies on how it changes over time based on what people do.
Interesting breakdown, but why no love for symmetries? That is, what happens when you move it, flip it, rotate it, split it, put together more? Does it keep some properties, or do they change? Language could be another perspective to consider, as words can be thought of as lossy compressions of data, there may be loss of information through abstractions, or poor data quality could lead to missing details in our understanding, distractions/noise could cause incorrect linkage of data/information, and so on. Trying to explain or elaborate on something in a different language could help finding flaws and inconsistencies in models.
Currently reading Thinking in Systems by Donella H. Meadows and have been looking for other information related to systems thinking! Grateful to have found your channel and series!
There is also a you tube channel after her name you might find it helpful. I recently finished a playlist where a lady was kind of summarizing this same book here is the link to that playlist if you want. th-cam.com/play/PLL6RiAl2WHXEU04zFYyWrUGV_fqGG4TuR.html
This is a very exciting series. I don't know if there'll be part 3 but this was already amazing. I have to try thinking in systems, it'll probably help with my internal mess and will get me to interesting places. You reminded me that humanity has always thought that this is it, and then a new era starts and everything changes. Keeping in mind systems might be a way to understand what is going to change and why.
Having in mind all you said in this and previous episode, it is very interesting that you are using system thinking to actually describe and explain system thinking. For example, in this episode you have used lists, hierarchies and models to represent various perspectives of system thinking. This, in itself, is valuable system thinking lesson.
I just want to let you know that your work is really appreciated. Keep up with it! These topics you talk about in this and other channels are trully unique and interesting for mainstream internet media.
System thinking: Perspectives Holistic view: zoom out in a holistic view, not everything is doing things the same way and variety of thought is good long term view - trends rewind time, look for historical trends, chekc various scope Deconstructionist approach ( zoom in ) - from holistical perspect and zoom on then make a conclusion of typical elements functions in a components of a larger systems - system is made on components, zooming in looing on interaction, linked, boundaries, linkages, and boundaries of the components inside of the system - look for causes of aggregate and emergent behaviours ( system behaviours ) aggregate effect is what is the net effect/final result of billion elements doing the same thing emergeng behaviour is kind of behaviour that can observe when you zoom out but not have apprtent cause when you zoom in ( swarming behaviour ) think in fractals - look for patterns of different scales - find interactions, recursions and paralles from system - understabd the ubderlying commonality
I was waiting for episode 2. It is challenging for me to recognize patterns in human social behavior. Are there any tips on how to approach this that you could give us, David?
That can be harder. I find that personality theory is not helpful, but for me the most helpful thing is coming up with archetypes for people. Like on TV Tropes. Once you can identify an archetype of a person, it is usually pretty reliable.
@@Systems.Thinking Thanks for your answer. It's very helpful. And yes, Archetypes are very helpful. Before your answer, I never considered using it to analyze or model a system. Thanks again!
Man, I loved making a game or challenge out of typing people within the Enneagram with a former girlfriend. I was good at it. I feel like that fits here.
I’m not sure how you find Edison a systems thinker. I don’t disagree but thought he was just open minded and more of a generalist who a breadth of knowledge that allowed him to think outside the box. How exactly did he think in systems?
don't worry about carbon emissions.. plants thrive with extra CO2 and also volcanic activity (undersea) creates far more than we do...we need it.. it's a tax grab and also a way to get us to stop using petrol etc so much in case it runs out for our navies etc
The language we r speaking have roots in indo european language and we don't know how old indo european language is. and from whom it desends and how old it's ancestral languages were. One thing is sure that this language is a creation of our ancestors who lived God knows how many 10s of thousand years ago we are still using that particular creation which was created 10 of thousands years ago.
I was a monk in the Tibetan Gelug tradition and this is what we were trained in. We used these lists as antidotes to negative mental states. Thank you for your amazing work, you are awesome!!!
I have the same connection of knowledge building through my Chan/Soto Zen Buddhist monastic training. Dogen's teaching is the language of system thinking.
