Talk:Open system (systems theory)
|WikiProject Systems||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
Open Systems presumably include Open Societies which are Complex Systems (see The Open Society and its Enemies by Karl Popper). Is the USA becoming a less open society?
- This is "system" in the engineering sense: energy, physics, et al. A society is not that kind of system. (If it were that kind of system, then the question reduces to merely, "Is the USA becoming less accepting of immigration?" which is probably not what the questioner meant.)
- The second paragraph of the article (talking about "vacuum energy" and "zero-point energy" and "supplies of energy that cannot be depleted") looks like pseudoscience to me. Am I missing something? Gareth McCaughan 18:35, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
This article, in spite of its name Open system (system theory), talks about physics rather than systems theory. It might be best to move this article to Open system (physics) and write a new article on open systems as discussed in systems theory and its application and evolution in various academic fields. Rl 17:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed... There should be a disambiguation page which redirects the user to physics, cybernetics, computer systems, or biology depending on what they want.
- Agreed, ditto. See discussion below. --Kenneth M Burke 01:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I presume that the intention of this article is to write a general introduction about the concept of a "open system". Such a concept is developed in systems theory and nowadays has it's applications in the natural and social sciences. I created some more structure in this article that represents this idea. - Mdd 15:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
No sources are cited and the page should differentiate the use of the term in mathematics/physics from the uses in other areas. This is important to prevent misleading analogies and metaphors, and hence the misinterpretation of science. --Kenneth M Burke 01:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done, or a least I made a start. - Mdd 15:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think so. Ha, I was just about to say before a page conflict with your talk:
- This is not to say that there is not a relationship between types of open systems (isolated and closed, for that matter), i.e. that different areas have borrowed the language of physics or that there are some general principles that can be ascribed to the systems. What I am saying is that to believe an open system in organizational development (for example, as the Image:Basic Open System Model on the page shows) can somehow be justified as scientific based on a qualitative, generalized interpretation of physics is a very tall claim. With changing assumptions of science and developing open systems models, this is a problem theorists were cognizant of (see e.g. Bertalanffy, General System Theory, 1969, "Unsolved Problems," pp. 151-153). Hence, the page should distinguish between them through disambiguation or a page rename with explanatory sections.
- Certainly, if a cited source can be found relating open systems in organizational development to thermodynamics; then, the case can be made. However, I think that would be original research for a science journal. Just keeping a mind on things, no trouble intended. --Kenneth M Burke 15:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think the scales still weigh toward misleading, but I've spoken my mind and can't claim perfection myself. Happy editing, take care. --Kenneth M Burke 16:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- This article is still a stub and there is already a Open system (disambiguation) page. If you look at that page you see that in computing the term open system really has another meaning. This article is talking about one concept which has some different meaning in natural and social sciences. This was and is also the general idea in general science. To develope those general kind of concepts. Now as I said, this article is still a stub... and can grow. I think with the restructuring iI made, this article is ok now and has room to grow again. - Mdd 16:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- The term open system is not much of a mistery. If there are particular sentences you find questionable, please say so. - Mdd 18:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Its not that the articles I tagged don't have some element of truth, they just only tell half truths. I put some reading on the page to address my point, so don't worry about it if you can't see it. The end. --Kenneth M Burke 02:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok - Mdd 20:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I have removed this, which sounds like WP:OR:
- Some hypothetical open systems receive energy from space in the form of vacuum energy (sometimes referred to as zero-point energy). An example of a natural open system is the space tether, which uses the ground and the ionosphere as parts of an electrical circuit. This circuit acts as an electrical generator, converting the tether's kinetic energy to electrical energy by electromagnetic induction as it travels through the Earth's magnetic field. Open systems can also occur in suspended circuits, in which the conductor has no ground and uses the environment to complete a circuit.
Leibniz 14:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- More than likely, thanks. --Kenneth M Burke 14:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
How are the boundaries defined?
We need more on how the system boundaries typically are defined in an open system. If the system is open to total change, which frame of reference do the boundaries conform to? It cannot be anything inside the system. Something in the environment? Cartesian coordinates? Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)