Emergy Synthesis 10, Proceedings of the 10th Biennial Emergy Conference (2019)

183

34

GST Isomorphies of SPT, Represented or Not, in Odum’s General Systems Ecology and Models

Len Troncale

ABSTRACT The Systems Processes Theory (SPT) is a prototype or candidate systems science (SS) and general theory of systems (GTS). In 1991, Odum was elected President of the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS) at the invitation of this author. The ISSS was the historical base for attempts at research on a general systems theory. Odum was a regular contributor to, and supporter of general theory approaches for decades. This paper presents the work of Odum on emergy, transformity, and ecology as a Lifework worthy of classification as both a prototype SS and GTS. Presence or absence of isomorphies is presented as an historical sine qua non criterium for both SS & GTS. The aforementioned SPT presents a high-resolution listing of 110 candidate isomorphies, a moderate-resolution index of 80, and a constrained or minimal list of 55, which are many more than previous and current GTS workers present, analyze, or include. An index analysis of four of Odum’s books indicates that he elucidates 20 of the 80 moderate-resolution isomorphies to some degree. The paper also argues that some of these 20, represented in the Odum Opus, do not include all of the key attributes that SPT contains in its 35 Information Categories on each Isomorph. This paper shows which key isomorphs that Odum leaves out and indicates that some of Odum’s work shows that SPT could profitably adopt some of his isomorphic insights as new candidate isomorphs to improve and widen its coverage. Ultimately, the paper indicates that both Lifeworks might be able to contribute to each other. HOWARD ODUM AND GENERAL THEORIES OF SYSTEMS

Note: throughout this paper we use the acronym GTS for “General Theories of Systems” rather than the more traditional GST. We do this to respond to two long-term criticisms of GST. First, that there is no such thing as a general system (most real systems are instantiations in the natural world; we create the general by comparing and abstracting from them). Second, the adjective “general” could apply equally to the theory rather than the system in the original German. Thus the formulation GTS avoids some of these criticisms and reflects our intent more clearly.

Our Mindset is: General Theories Can & Should Contribute to Models in Ecology, Economics, & Energy Systems as well as vice versa

How can we know that Howard T. Odum was interested in advancing general theories of systems (GTS) among his many other contributions? Perhaps the most convincing indication is that he retitled his original text on Systems Ecology (1983) as a revised edition, Ecological and General Systems in 1994 (underlined emphasis mine). But this paper shows, that in addition, (and if one associates general

184

theories of systems with the presence of isomorphies) he also included in some of his models, isomorphic processes as soon as they appeared in the literature. In fact, if you look at the trend of use of isomorphies in his modeling, we will show their use increases significantly over time (section 3.5). The purpose of this paper is to show that, consistent with Howard’s preferences, we can now propose further increase in the use of isomorphic systems processes in his models in the future. Perhaps more importantly, we will try to show that GS modeling itself, as practiced by Odum and his lineage, and particularly SPT, are useful tools for making isomorphies more practical/functional in all kinds of models of natural and human systems.

Odum, President ISSS, 1991

Another indicator of Odum’s interest in GTS is his activities in professional societies. Howard was elected and consented to become the 30th President of the International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS). He had already been a member for years when it was named the Society for General Systems Research (SGSR). We in the ISSS were proud to have Howard as President. He was a Crafoord Prize winner shared with his brother, Eugene, in 1987. The Crafoord is often considered the Nobel in Ecology. He followed Ilya Prigogine, another Nobel Prize winner, as President of ISSS a mere three years before. Past ISSS Presidents Margaret Mead and Ken Boulding were presidents of their disciplinary professional societies (Anthropology & Economics, respectively) as well as the prestigious AAAS. Both Prigogine and Odum were focused on flows of energy in systems and thermodynamics as lifelong pursuits; and both made significant contributions to those fields as well as to GTS. Relation of GTS to ISAER

The International Society for the Advancement of Emergy Research (ISAER), although more neutrally named, is essentially an organization devoted to carrying on and commemorating the groundbreaking work of Howard T. Odum. It is also a most welcoming and broad-minded group. This author was reluctant to work in ISAER given the highly theoretical nature of his work. But when I proposed to current ISAER leaders to link Odum’s work with that of the most general-theory-based work, I was encouraged by such Past ISAER members and administrators as Dr.’s Daniel Campbell, Mark Brown, and Tom Abel. Many of them were also active participants in the early SGSR. They also felt that beyond theory, our new work on Systems Pathology (Troncale, 2011 & ISSS Power Points since 2001) and Systems Mimicry (Troncale, 2014a, 2016) might be of significance to join with Howard’s past writings and efforts. As a policy, ISAER tries to encourage advances at all levels of the Odum Opus whether that level is theory, tools/techniques, or modeling of ecosystems. This paper is, therefore, a very personal memorial to and reminiscence of H.T. Odum (section 5.9), as much as pursuit of a key research opportunity and a professional contribution. Odum and General Systems Theory Products

HT was a very productive and serious ISSS President and proponent of a more scientific and rigorous GTS. He took it upon himself to personally edit one of the last bound volumes of the traditional and annual General Systems: Yearbook of the International Society for the Systems Sciences (#32, 437 pages)(Odum, 1989). He included in it, not only his selections of 34 best papers for the year (the conventional contents), but also two additional, unconventional contents; namely, a special section of 42 selected systems diagrams, and a very comprehensive listing of the contents of ALL of the ISSS Proceeding from 1975 to 1993 (paper titles only). He used this collection to demonstrate how varied and diverse were the contributions to theory and application that ISSS members had accomplished. It ended with a 26-page Author Index (of 1,449 authors) and a 5-page Subject Index. Today, both the ISSS

185

Business Office and the ISSP (Int’l Society for Systems Pathology, International Business Office) have digital copies of many of these works. But for decades the Odum collection was the most comprehensive and researchable resource on ISSS approaches to general theories of systems and their application.

FOCUS ON ISOMORPHIES

This paper proposes the integration of Odum’s work with that of the Systems Processes Theory (SPT)(Troncale, from 1978a to present; especially Frienshuh & Troncale, 2012 ).

SPT consists primarily of two major components, ISPs and LPs. The first component, Isomorphic Systems Processes (ISP’s) follows the tradition established in GST from its Founders, which is a focus on isomorphies. Founders included biologist Ludwig von Bertalanfy; neuroscientist Ralph Gerard; economist Ken Boulding; and mathematician, Anatol Rapoport; I often include also Norbert Wiener, math & electrical engineering; James G. Miller, a behavioral scientist; and Margaret Mead, an anthropologist as Founders. There are a great many alternative, candidate GTS’s and illustrious contributors by now (Bertalanffy, 1968; Miller, 1978; Haken, 1983; Odum, 1994; Auyang, 1998; Francois, 2004; Mesarovic, 1964, Prigogine, Gerard, Beer, Ackoff, 1971, Churchman, and many more,). In fact, the Systems Science Working Group (SSWG) of INCOSE (Int’l Council of Systems Engineers) has long had, as an ongoing project the integration of these many competing theories using isomorphies from the SPT.

Notice that the Founders were a very interdisciplinary group long before interdisciplinary topics were acceptable. One difference SPT adds to the GST Founders emphasis on isomorphies is that it presents the isomorphies as “Processes.” SPT has strict criteria that restricts this listing to only those processes that serve as the “mechanics” that describe how many real systems work. Scientists study natural phenomena and often this comes down to study of processes by which phenomena change. So SPT raising simple isomorphies to the level of processes enables tight coupling of work on general theories to the vast literature on empirical results of the classical sciences But it uses them differently by comparing ACROSS the sciences. Scientists conduct research to produce models of how natural systems work that are supported by experimental evidence (see Troncale, 1982a & 2012) and those models usually involve specification of the natural processes by which they express their dynamics. So a science of systems (systems science) (Troncale, 2001, 2006, 2014b) should also consist of emphasis on evidence for Isomorphic Systems-Level Processes (ISPs).

Another unique new quality of SPT is the sheer number of isomorphies it studies. While even the main Founder, Bertalanffy, boasted after a decade that no new isomorphies were added to his original list of 10 or so, SPT includes at least 80. When this author long ago showed another Founder, Boulding, his list of 25 (the limited list of that time) at a AAAS conference, he exclaimed, “I didn’t know there were so many!” Well now we study more than double that number.

These Isomorphies do not belong to SPT and this listing is not Final. It is constantly being updated. There are vast literatures on such topics as “chaos mechanisms” or “fractals” or “solitons” or “hierarchies” (see 2.1 below) completely independent of SPT efforts. SPT merely adds, alters, subtracts from the comprehensive listing as time and research progresses. But SPT uniquely contributes strict criteria for including only ISP’s, dynamic processes, in the listing. They must be mechanisms, not merely associated jargon denoting solely taxonomies or human-derived adjectival attributes.

SPT adds still another novel addition to GTS research. The second component of SPT is specific Linkage Propositions. These capture evidence from the natural and human science literature about how particular ISP’s influence other ISP’s (Troncale, 1978b, 1982b, 1984a, & 1986a; McNamara & Troncale, 2012). Actually one of the early contributors to SGSR, Russell Ackoff called for this much earlier, but he never produced it himself nor did any of the Founders follow his advice (Ackoff, 1971). LPs describe the various specific types of influence between and among ISPs as expressed in a natural language, and consistent with evidence across the conventional science disciplines or at least in one discipline (thus the “proposition” aspect). The experimental source for most LP’s are also linked to peer-reviewed sources in the several sciences.

