system theory 1
DESCRIPTION
System Theory, leadershipTRANSCRIPT
Systems Theory
St. Mary’s College LDSH 210
David P.Walker – GLD19
David Walker St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210 Jan 20, 2009
Page 2 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1 Professor Ken Otter
Contents
Ptolemy’s Model ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Atoms to Galaxies ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Comparison of Paradigm Changes in Science ............................................................................................... 8
The Magic of Trans-Dimensional Thinking .................................................................................................... 9
Problem Symptom – My Personal Example ................................................................................................ 10
The American Education System ............................................................................................................ 10
Application of a System Perspective – My Personal Example .................................................................... 12
Teaching Adults, Middle School, and High School Students ................................................................... 12
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 13
Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................. 14
David Walker St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210 Jan 20, 2009
Page 3 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1 Professor Ken Otter
Ptolemy’s Model
The universe is much more complex,
interconnected, and interdependent than just a three-
dimensional orbital path. In Ptolemy’s system model, the
earth stood at the center of the universe surrounded by
eight spheres carrying all the known heavenly bodies.
This geocentric model is a theory that the Earth is
at the center of the universe and all other celestial
objects travel around the Earth. Aristotle, Ptolemy, and most Ancient Greek philosophers,
correlate that the Sun, Moon, stars, and planets observable by the naked eye circle the Earth.
Congruent ideas are also held in the mid and far east. This geocentric system model is a basis of
the foundation of reasoning and authority for both western and eastern civilizations.
Two superficial observations support this idea that the Earth is in the center of the
universe. The first is that the stars, sun, and planets appear to revolve around the Earth and
that the stars circling around the poles and those stars nearer to the equator rise and set each
day and circle back to their original rising point. The second is the observation that the Earth is
solid and stable; that it is not moving but is at rest and is immovable.
From these observations, reasoning extends to shape system allegories that structure
the bedrock of pre-renaissance Christian dogma. Man is made in God’s image. Man and God are
at the center of the universe. Religion and all creation revolve around God and man. Man has
dominion over the earth and God has dominion over man and the heavens. This geocentric
David Walker St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210 Jan 20, 2009
Page 4 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1 Professor Ken Otter
Geocentric System Model. The cosmos reflecting a Ptolemaic system from Peter Apian, Cosmographia, (1574).
systems belief affirms that both God and civilized man are the creators and at center of the
universe and correspondingly are the most important elements relating to the question of
mortal and immortal existence. This fallacy is the basis of
authority upon which Christian supremacy rises.
Geocentric reasoning and authority give is an
inflexible leadership paradigm. Any discovery, thought,
or perception, outside of this construct would rationally
challenge the basis upon which God and man assumes
legitimate authority and dominion over the heaven,
Earth, men and other religions. This is the defensive
justification and rationale to squelch anything outside the geocentric construct. This paradigm
does not accept any changes that would undermine the dominance of God and man over the
rest of the universe.
David Walker St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210 Jan 20, 2009
Page 5 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1 Professor Ken Otter
Atoms to Galaxies
Physics has long been viewed as the most fundamental science—the science that
resolves the most basic level of reality. Naturally, then, people have looked to physics for
insight into reality based problems. In the first half of the twentieth century, physicists extend
the reach of their systems theories from Isaac Newton to both the smallest (quantum
mechanics) and the largest (gravity, space, time) extremes of our universe.
In contemporary physics, quantum mechanics is the prevailing construct relating to the
behavior of subatomic physical objects and forces. However, Relativity remains the construct
for resolving objects with large amounts of mass or problems involving vast distances, time or
space. One concept that quantum mechanics embraces is the ever present notion of
quantifiable uncertainty. Nothing in quantum mechanics is one-hundred percent certain. This
concept is what Albert Einstein objects to when he says, “God does not play dice with the
universe.” Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is not congruent with Quantum Mechanics and rejects
any uncertainty.
In the 21st century, specifically the summer of 2010, the Large Hadron Collider at the
CERN particle physics laboratory near Geneva, Europe’s $9 billion investment in particle
physics, will take a handful of ions hurl them through 17 miles of circular tunnel and smash
them together so hard they will shatter into the atomic equivalent of shards. Moreover, if all
goes according to plan, the glints and flashes from these shards will at last reveal the
mysterious Higg’s Boson - the one particle that endows all others with the property of mass and
a keystone to advance the systems theory of grand symmetry – string theory.
David Walker St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210 Jan 20, 2009
Page 6 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1 Professor Ken Otter
For many people this may sound awfully exotic, not to mention exorbitantly expensive.
However if we step back and examine the broader systems context of contemporary science,
this massive project is not a wild exception. This may be a vivid example of a broad trend across
many different fields of how basic scientific discovery is generated by a smaller and smaller
numbers of bigger and bigger projects. With this process of centralization come changes in
what scientist’s measure and even in what scientists are.
