Shchukova K.B. The role of systems thinking in systems engineering

One of the most important signs of natural scientific progress in our century is the integration of scientific knowledge. The manifestations of this integration are varied. This is the emergence of interdisciplinary branches like biophysics, and the birth of sciences that study a set of objects that were previously studied by various disciplines, and the synthesis of special theories on a single axiomatic basis, and the transfer of theoretical concepts developed in one area of ​​phenomena to another, often very far from first, and much more.

All these trends are a multifaceted expression of the style of thinking in science of the 20th century, on the eve of the new millennium. Awareness of this fact served as an impetus for the analysis of methodological priorities that determine this style, which led to the development of a cognitive strategy called systematic approach.

The concept of a system appeared in science relatively recently. It has many different definitions. Here is one of the simplest ones. System - it is a complex of interconnected and interacting elements; as a result of their interaction, a certain useful result is achieved.

Thus, the system consists of fractional parts - elements, and these elements do not represent a random collection, but somehow interact. Therefore, there are certain connections between them.

It is very important to note the following feature. There are systems of different orders. In this case, a lower order system acts as an element of a higher order system. It turns out something similar to nesting dolls.

So, for example, if we consider the “humanity” system, then an individual person is an element of this system. In turn, the human body is also a system in which an organ, such as the heart, is an element. Going further, we can consider the “heart” system, one of the elements of which is the sinus node, and the cells of which it consists are elements of the “sinus node” system, etc.

System classifications

Classification of systems can be made according to a variety of division bases. First of all, all systems can be divided into material and ideal, or conceptual. TO material systems The vast majority of systems are of an inorganic, organic and social nature. All material systems, in turn, can be divided into main classes according to the form of movement of matter , which they represent. In this regard, a distinction is usually made between gravitational, physical, chemical, biological, geological, ecological and social systems. Among the material systems, there are also artificial, specially created by society, technical and technological systems that serve for the production of material goods.

All these systems are called material because their content and properties do not depend on the cognizing subject, who can more and more deeply, completely and more accurately cognize their properties and patterns in the conceptual systems he creates. The latter are called ideal because they represent a reflection of material systems that objectively exist in nature and society.

The most typical example of a conceptual system is a scientific theory, which expresses, with the help of its concepts, generalizations and laws, objective, real connections and relationships that exist in specific natural and social systems.

Other classifications, as the basis for division, consider features characterizing the state of the system, its behavior, interaction with the environment, purposefulness and predictability of behavior and other properties.

The simplest classification of systems is to divide them into static and dynamic , which is to a certain extent conditional, since everything in the world is in constant change and movement. Since, however, in many phenomena we distinguish between statics and dynamics, it seems appropriate to specifically consider static systems as well.

Among dynamic systems, deterministic and stochastic (probabilistic) systems are usually distinguished. This classification is based on the nature of predicting the dynamics of system behavior. As noted in previous chapters, predictions based on the study of the behavior of deterministic systems are quite unambiguous and reliable. Dynamic systems studied in mechanics and astronomy are precisely such systems. In contrast, stochastic systems, which are most often called probabilistic-statistical, deal with massive or repeating random events and phenomena. Therefore, the predictions in them are not reliable, but only probabilistic.

Based on the nature of interaction with the environment, as noted above, open and closed (isolated) systems are distinguished, and sometimes partially open systems are also distinguished . This classification is mainly conditional, because the idea of ​​closed systems arose in classical thermodynamics as a certain abstraction, which turned out to be inconsistent with objective reality, in which the vast majority, if not all, of systems are open.

Many complex systems found in the social world are purposeful , that is, focused on achieving one or more goals, and in different subsystems and at different levels of the organization these goals can be different and even come into conflict with each other.

The classification of systems makes it possible to consider many systems existing in science retrospectively and is therefore of great interest to the researcher.

When studying any science and solving its problems, it is often necessary to determine at the level of which system the consideration should be carried out.

The specificity of the worldview of a mathematician, physicist, chemist, biologist at this level seems to be only special cases of the dialectics of knowledge, and the subject content of these sciences is considered as an illustration of the dialectics of nature. Therefore, for representatives of each of these disciplines, interested in constructive methodological techniques for solving their specific problems, a less abstract, but more substantively meaningful arsenal of methodological tools is needed, focused on a specific area of ​​science and, most importantly, facilitating the choice of a rational strategy for scientific research. A systems approach meets these requirements.