186

The result is a highly detailed, network model of interacting components on the most abstracted and universal level (see Appendices A to C) that represents and so simplifies a very wide range and vast number of instantiations or real particular systems at virtually ALL scales. The lines in these SPT Net diagrams indicate specific Linkage Propositions, the small spheres represent Isomorphic Systems Processes, and the boxes clusters of isomorphs to perform or ensure specific systems functions.

So SPT has both descriptive and prescriptive functions. Descriptive in that it explains how systems work (their specific mechanisms) and prescriptive because of the assumption that natural systems have lasted (been sustained) for millions to billions of years because those mechanics contribute to system stability. Prescriptive because due to this, we humans could and should use these mechanisms also in designing and curating our systems (as in Troncale, 1986a). Thus, the rationale for this paper. We are suggesting that adding the most possible ISPs and LPs to Odum’s models would be an improvement. Further we suggest that the availability of a comprehensive LIBRARY of MINI-MODELS based on SPT would help in assembling Odum models and modeling complex ecosystems.

Notice from the outset that we use the word “mini-model” differently than Odum and company. By “mini-model” we mean a model of one of the ISPs or LPs or both while by “mini-model” Odum workers usually mean a specific ecosystem sub-system such as wetland, or ocean, or stream, etc. (see Odum, 1994, 1998, 2000). There is no inherent conflict between these definitions; both could be used as long as specified. Extensive Libraries of both would increase the usability of the overall GTS.

What are Isomorphic Systems Processses (ISP’s) and Linkage Propositions (LPs)?

The Systems Processes Theory derives from comparison of the major phenomena studied by the natural sciences across all natural systems for the purpose of detecting similarities of systems-level dynamics. SPT follows and cites the literatures of astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, all levels of biology, mathematics and computer science. It compares the processes studied and proven by each of these sciences using their own consensus tools and techniques within their own domains. But it goes further with these analyses in a manner that is not allowed in conventional science. It goes on to compare them using Rules for Abstraction to find what is common across those processes. We are looking for Universal Patterns of becoming and dynamics. Only similarities are expressed. Thus the emphasis on the term “iso” “morph(s)(y)(ies)(isms) = “same” “shape or pattern.”

So SPT starts from the assumption that the phenomena in each of these disciplines are ipso facto, real instantiations of systems. So comparing the processes as modeled in the various disciplines across the phenomena at an abstract level is an empirical and verifiable exercise in studying “systemness” at its most fundamental level. For this exercise, human systems and cognitive systems are initially ignored to the scorn of ‘systems-thinking-types’ which are not systems scientists (see Troncale, 2014b). We do this because these particular systems are (i) relatively immature and recent compared to the natural systems, are (ii) not studied in a falsifiable empirical manner, and (iii) can be greatly biased by human limitations and partisan positions. However, we have found that many of the same isomorphic dynamics occur in human systems and, in fact, can be used to guide human design. Many instances of “cycling” or “hierarchy” occur in natural systems; sometimes they were first recognized in human systems. But ironically human systems use and abuse the str/function of hierarchy in the exact opposite manner as natural systems (another hint at the prescriptive potential of SPT). As an example, large literatures exist on hierarchies and scales (e.g. Whyte, Wilson & Wilson, 1969; Pattee, 1973; Miller, 1978; Salthe, 1985; Nat’l Research Council, 1994; Ahl & Allen, 1996; Simon, 1996; and Troncale, 1972, 1978c, 1981b, 1982, 1984a,1985, 1987, & 1988c, and many more). So these are well-known ISP’s.

Some of these isomorphies (or ISP’s) have been quite commonly and widely recognized for a long time. Like hierarchies or chaos theory, or fractls, very large libraries of scientific information exist on feedbacks across all the above-cited disciplines. Even disciplines that once never cited those processes, such as cosmology, now routinely describe such feedback processes, even on the scale of galaxy

187

formation. Biology used to use the terms “up-regulation” and “down-regulation” for its molecular biology of gene control, but now use feedback.

SPT has also found that different disciplines have discovered the same isomorphic process in their discipline independently and so have given them different names. We call these “discinyms” (disciplinary synonyms). Like feedback, the same is true of cycles and cycling and several of the others. We have built Tables of Discinyms to help in communication across disciplines.

But other ISPs are unique to SPT because they are derived from our own proposed mechanism for a Theory of Emergence and Origin (see Troncale, 1981a & 1981b). These are found in nowhere else. Still others are rather exotic because we are suggesting we should recognize processes like Exaptation from biology in other fields. And the Theory of Emergence requires reformulation of the concept of Duality into Counterparity.

Sometimes SPT provides a unique emphasis beyond just linking the isomorphies with Linkage Propositions. For example, whereas hierarchies are often described as structural regularities across different systems, SPT focuses on how “hierarchies” form or “fractals” form; that is their process of becoming or their spontaneous origins in real systems is the key, not just their resulting structural form.

It is important to recognize that SPT use of the term isomorphies is quite distinct from mathematical homeomorphies and isomorphies in other math procedures like Category Theory. A useful exercise is to look up “isomorphism (disambiguation)” in Wikipedia. This does not mean that ISPs will always be description-based or language-based. Some general systems isomorphisms already are in mathematical formalisms or provide “measurable” that are the hallmark of science. We anticipate a day when all will be formalized, all will lead to new measurables, as well as some of the LPs connecting them (see Troncale & Voorhees, 1983 for an early attempt).

SPT provides several alternative listings of candidate ISPs in various forms for various purposes. For furthering research, the list in alphabetical order of Appendix D includes some 110 to induce shock and awe (to get humans to recognize how potentially many there might be compared to those few commonly cited). For education, an earlier and simpler list in Appendix E and F clustered them according to different strategies so that there were less to deal with. The list in Appendix G also culled them into a shorter list of essentials, for simplicity, but this time reducing them to ~55 discinym sets. Newer lists (Appendix H) emphasize the minimal, process description list which we deem to be the active one at present, or 2019 on.

SPT provides some 35 key “Information Categories” or description attributes (see Appendix I) for each of the Isomorphies. The attributes include virtually all possible useful information on each Isomorphy including detailed and lengthy bibliographies and literature searches. The INCOSE Foundation awarded one of its first grants last year to stimulate our production of an open, online SPT Relational Data Base that eventually is intended to include these 35 Info Categories for all SPT ISP’s.

Why important to GTS?

In popular terms, we call the combination of ISPs and LPs “How Systems Work” to emphasize that they are intended to explain primary or significant, and regular/required systems dynamics. They explain how so many different instantiations of system, at so many different scales, characterized by so many different mechanisms, and arising at so many different times in origin or different origin mechanisms ALL exhibit phenomena that possess processes that are similar when expressed at the appropriate abstract level. SPT suggests that they are universal because they contribute to the stability and sustainability of systems. Some of these “system instantiations” have lasted for billions of years. Others are new. And each new system, although it may start in a vast array of different states will eventually fall into the same isomorphic process “wells” because of the universal need to maximize results (sustainability) with a minimum of resources (energy, material, information, events). Thus, the title of the original book, Nature’s Enduring Patterns (Troncale, 1978a).

188

So, we call the ISP’s and their connecting LP’s a candidate GTS that explains systemness. Because they are derived from and are tightly coupled to the science literature we also call SPT a candidate Systems Science. Since SPT is based on the empirical experiments of the conventional sciences, it is both falsifiable and the natural step beyond reductionist science. Notice that the conventional sciences do not normally compare across disciplines; in fact, they are forbidden to do so. So GTS is a new meta-science, a step beyond science yet based on their foundations. Widespread recognition of this would be an advance for general theory attempts.

Why key to modeling Complex Systems?

Odum applied his ideas to modeling ecosystems in a generalized manner (Odum, 1994 & 2000). Since SPT is based on abstractions from a detailed comparison of conventional phenomena of complex systems, it should be applicable to a wide assortment of specific natural and human phenomena. Beyond its position as a GTS and SS, there have been attempts to model specific components of SPT, for example recently, Giammarco & Troncale, 2018 used the new software tool, Monterey Phoenix, to conduct a test of concept for exploring the Cycling ISP. GTS/CAS needs more testing (see Troncale, 2012)

We are suggesting several alternative projects in Section 5 of this paper for extending the Odum Opus and its modeling of ecosystems using SPT. But there is no reason to restrict the use of the GTS-SS-SPT Library of mini-models to modeling only ecosystems. There are many domains of complex, adaptive system instantiations (CAS) from the natural world to the world of humans and human design or engineering that could benefit from application of the mini-model library that might be built using Odum advances. These attempts would broaden use of ecosystem CAS modeling to other CAS’s. And so Ecological Systems?

But clearly ecosystems, by their very name, as well as the vast experimental evidence that field has accumulated, are excellent test-bed examples of both systems, sub-systems, and systems of systems (SOS) (despite the fact that INCOSE systems engineer’ definitions of SOS distinctly differ from natural systems worker’s definitions of SOS). Odum and his followers focused on one very key aspect of ecosystems; energy flows. Later, Odum added information flows. We think he focused on perhaps the most fundamental aspect of flows. But there are also additional information flows as well as material flows and event or sequence flows that are key to ecology field data. We suggest here that including these additional flows and the ISP’s of the SPT would enhance and expand models of ecosystems.

