Systems Evolution and Engineering Thermodynamics

Despite impressive contributions, the philosophical foundations of systems theory remain in flux. In the practical context, the proper understanding of the relation of the systems framework to classical mechanics and quantum theory remains unresolved. I argue our understanding of systems theory is advanced by recognizing the crucial link to engineering and thermodynamics. Engineering thermodynamics is more general than the historically dominant ‘rational mechanical’ thermodynamics of Clausius, Boltzmann, the Entropy Cult (viz. Jaynes’s MEP) and the recent information theory. That systems theory’s philosophical foundations are in a philosophy of engineering and an engineering worldview should be no surprise, given the modern origins in cybernetics and operations research. The natural extension of systems to ecology, from Odum to Ulanowicz, support the thesis. More recently, Paul Romer’s New Growth Economics moved us from the old scientific economics to an inherently developmental engineering systems framework. The Systems Engineering Thermodynamics Paradigm (SETP), is more general than all possible scientific, mechanical frameworks, formally subsuming and superseding. To subsume means to be able to explain all the successes of the prior scientific paradigms as idealizing special cases. To supersede is more subtle. It means that SETP understands the limited scientific paradigms in a new way, within its more comprehensive conceptual framework.https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/systems_science_seminar_series/1002/thumbnail.jp

The Philosophy of Engineering and the Engineering Worldview

The philosophy of engineering is, in the first instance, concerned to make sense of what we do and how we do it as agents in the world. It is also concerned with understanding the nature of inquiry and exploration in the engineering enterprise. In these latter concerns, the philosophy of engineering constitutes the more general framework for understanding the nature of reality and the role of engineering in it. The philosophy of engineering and the engineering worldview supersede and subsume the philosophy of science and the scientific worldview

Reconsidering the Foundations of Thermodynamics from an Engineering Perspective

Currently, there are two approaches to the foundations of thermodynamics. One, associated with the mechanistical Clausius-Boltzmann tradition, is favored by the physics community. The other, associated with the post-mechanical Carnot tradition, is favored by the engineering community. The bold hypothesis is that the conceptual foundation of engineering thermodynamics is the more comprehensive. Therefore, contrary to the dominant consensus, engineering thermodynamics (ET) represents the true foundation of thermodynamics. The foundational issue is crucial to a number of unresolved current and historical issues in thermodynamic theory and practice. ET formally explains the limited successes of the ‘rational mechanical’ approaches as idealizing special cases. Thermodynamic phenomena are uniquely dissymmetric and can never be completely understood in terms of symmetry-based mechanical concepts. Consequently, ET understands thermodynamic phenomena in new way, in terms of the post-mechanical formulation of action. The ET concept of action and the action framework trace back to Maupertuis’s Principle of Least Action, both clarified in the engineering worldview research program of Lazare and Sadi Carnot. Despite the intervening Lagrangian ‘mechanical idealization of action’, the original dualistic, indeterminate engineering understanding of action, somewhat unexpectedly, re-emerged in Planck’s quantum of action. The link between engineering thermodynamics and quantum theory is not spurious and each of our current formulations helps us develop our understanding of the other. Both the ET and quantum theory understandings of thermodynamic phenomena, as essentially dissymmetric (viz. embracing complementary), entail that there must be an irreducible, cumulative historical, qualitatively emergent, aspect of reality

Quantum Theory only Makes Sense in a Participatory Systems Engineering Thermodynamics Framework

There is a longstanding problem of making sense of quantum theory. Feynman’s assertion, “I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics” remains unchallenged. Yet, experimentalists tell us quantum mechanics is the most successful theory in history. One experimental physicist colleague noted that, ‘I don’t need to understand it to be able to use it.’ Per hypothesis, the difficulties in understanding quantum theory arise because it is not a classical type of theory, as Bohr, Heisenberg and Pauli emphasized. The failure to make sense of quantum theory is most simply the failure to make sense of it within the framework defined by the symmetry and conservation presuppositions of the classical mechanical research program. I will argue that quantum theory can only be made sense of in a participatory Systems Engineering Thermodynamic framework. This thesis builds on the holistic Participatory Universe theme of John Archibald Wheeler and the recent experimental confirmations by 2022 Nobel laureate, Anton Zeilinger.https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/systems_science_seminar_series/1126/thumbnail.jp