For a creative perception of this methodological concept, it is necessary to follow its formation in the process of development of natural science.

The attention of researchers to the systems approach was attracted by the works of L. Bertalanffy on general systems theory. After this, system analysis increasingly began to be involved in various fields of science.

Currently, the systems approach represents the most rational style of thinking when studying objects of living nature. Systemic views synthesize the entire methodological experience of natural science in the past. Revealing the one-sidedness of previously existing cognitive strategies, the systematic approach determines their place and role in the process of cognition of the surrounding world at the present stage.

The emergence of the systems approach, undoubtedly the central methodological direction of modern science, is often associated with overcoming the crisis of scientific knowledge at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. It was at this time that serious contradictions between the level of accumulated knowledge and the methodology of scientific knowledge. In various fields of science, new ideas, concepts, and ideas appeared that were radically different from the prevailing way of thinking. The progressive nature of this trend lay in the fact that the exponents of these new views were guided by the elements that matured within the existing paradigm of that direction in the progress of knowledge, which has widely developed in our century. The main feature of this direction in terms of content should be called the integration of scientific knowledge.

Man, in the process of his development, explores and studies a huge variety of objects, phenomena and processes of the surrounding world. The simplest and most natural way to get an idea of ​​an unfamiliar object is to find out what elements it consists of. If we are talking about a process, it is useful to find out what stages it consists of and whether it can be represented as a set of simpler movements. In practice, this led to the discovery of a common elementary basis for objects of diverse nature.

In chemistry this common basis turned out to be the chemical elements, which were then organized into Mendeleev’s periodic table (the discovery of the periodic law marked the beginning of a new stage in the development of chemical ideas - synthetic).

In physics Types of force interaction and elementary particles that form atoms became such elementary entities.

The Beginning of Biology modern times began with the study of the diversity of biological forms of animal and plant origin, and then the search for signs by which this diversity could be systematized.

The emergence of physiology was preceded by an anatomical study of the structure of the human and animal body. The cell theory of the structure of organisms played a significant role in the subsequent development of biology. Exactly holistic approach was the methodological basis for the idea of ​​the unity of the organic world in its evolutionary development.

Long before the advent of the systematic approach, an understanding began to form that for knowledge it is not enough to focus only on this method.

The first significant step in this direction was made by I. Kant, pointing out dependence of the process of cognition not only on the object of study, but also on the knowing subject, his way of thinking . According to Kant, knowledge is not a simple reflection of reality, but creative comprehension, requiring constructive mental activity.

The next step was taken by G. Hegel. Hegelian dialectics was essentially a new way of thinking, oriented toward the search for internal sources of existence and development of objects, presupposing the dialectical unity of the whole and its parts.

New methodological approaches emerged at the same time in physics. They were associated with deepening ideas about causality. The previously dominant Laplacean determinism - the belief that ultimately any processes are predetermined by unambiguous causal relationships - has given way to the probabilistic principle of explanation.

Finally, in the mathematics of the 19th century, a major event occurred that proclaimed the concept of symmetry, which became one of the methodological foundations of theoretical and physical thinking of our century.

In 1872, the Erlangen Program by F. Klein was published. The “Program” put forward a synthetic principle that united on a single conceptual basis various geometries (Euclidean, non-Euclidean, projective, conformal, etc.), previously studied in isolation. Disparate mathematical directions (elements) were covered by interconnections and formed a structural whole, which already at the beginning of the 20th century acquired ontological (from the Greek ontos - existing and logos - teaching, word) content.

So, by the beginning of the twentieth century, all the prerequisites for the intensive development of the general theory of systems were present.

Systems approach theory

The systems movement, which became widespread in science after World War II, aims to provide a holistic view of the world, end the narrow disciplinary approach to its knowledge and promote the development of many programs for interdisciplinary research of complex problems. It was within the framework of this movement that such important areas of interdisciplinary research as cybernetics and synergetics were formed.