Wow Dogen .. interesting thanks 🙏
training? in an actual monastery??? (not one in L.A.)
The advice to literally make the picture smaller with the Holistic / Global View is what I have to do. I naturally REQUIRE seeing things globally in order to understand the details. I cannot even absorb the details unless I can understand how they fit into the big picture. I have to step back, organize the information into functional categories and shrink it down into a physical map / chart / list. If I can't "bumper sticker" everything into a holistic system, nothing makes sense. I don't have autism, but something in my brain needs this. It's all chaos unless I can do this. Thank you for this series.
I understand you. I have always thought it's because I am a Sagittarius :D
In systems' dance, emergence weaves,
Substrate-free, behavior cleaves.
Connections bloom, patterns thrive,
Unbound by form, they come alive.
In every node, a world's decree,
Complexity sings, wild and free.
The given passage is from a text titled "Collective Beings: A Lyrical Exploration of Networks, Complexity, and Emergence." It's a creative expression of concepts related to complex systems, networks, and the emergence of patterns within them. Here's a brief breakdown of the passage:
"In systems' dance, emergence weaves": This describes the dynamic interactions within systems, leading to the emergence of patterns and structures that cannot be predicted solely by understanding the individual components.
"Substrate-free, behavior cleaves": This emphasizes the abstract nature of these systems, focusing on their patterns and behaviors rather than their physical components.
"Connections bloom, patterns thrive": It highlights how networks and connections foster the growth of patterns and structures, allowing complexity to develop.
"Unbound by form, they come alive": This suggests that these complex patterns and systems are not limited by their physical form, and their essence lies in their behaviors and interactions.
"In every node, a world's decree": This refers to the intricate network of interactions in complex systems and how each node (individual component) contributes to the overall system's behavior.
"Complexity sings, wild and free": This portrays the beauty and richness of complexity in these systems, emphasizing their dynamism and the idea that they are unbound by rigid constraints.
The passage provides a poetic view of the beauty and complexity of emergent systems and networks.
i wanted to see how far that verse went..
The thinking in fractals thing just blew my mind as soon as you said it I knew what you meant. I think in terms of levels of abstraction and have described it that way for years. This is a better way to describe it.
Kindly accept my sincere gratitude for this knowledge share / transfer (Google translation, English to Sanskrit - ज्ञानस्य निधिकोष्ठः)
Ditto!
Thanks!
Thanks!
Great video. Thank you. I have always liked interconnectedness naturally, holistic approach has helped me a lot, but the rest was new... woow ... amazing .. (a fun fact - I am a political science major, with a favourite topic - geopolitics :)
I am a mathematician and I've been thinking about that last question you left us on, and the real answer is that it is indeterminant. Its like dividing by zero. The answer is independent of any formal system we can think of to prove it.
This is a result of a 100 year old revolution in mathematics in the 1920s as a result of a crisis in the foundations of mathematics when mathematicians discovered math suffered from paradox and inconsistencies. Renown mathematician David Hilbert responded with a proposed solution which attempted to ground math in 3 complete set of axioms - Completeness, Consistency, and Decidability. This comes up in you're first principles video as the modern idea where science and math can prove anything. Unfortunately for Hilbert, Complete and Consistent were proven incapable of getting to some areas of math by themselves, making them unsuitable for axioms, and interestingly enough decidability is not decidable. From Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, it was shown that a consistent formal system that can do basic arithmetic cannot be complete, because there will be true statements that cannot be proven from within the formal system. Similarly, Turing's Halting Problem showed there are algorithms that can't be decided ahead of time if they will stop at some point assuming that the computer is Turing-Complete. So, a system that is consistent, and Turing-Complete, is not decidable. This is still a problem today, and the different models for Quantum Computers are also Turing-Complete.