ANALYSIS OF FOUR ODUM TEXTS FOR ISP PRESENCE/ABSENCE

The following are summaries of our preliminary Index Analyses. Odum characteristically extended the utility of his science texts with a thorough Index, both author and subject. We examined every entry carefully to see whether he consciously used a particular isomorph in that particular text. Then we compared usage across texts. This author does not consider this the most cogent analysis; please consider it only a quick, overview indication. The author feels that many of the ISAER members have a much more rigorous and deep understanding of H.T. Odum’s work than these gross analyses present. But for the purpose of this baseline synopsis, this analysis of four texts the author has on hand, give a 10,000-foot, rough overview of the extent of use of isomorphies in Odum’s overall opus.

One of the advantages of this page by page synopsis is that it will be joined by Index Analyses of a host of other so-called systems science and general systems texts (and initially has already been; see Appendix J). Thus the ISSP-IBO will soon have a listing of the specific pages across dozens of texts for factoids or observations about feedback, self-organization, chaos, fractals, hierarchy, cycling and many other isomorphs. This alone will provide graduate students and newcomers to the field with a ready set

189

of key citations as well as specific sections to harvest for any particular candidate isomorph they are interested in researching, learning about, applying, or modeling.

The numbers in parentheses following a candidate ISP name represents the total number of pages devoted to that isomorph in the volume. It is a total of all of the references to that isomorph or its attributes. So sometimes it represents a total taken from different parts of the index and different parts of the text. For this study, we usually considered citation in ten pages or more as STRONG coverage of an isomorph. Anything less than 10 pages, but still cited was considered MODEST or PARTIAL coverage. Of course, this is a rather arbitrary boundary. But it is influenced by three considerations: (i) many of the pages in Howard’s texts were taken up almost entirely by depictions (graphics) of his models. Therefore, many pages had little or no text covering the topic cited; (ii) even when text was included, it did not often focus on the isomorph as much as the bio-eco-specifics for that section; and finally (iii) often when text was included it did not explain the dynamics of the isomorph as a process as much as the SPT 35 Information Categories.

For the following you will find some Isomorph names (ISPs) followed by an asterisk (*). This means a search for all uses of the stem word. For example, Hierarch* would capture hierarchy, hierarchies, hierarchical, etc. Cyc* would capture cycles, cycle, cycling, cyclical, lifecycle, etc. Our students in the ISSS, Systems engineering, ISSP, Sustainability, and ISGE courses regularly use these wildcards in our searches for isomorphs in the standard Library Search Engines. Ecological and General Systems (Odum, 1994) (Revised Edition)

One might expect this text to have the most citation of isomorphs because it has GS in its title and includes coverage of that worldview (see Sillitto et. al., 2017 for influence of worldviews on ‘definition of system’ by systems engineers). However, it doesn’t due to the date it was published. Odum continued to add isomorphs to his ecosystem mini-models as time went on and more were developed in the relevant literature. This supports the basic hypothesis of this paper; he would have encouraged comparison and extension of both SPT and his models today.

ISPs Strong coverage

For this text, the Odum Index has the following coverage: Cycl* (56); Networks (53)/(24); Hierarchy (45); Oscillations (36); Feedback (31); Stability/Equilibrium (26); Information (26); Flows (22); Limits (22); Phases/States (21) in descending order of coverage. Altogether, this represents 10 on our list of 80 specific ISP’s in the SPT (see Appendix H). That is a very respectable number compared to other GTS researchers (see Appendix J).

As always there are qualifications. For example, we have two numbers for Networks. Are “webs” in ecosystems also networks in the general systems sense? How so, or how not? Precisely? Scientifically? Measurably? Are stability, steady state, and dynamic equilibrium exactly the same in ecosystems? Should we have included Odum citation of Scales and Scaling in hierarchy or separately? Are the “limits” used in ecosystem models the same as the use of “limits” in SPT (which are more cosmological or universal)? There is much confusion and conflation in general systems studies over the pairings Diversity vs. Variation and between Growth vs. Development. A great deal of ecosystem research has addressed exactly these in the past. These are intriguing research questions both for ecosystems in particular and for GTS or systems science in general. Both can help each other. ISPs Partial coverage

Although some of these contain more than 10 pages, we judged that most of the pages cited were diagrams or model graphs and not text explanations of the isomorph. So they are placed in partial

190

coverage. Autocatalytic (20); Power Laws/Zipf-Pareto (16); Duality (18); Allometry (7); Self-Organization (6). Again there are key questions to ask. Is autocatalytic really the same as self-organization or autopoiesis? Are pairings the same as duality or as SPT has renamed it, “Counterparity?” Is symbiosis in ecosystems a specific instantiation of synergy or cooperation? ISPs Not Covered

This section contains ISPs not so much “Not Covered” as covered in a decidedly different way than SPT. Odum was an ecologist-biologist foremost. As such he focused on energy flows in ecosystems and only those physical systems directly interacting with ecosystems. He did not include much of the physical science phenomena (like astronomy, cosmology) that he included in his later works as he began to think more in a general systems worldview. This can be recognized by comparing trends across his texts (as in Appendices K & L). SPT, at the outset, equally considers all physical systems phenomena as well as human systems. So it spans the full range, or all the natural sciences.

Thus it is that this text covers in a different way Potential (13); Amplification (10); Evolution (Adaptation); Decay/Death (7); Catastrophe (6); Chaos (5); Aggregation (3); Boundaries (3); Constants (3); Origins (1). There are, as might be expected, very many pages on evolution or adaptation. But none on “exaptation.” Or “systems-level evolution.” And those mentioned above, are merely mentioned without extensive coverage across all disciplines as you might find in SPT. Again there are key research questions that are stimulated by the comparison of SPT and Odum. For example, “potential” in Odum definitely is not the “potential fields” of SPT which are active not only in biosystems but all systems. What SPT Could Add

From both Strong and Moderate coverage in this text alone, we can see that Odum included at least 15 of the 110 ISPs of SPT in his work. That would leave some 95 on the alphabetical list that could be considered for addition. A significant caveat is relevant at this point, and for all the Index Analyses to follow. We do not at all believe in the list of 80 (see Appendix H) or the more discinym constrained list of 55 (Appendix G). They are only candidate shopping lists. If you compare across Appendices D through H, you can see that we keep changing the lists. New candidate isomorphs appear in the literature and in mathematics. Some are deleted, condensed into others, while new ones are added. So adding 75 to the work of Odum is just a suggestion for future work, not a iron-clad recommendation or finding. It does, however, give a general sense of what could be added if attempted.

Environment & Society in Florida (Odum, 1998)

One of the most refreshing and laudatory aspect of the Odum Opus is practical application. Howard used the best systems, economic, and energy flow knowledge of his time in modeling and simulating (so testing) real systems. His simulations allowed for prediction and so were useful for decision-making and design. Further, in modeling ecosystems (clearly our “nest”), he combined the best of both natural (non-human) systems and human systems of great and immediate relevance to our species (and many others). This text represents one of two where he applied his scientific knowledge to improve the welfare of an entire state of the United States. These are examples of great practicality. This author considers these texts the ultimate in use of systems science in application; and a virtual EXEMPLAR of general systems application. And yet, and sadly, Odum’s work is virtually ignored by especially the systems thinking crowd which is supposedly dedicated to decision-making and design. It has also been largely ignored by the general systems community even though Odum was one of their past Presidents. His work could and should be the greatly needed “bridge” between systems thinking and systems science. The subsequent projects described in section 5.0 could remedy this if others come forward.

191

ISPs Strong Coverage

For this section the cut-off between STRONG and PARTIAL coverage was changed to > or = to 5 pages. Recall the number in paragraphs are the pages that discuss that isomorphy in the text of this Odum book. So our citation of isomorphies covered here are: Thermodynamics (26); Cycl* (includes waves)(22); Networks (11); Variation-Diversity (10); Oscillations (7); Hierarchy (6); Chaos (6); Feedback (5).

Again there are intriguing research questions that arise from Odum’s use of these terms relative to their use in SPT. Are “waves” the same as cycles as they are considered in SPT? Information, energy & material flows are key in Odum, especially energy, is this all considered thermodynamics in SPT? Again, webs are counted as networks? Isn’t it clear that Variation and Diversity are handled differently in ecology than in physical sciences? With what impact on general theories? ISPs Partial Coverage

Those less covered are: Limits (4); Self-Organization (4); Potential (4); Flows (4); Equilibrium (3); Steady State (3). But again there are key differences between the Odum’s use of the word “Potential” as well aa the word “Limits” between the two lifeworks. Can Odum work be expanded to include the sense of potential and limits from SPT, or vice versa, can SPT usage be changed or moderated by Odum use of these in ecosystem modeling? ISPs: Not Covered

Some isomorphies included but not much explained in this text include Development (2); Synergy (2); Death/Dying (2); Storage (2); Interactions (2); Amplification (1). All of these seem to have clearly distinct meanings in SPT. For example, Systems development is quite different in ecology than in the GTS of SPT? Compare use of Death/Dying/Senescence/Aging in SPT versus its presence in different biolevels of ecosystems What SPT Could Add

So this text covers 14 of the 80 SPT Isomorphic Systems Processes (see Appendix H) only slightly less than the General Systems text.

