The recent history of model theory

• January 2000

• Enrique Casanovas

Abstract

The influence of Alfred Tarski was decisive in this early stage and in the successive years. This is due not only to his discovery of unquestionable definitions of the notions of truth and definability in a structure, but also to his founding of the basic notions of the theory, such as elementary equivalence and elementary extension. In the fifties and six- ties Jerry Los introduced the ultraproducts, Ronald Fra¨ isse developed the back-and-forth methods and investigated amalgamation properties, and Abraham Robinson started his voluminous contribution to Model Theory, including his celebrated non-standard analysis. Robinson’s non-standard analysis attracted the attention of mathematicians and philoso- phers. But at that time a feeling of exhaustion started pervading the whole theory. Daniel Lascar describes the situation as “un temps d’arret, comme si la machinerie, prete ` a tourner, ne savait quelle direction prendre.” At this point Michael Morley appeared in the scene, causing what can be called a second birth of Model Theory. A theory is said to be categorical at if it has only one model of cardinality up to isomorphism. In 1954 J. Los had asked whether, for every (countable) theory, categoricity at one uncountable cardinal implies categoricity at every other uncountable cardinal. In 1965 M. Morley publishes Categoricity in power (Transactions of the American Math. Society 114, 514-538) where he solves the problem in the armative. He introduces the (topological) spaces of types and defines a rank on types and formulas, now called Mor- ley rank. A theory is called totally trascendental if all types have ordinal Morley rank. M. Morley shows that for countable theories, this is just !-stability: over a countable set there are at most countably many complete types. He also proves that any theory categorical in an uncountable cardinality is !-stable. In the proofs he uses heavily con- structions with indiscernible sequences which had been studied a few years ago by Andrezj Ehrenfeucht and Andrzej Mostowski. The methods were partly combinatorial, based on Ramsey’s theorem, and partly topological. The importance of the results, methods and notions of M. Morley was recognized very soon. M. Morley investigated also the structure of countable models of uncountably

pdf – http://www.ub.edu/modeltheory/documentos/HistoryMT.pdf

Overview on modelpractice:

https://modelpractice.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/model-stachowiak/

source:

Thirteen years of SysML: A systematic mapping study

Thirteen years of SysML: A systematic mapping study

by Sabine Wolny | Oct 22, 2019 | (meta)modeling, article, standard | 3 comments

The Christian Doppler Laboratory for Model-Integrated Smart Production investigates the usage of modelling for engineering intelligent production facilities as well as the development of modelling languages which are able to deal with operational production information collected at runtime. In this context, we also explore the state of the art, current developments, and application of Systems Modeling Language (SysML). This OMG standard has been on the market for about thirteen years.

SysML is an extended subset of UML providing a graphical modeling language for designing complex systems by considering software as well as hardware. By conducting a systematic mapping study about SysML we aimed for

• getting an overview of existing research topics and groups
• identifying whether there are any publication trends
• uncovering possible missing links

Our analysis revealed the following main findings:

• There is a growing scientific interest in SysML in the last years particularly in the research field of Software Engineering.
• SysML is mostly used in the design and validation phases, rather than in the implementation phase.
• The most commonly used diagram types are the SysML specific requirement diagram, parametric diagram and block diagram, together with the activity diagram and state machine diagram reused from UML.
• SysML is a specific UML profile mostly used in systems engineering, however, the language has been customized to accommodate domain-specific aspects.
• Related to collaborations for SysML research over the world, there are more individual research groups than large international networks.

continues in source:

Thirteen years of SysML: A systematic mapping study

source:

Untangling Complexity Theory – The Kihbernetics Institute

COMPLEXITY

Untangling Complexity Theory

• Post authorBy pj
• Post dateFebruary 23, 2021
• No Commentson Untangling Complexity Theory

An excellent introductory article for anyone interested in Complexity Theory (CT) is An Introduction to Complexity Theory by Jun Park. Among other things, it provides an insight about its origins which are, I think, as diverse and complex as the theory itself (highlights are mine):

Complexity Theory and its related concepts emerged in the mid-late 20th century across multiple disciplines, including the work of Prigogine and his study on dissipative structures in non-equilibrium thermodynamics, Lorenz in his study of weather systems and non-linear causal pathways (i.e. the butterfly effect), Chaos theory and its new branch of mathematics, as well as evolutionary thinking informed by Lamarck’s perspectives on learning and adaptation (Schneider and Somers, 2006).

Prigogine’s dissipative structures can for sure explain some of the complexity of life, while Chaos theory as a branch of mathematics, can shed some light on underlying patterns of deterministic laws in recurrent (autopoietic) processes in dynamical systems undergoing apparently random states of disorder.

Not sure, though, about the usefulness of the other two “non-linear causal pathways (i.e. the butterfly effect)” and “evolutionary thinking informed by Lamarck’s perspectives on learning and adaptation“. Let’s explore those two a little bit closer:

continues in source:

Untangling Complexity Theory – The Kihbernetics Institute

source:

An Introduction to Complexity Theory | by Jun Park | Medium

An Introduction to Complexity Theory

What it is, what it replaces, and why it’s important.