Systems theory as presented by an Austrian theoretical biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901-1972) and his followers, generally focuses on maintaining and preserving the stability and stability of dynamic systems. It is known that cybernetic self-organization of technical control systems is aimed at maintaining their dynamic stability through negative feedback. A new, more general dynamic theory of systems should obviously be based on the fundamental results that have been achieved in science and, above all, in the theory of dissipative structures. Without this, it is impossible to understand the mechanism of the emergence of a new order and structures, and, consequently, the true evolution of systems associated with the emergence of something new in development. That is why modern authors have turned to the theory of dissipative structures and synergetics to explain the significance of the systems approach in the process of cognition.

In the most general and broad sense of the word, the systematic study of objects and phenomena of the world around us is understood as a method in which they are considered as parts or elements of a certain holistic formation. These parts or elements, interacting with each other, determine new, holistic properties of the system that are absent in its individual elements. We constantly encountered this understanding of the system during the presentation of all previous material. However, it is applicable only to characterize systems consisting of homogeneous parts and having a well-defined structure. However, in practice, systems often include collections of heterogeneous objects combined into one to achieve a specific goal.

The main thing that defines a system is the interrelation and interaction of parts within the whole. If such interaction exists, then it is permissible to talk about a system, although the degree of interaction of its parts may be different. You should also pay attention to the fact that each individual object, object or phenomenon can be considered as a certain integrity, consisting of parts, and studied as a system.

In an implicit form, the systems approach in its simplest form has been used in science from the very beginning of its emergence. Even when she was engaged in the accumulation and generalization of initial factual material, the idea of ​​systematization and unity underlay her search and construction of scientific knowledge.

IN modern scientific methodology, starting from the mid-twentieth century, a new systematic approach has been formed - an interdisciplinary philosophical, methodological and special scientific direction with high research and explanatory potential. As a special type of methodology, it involves the identification of general philosophical, general scientific and special scientific levels, as well as consideration of the conceptual apparatus, basic principles and functions corresponding to each of them.

As researchers note, the idea of ​​systematicity is present in an implicit, unreflected form in the thoughts of many philosophers of the past. Thus, in ancient Greek philosophy in the works of Plato and Aristotle, the idea of ​​systematicity is widely represented, realized as the integrity of the consideration of knowledge, the systematic construction of logic, and geometry. Later, these ideas were developed in the works of Leibniz, a philosopher and mathematician, in particular, in the “New System of Nature” (1695), in an effort to create a “universal science.” In the 19th century, Hegel essentially generalized the experience of modern philosophy in developing the problem of systematicity, taking as the basis for his reasoning the integrity of the objects of research and the systemic nature of philosophical and scientific knowledge. And although the principle of systematicity had not been explicitly formulated by this time, the idea itself correlated well with the systematizations widespread in natural science by Linnaeus in biology, Decandolle in botany, the holistic study of biological evolution by Charles Darwin, etc. A classic example of the application of the idea of ​​systematicity and integrity was Marx’s teaching on socio-economic formation and his consideration of society as an “organic system”.

Today philosophical principle of consistency is understood as a universal proposition that all objects and phenomena of the world are systems of various types and types of integrity and complexity, however, the question of which interpretation is more justified - ontological or epistemological - remains open and discussed. The dominant traditional point of view today is ontological, originating from the systemic-ontological concepts of Spinoza and Leibniz, which attributes “systematicity” to the objects of reality themselves; the task of the subject-researcher is to discover the system, its connections and relationships, describe, typologize and explain them. But an epistemological interpretation is making its way more and more clearly, in which “systematicity” is considered precisely as a principle inseparable from the theoretical attitudes of the subject-observer, his ability to imagine and construct the object of knowledge as systemic. In particular, famous modern scientists sociologist N. Luhmann, neurobiologists

U. Maturana and F. Varela sought to show that a system, structure, environment does not exist in natural or social reality, but is formed in our knowledge as a result of operations of discrimination and construction carried out by the observer. However, it is impossible to deny that reality must have such “parameters” that can be represented as systems. Systematicity thus appears as a modern way of seeing an object and a style of thinking that has replaced mechanistic ideas and principles of interpretation. Accordingly, a special language is emerging, which includes, first of all, such philosophical and general scientific concepts as systematicity, relationship, connection, element, structure, part and whole, integrity, hierarchy, organization, system analysis and many others.