Why is this important? Hilbert's proposed a set of problems he considered to be the most important, with the very first being a restated problem from Cantor - the Continuum Hypothesis. The Continuum Hypothesis was from Cantor's Diagonal argument, where if you assume you can find every number between 0 and 1 and place them on top of each other, then changing the first digit in the first number, second digit in the second number, and so on, you would get a new number that wasn't on the list, causing a contradiction. Cantor posited that there are no types of infinities between these two. This Continuum Hypothesis has been shown to be both consistent and inconsistent with set theory axioms, and so it exists in some third space, which I just heard used while listening to in your first principles video and it fits pretty well. This has shown that even in a mathematical framework there are some statements that are neither true or false.
HOWEVER, the way this answer was gotten was really interesting and groundbreaking. Godel showed that the Continuum Hypothesis cannot be disproven with the accepted axioms of set theory, but then Godel's incompleteness theorems show that its not guaranteed to be consistent even if it can't be disproven. In the 1960s, Paul Cohen won the fields medal proved that the Continuum Hypothesis is independent of the axioms of set theory when he developed the method of 'forcing' to start with a model of set theory in which the Continuum Hypothesis holds, and then *constructs* another model from this one which contains more sets than the original, to which forces the Continuum Hypothesis to not hold. The math that came from this is constructive mathematics, and in the philosophy of mathematics is utilized by Intuitionist logic, and is characterized by rejecting the law of excluded middle, that being that double negation does not automatically imply that something is true. Every time I think about it, it blows my mind.
But it gets better. I recently started learning Category theory, the so-far most abstract topic of math. Godel's Incompleteness theorems, Cantor's theorem, the Barber's Paradox, the Halting Problem, and the Liar Paradox are all the exact same thing, because they share the same structure of self-reference. Mathematicians spent 30 something years or whatever talking about the exact same thing in different contexts, which wasn't revealed until later. What a world. So no, we have no idea of ever being able to determine the reality of mathematics in comparison to the real world. It does do a lot, but that doesn't imply that it really exists. But it still could. We just can't tell because our understanding is self-referential. Its an abstraction from our own mind.
I love to share what I read in a Time Life book of Mathematics: once upon a time, people did not possess the zero. There was no placeholder like it. That's just basically mind-blowing imo.
I took IQ tests as a troubled child. I took a test again after spending my life as a programmer (30 years)
My math sections went up a LOT.
My overall score improved by 10 points which is a pretty large change.
I wonder why there isn't more long term studies on how it changes over time based on what people do.
I've studied systems thinking before and find it useful, but your videos still give me some useful perspectives, thanks!
TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 : Intro
2:15 : Global POV - Holistic View
10:42 : Long Term View - Trends
14:48 : Zoom In - Deconstructionist
21:10 : Complex Systems - It's alive!
25:54 : Think in Fractals
Please do more of these videos ❤️ extremely helpful and rarely discussed in such an organized and holistic way like you did. Thank you :)
I will!
Interesting breakdown, but why no love for symmetries?
That is, what happens when you move it, flip it, rotate it, split it, put together more? Does it keep some properties, or do they change?
Language could be another perspective to consider, as words can be thought of as lossy compressions of data, there may be loss of information through abstractions, or poor data quality could lead to missing details in our understanding, distractions/noise could cause incorrect linkage of data/information, and so on. Trying to explain or elaborate on something in a different language could help finding flaws and inconsistencies in models.
Currently reading Thinking in Systems by Donella H. Meadows and have been looking for other information related to systems thinking! Grateful to have found your channel and series!
There is also a you tube channel after her name you might find it helpful. I recently finished a playlist where a lady was kind of summarizing this same book here is the link to that playlist if you want. th-cam.com/play/PLL6RiAl2WHXEU04zFYyWrUGV_fqGG4TuR.html
your systems thinking course is much better than many paid ones
"Times as countless unbroken threads of influences." That's priceless!
Right???
Had been waiting for this video as well! Thanks David, I’m applying everything to my agency so it can be more organized and I can grow faster :)
This is a very exciting series. I don't know if there'll be part 3 but this was already amazing. I have to try thinking in systems, it'll probably help with my internal mess and will get me to interesting places. You reminded me that humanity has always thought that this is it, and then a new era starts and everything changes. Keeping in mind systems might be a way to understand what is going to change and why.