Jun ParkOct 8, 2017·7 min read

Complexity Theory allows us to better understand systems as diverse as cells, human beings, forest ecosystems, and organizations, that are only partially understood by traditional scientific methods (Zimmerman et al. 2001). While it represents a relatively nascent field of study, it spans across a wide variety of disciplines in the physical, biological, and social sciences, and has profound implications for the way we think about and act within the world (Schneider & Somers, 2006).

This is especially important in the study of organizations, organizational change, and leadership, where complexity theory can offer insights into how organizations become more sustainable, adaptive, and innovative (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). In the following sections, we will examine the origins of the mechanical, bureaucratic paradigms of organizations and leadership, the development of complexity science, and the implications that a paradigm shift from the former to the latter has on the study and leadership of organizations.

continues in source:

An Introduction to Complexity Theory | by Jun Park | Medium

source:

Neo-pragmatism: an ethical anticipatory system

Neo-pragmatism: an ethical anticipatory system

• August 2017
• European Journal of Futures Research 5(1)

• DOI: 10.1007/s40309-017-0112-x

• License CC BY

• John Vodonick

• February 2007

Abstract

In 1906 and 1907 William James delivered a series of lectures in Boston and New York. Those lectures later were distilled into a paper entitled PRAGMATISM A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. In 1972 Robert Rosen began to develop the model that resulted in the publication of his breakthrough work Anticipatory Systems. Seven years later, with the publication of Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature Richard Rorty began to develop the interpretation of Pragmatism, which has come to be known as neo-Pragmatism. The theory of anticipatory systems as articulated by Robert Rosen argues that the activity of anticipation occurs through the encoding of models of the future and so, a deciduous tree will lose its leaves upon the shortening of daylight—an environmentally neutral event—which is the precursor to winter. The tree anticipates (through the process of encoding its environmental cycle) the coming of winter and diverts sap, its lifeblood, underground to its roots and essentially hibernates during the cold time. Rosen shows that this quality of anticipation can be said to be the defining element of all life. Ethics are models that encode our values and operate upon the contingencies of the past in the adjudicatory function or the possible contingencies of the future in the heuristic function. Of all the mainstream ethical models pragmatism is the only approach that expressly acknowledges that the results of our decisions may either conflict with or harmonize with our values. The form of pragmatism known as neo-pragmatism looks to the communicative justification of our past or future actions in relationship to our values to determine whether they are good or bad. In this sense neo-pragmatism constitutes moral anticipation, as much encoded in human society as the dropping of leaves is encoded in a deciduous tree

source:

Neo-pragmatism: an ethical anticipatory system

I remember asking Laloux about the role of the ‘leader’ many years ago; it strongly reminds me of the classic systems ‘triangles’ game we learned from Nick Obolensky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41QKeKQ2O3E&t=1s

The classic question from this ‘self organising’ game is ‘who was the leader?’ and the expected answer is ‘there was no leader!’ with the insight ‘there’s no need for leaders!’ – except the event organiser gives very clear instructions and sets the rules of self-organisation; just as in any agent-based modelling, the control mechanism is the rules…

I also note that, as an archetypal ‘leader’, Jos de Blok is really interesting and potentially really problematic.

source:

Resolving the awkward paradox in Frederic Laloux’s Reinventing Organisations | by Tom Nixon | Maptio | Medium

Tom NixonFollowingApr 14, 2015 · 9 min read

Update: This article has been shared widely in the Reinventing Organisations community. I have made a few small revisions, and added comments directly from Frederic at the end.

▶︎ Want to delve deeper? Sign up for my two-hour live online workshop.

We spoke to 500 founders about how big ideas get realised (or not.) Here’s what we learned

This article is based on research by Peter Koenig. Charles Davies has also been instrumental in developing the ideas here.

The confession

Over dinner in Brussels, I confessed to Frederic Laloux that his best-selling book Reinventing Organisations was the very best business book I’d ever read that I couldn’t quite bring myself to recommend to others. There was something going on for me, where the stories in the book didn’t seem to match the conclusions.

When I met Frederic, I was hugely inspired, and we found tremendous common ground. Yet we couldn’t get completely on the same page. Perhaps that’s OK. After all, there isn’t necessarily only one ‘truth’ in the world. But I’ve spent some time reflecting on it and I think I’ve made some progress. I’m sharing this in the hope it’ll be useful to Frederic and others who, like me, are hugely inspired by his work. With this article as an addendum, I’d strongly recommend the book to anyone. And I’d welcome feedback to further the dialogue.

continues in source:

Resolving the awkward paradox in Frederic Laloux’s Reinventing Organisations | by Tom Nixon | Maptio | Medium

very good

Hilton L. Root, “Network Origins of the Global Economy: East vs. West in a Complex Systems Perspective” (Cambridge UP, 2020) — New Books in Systems and Cybernetics — Overcast

Hilton L. Root

Jan 18, 2021

Network Origins of the Global Economy

East vs. West in a Complex Systems Perspective

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS 2020

Twenty-eight years after Francis Fukuyama declared the “end of history” and pronounced Western-style liberalism as the culmination of a Hegelian narrative of progress, pundits and academics of all stripes find themselves struggling to explain the failed prediction that China’s increased activity in international markets would inevitably lead to increasing political and social liberalization in that country. 