Modeling For All Scales (Odum, 2000)

This particular text in the Odum Opus stands apart. Rather than a text on a sub-discipline of biology or a text on a particular message that Howard wanted to promote, this is a “How-To” Manual in the best sense. It takes a neo-phyte from no knowledge of Odum programming through building complex ecosystem models or energy flows at the highest level. As such you might expect it to not have much representation of isomorphies. But surprisingly it has as many as the other texts. Again the cutoff between categories is > or = to 5 pages for the reasons above mentioned. ISPs Strong Coverage

Cycl* (31); Flows (13); Oscillations (13); Hierarchy (12); Networks (9); Decay/Death (9); Feedback (5); Limits (5); Interactions (5). In this text we encounter some of the same research questions, namely, Are “webs” and networks the same? Are stability& equilibrium the same? What is the meaning

192

of Information in Odum relative to SPT? Are Stability/SteadyState & Dynamic Equilibrium not the same? Are Scales & Scaling not hierarchy? ISPs Partial Coverage

Low coverage of Autocatalytic (8); Synergy (6); SteadyState (5); Variation/Diversity (5); and Information (2) generate the usual research questions: Are “webs” and networks the same? Are stability& equilibrium the same? Again what is the meaning of Information in Odum? Stability/SteadyState & Dynamic Eq. not the same? Are Scales & Scaling not hierarchy? Reoccuring appearance of these same questions across several texts indicates their probity and the importance of resolving them for a better understanding of general systemness and potential cross-benefits between SPT and the Odum Opus. ISPs: Not Covered

The following are merely mentioned in this text: Chaos (4); Phase/States (2); Boundaries (1); Equilibrium (1); Fractals (1); Self-Organization (1); Aggregation (1). Fractals are barely mentioned? Considering that fractals characterize many trees, and waterways that seems a problem when modeling ecosystem subsystems. Self-Organization is not treated in the mannter of physical systems yet physical systems impact bio? Aggregation again appears, but not as applied to physical systems as SPT does? What SPT Could Add

SPT advocates and followers could benefit much from more extensive study of this particular text because it would help in modeling the isomorphies in SPT as well as the Linkage Propositions. This text trains students in the use of the Odum symbols, logo’s and equations. Environment, Power, and Society (Odum, 2007)

It is clear to me that Howard Odum recognized the limits of his mortality, as many of us do when we are reaching advanced age. His later books seemed to emphasize very important ethical messages that he wanted to communicate to humans before he left this earth; messages he considered important to survival of our species and improvement of individual lives. This text represents one of the first of these “message texts” IMHO. So as far as citation of isomorphies that it covers, you might expect there to be far fewer for these reasons. However, this text has MORE than the others. I think this reflects two facts: (i) the ISPs are important to design and decision-making so come into play especially when you are delivering messages about policy, values, and ethics; and (ii) more time had elapsed and more isomorphies had appeared

ISPs Strong Coverage

For this text, and due to the increase in citation of isomorphies, we went back to 10 pages or more as the cutoff between Strong and Partial. Two new isomorphies (underlined), not seen in Odum’s work before are found in this set. Hierarchy (88); Self-Organization (46); Networks (33); Cycl* (40); Flows (33); Allometry (33); Information (29); Feedbacks (10). In addition the two underlined isomorphs are covered in more detail. But is allometry as presented here really the same Systems Allometry of biomass & scales as it is in SPT? Or is it confined to the usual bioallometry usage.

193

ISPs Partial Coverage

Thermodynamics (8); Autocatalysis (7); Equilibrium (6); Origins (5) (this is new and explained more than in any other Odum text); Death/Senescence (5); Boundaries (4); Variation-Diversity (4); Accumulation (4); Limits (4); Stability (2); Oscillation (2). Again there are differences in use of terms as before and in the same categories. For example, Variation/Diversity is still used differently in ecology than its use in SPT? Limits are also used and defined quite differently in ecology and SPT? Accumulation is used differently in SPT and with dramatically different consequences? ISPs: Not Covered

We would suggest the adding here of Potential Fields as described in the SPT. Potential as a word is used very differently in SPT and Odum. Because of his thermodynamic heritage and focus on energy, Odum uses the term as a physicist might use it. What SPT Could Add

This book covers 8 ISPs of the SPT and mentions 11 others for a total citation of 19 of the 110 of the original SPT alphabetical listing (Appendix D). We would like to note, though, at this point that the original 110 include specifics of mechanism and consequences of negative feedback and positive feedback separately. So the total of 110 might not be a sufficiently reliable and/or absolute number for comparisons. There are several other cases of detailed sub-processes on the SPT listing that might reduce the number 110. For example, Cycles and Cycling can be considered one entry or, if you are a splitter rather than a lumper (a dichotomy well-known in biological taxonomy circles and debates) as several entries, namely, waves, solitons, oscillations, spin, lifecycles, recycling are all possible special cases of cycling that should be separated out for a list with the greatest resolution. Is it better to combine or separate, lump or split to get the best resolution of systems dynamics? Trends in Usage of Isomorphy by Odum Across Two Decades

If one compares use of ISPs across this sample of four of Odum’s books, interesting trends appear as shown in the graphics of Appendix K and L.

Appendix K first compares the various ISPs that are dominant in the modeling of each book (as measured by numbers of pages devoted to each). For example, if one looks at amount of text spent on “cycles/cycling” across the texts, it ranks first in two texts, and 2nd and 4th in two others. Networks are covered much as one would expect them to be in ecosystems research (ranking 2nd; 3rd; 5th, and 3rd respectively across the four texts). Hierarchy is also covered well (ranking 3rd, 6th, 4th and 1st). Beyond these three isomorphies, reviewing the top ten isomorphies covered across the four texts, one finds Feedbacks covered in all four, while Oscillations, Flows, and Limits are covered in three, Of course, these rankings may be merely artefacts of the topic covered, indexing focus, index intensity, models covered in the text, and more. But to a first approximation this gives some indication of coverage of Isomorphies in Odum. Except that we are adding several isomorphs to our SPT list from the Odum Opus and these were, of course, covered much more extensively (note sources, sinks, storage).

Appendix L shows, at-a-glance: (i) the series publication dates (’94 to ’07); (ii) the number of pages of index relative to the number of pages for the full text (index intensity); and (iii) the number of individual index entries compared at-a-glance across nearly a 15-year period. Odum added about 2 to 3 new isomorphies with each new text. So the series, across nearly two decades, shows Odum went from significant coverage of 10 to 13 to 16 to 18 isomorphs as a cumulative load in this sample of his lifework. Examining the particulars, one can see that he adopted isomorphies as significant literature accumulated

194

on them from the full span of scientific disciplines. Again, the caveat is that each book is on a different subject or focus message which certainly also effected isomorph coverage. Criteria that Show Odum’s Work is Both GST and Systems Science

One aspect of all of Odum’s Opus is tight coupling to, citation of, and reference to the peer reviewed and natural science published literature. This aspect is missing from most all of the systems thinking and other GTS candidates except possibly Living Systems Theory by the late J.G. Miller (Miller, 1978).

In a recent talk, not yet published (will be in ISSS Proceedings’18) this author suggested that, like the sciences, systems science needed to debate “criteria” to consensus to guide their judgements about new approaches to the often self-described categories of science, theory, systems science, and GTS. The argument was that debates on criteria would be helpful in judgements, but also were much less partisan than head-to-head debates on various theories who each have their devoted advocates following a “systems guru.” Such debates usually decay into tribal partisanship and do not result in the consensus that every science needs. Very specific Draft Criteria lists for science or not (n=30), theory or not (n=20), GTS or not (n=41) and systems science or not (n=91), were suggested (Troncale, 2018). In our opinion, Odums’ general systems ecology satisfied virtually all criteria of all lists (nearly 200 criteria) and that is why we support it as both a candidate systems science and GTS worthy of study and expansion. Although a better approach would be to assess both Odum’s work criterium by criterium and discuss the relevance of each to advancing Emergy Resesarch.

Why Add Isomorphies to Odum’s Models? The chart in Appendix L indicates that there remains the possibility of adding nearly 50 isomorphies (see Section 4.1) to those already in Odum’s models and especially his library of ecosystem mini-models. But why even attempt this? We can think of five arguments. First, Howard himself added new isomorphies to his models as he encountered them or their literature reached maturity. We can see this when we compare his use of isomorphy across two decades and these four sample texts. We might presume he would have continued to do this if he were still active. Second, achievement of an additional “library” of systems isomorphy mini-models would significantly increase available EXTEND components to use in future modeling by students and professionals. Third, Odum’s interest in general systems might be argued to be consistent with inclusion of more systems isomorphies which are fundamental to general systems theory. Fourth, the isomorphies essentially represent the “mechanics” of how systems work; so their inclusion in ecosystems models at all levels and scales should increase the understanding of how those particular systems work. Fifth, testing the effects of inclusion or elimination of isomorphies in models of ecosystems would give us an additional test bed for assessment, improvement, development, and evolution of better GTS’s. Caveats on this intention would be: (1) that we are not absolutely sure that all of the isomorphies not yet in Odum models could add to model veracity or robustness. Perhaps there is a subset of the ninety or so that are more conducive or contribute more to such goals. (2) it would have to be proven that inclusion of more isomorphies compared to less actually improved the predictive power of existing models.

HOW MIGHT SPT & ODUM’S GTS HELP EACH OTHER?

Earlier we explained why we think Howard T. Odum’s Opus are also contributions to a general theory of systems and why we think he might have been interested in supporting and contributing to the GTS movement. We have also in this text tried to show how he included the sine qua non attributes (our

195

Info Categories) of GTS (isomorphies) in his models. These realities provide the foundation for thinking that GTS could help enrich the Odum Opus as well as the Odum Opus could enrich GTS work.

Which new Isomorphic Systems Processes (ISPs) Could Be Added?