Thanks! Part 3 is coming... eventually...
Having in mind all you said in this and previous episode, it is very interesting that you are using system thinking to actually describe and explain system thinking. For example, in this episode you have used lists, hierarchies and models to represent various perspectives of system thinking. This, in itself, is valuable system thinking lesson.
I just want to let you know that your work is really appreciated. Keep up with it!
These topics you talk about in this and other channels are trully unique and interesting for mainstream internet media.
METAPHYSICS David!! Great Video!!!
♨️Absolutely love this series 👏🏿 i am so enamored with scales & trends that this is up my alley!!! Thank you
Ha, a brother from a different mother you are. I'll be joining the patreon. A bunch of INTPs I'm betting :)
Think in fractals!!! So awesome, I love fractals!
awesome content
Mathematics is fairly broad field. Could you perhaps help draw an arbitrary boundary around the concepts that are essential for systems thinking.
System thinking:
Perspectives
Holistic view:
zoom out in a holistic view,
not everything is doing things the same way and variety of thought is good
long term view - trends
rewind time, look for historical trends, chekc various scope
Deconstructionist approach ( zoom in )
- from holistical perspect and zoom on then make a conclusion of typical elements functions in a components of a larger systems
- system is made on components, zooming in looing on interaction, linked, boundaries, linkages, and boundaries of the components inside of the system
- look for causes of aggregate and emergent behaviours ( system behaviours )
aggregate effect is what is the net effect/final result of billion elements doing the same thing
emergeng behaviour is kind of behaviour that can observe when you zoom out but not have apprtent cause when you zoom in ( swarming behaviour )
think in fractals
- look for patterns of different scales
- find interactions, recursions and paralles from system
- understabd the ubderlying commonality
I was waiting for episode 2. It is challenging for me to recognize patterns in human social behavior. Are there any tips on how to approach this that you could give us, David?
That can be harder. I find that personality theory is not helpful, but for me the most helpful thing is coming up with archetypes for people. Like on TV Tropes. Once you can identify an archetype of a person, it is usually pretty reliable.
@@Systems.Thinking Thanks for your answer. It's very helpful. And yes, Archetypes are very helpful. Before your answer, I never considered using it to analyze or model a system.
Thanks again!
@@fabriai try AQAL theory by Wilber
@@Koryogden thanks for sharing this framework. It’s great.
Man, I loved making a game or challenge out of typing people within the Enneagram with a former girlfriend. I was good at it. I feel like that fits here.
Very interesting subject
Where's episode 3 ? please continue this series
Didn't get enough views to be worth continuing
What do you mean by “countless unbroken treads of influence leading to this moment 11:31
Influence specifically
Sir, if u make a book i will buy them!
Working on it
I’m not sure how you find Edison a systems thinker. I don’t disagree but thought he was just open minded and more of a generalist who a breadth of knowledge that allowed him to think outside the box. How exactly did he think in systems?
Do we learn 9r develop systems thinking
3:32 0:40
don't worry about carbon emissions.. plants thrive with extra CO2 and also volcanic activity (undersea) creates far more than we do...we need it.. it's a tax grab and also a way to get us to stop using petrol etc so much in case it runs out for our navies etc
Another video full of 100% knowledge ON STEROIDS!
Pardon my language here..
GAD DANG 😳🤯
The language we r speaking have roots in indo european language and we don't know how old indo european language is. and from whom it desends and how old it's ancestral languages were. One thing is sure that this language is a creation of our ancestors who lived God knows how many 10s of thousand years ago we are still using that particular creation which was created 10 of thousands years ago.
8 billion people and two fundamental skillsets: Creative and practical. Do the math.
"We came from rodents" Whaaat?😅
I've studied systems thinking before and find it useful, but your videos still give me some useful perspectives, thanks!