The principle of systematicity combines and synthesizes several ideas and concepts: systematicity, integrity, the relationship between part and whole, structure and “elementaryness” of objects, universality, universality of connections, relationships, and finally, development, since it assumes not only staticity, but also dynamism and variability of systemic formations . As one of the leading and synthesizing philosophical principles, it underlies systematic approach- general scientific interdisciplinary and particular scientific system methodology, as well as social practice, considering objects as systems. It is not a strict theoretical or methodological concept, but as a set of cognitive principles it allows us to record the insufficiency of an extra-systemic, non-holistic vision of objects and, expanding the knowable reality, helps to build new objects of research, giving them characteristics, and offering new schemes for their explanation. It is close in orientation structural-functional analysis And structuralism, which, however, formulate fairly “rigid” and unambiguous rules and norms, respectively acquiring the features of specific scientific methodologies, for example, in the field of structural linguistics.

The main concept of system methodology is system- has received serious development both in methodological research and in general systems theory - the doctrine of the special scientific study of various types of systems, the laws of their existence, functioning and development. The founder of the theory is L. von Bertalanffy (1930), his predecessor in our country was A.A. Bogdanov, the creator of “Tectology” (1913) - the doctrine of universal organizational science.

The system constitutes an integral complex of interconnected elements; forms a special unity with the environment; has a hierarchy: it is an element of a higher order system, its elements in turn act as systems

lower order. It is necessary to distinguish from the system the so-called unorganized aggregates - a random accumulation of people, various kinds of landfills, the “collapse” of old books at a junk dealer and many others, in which there is no internal organization, connections are random and insignificant, there are no holistic, integrative properties different from the properties of individual fragments .

A feature of “living”, social and technical systems is the transfer of information and the implementation of management processes based on various types of “goal setting”. Various - empirical and theoretical - classifications of systems have been developed, and their types have been identified.

Thus, famous researchers of system methodology V.N. Sadovsky, I.V. Blauberg, E.G. Yudin identified classes of inorganic and organic systems, in contrast to unorganized aggregates. Organic system - it is a self-developing whole, going through stages of complexity and differentiation and possessing a number of specific features. This is the presence in the system, along with structural and genetic connections, coordination and subordination, control mechanisms, for example, biological correlations, the central nervous system, governing bodies in society and others. In such systems, the properties of the parts are determined by the laws and structure of the whole; the parts are transformed along with the whole in the course of its development. The elements of the system have a certain number of degrees of freedom (probabilistic control) and are constantly updated following changes in the whole. In inorganic systems the dependence between the system and its elements is less close, the properties of the parts and their changes are determined by the internal structure, and not by the structure of the whole, changes in the whole may not lead to changes in the elements that exist independently and are even more active than the system as a whole. The stability of the elements determines the stability of such systems. Organic systems, as the most complex, require special research; they are the most promising methodologically (Problems in the methodology of systems research. M., 1970, pp. 38-39).

From the distinction between these two types of systems it follows that the concept element is not absolute and unambiguously defined, since the system can be divided in different ways. An element is “the limit of possible division of an object”, “the minimum component of a system” capable of performing a certain function.

The fundamental tasks being solved today in the field of formation and development of systems research methodology include the following: construction of concepts and models for the systemic representation of objects, development of techniques and apparatus for describing all parameters of the system: type of connections, relationship with the environment, structure hierarchy, nature of control, construction formalized - symbolic, ideal, mathematical - systems for describing real system objects and the possibility of applying the rules of logical inference. In specific sciences, at the level of special methodology,

System developments are analyzed using specific methods and systems analysis techniques used specifically for this area of ​​research.

A systematic formulation of the problem involves not just a transition to a “system language”, but a preliminary clarification of the possibility of presenting an object as an integrity, isolating system-forming connections and structural characteristics of the object, etc. In this case, there is always a need to find out subject relevance, those. the correspondence of concepts, methods, principles to a given object in its systemic vision and in combination with methods of other sciences, for example, whether the mathematical apparatus can be applied to a systemically presented object and what it should be.