From an initial look at the alphabetical listing of isomorphies in Systems Processes Theory (SPT), we suggest adding the following to the mini-models of Odum as a IsoMini-Model Library: Chaos mechanisms more explicitly, Counterparities, Dualities, Emergence (theory and mechanism thereof), Solitons, Variation Mechanisms, Self-Criticality, Aggregation Processes, Exaptation, Symmetry, Synchrony, Transducers, Fields, Fractals, and more (as shown in bold in Appendix H). This list of 48 additions would have to be culled by field experiments that demonstrate the pertinence of each to ecosystems description and dynamics. Which new Embellishments from 33 Information Categories (SPT-RDB)

Each Isomorphic Systems Process (ISP) is expanded in its treatment in SPT by systematically seeking and describing 35 consistent categories of key details. This is intended to result in capture of the broad span of literature for each ISP. These categories are also designed to give the practical, working details so important to people who intend to work in this new field. Currently these Information Categories are: (roughly in SPT Priority Order): (1) Introductory Common Examples; (2) Identifying Features; (3) Measurables; (4) Identifying Functions; (5) How A Process; (6) Types or Taxonomies; (7) Evidence for Isomorphy (Range of Validity); (8) Discinyms: Translational Tables; (9) Linkage Propositions; (10) Prerequisites, Dependencies; (11) Pathologies; (12) ISP Book Bibliography; (13) ISP Review Bibliography; (14) ISP Research Paper/Reports Bibliography; (15) ISP Concept Maps, Models, Simulations; (16) Graphics: Icon or Logo Symbols; (17) Brief History; (18) Key Discriminations; (19) Comparative Use in Sources; (20) Exemplar Applications; (21) Natural Science Case Phenomena as Applications & Sources; (22) Applications in Human Disciplines; (23) Formula, Formalizations;(24) Researchers; (25) Institutions; (26) Funding Agencies; (27) Findings & Information Bits; SysInformatics Load Estimates; (28) Hypotheses, Conjectures; (29) Laws, Principles; (30) Future Research Questions; (31) Tools or Techniques; (32) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s); (33) Word Definitions; (34) Recognition by Domains; (35) Obstacles to Better Recognition and Use.

Can you think of any other practical categories of information that would inform others about any particular ISP? If you can, please contact this author and we will add them with full personal citation. Category #’s 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, some of 10, 12 and 13 would be especially useful for consideration for inclusion in Odum or ecosystem models and simulations. Some of these are described in (Friendshuh & Troncale, 2012). Appendix N shows examples for some of these additions for autocatalysis & hierarchy.

Recently the INCOSE Foundation (the Int’l Council on Systems Engineering) has given two small grants to these collaborators: for initial design of a Relational Data Base that will have all of the above information for each ISP. This data base will be online, free to use (given proven activity to help co-populate it), and useful for all systems thinkers, systems scientists and systems engineers.

Especially Identifying Features, Functions, Measurables, and Proof of Process

Of these many Information Categories we think the most significant are the four cited in this subtitle. Here is why. Identifying Features focuses in on the major attributes of any one isomorphy; how it can be recognized in the particulars of any systems instantiation or application. This is critically important because even perceiving the isomorphy requires several levels of abstraction from the instantiation. The steps in the process isomorphy are generalized from comparing many instantiations. So any inclusion of the process in the energy flow diagrams or models of Odum should reflect all of

196

these Identifying Features. For example, his uses of “hierarchy” in mini-models do seem to include the features of “modularity” and “flow between levels.” But they do not seem to include other key Identifying Features such as the numerical trends described in Troncale, 1978a. Current Odum uses of “hierarchy” do include some Measurables, but these are usually on the instantiation level and NOT on the abstracted ISP level. So they do not reflect regularities observed across biohierarchies such as Increasing Size, Decreasing Numbers, Increasing Interaction, Increasing Development Times, and the typical Energy-levels associated with each of these measurable trends (Troncale, 1978a). Since the ISP focuses on general, abstracted Process Steps, these may also not be the same as instantiation steps.

Simultaneous Expansion of SPT by Addition of Odum Work

Appendix L also shows that some 9 or 10 new isomorphies could be added to SPT from Odum’s lifework in ecology. Some of the most basic as well as the most innovative features of Odum models could well add to the ever-changing list of 80 or 110 ISPs in SPT. For example, in both the 80 and 110 lists (Appendices D and H) we have added the following Odum concepts: (1) Emergy; (2) Transformity; (3) Chaining/Series; (4) Pulsing; (5) Loops; (6) Diffusion; and (7) Succession. We had already added Storage, Source, and Sink from the Odum Opus as well as the Systems Dynamics work at MIT (Forrester, Meadows, Cabrera). Odum (1994) shows Emergy models are models of instantiations or manifest real particular and specific systems, not of general systems. Although at the same time, he used some general systems mini-models as an inherent part of his strategy for modeling the specific, particular ecosystems. From this we derive the desirability of establishing the Concept of Shelf or Toolbox of Mini-Models. These would be General systems “blocks” that anyone could add in a modular fashion to all future complex systems models. Their existence would not only speed modeling, but also increase the detail of models. Further they would help resolve some currently irresolvable general systems and systems science Issues such as “complexity,” scale,” “top-down vs. bottom-up” and more. It would also be interesting and fruitful to GTS, a science of ‘systemness’, and Odum’s work to explore the implications of the 4th Law of Thermodynamics to systems sustainability and stability. Odum’s work on the 4th law is far too little known or appreciated.

SEVEN FUTURE POSSIBLE PROJECTS WITH INTERNATIONAL ISAER RESEARCHERS?

Clearly these mutual enhancements are not accomplished as of yet. In the absence of serious planning, close cooperation and communication, the many specific, utilitarian, and hopefully worthy goals expressed in this paper will not be accomplished. In the talk before ISAER’18, I mentioned several specific projects that I had promised to do with Odum, but I did not have the time to elaborate on them. Here I do as an explicit invitation to the ISAER community to join with me in establishing lasting collaboratories to accomplish the following. Keeping Promises to Howard on Authoring Book-Length Treatises

Howard often encouraged me to write texts on the Systems Processes Theory and especially Systems Allometry. Up until now I have not written any texts except Nature’s Enduring Patterns (Troncale, 1978a). But to follow his sage advice, and as a promise to these participants and members of ISAER, I am now in the process of writing the following texts: (i) “Systems Processes Theory: The Other Theory of Everything” and (ii) “Introduction to Systems Literacy: Towards A Real Science of Systems.” (i) will be a detailed exposition of the components of the Systems Processes Theory (SPT), its positions and insights on several confounding issues that resist resolution in systems studies, and its several spin-offs. (ii) will be a comprehensive overview of all of the main lineages in both systems thinking and

197

systems science, their histories, and a discrimination between the two approaches that defines them as very different approaches, but on the same spectrum. Beyond these I am also attempting to finish texts on several significant SPT spin-off’s such as, Systems Allometry (one aspect of which he cited in one of his texts; Odum, 2007, pages 73 & 81), I am also writing individual texts on such SPT Spin-Off’s such as Systems Pathology (Troncale, 2011; Beihoff & Schindel, 2012; and a series of Power Point talks by Troncale at ISSS since 2001), SysInformatics (Troncale, 2014; and Report to INCOSE Foundation Grant), and Systems Mimicry (Troncale, 2014 & 2016). At my advanced age, I concede that I may not live long enough to complete all of these, but time has proven that Howard was correct in telling me that without book-length presentations, specific advances will not be stabilized, sustained and adequately disseminated. All of these texts, taken together, would provide the foundation for the seven projects to follow; but the research for each must be started now to develop the empirical results to include in those texts. I petition members of the ISAER to write me (lrtroncale@cpp.edu) and join me in establishing long-term collaborations to accomplish each of the following. Also interested parties could visit lentroncale.com Expanding the Concept of Systems Pathology Using Odum’s General Systems Ecology (ISSP)

I finally joined the ISAER professional society and community after asking a question of Dr. Dan Campbell on the eve of presenting a talk on the new field of Systems Pathology. There is even a SIG (Special Integration Group) on Systems Pathology in ISSS since 2003. I wanted to include citations of the work of Odum on pathologies at the systems level which I suspected should be a vital part of research on ecosystems. At that time, I had only found references to “pathology” in Odum in Odum & Odum (2001). And his use of Pathology in that context (mostly on the socio-political, and spiritual levels) was considerably different a conception of Systems Pathology than our use of the term. Since then, several systems engineers and general systems workers have joined me to found a new professional society, which we are calling the ISSP (International Society for Systems Pathology) (Contact author for more information and an Invitation/Membership Package). However, I feel strongly that as in the many cases of pathology of biosystems found in Medicine, there will be found many cases of pathology of structure and function in ecosystems. Cataloguing, identifying specific dysfunctions (naming dysfunctions), and generally following the history of medicine in describing specific diagnostics, prognostics, conducting rigorous research into etiologies, and documenting treatment/outcomes of these dysfunctions in ecology would be a significant addition to both it and the new field of Systems Pathology (Troncale, 2011; Beihoff and Shindel, 2012; as well as a series of Power Point presentations without articles at ISSS Conferences since 2001).