In physics, a slow drift toward centralization was given a sudden shove during the
Second World War. The Manhattan Project involved tens-of-thousands of scientists spread
across three different states and dozens of industrial research campuses. So it is perhaps not
surprising that modern atomic colliders (CERN, Fermi Labs) today epitomize what historians
already call “Big Science,” which usually implies one or more of these specific systems
characteristics:
• Big budgets: No longer required to rely on philanthropy or industry, scientists are able
to use massive budgets on an unprecedented scale for basic research.
• Big staffs: Similarly, the number of practitioners of science on any one project grew as
well, creating difficulty and often controversy in the assignment of credit for scientific
discoveries. For example, the Nobel Prize system only allows awarding three individuals
in any one topic per year because of being based upon a 19th-century model of the
scientific enterprise.
• Big machines: Ernest Lawrence's atomic collider in particular ushered in an era of
massive machines requiring massive staffs and budgets as the tools of basic scientific
research. Alternately, the use of many small machines, such as the many sequencers
used during the Human Genome Project, might also fall under this definition.
David Walker St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210 Jan 20, 2009
Page 7 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1 Professor Ken Otter
• Big laboratories: Because of the increase in cost to do basic science with
the increase of large machines, centralization of scientific research in large laboratories
(such as Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory or CERN) have become a cost-effective
strategy. A troubling residual of this practical paradigm is the availability of public access
to these research centers. For all practical purposes these mega-research centers are
closed to the public.
The 21st century demonstrates that not only projects in physics and astronomy, but also
in life sciences have become big sciences - for example, the massive Human Genome Project.
The heavy investment of government and industrial interests into academic science has blurred
the line between public and private research where entire academic departments even at
public universities are often financed by private companies. Not all Big Science is related to the
military concerns which were at its origins. This bigness is both an opportunity and a danger.
Rising from the quest for a grand theory of symmetry in science, a theory that explains
everything, the 21st century idea of a complex multidimensional (11-dimesions) existence called
String Theory is under development. In the initial explanation of the “M Theory” resolution of
string theory, the basic scientific construct of this reality took Edward Witten and colleges over
one-thousand pages to explain. Some mathematical explanations are over one-hundred pages
in length.
David Walker St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210 Jan 20, 2009
Page 8 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1 Professor Ken Otter
Comparison of Paradigm Changes in Science
In the beginning, the mystery of understanding systems theory was resolved by
attribution to magic. There is a great irony here in that sometimes human thought comes about
to return full-circle to the point where it began - a return to an obscure fundamental truth
unresolved by complexity. In physics, both quantum mechanics and string theory advocate
quantifiable uncertainty, limitless possibilities and the existence of multiple worlds.
Table 1. Comparison of Paradigm Changes in Science
RELIGION GALILEO NEWTON MAXWELL EINSTEIN BOHR WITTEN Particle
Physics E/M Unification
General Relativity
Quantum Mechanics
String Theory
Century - 300 16th
17th
19th
20th 20th 21st
Symmetry/ Unification
о о о о о •
Dimensions 3 3 3 3+ 3+ 11 Electro-Magnetic Forces
• • • •
Gravity о • •
Sub Atomic Forces
• •
Magic / Limitless Possibilities
• • •
Multiple Worlds • • •
о – Denotes incomplete or highly divergent and unsettled systems theories.
David Walker St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210 Jan 20, 2009
Page 9 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1 Professor Ken Otter
The Magic of Trans-Dimensional Thinking
On the atomic scale matter obeys the rules of quantum mechanics, which are quite
different from the classical rules that determine the properties of conventional semiconductor
logic gates. Simplistically explained, quantum computing takes binary operations at the atomic
level and processes this work in a trans-dimensional reality - a place outside of what we
perceive as the time and space we occupy. When the quantum computing operation is
complete, the resolved data is retrieved from the other dimension back into the reality of
where it started. There is no time delay because all the work occurs in another time dimension
– another reality. The amount of time required for computations becomes irrelevant because
all the work is performed in a different universe outside of our perceptual existence.
So if computers are to
become smaller in the future,
new, quantum technology will
replace or at least supplement
what we have now. The point is
that quantum technology can
offer much more than cramming more and more bits to silicon and multiplying the clock--speed
of microprocessors. This supports an entirely new kind of computation with qualitatively new
algorithms based on quantum principles. Time realm changes, teleportation, and unimaginable
possibilities.
David Walker St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210 Jan 20, 2009
Page 10 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1 Professor Ken Otter
Problem Symptom – My Personal Example
The American Education System
Evidence of poor systemic performance of the American education system is borne out
by comparing and contrasting international education metrics. The weakness of the American
education systems are symptoms like: (1) poor overall performance of primary, secondary, and
post-secondary education institutions; (2) less than average high school and college graduation
rates; (3) disconnected associations between family, students, educators, educational
institutions and government; (4) the unattractive socioeconomic conditions influencing
teaching as a profession or aspiration; (5) the disconnection between teacher and student; and
finally (6) the disconnection between the uneducated and socioeconomic viability in the
context of a global society and economy.