A number of methodological requirements relate to the description of the elements of an object, in particular, it must be carried out taking into account the place of the element in the system as a whole, since its functions significantly depend on this; one and the same element must be considered as having different parameters, functions, properties that manifest themselves differently in accordance with the hierarchical levels or type of system. An object as a system can be fruitfully studied only in unity with the conditions of its existence, the environment; its structure is understood as a law or principle of connecting elements. The system research program should be based on the recognition of such important features of the elements and the system as the generation of a special property of the whole from the properties of the elements and, in turn, the generation of the properties of the elements under the influence of the properties of the system as a whole.

These general methodological requirements of the systems approach can be supplemented by its specific features in modern sciences. Thus, E.G. Yudin examined the development of systematic ideas and the application of methodological principles of this approach in psychology. In particular, he showed that Gestalt psychology was the first to raise the question of the holistic functioning of the psyche, presenting the laws of Gestalt as laws of organization of the whole based on the unification of functions and structure. At the same time, the approach from the standpoint of integrity and systematicity not only united the object, but also set a scheme for its division and analysis. It is known that Gestalt psychology and its schemes have been subjected to serious criticism, but at the same time, “the basic methodological ideas of the psychology of form hardly belong to history and form part of the entire modern psychology of culture, and traces of their fruitful influence can be found in almost all the main areas of psychology” (Yudin E.G. Methodology of science. Systematicity. Activity. M., 1997. pp. 185-186).

The leading psychologist of the 20th century, J. Piaget, also interpreted the process of mental development as a dynamic system of interaction between the organism and the environment, which has a hierarchy of structures that build on top of each other and are not reducible to one another. Carrying out an operational approach and reflecting on the systemic-structural nature of intelligence, located at the top of the system hierarchy, he expressed a new idea for his time about building a “logic of holistic

stey", which has not been implemented to this day. “To understand the operational nature of thinking, it is necessary to achieve systems as such, and if ordinary logical schemes do not allow us to see such systems, then we need to build a logic of integrity” (Piaget J. Selected psychological works. M., 1969. P. 94).

In an effort to master systems methodology, applying its principles and concepts, the following should be kept in mind. The use of a systems approach is not a direct path to true knowledge; as a methodological technique, systems vision only optimizes cognitive activity and makes it more productive, but in order to obtain and substantiate reliable knowledge it is necessary to apply the entire “arsenal” of general methodological and special principles and methods.

Let's use the example of E.G. Yudin to understand what we are talking about. The famous scientist B.A. Rybakov, trying to establish the author of “The Lay of Igor’s Campaign,” did not have a systematic approach in mind and did not use the corresponding concepts, but united and combined several different ways of analyzing the socio-political conditions of Kievan Rus at that time, likes and dislikes the author, expressed in the Lay, his education, stylistic and other features of the chronicle of that era. A genealogical table of the Kyiv princes was compiled and used. The study clarified the special systems of connections and relationships in each of the cases involved, which were not considered separately, but were superimposed on each other. As a result, the search area and the number of possible candidates were sharply reduced and with a high degree of probability it was suggested that the author was the Kiev boyar Peter Borislavich, the chronicler of the Kiev princes. It is obvious that the principle of integrity was used here to enhance the effectiveness of the study and overcome the fragmentation, incompleteness and partial nature of the factors. The result was undoubtedly interesting, the increase in knowledge was obvious, the probability was quite high, but other experts in this field, in particular D.S. Likhachev, expressed quite a lot of counterarguments and did not recognize the truth of the conclusions; the question about the author remains open today.

In this example, which simultaneously reflects the peculiarities of humanitarian research, where formalization and application of mathematical apparatus is impossible, two points emerged: the first - the integrity (systematicity) of the object was constructed, in reality it was not a system with objective natural connections, systematicity is presented only in its methodological function and has no ontological content; second - the systematic approach should not be considered as a “direct path” to true knowledge, its tasks and functions are different and, first of all, as already mentioned, expanding the scope of vision of reality and constructing a new object of study, identifying new types of connections and relationships, applying new methods.