Emergy/Transformity Across SPT Spin-Off “Unbroken Sequence of Origins

In 1989, my talk as Incoming President of the ISSS presented an “Unbroken Sequence of Origins” from the Big Bang to human civilization and its artefacts. I also presented this series at the University of Anchorage, Alaska (Troncale, UAA, 2003). I clarified that each “origin” was the appearance of a “new scale” of magnitude, a new type or kind of entity for the first time in the universe, so each was a “big E” Emergence. In fact, rather than the usual definition of emergence (like the surprising new attributes of water arising from the combination of hydrogen and oxygen, or any non-linear causality “surprise”), I personally restricted the definition of emergence to this appearance, de novo, for the first time of each new scale of natural entity. Each was a new scalar “level” of a single hierarchical scheme of entities that arose from each other quite naturally ((a bit like my first paper in systems, Troncale (1972)). And each introduced to the universe for the first time a new set of local mechanisms for sustainability of the ‘systemness’ of that new scale. In this context, the entire Sequence was a reflection

198

of the emergence of new systems from previous systems, so a crucial part of an ontology of systems or general theory of systems; an (ontogenetics) of ‘systemness.’

In my presentations of this spin-off of SPT, I usually included (from the peer reviewed scientific literature for that scale of entities) several alternative mechanisms for the natural self-organization of each new level from the previous. For example, on the origins of the first biometabolism and first cell, i.e. which led to the prokaryotic revolution, I included discussion of the Nobel prize winning work of Miller/Urey, the clay mechanism, protobionts, coacervates, proteinoids, etc. This was not to show that science had figured out how each new level emerged, but rather to increase confidence that there were several experimentally verified, and possible mechanisms of self-organization available to explain how what seemed to be disconnected was actually connected and that the unique origins of new systems from previous one’s was probable and, in fact, intimately connected. Previous to that, ~1986, I coordinated and lectured in a special course at UCSD which summarized the scientific evidence for each Emergence (under the sponsorship of the legendary Dr. Clifford Grobstein, founder of its Medical School). That course included at least three Nobel Laureates as lecturers (e.g. Dr. Miller of Miller/Urey gave one lecture).

Perhaps the most significant aspect of this Unbroken Sequence of Origins came from examining the precise point of big-E or Scalar-Origin Emergence and looking at the general model of that general systems Emergence mechanism. It turned out that the exact SAME mechanism occurred at each emergence point. At each I found a significant Diversification followed by a significant Integration. And in a complementary manner, each Integration was followed by an extensive Diversification event. So I began to name this continuity of Origins, an unbroken series of I/D cycles (Integration/Diversification Cycles). Each Integration gave rise to a rapid proliferation of diversity, up to a limiting point (which I called the Wilson/Troncale Limit), followed by a pressure for a new Integration that gave rise to the new scale of entity with different local, instantiation mechanisms. Initially I documented & compared some 70 such I/D cycles (I am sure there are many more) (see Appendix M for a diagrammatic version of these). I also hypothesized the appearance of a new Counterparity driving each new Integration. Voila, a mechanism for Emergence, a new Theory of Emergence, which enabled a vast simplification like the simple mechanism for evolution proposed by Darwin. (Troncale 1981 a&b)

When I read the Odum (1988) paper in Science, I recognized that the same sequence of calculation of transformities he presented (from a person’s birth to earning a graduate degree) could also be calculated for the sequence of Big Bang to Homo sapiens designs/artefacts. This would be a more universal example of natural systems transformities and because of the impressive SPAN of entities included would be very interesting and impressive. Join me in doing it.

Expand Library or Toolbox of GENSYS Mini-Models for Modeling All Complex Systems

Odum already includes some partial models of general system isomorphies in his models, especially cycles, networks, hierarchies, and self-organization as described above. And in these past sections I have suggested that it would be useful to Odum’s Opus as well as to general theories of systems to produce EXTEND mini-models for every one of the Isomorphic Systems Processes (ISP’s) of the Systems Processes Theory (SPT). That library of mini-models would contribute to ecosystem modeling of the future (and indeed all modeling) by giving a series of useful plug-ins to expand the details and robustness of all models, whatever the topical area or scale. This would entail applying the 35 Information Categories (Friendshuh & Troncale, 2012) of each ISP of the SPT systematically to the modeling tools and practices of Odum. Using another software program, Monterey Phoenix, for doing something like this led to new discoveries (Gianmmarco and Troncale, 2018).

Beyond creating a new general systems mini-model library, we could use SPT to add more detail to the few isomorphies that Odum already included. For example, do the EXTEND models of hierarchies, self-organization, feedbacks, use all of the Identifying Features, Identifying Functions and

199

Measurables that the Systems Processes Theory (SPT) has collected for each Isomorphic Systems Process? Which exactly did he include and which did he leave out? How could we expand the models of the isomorphies he did include.

Systems Allometry and the Emergy Knowledge Base

Howard often encouraged this author to write a book on his prototype Systems Allometry which Odum had encountered at ISSS Conferences. This research (Troncale, 1986b, 1987, 1988 a&b) occurred three decade before the current research sensation of the publication of Scale: The Universal Laws of Life, Growth, and Death in Organisms, Cities, and Companies by Geoffrey West of the Sante Fe Institute (West, 2017). Further, it is a work that is more on the level of general systems than the comparisons of body parts and species characteristics of bioallometry or those of human design instantiations. These more current log-based similarities are allometries of particulars and are remarkable in themselves. SYSTEMS-LEVEL Allometry, in distinction, is the allometry of general system (more abstracted) process and its attributes. As such, they should apply not only to these categories, but many other not yet researched entities (systems). But if these regularities occur, and can be proven with data, it is probably because of energy and probability considerations that could be captured in Odum models. So this also is a call for researchers to attempt to use the knowledge base of biological allometries, engineering allometries, and these newly revealed systems allometries to test Odum predictions and models. It might even apply to yet undiscovered life systems on the newly discovered exoplanets of the material (what we call real) universe. Would that not be useful into the far future! Head to Head Challenge for Model Predictions: Odum’s General Systems Ecology vs. MIT-SD

This author recalls that Howard T. Odum stated that his emergy models outperformed Forrester-based Systems Dynamics models. This was a comparison of models of a real system that had a long-term set of data such that both simulations started with the same initial data as the real system and competed to accurately predict subsequent time periods of data (future states of the system). In this way, the components and linkages (formulae) describing the interactions between the components and future dynamic states could be tested and compared. This author has been quoting this challenge and result since then but never asked the Odum community for the actual references proving the superiority of the Odum models over the Systems Dynamics models. We must halt this claim unless we can either reproduce the test or produce the documentation of its results. I hereby ask the Odum community to help solve this dilemma and back up this claim. Please write this author.

Producing a Book on Energy/Emergy Budget of California

Just before I retired, Howard pledged to visit us at the California State Polytechnic University to guide my undergraduate and graduate students to do for California what he did for Florida (Odum, 1998): produce a comprehensive survey of our energy flows, ecosystems, and needs. He pledged this at an ISSS conference when I shared breakfast with him and his brother, Eugene. Unfortunately for California, which clearly, most desperately needs just this (recall our energy crisis just decades ago), we never even initiated this project. In his memory, and perhaps with the help of ISAER personnel, we could begin exactly the systematic and revealing analysis that Howard and his associated accomplished for Florida, but in this interation, for California.

200

Hard Data Emergy/Transformity Measurements from Molecular Biology of Cells?

Since my training was in Cell and Molecular Biology (CMB), and since I taught those courses as well as Molecular Genetics for 42 years, Howard thought I should bring the detailed and extensive measurements of entities, interaction networks, and cells to the Emergy storehouse of data. CMB, like ecosystem biology, has always been a very empirically-based research program, and so has a wealth of literature and data to incorporate to test Odum hypotheses. Further, these levels are as critically dependent on energy flows as any other. Also because I taught basic courses in Evolution (mostly on the CMB levels) for those same decades, he felt that we could apply the vast amount of data and resources for those levels of biosystems to join his empirical work on the evolution of ecosystems. Because I am retired, I stand ready now to try to attempt these correlations from molecules to cells to ecosystems, i.e. across the vast span of scales typical of all living systems on our planet. We can anticipate someday joining these with exoplanet biosystems studies (like the allometries) – won’t that be fascinating! Joining this data with that of the medical doctor, J.G. Miller, and his work on general theory of systems (Living Systems, Miller, 1978) would complete a picture of all the scales of biosystems from molecular to ecological to sociological and even human organizations. I cannot do this without close cooperation between ecosystems workers since I have only limited knowledge of the ecosystem scales and the key questions that Odum asked of natural systems from the point of view of his training.

A Very Personal Eulogy and Appreciation

Most of all I would like to take this special opportunity to say to my brother and sister biologists how much I miss Howard T. Odum as an exceptional person and colleague. His mind was a very rare collection of neural nets and experiences which we will rarely see again. He was a most encouraging and positive influence. He clearly saw his mission in life and worked very hard to fulfill it. He was a scientist of very great integrity and yet simultaneously of very great humility. He was extraordinarily rigorous and practical. I am convinced he was also very much ahead of his time. And so work on continuing his Lifework and Lineage is as valuable a contribution today and the near future as it was when he was with us. Please join us in doing that work. Congratulations and gratitude to all of you who have done so. REFERENCES CITED (Please excuse the number of self-citations here to document the lesser known theory of SPT)

Ackoff, R.L. (1971) "Towards a System of Systems Concepts," Management Science, 17(11): 661-671. Ahl, V. & T.H.F. Allen (1996) Hierarchy Theory. Columbia University Press, 208 pp. Auyang, S.Y. (1998) Foundations of Complex Systems Theory: in Economics, Evolutionary Biology,

and Statistical Physics. Cambridge University Press, U.K., 404 pp. Beihoff, B. and W. Schindel (2012) “Systems of Innovation I.: Summary Models of Their Health and

Pathologies,” in INCOSE Proceedings. Bertalanffy, L. von (1968, revised 1976) General System theory: Foundations, Development,

Applications, New York: George Braziller. Francois, C. (Ed.) (2004) International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics. Vol I and II. K.G.

