Systems Theory
St. Mary’s College LDSH 210 David P.Walker – GLD19
David Walker
St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210
Jan 20, 2009
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
Page 2 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1
Professor Ken Otter
David Walker
St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210
Jan 20, 2009
Ptolemy’s Model The
universe
is
much
more
complex,
interconnected, and interdependent than just a threedimensional 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 Page 3 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1
Professor Ken Otter
David Walker
St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210
Jan 20, 2009
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 Geocentric System Model. The cosmos reflecting a Ptolemaic system from Peter Apian, Cosmographia, (1574).
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.
Page 4 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1
Professor Ken Otter
David Walker
St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210
Jan 20, 2009
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. Page 5 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1
Professor Ken Otter
David Walker
St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210
Jan 20, 2009
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. Page 6 of 14
Systems Theory Paper # 1
Professor Ken Otter
David Walker
St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210
•
Jan 20, 2009
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.
Page 7 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1
Professor Ken Otter
David Walker
St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210
Jan 20, 2009
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
Century Symmetry/ Unification Dimensions ElectroMagnetic Forces Gravity Sub Atomic Forces Magic / Limitless Possibilities Multiple Worlds
RELIGION GALILEO NEWTON MAXWELL EINSTEIN BOHR WITTEN Particle E/M General Quantum String Physics Unification Relativity Mechanics Theory th th - 300 16 17 19th 20th 20th 21st
о
•
о
о
о
о
3
3
3
3+
3+
11
•
•
•
•
•
• •
• • •
•
•
•
о
•
о – Denotes incomplete or highly divergent and unsettled systems theories. Page 8 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1
Professor Ken Otter
David Walker
St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210
Jan 20, 2009
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.
Page 9 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1
Professor Ken Otter
David Walker
St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210
Jan 20, 2009
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. Page 10 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1
Professor Ken Otter
David Walker
2.
St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210
Jan 20, 2009
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 collegecompletion 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.
Page 11 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1
Professor Ken Otter
David Walker
St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210
Jan 20, 2009
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.
Page 12 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1
Professor Ken Otter
David Walker
St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210
Jan 20, 2009
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. Page 13 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1
Professor Ken Otter
David Walker
St. Mary’s College – LDSH 210
Jan 20, 2009
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/
Page 14 of 14 Systems Theory Paper # 1
Professor Ken Otter