The Systems Engineering Worldview: The Technological Structure and Function of Reality

The research reported here is concerned with understanding the components and composition of reality, according to the systems engineering worldview. To start, George Bugliarello argues that what engineers do, their progressive development of reality, is a natural extension of biological evolution. The implication is that biological evolution is, and always has been, an emergent, systems engineering enterprise. Reality, therefore, should be understandable (intelligible) both chronologically and ontologically as an emerging system of technological structures and functions. As I will point out, the Systems Engineering Worldview is not new. In Plato’s Timaeus reality is presented as the emerging product of the actions of the Architekton, the Master Craftsman, the global systems engineer. I develop this approach in several steps. In Step One, I briefly present the modern philosophy of systems engineering, as represented in the works of George Bugliarello, Walter Vincenti, Sam Florman and Herbert Simon. In Step Two, I report on my investigation of the illuminating Uniformitarianism debate in geology, contrasting Lyell’s scientific worldview with Cuvier’s systems engineering worldview. In Step Three, I argue that the historical and geo-physical sciences can never be reduced to the hard, time-space invariant mechanical sciences. What is needed is a meta-paradigm shift to the more general, superseding participant systems engineering worldview. In Step Four, I review another earlier, systems engineering worldview that surfaced in the 17th and 18th century Europe in the works of Leibniz and the Carnots. Thermodynamics and engines are seen to be essential to the systems engineering worldview. In the Final Step, with the insights gained from these last three steps, I revisit Step One issues in the modern philosophy of systems engineering suggesting enhancements and clarifications.https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/systems_science_seminar_series/1099/thumbnail.jp

Give Space My Love, An Intellectual Odyssey with Dr. Stephen Hawking

This book is a record of my dialogues with Stephen Hawking, his graduate assistants and his nurses during a four city public lecture tour I organized for Hawking, including Portland, Eugene, Seattle, Vancouver, BC. We discussed 20th century science and philosophy of science. Since I was often the one being questioned, much of the contents reflect my PhD research at the University of London. My focus was on understanding the limits of science, as represented by quantum theory and relativity. My mentors had been Paul Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos, and I was strongly influenced by Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn. In one in depth presentation to Hawking I suggested that Newtonian space-time and Maxwellian space-time were complementary, were defined by complementary symmetry principles. I had opportunity to present the same arguments to Kip Thorne and Freeman Dyson. Hawking simply remarked that I 'may be right'. Thorne confirmed that practitioners of General Relativity use both depending on the problem at hand. Dyson was emphatic – "Yes. Definitely. Absolutely.

Quantum Theory Only Makes Sense in Lazare Carnot\u27s Participatory Engineering Thermodynamics, a Development of Leibniz\u27s Dynamics

Feynman insisted \u27no one understands quantum theory\u27. Yet, experimentalists tell us quantum theory is the most successful theory in history. Quantum theory cannot be understood as a classical mechanical theory since it arose through the \u27interpolation\u27 of two highly successful but complementary classical mechanics: Newtonian particle mechanics and Maxwellian wave mechanics. The two-slit experiment illustrates that what is experienced depends on choice of experimental set-up. Quantum theory is properly understood within the more general framework of engineering thermodynamics. In Part One, I point to four essential characteristics of quantum theory that cannot be understood in any framework defined by the classical mechanical presuppositions of symmetry and conservation. These four characteristics are the participatory, the complementary, the indeterminate and the new non-commutative geometry. In Part Two, articulating engineering thermodynamics, I note there are two histories and two formulations of thermodynamics: Carnot\u27s engineering thermodynamics and the \u27rational mechanical\u27 tradition of Clausius-Boltzmann. These four essential characteristics of quantum theory are also characteristics of engineering thermodynamics. In Part Three, I trace the precursors of Lazare Carnot\u27s engineering thermodynamics to earlier insights of Huygens, d\u27Alembert, Leibniz and the Bernoullis. Leibniz brought these forth in his meta-paradigm shift from Statics to Dynamics. This article is part of the theme issue \u27Thermodynamics 2.0: Bridging the natural and social sciences (Part 2)\u27