Saur, Munchen, Germany, 741 pp. Friendshuh, L. & L. Troncale (2012) “SoSPT I.: “Identifying Fundamental Systems Processes for a

General Theory of Systems (GTS),” in Proceedings of the 56th Annual Conference, International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS), San Jose State Univ. (electronic proceedings: Go to http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings56th), 23 pp.

201

Giammarco K., and L. Troncale (2018). "Modeling Isomorphic Systems Processes Using Monterey Phoenix." Systems 6(2): 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems6020018

Haken, H., (1983) Synergetics, an Introduction: Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions and Self-Organization in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology, 3rd rev. enl. ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.

McNamara, C. & L. Troncale (2012) “SoSPT II: How to Find & Map Linkage Propositions for a General Theory of Systems from the Natural Sciences Literature” in Proceedings of the 56th Annual Conference, (ISSS), July 15-20, San Jose State Univ. (electronic proceedings: Go to http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings56th), 25 pp.

Mesarovic, M.D. (1964) (Ed.) Views on General Systems Theory: Proceedings of the 2nd Systems Symposium at Case Institute of Technology. John Wiley & Sons, N.Y., 178 pp.

Miller, J.G. (1978) Living Systems. McGraw-Hill, N.Y., 1,102 pp. National Research Council (1994) Hierarchical Structures in Biology as a Guide for New Materials

Technology. Committee on Synthetic Hierarchical Structures, National Materials Advisory Board. NMAB-464. National Academy Press, US-Washington, D.C., 130 pp.

Odum, H.T. (1988) “Self-Organization, Transformity, and Information” Science 242(4882): 1132-1139. Odum, H.T. (Ed.) (1989) General Systems: Yearbook of the International Society for the Systems

Sciences. Vol XXXII. Published by ISSS, 437 pp. Odum, H.T. (1994) Ecological and General Systems: An Introduction to Systems Ecology. Revised

Edition. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, Colorado, 644 pp. Odum, H.T. (1998) Environment and Society in Florida. CRC Press, St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton,

Florida, 449 pp. Odum, H.T. and E.C. Odum (2000) Modeling for All Scales: An Introduction to System Simulation.

Academic Press, N.Y., 458 pp. Odum, H.T. and E.C. Odum (2001) A Prosperous Way Down: Principles and Policies, University Press

of Colorado. Odum, H.T. (2007) Environment, Power, and Society for the Twenty-First Century: The Hierarchy of

Energy. Columbia University Press, N.Y., 418 pp. Pattee, H. (1973) Hierarchy Theory: The Challenge of Complex Systems, Braziller, N.Y., 156 pp. Salthe, S. (1985) Evolving Hierarchical Systems. Columbia University Press, NY Sillitto at al (2017): Griego R, Sillitto H, Dori D, Arnold E, McKinney D, Krob D, Martin J, Jackson S,

Godfrey P: Defining “System”: A Comprehensive Approach, INCOSE International Symposium Adelaide July 2017 (there are subsequent articles in this series; email author)

Simon, H.A. (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition, MIT Press. Troncale, L. (1972) “Origins of Hierarchical Levels Through the Action of Systems Field Axioms.”

Proceedings of the ISGSR (International Society for General Systems Research) 16th Annual Meeting, Published by ISGSR, 35 pp. (available from author or University library)

Troncale, L. (1978a) Nature’s Enduring Patterns. Publ. by Institute for Advanced Systems Studies, California State Polytechnic University, 349 pp.

Troncale, L (1978b), "Linkage Propositions Between Fifty Principal Systems Concepts," in Applied General Systems Research: Recent Developments and Trends: N.A.T.O. Conference Series II. Systems Science (G. J. Klir, Ed.) Plenum Press, N.Y., pp. 29-52.

Troncale, L. (1978c), "Origins of Hierarchical Levels: An Emergent Evolutionary Process Based on Systems Concepts" In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the S.G.S.R. (R. Ericson, Ed.), pp. 84-94.

Troncale, L. (1981a) “On A Possible Discrimination Between Bioevolution and A Theory of Systems Emergence.” in General Systems Research and Design. (W. Reckmeyer, Ed.) Publ.by the Society for General Systems Research, Louisville, Ky., pp. 225-234.

Troncale, L. (1981b) "Are levels of complexity in bio-systems real? Applications of clustering theory to modeling systems emergence." in G. Lasker (Ed.), Applied Systems and Cybernetics, NewYork: Pergamon Press, p. 1020-1026.

202

Troncale, L. (1982a) "Testing hierarchy models with data using computerized, empirical data bases." in L. Troncale (Ed.), A General Survey of Systems Methodology, Seaside, Ca.: Intersystems. 89-101.

Troncale, L. (1982b) “Linkage Propositions Between Systems Isomorphies” in A General Survey of Systems Methodology: Vol. I. Conceptual and Mathematical Tools (L.Troncale, Ed.) Intersystems Publ., Seaside, Ca., pp. 27-38.

Troncale, L. & B. Voorhees (1983) "Towards a Formalization of Systems Linkage Propositions." In The Relation Between Major World Problems and Systems Learning. G. Lasker, (Ed) Intersystems Publications, Seaside, Ca., Coutts Library Services, pp. 341-349.

Troncale, L. (1984a) "A Hybrid Systems Method: Tests for Hierarchy and Links Between Isomorphs" Progress In Cybernetics and Systems Research (R. Trappl, Ed.) North-Holland, NY. pp. 39-46.

Troncale, L. (1984b) “What Would a GST Look Like If I Bumped Into It.” General Systems Bulletin, Managing Director’s Editorial. XIV(3): 7-10.

Troncale, L. (1985) "Interim Report on Hierarchy Theory Across the Disciplines: Evaluation of the First Round of Integration-Directed, Initiative-Dialogue." General Systems Bulletin Vol. XV (2):85-89.

Troncale, L. (1986a) "Knowing Natural Systems Enables Better Design of Man-Made Systems: The Linkage Proposition Model." in Power, Utopia and Society: New Approaches to Complex Systems. (R. Trappl, Ed.) Plenum Press, N.Y., 43-80.

Troncale, L. (1986b) "Allometry in Biology: Allometry in System's Science Generalized Systems Form: Will They Always Remain a Mystery?" in Mental Images, Values, and Reality: SGSR Proceedings, 30th Annual Meeting" (J. Dillon, Ed.) Intersystems Publications, Seaside Ca., D51-D61.

Troncale, L. (1987) "Hierarchy Theory VII. Systems Allometry II.: Further Tests of Quantitative Correlations Across Levels of Systems Organization." Problems of Constancy and Change: The Complementarity of Systems Approaches to Complexity: Proceedings of the 31st Intern. Conf. on Systems Theory, ISSS, Budapest Hungary. Vol. III (I. Kiss. Ed), 97-107.

Troncale, L. (1988a) "The New Field of Systems Allometry: Discovery of Empirical Evidence for Invariants Proportions Across Diverse Systems." Cybernetics and Systems '88 (R. Trappl, Ed.), Kluwer Academic Publ., Boston, Part I.: 123-130.

Troncale, L. (1988b) "On Being the 'Right' Systems Proportions: Early Empirical Results of Systems Science: Can They Be Used in Systems Design." Book of Abstracts, 32nd Annual Conference, Int'l Society for General Systems Research, St. Louis, Mo., May 23-27, p. 96-97 [Abstract and PowerPoint only]

Troncale, L. (1988c) "Progress Report on a Multi-Year, Thru-The-Mails Conference on Hierarchy Theory: Proposed Consensus Statements" Abstract only, 32nd Annual Conference, Int'l Society for General Systems Research, May 23-27, St. Louis, Mo., p. 152 – 153.

Troncale, L. (2001) “The Future of Systems Science” in Understanding Complexity, (Wilby, J. and G. Gagsdell, Eds.), Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, pp. 219-238.

Troncale, L. (2006), “Towards A Science of Systems” Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Special Issue on J.G. Miller, Founding Editor (G.A. Swanson, Ed.) 23(3): 301-321.

Troncale, L. (2011) “Would A Rigorous Knowledge Base in Systems Pathology Add Significantly to the SE Portfolio,” CSER’11 Proceedings, Conference on Systems Engineering Research, April 14-16, Redondo Beach, CA. Troncale, L. Systems Processes and Pathologies: Creating an Integrated Framework for Systems Science. Proceedings of the INCOSE 23rd International Symposium, 24 pp. (also available from the author).

Troncale, L. (2012) “SPT V: Proving Isomorphy by 52 Case Studies: Testing for Cycles and Cycling Across Disciplines, Domains, and Scales” in Proceedings of the 56th Annual Conference, International Society for the Systems Sciences (ISSS), July 15-20, San Jose ( Go to: http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings56th (presented as a 68 slide ppt)

Troncale, L. (2014a) “Sysinformatics & Systems Mimicry: New Fields Emerging from a ‘Science’ of Systems Processes Engineering.” CSER Proceedings, Redondo Beach, CA. (Madni, Boehm, Sievers, Wheaton, Eds.) Procedia, Computer Science, Elsevier

203

Troncale, L. (2014b) “From Systems ‘Thinking’ to a Science of Systems Processes Engineering: Similarities, Differences, Synergies.” In Procedia: Computer Science, Elsevier. 9 pp. Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Troncale, L. (2016) “Beyond Biomimicry to Systems Mimicry: Using Evidence from the Natural Sciences to Design Better Systems.” INCOSE INSIGHT 19 (1): 41–45. doi:10.1002/inst.12072.

