Physical System (example)

In physics, the word system has a technical meaning, namely, it is the portion of the physical universe chosen for analysis. Everything outside the system is known as the environment, which in analysis is ignored except for its effects on the system. The cut between system and the world is a free choice, generally made to simplify the analysis as much as possible. An isolated system is one which has negligible interaction with its environment.

Often a system in this sense is chosen to correspond to the more usual meaning of system, such as a particular machine. But physical systems are often more esoteric: an atom, the water in a lake, or indeed the water in the left-hand half of a lake can all be considered as physical systems. In the study of quantum decoherence the "system" may refer to the macroscopic properties of an object (e.g. the position of a pendulum bob), while the relevant "environment" may be the internal degrees of freedom, described classically by the pendulum's thermal vibrations.

Complexity in physical systems[link]

The complexity of a physical system is equal to the probability of it being in a particular state vector.

If one considers a classical Newtonian ball situation with a number of perfectly moving physical bodies bouncing off the walls of a container, the system-state probability does not change over time. The entropy of the system changes over time, but the probability of the state vector does not change. One can periodically evaluate the complexity of this system, and the complexity of this system does not change.

In a physical system, a lower probability state vector is equivalent to a higher complexity. A self sustaining low probability state vector allows the physical system to remain in a higher complexity state. The study of such systems as applied to our universe is in its infancy and speculative in nature, but it appears that there are some low probability systems that are able to sustain themselves through time.

In mathematical systems, one can consider the complexity of particular states more easily. For example, if one considers a Turing machine that generates random symbols and then uses them to create a new sequences of symbols, the complexity of the final string of symbols is nearly mathematically equivalent to the minimum size of a string required to produce a larger string on a Turing machine as defined by algorithmic information theory.

The closed systems of concepts in physics[link]

Heisenberg notes that in physics, there are actually four, possibly five, different conceptual developments of closed systems of concepts:

• the first began with reference to Newtonian mechanics,
• the second with nineteenth century thermodynamics,
• the third throughout the twentieth century with Hendrik Lorentz, Einstein, and Hermann Minkowski,
• and finally with conceptual developments in quantum mechanics.

The third and fourth stages eventually led to more open systems concepts,^[1] but closed/open system concepts really need to be considered in relation to work since that time if one were to define further conceptual developments.

See also[link]

• Conceptual system
• Phase space
• Physical phenomenon
• Thermodynamic system
• Physical ontology

References[link]

1. ^ Heisenberg (1999) Physics and Philosophy, New York: Prometheus Books, pp. 93-109.

External links[link]

• Conceptual vs Physical Systems
• Research in simulation and modeling of various physical systems

George Sotiros Pappas (born 1942) is a professor of philosophy at Ohio State University.^[1] Pappas specializes in epistemology, the history of early modern philosophy, philosophy of religion, and metaphysics. He is of Greek and English origin.

He is the author of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Internalist versus Externalist conceptions of epistemic justification.^[2]

He was co-editor (with Marshall Swain) of Essays on Knowledge and Justification (1978), regarded as a key anthology of essays relating to the Gettier problem^[3] and used as a core text in undergraduate epistemology courses.^[4]

George Pappas is an editorial consultant of Berkeley Studies.^[5]

Studies in Berkeley's Philosophy[link]

George S. Pappas is known to be a leading Berkeley scholar; his essay “Berkeley and Scepticism”^[6] was in 1993 awarded the International Berkeley Prize.^[7] Professor Pappas is a regular participant of International Berkeley Conferences.^[8] At one such conference, celebrating the 300th anniversary of George Berkeley’s birth, Mr. Pappas propounded a new approach to the relationship between Berkeley’s anti-abstractionism and "esse est percipi"^[9] principle. On Pappas reading, Berkeley’s two theses — that there are no abstract ideas and that sensible objects must be perceived in order to exist — entail one another.^[10]

Pappas' interpretation of Berkeley's ‘esse is percipi’ thesis has sparked much discussion.^[11][12] In 1989, the Garland Publishing Company brought out a 15-volume collection of major works on Berkeley; Pappas' paper “Abstract ideas and the 'esse is percipi' thesis” was included in the third volume,^[13] as it was considered to be a significant contribution to Berkeley scholarship.

Pappas developed his treatment of Berkeley’s “esse est percipi” principle^[14] to repudiate the "inherence interpretation of Berkeley", upon which Edwin E. Allaire, among others, elaborated^[15][16][17]

“That account is put forward to answer an extremely perplexing question in the history of philosophy: Why did Berkeley embrace idealism, i. e., why did he hold that esse est percipi, that to be is to be perceived? (Hausman, Alan. Op. cit. Pp. 421–422.)

After emerging in the early 1960s, the “inherence account” attracted numerous proponents and became an influential element of contemporary Berkeley scholarship. In his paper “Ideas, minds, and Berkeley”^[18] Pappas revealed some discrepancies between fountain-head evidences and Allaire’s approach to a reconstruction of Berkeley’s idealism. Pappas' critical examination of the “inherence account” is greatly appreciated by Berkeley scholars. Pappas’ penetrating remarks compelled Edwin B. Allaire to revise and improve his conception.^[19] Even those who share Allaire’s account of Berkeley’s idealism acknowledge Pappas’ article to be “an excellent review and critique of the IA [inherence account].”^[20]

In 2000 George Pappas published his monograph Berkeley's thought in which some parts were based on earlier papers of his. While writings by A. A. Luce or Geoffrey Warnock are long out dated, the book Berkeley's thought written by Dr Pappas is often included in lists of recommended literature on Berkeley’s philosophy.^[21]

Publications[link]

• Pappas, George S. Berkeley’s Thought. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2000. ISBN 0-8014-3700-8 ISBN 9780801437007

See also[link]

• American philosophy
• List of American philosophers
• George Berkeley

References[link]