With his ground-breaking book, Network Origins of the Global Economy: East vs. West in a Complex Systems Perspective, out from Cambridge University Press in 2020, Hilton L. Root takes a road less-traveled in contemporary economics and brings the analytical tools of systems theory to bear on this perplexing question, believing that a study of network structure might be able to shed more light than the traditional tools of economic analysis. This clearly argued and eminently readable book accounts for much of the current state of affairs by tracing the contrasting historical evolution of Europe as a Small World Network constituted by the dense connectivity of dynastic marriages between the continent’s royal houses, and China as a Hub and Spoke Network with communications flowing outward through the branches of its vast and robustly structured bureaucracy from a primary central node. Other networked social factors under consideration are the development of Europe’s blend of Germanic custom and Roman law, and China’s tradition of the ideal Confucian gentleman and its deep commitment to merit rather than birthright as the condition for ascending the ranks of administrative power structures. Emerging from this thoughtful and well-researched study is a compelling explanatory narrative of Europe’s ongoing capacity to adapt to rapid change and China’s pattern of long stretches of stability, sudden collapse, and subsequent resurrection of largely unchanged network structure. This adventurous scholarly work simultaneously opens new theoretical doors for economists and provides systems scholars with access to new dimensions of application.

Tom Scholte is a Professor of Directing and Acting in the Department of Theatre and Film at the University of British Columbia located on the unceded, ancestral, and traditional territory of the Musqueam people.https://playlist.megaphone.fm/?e=NBN6315954019

Listen to more episodes on:

• Systems and Cybernetics

New Books in Systems and Cybernetics Hilton L. Root, “Network Origins of the Global Economy: East vs. West in a Complex Systems Perspective” (Cambridge UP, 2020) January 18, 2021

Hilton L. Root, “Network Origins of the Global Economy: East vs. West in a Complex Systems Perspective” (Cambridge UP, 2020) — New Books in Systems and Cybernetics — Overcast

book at source:

Systems Thinking Ontario – 2021-03-08

2021-03-08

March 8 (the second Monday of the month) is the 88th meeting for Systems Thinking Ontario. The registration is on Eventbrite at https://systems-literacy.eventbrite.ca.

Coexploring Systems Literacy

Literacy has been proposed as an understanding of a small number of pervasive principles appropriate to making informed personal and societal decisions.

• Systems literacy includes an understanding of systems that influence you, and your influence on systems.

Peter Tuddenham has been leading an initiative on Systems Literacy across a variety of systems organizations, particularly with the International Society for the Systems Sciences, where he was president (2018-2019).

• Ongoing development builds on previous work facilitated and/or contributed by the College of Exploration, combined with many systems educations programs around the world.

In addition to this conversation, Systems Thinking Ontario members are invited to join the CoExplorer Cafe and Pub that runs on the first Fridays of the month, 3pm to 6pm ET.

• The virtual meeting will happen on Friday, March 5, before the next Systems Thinking Ontario meeting.

This March session of Systems Thinking Ontario will be moderated by Zaid Khan.

• Thanks to Dan Eng for providing us with Zoom facilities.

Venue:

• The link for a Zoom conference will be sent upon preregistration.
• Unfortunately, due to the pandemic OCADU, sLab (Strategic Innovation Lab), 205 Richmond Street West, Room 410 is not available!

Suggested pre-reading:

Formally, there was an article written that explained the aims of the Systems Literacy initiative, from 2016-2017.

• Tuddenham, Peter. 2017. “Observations on Systems Literacy at the International Society for Systems Sciences (ISSS) 2016 Conference.” Systems Research and Behavioral Science 34 (5): 625–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2491.
  • See the blog digest of the presentation at ISSS 2016.

Open access versions of papers by Peter D. Tuddenham may be available on his ResearchGate page f and/or his Academia.edu page.

Agenda

Post-meeting artifacts

Bloggers are encouraged to write about their learning and experiences at the meeting. Links will be added to this page.

2021-03-08 March 8 (the second Monday of the month) is the 88th meeting for Systems Thinking Ontario. The registration is on Eventbrite at https://systems-literacy.eventbrite.ca. Coexploring Systems Literacy

Systems Thinking Ontario – 2021-03-08

7 Differences between complex and complicated Sonja Blignaut Following Aug 19, 2019 · 7 min read

7 Differences between complex and complicated | by Sonja Blignaut | Noteworthy – The Journal Blog