Troncale, L. (2018) “Systems Processes Theory as a General Systems Theory and Systems Science.” Proceedings of the 61st Annual ISSS Conference, Corvallis, Oregon. See electronic proceedings.

West, G. (2017) Scale: The Universal Laws of Life, Growth, and Death in Organisms, Cities, and Companies. Penguin Books, N.Y., 479 pp.

Whyte, L., A. Wilson, D. Wilson (Eds) (1969) Hierarchical Structures. American Elsevier, 322 pp.

204

APPENDIX A This is the first and oldest (circa 1970’s), hand-drawn conceptual diagram of clusters of isomorphs suspended in space with hints of their influences (Linkage Propositions) as connecting lines. Large spheres are the cluster names and smaller spheres are the individual isomorphs (names not shown).

205

APPENDIX B

These are later but still hand-drawn maps of isomorphies, now with lines actually representing Linkage Propositions between Isomorphs. The Isomorphs in the small spheres are represented by numbers from the list for Appendix F. Both nets show about 85 specific LP’s that connect (or describe influences) between 37 Isomorphs clustered into 12 Functions.

206

APPENDIX C This is the most recent SPT net (circa 2000’s). Now the 12 Functional clusters of isomorphs are shown in boxes that list the number of ISP’s that dynamically account for each specific system Function. The map again shows some 85 individual Linkage Propositions as lines in more like an electrical circuit diagram. This depicts influences among 52 individual isomorphs and also function-to-function influences. But now, circa 2018, we have many more LP’s in our listings and these more recent Linkage Propositions are more tightly coupled with the natural science literature. Every line will have a research experimental citation to back it up. Most of the original 85 LP’s were from the general systems literature, not the science literature. We want the relational data base to have automatically updated diagrams of SPT like this but with each Isomorph, Function, and Linkage Proposition as clickable items that will yield their sources on invocation. Imagine this in Odum modeling imagery.

207

APPENDIX D Here is what we consider the first, crude but comprehensive list of 110 candidate systems isomorphs used for “shock and awe” to get people to recognize there were many more than the few that were considered in earlier work. Remember that in SPT we only allow dynamic change action words (processes) to be modeled. This exaggerated list was also an attempt to get diverse workers to unify/integrate their isolated work into one unified theory. To impress the Odum Opus workers with the extent of possible additions to their GTS/SS, we use this chart to provide them with maximum alternatives. Now we think Appendix H (80 SPT-ISP’s) is a better list for them to study and use.

208

APPENDIX E Here is one of two alternative “clusterings” of the long list of ISP’s. We argue that clustering simplifies and helps apply the ISP’s. We used this clustering for the undergraduate courses designed for the National Science Foundation in the 1990’s as part of the Integrated Science General Education (ISGE) Program whose test courses were offered on three CSU campuses (Cal Poly Pomona, Monterey Bay, and Sonoma). Here the student learns about 335 science phenomena across all the sciences. But here all that diversity is simplified by the students first learning just 18 SPT Isomorphies, (hierarchies, flows, nets, interactions, boundaries, limits, fields, symmetry, duality, feedback, stability, equilibrium, cycles, chaos, origins, variation, development, and evolution) organized into only 9 RULES of Scale, Supply, Identity, Form, Adjustment, Constancy, Tempo, Beginning, and Change. Of course this offers an alternative clustering from those shown as a dozen “Functions” in Appendices A-C.

209

APPENDIX F Here is another and earlier of three alternative “clusterings” of the long list of ISP’s. We argue that clustering simplifies and helps apply the ISP’s. This was the clustering that originally was used in the work that preceded more recent formulation of SPT and can be found in some of the diagrams of Appendices A-C. It was the alternative presented in the self-published version of Nature’s Enduring Patterns printed in 1978.

210

APPENDIX G My colleague, systems engineer Luke Friendshuh and I examined the original list of 110 in Appendix D to see if we could eliminate some ISP’s and find a better rationale for others. This resulted in a shorter list of 50 or so (please consult Friendshuh and Troncale, 2012 for the reasoning and introductory explanations of some of the information categories). Here is the shorter list which even now has been replaced by the more recent, culled list of 80 in Appendix H.

211

APPENDIX H New, culled alphabetical listing of 80 spt-isp’s. Bold Italics add to or expand in Odum; but (**) from Odum to SPT. Many of the 35 Information Categories of other ISP’s could be checked to add to Odum. Some of these on further study may be actually the consequences of ISP’s, not the processes.

1. Aggregation Processes 2. Allometric Processes 3. Allopoietic Processes 4. Amplifiers as a Process 5. Asymmetry as a Process 6. Autopoiesis, Self-Generation as a Process 7. Binding/Interaction Processes 8. Boundary Condition Processes 9. Broken Symmetry as a Process 10. Linear vs. Non-Linear Causality 11. Chaotic Processes 12. Competition Processes 13. Concrescence as a Process 14. Cooperation Processes 15. Constraint Fields as a Process 16. Counterparity as a Process 17. Coupled Feedbacks as a Process 18. Cycles and Cycling as a Process 19. Death, Dying, Senescence 20. Development (sys-level) 21. Diversification Processes 22. Duality as a Process 23. Dysergy, as a Process 24. Emergence as a Process 25. Emergy as a Process (**) 26. Entitation as a Process 27. Equilibrium as a Process 28. Evolution (sys-level) as a Process 29. Exaptation (systems-level) as a Process 30. Feedback as a Process 31. Feedforward (2nd Order Cyb) as a Process 32. Fibonacci Patterns as a Process 33. Fields as a Process 34. Flows as a Process 35. Fractals as a Process 36. Growth (sys-level) as a Process 37. Hierarchies as a Process 38. Information as a Process 39. Integration Processes 40. Input Processes 41. Lifecycles as a Process 42. Limits as a Process 43. Least Action/Resources/Energy as a Process 44. Maximality as a Process

212

APPENDIX I Listing of Information Category Titles for each Isomorphic Systems Process (Isomorph). Roughly in SPT Priority Order.

1. Introductory Common Examples. 2. Identifying Features. 3. Measurables. 4. Identifying Functions. 5. How A Process. 6. Discinyms: Translational Tables 7. Types or Taxonomies. 8. Linkage Propositions. 9. Prerequisites, Dependencies. 10. Pathologies. 11. Evidence for Isomorphy (Range of Validity). 12. ISP Book Bibliography. 13. ISP Review Bibliography. 14. ResearchPapers/Reports Bibliography. 15. Findings & Info Bits: SysInformatics 16. Concept Maps, Models, Simulations 17. Formula, Formalizations. 18. Brief History. 19. Key Discriminations. 20. Graphics: Icon or Logo Symbols. 21. Comparative Use in Sources. 22. Exemplar Applications. 23. NaturalSciencePhenomena as Case Studies, Applications & Sources. 24. Applications in Human Disciplines. 25. ISP Researchers. 26. ISP Institutions. 27. ISP Funding Agencies. 28. Hypotheses, Conjectures. 29. Laws, Principles. 30. Tools or Techniques. 31. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s). 32. Conventional Word Definitions 33. Recognition by Domains. 34. Obstacles: Recognition and Use. 35. Future Research Questions

213

APPENDIX J Please note the top of each column at the right. SoSP is the same of the SPT described in this paper in its earlier version. Some Klir, Odum, Miller, Bertalanffy, and Prigogine texts, as representatives of systems science and GST, were partially analyzed for coverage of Isomorphs. This chart only shows Allometry to Pleiotropy of the original list of 110 ISP’s in SPT (Appendix D). Coverage in number of pages is shown as various shades of grey to dark. It allows a visual, at-a-glance evaluation of the breadth of each workers coverage of what SPT expects to cover extensively in its books, webpages, and relational data base.

214

APPENDIX K Copy of slide shown in ISAER talk. Summarizes how many Isomorphs Odum used in various of his texts, their cumulative number, and both compared to those available in SPT.

APPENDIX L Copy of slide shown in ISAER talk. Summarizes and compares the rankings in numbers of pages of text devoted to named Isomorphs in each of his four texts analyzed. Underlined Isomorphs indicate new Isomorphs added to his usual coverage. This gives an approximate sense of the Isomorphs he emphasized across texts in the more than a decade sample of years.

215

APPENDIX M

These three diagrams summarize the “Unbroken Sequence of Origins” in diagrammatic form. As such it can only show a small number of the entire Sequence of 70I/F Cycles of Integration/Fragmentation (or Diversification; more recently we decided to use “Diversification” instead of Fragmentation; making them I/F instead of the original I/D) for the Theory of Emergence as a spin-off of the Systems Processes Theory (SPT). None of this shows the Counterparity Diagrams or Wilson/Troncale Limit for each Level Diversification that are the essence of the Unbroken Sequence and Theory of Emergence.

216

APPENDIX N These slides, shown and only briefly discussed during the Plenary talk ISAER’18, show two of the Odum programming diagrams for two Isomorphs, Hierarchy and Self-Organization (as Autocatalysis, which may in fact be different). In fact, these two are also shown on the Home Page of the ISAER Website. The point is that while the diagrams indicate that some of the 35 Information Categories for each Isomorph are covered, many are not, which is the intent of this paper.