1. The problem is that the American education system does not lead or excel in the
international education paradigm. One area where education system of the United States is
especially deficient is the education of social minorities. Compared to other twenty-four
industrial countries, America is dead last in education of minorities – in particular, Hispanics
and blacks. (National Governors Association, 2008, p. 15 figure 2).
The somber education statistics recently presented by the National Governors
Association presents a troubling snapshot of the education in America. “Forty years ago, the
United States had the highest high school completion rate in the world. Today, it ranks 18th out
of 24 industrialized countries.
David Walker St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210 Jan 20, 2009
Page 11 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1 Professor Ken Otter
2. In 1995, the rate of Americans going to college was among the highest in the
world. Since then, 13 other countries boast higher college graduation rates the United States”
(World, 2008).
3. “The US ranks 15th of 29 developed nations in terms of [college] degrees
granted: For every 100 students enrolled, countries such as Switzerland, Japan, and Australia
award 26 [or more] degrees, compared with the 18 in the US. In fact, nearly half of American
students at four-year colleges don't finish within six years. Out of every ten students who enter
an American college or university, less than four will ever graduate in their life time. Already,
America’s share of the world’s college students has dropped from 30 percent in 1970 to less
than half that today. (National Governors Association, p. 11). The U.S. does rank higher than
average on access to higher education, but that does not explain its very low college-
completion rates (National Governors Association, p. 21).
4. The American education system does not recruit or attract the best college
graduates. “Korea recruits from the top 5 percent of [college] graduates, Finland the top 10
percent, and Singapore the top 30 percent . . . Finns have come to cherish good educators as
Texans do ace quarterbacks, In contrast, the U.S. teacher pipeline seems to discourage
individuals with competitive academic skills from entering and remaining in the profession”
(National Governors Association, p. 27).
Points 5 and 6 are omitted.
David Walker St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210 Jan 20, 2009
Page 12 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1 Professor Ken Otter
Application of a System Perspective – My Personal Example
Teaching Adults, Middle School, and High School Students
Where is the magic? Where is the trans-dimensional thinking and practices? Where is
the 21st century perception of the American education system? I believe the answer exists that
may be as startling and hopeful as the idea in the physical science that String Theory may be
finally be a premise that explains everything. A resolved construct of the complex
interrelationships and dependencies of the American education system needs to be understood
before the current downward slide of the entire system can be abated. The entire system needs
to be understood. All the large, medium, and small parts need to work together.
A few months ago, I started a new job teaching in West Oakland and during my weekday
mornings, I teach English to adult speakers of other languages. My afternoons are spent with
middle school children tutoring multiple subjects. And, in the evening, I work with high school
student primarily with the subjects of history, literature, and science.
Most of the adults and children who come into the West Oakland Lasallian Educational
Opportunity (LEO) Center are financially disadvantaged or facing a myriad of unique and
complex personal problems. These problems, affecting over 85% of my students, range from:
(1) non-traditional family support (being raised by someone other than a biological parent); (2)
direct or collateral physical, sexual, emotional abuse; (3) victims or witnesses to homicides and
violent crimes; and (4) mild to acute learning, cognitive, or emotional impairment.
David Walker St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210 Jan 20, 2009
Page 13 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1 Professor Ken Otter
The transformation of American education may need to occur not only from the top
down but also from the bottom up. This action is completely omitted by the National Governors
Association Report (National Governors Association). A reasonable objective is that the
education of children may need to be a heightened moral and legal responsibility for families
and the care givers of children. The entire burden for child’s education cannot fall completely
upon institutions and government.
To impair or destroy the future of a child may be child abuse. This moral and legal
responsibility, as a matter of equity and balance, may involve accountability from the bottom
up because troubled children usually turn into troubled adults. Troubled students who cannot
complete their may be a symptom. The underlying problem might be: personal (family),
financial (too little or too much money), or a lack of sufficient developmental emotional or
cognitive ability.
Conclusion
We live in a world of infinite and magical possibilities. The 21st century study of physics
proves this point. Looking from the inside out and the outside in for connections and
interdependencies provide the key to a new and magical future. All this takes is the imagination
to visualize and resolve what may initially seem as the impossible. The world is only limited by
our imaginations. Dream the impossible dream. Make the impossible possible. Magic and
transformation is real. All this needs is realize is that everything is involved with everything – a
theory of everything.
David Walker St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210 Jan 20, 2009
Page 14 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1 Professor Ken Otter
Works Cited
National Governors Association. (2008). Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-Class Education. Washington,DC 20009: National Governors Association.
World, U. N. (2008, December 22). Groups Offer Way to Improve U.S. Education. Retrieved December 27, 2008, from Yahoo News: http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20081222/