System methodology received new impetus in its development when turning to self-organizing systems or, in other words, when representing an object as a self-organization

organizing system, for example, the brain, a community of organisms, a human collective, an economic system and others. Systems of this type are characterized by an active influence on the environment, flexibility of structure and a special “adaptive mechanism”, as well as unpredictability - they can change their method of action when conditions change, they are able to learn, and take into account past experience. Turning to complexly organized evolving and nonequilibrium systems led researchers to a fundamentally new theory of self-organization - synergetics, which arose in the early 70s of the twentieth century (the term was introduced by the German physicist G. Haken from the Greek sinergeia - assistance, cooperation), combining system-informational, structuralist approaches with the principles of self-organization, nonequilibrium and nonlinearity of dynamic systems.

Although the scientific disciplines just named have much in common, they, however, use different conceptual tools. Systems engineering, for example, uses cybernetics and information theory, as well as general systems theory. Operations research uses linear programming and game theory methods. Engineering psychology, which deals with the analysis of the abilities, psychological limitations and variability of human beings, makes extensive use of biomechanics, industrial psychology, human factors analysis, etc.

This article does not aim to characterize applied systems science; […] It is only important for us to keep in mind that the systems approach, as a new concept in modern science, has a parallel in technology. The systems approach in the science of our time stands in the same relation to the so-called mechanistic point of view in which systems engineering stands to traditional physical technology.

All of these theories have certain common features.

First, they agree that it is necessary to somehow solve problems characteristic of the behavioral and biological sciences and not related to ordinary physical theory.

Secondly, these theories introduce new concepts and models compared to physics, for example, the generalized concept of a system, the concept of information, comparable in meaning to the concept of energy in physics.

Thirdly, these theories, as indicated above, deal primarily with problems with many variables.

Fourth, the models introduced by these theories are interdisciplinary in nature, and they go far beyond the established divisions of science. For example, if you carefully look through the yearbooks of the Society for Research in General Systems Theory (“General Systems”), you will easily discover the following important circumstance: similar and even identical in structure reasoning is applied to phenomena of the most different types and levels - from networks of chemical reactions to cells to animal populations, from electrical engineering to social sciences.

Similarly, the basic concepts of cybernetics stem from certain special areas of modern technology, however, starting with the simplest case of a thermostat, which, on the basis of feedback, maintains a certain temperature, and moving further to servomechanisms and automation in modern technology, we find that similar circuits apply to many biological phenomena of regulation or behavior. Moreover, in many cases there is a formal correspondence, or isomorphism, of general principles and even special laws. The same mathematical description can be applied to a wide variety of phenomena. From this, in particular, it follows that general systems theory, among other things, also facilitates scientific discovery: a number of principles can be transferred from one field to another without the need for duplication of work, as often happened in the science of the past.

Fifthly, and perhaps most importantly, such concepts as integrity, organization, teleology and direction of movement or functioning, which in mechanistic science were considered unscientific or metaphysical, have now received full rights of citizenship and are considered as extremely important means scientific analysis. We now have conceptual and, in some cases, even material models capable of reproducing the basic properties of life and behavior.

It should be emphasized that the various scientific approaches listed above are not and should not be considered monopolistic. One of the important aspects of the modern development of scientific thought is that we are more Not acknowledge the existence of a unique and all-encompassing pictures of the world.

All scientific constructs are models representing certain aspects, or sides, of reality. This also applies to theoretical physics. Far from being a metaphysical representation of the ultimate reality (as was proclaimed by the materialism of the past and still implied by modern positivism), it is nothing more than one of these models, and, as the development of science has shown in recent times, in no way case not exhaustive and not the only one. Different systems theories are also models of different aspects of the world. They are not mutually exclusive and are often combined when used. For example, some phenomena can be scientifically studied by cybernetics, others - using general systems theory, and it is even quite acceptable that the same phenomenon in its various aspects can be described in both ways. Cybernetics connects information models and feedback models, models of the nervous system and information theory, etc. This, of course, does not exclude, but rather suggests the possibility of subsequent syntheses, which will include and combine various modern studies of integrity and organization. Indeed, at present such a synthetic concept is gradually being built, combining, for example, the thermodynamics of irreversible processes and information theory.

The differences between the listed theories lie in their special model representations and in the mathematical methods used. We therefore turn to the question of how a systemic research program can be implemented.”

Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General systems theory - a review of problems and results, in: Systems Research. Yearbook, M., “Science”, 1969

Systems approach– a direction of philosophy and methodology of science, special scientific knowledge and social practice, which is based on the study of objects as systems. The systems approach focuses research on revealing the integrity of an object and the mechanisms that provide it, identifying the diverse types of connections of a complex object and bringing them together into a single theoretical picture. The concept of “systems approach” has been widely used since the end. 1960s - early 1970s in English and Russian philosophical and systems literature. Close in content to the “systems approach” are the concepts of “systems research”, “systematic principle”, “general systems theory” and “systems analysis”.

The systems approach is an interdisciplinary philosophical, methodological and scientific direction of research. Without directly solving philosophical problems, the systems approach requires a philosophical interpretation of its provisions. An important part of the philosophical justification of the systems approach is systematic principle .

Historically, the ideas of a systematic study of the objects of the world and the processes of cognition arose in ancient philosophy (Plato, Aristotle), were widely developed in the philosophy of modern times (Kant, Schelling), and were studied by Marx in relation to the economic structure of capitalist society. In the theory of biological evolution created by Darwin, not only the idea was formulated, but also the idea of ​​the reality of supraorganism levels of life organization (the most important prerequisite for systems thinking in biology).

The systems approach represents a certain stage in the development of methods of cognition, research and design activities, methods of describing and explaining the nature of analyzed or artificially created objects. The principles of the systems approach are replacing those widely used in the 17th–19th centuries. concepts mechanism and confront them. The methods of the systems approach are most widely used in the study of complex developing objects - multi-level, hierarchical, self-organizing biological, psychological, social, etc. systems, large technical systems, man-machine systems, etc.

The most important tasks of the systems approach include: 1) development of means for representing the studied and constructed objects as systems; 2) construction of generalized models of the system, models of different classes and specific properties of systems; 3) study of the structure of systems theories and various system concepts and developments. In systems research, the analyzed object is considered as a certain set of elements, the interconnection of which determines the integral properties of this set. The main emphasis is on identifying the variety of connections and relationships that take place both within the object under study and in its relationships with the external environment. The properties of an object as an integral system are determined not only and not so much by the summation of the properties of its individual elements, but by the properties of its structure, special system-forming, integrative connections of the object under consideration. To understand the behavior of systems (primarily purposeful), it is necessary to identify the control processes implemented by a given system - the forms of information transfer from one subsystem to another and the ways in which some parts of the system influence others, the coordination of the lower levels of the system by elements of its highest level of control, the influence on the latter of all other subsystems. Significant importance in the systems approach is given to identifying the probabilistic nature of the behavior of the objects under study. An important feature of the systems approach is that not only the object, but also the research process itself acts as a complex system, the task of which, in particular, is to combine various models of the object into a single whole. System objects are very often not indifferent to the process of their research and in many cases can have a significant impact on it. In the context of the unfolding scientific and technological revolution in the 2nd half. 20th century there is a further clarification of the content of the systems approach - the disclosure of its philosophical foundations, the development of logical and methodological principles, further progress in the construction general systems theory . The systems approach is the theoretical and methodological basis system analysis .

A prerequisite for the penetration of the systems approach into science in the 20th century. First of all, there was a transition to a new type of scientific problems: in a number of areas of science, problems of the organization and functioning of complex objects began to occupy a central place; cognition operates with systems, the boundaries and composition of which are far from obvious and require special research in each individual case. In the 2nd half. 20th century tasks of a similar type arise in social practice: in social management, instead of the previously prevailing local, sectoral tasks and principles, large complex problems begin to play a leading role, requiring close interconnection of economic, social, environmental and other aspects of social life (for example, global problems, complex problems of socio-economic development of countries and regions, problems of creating modern industries, complexes, urban development, environmental protection measures, etc.).

The change in the type of scientific and practical problems is accompanied by the emergence of general scientific and special scientific concepts, which are characterized by the use in one form or another of the basic ideas of the systems approach. Along with the dissemination of the principles of the systems approach to new areas of scientific knowledge and practice from Ser. 20th century The systematic development of these principles in methodological terms begins. Initially, methodological studies were grouped around the tasks of constructing a general theory of systems. However, the development of research in this direction has shown that the totality of problems in the methodology of systems research significantly goes beyond the scope of the tasks of developing only a general theory of systems. To designate this broader area of ​​methodological problems, the term “systems approach” has become widely used.

The systems approach does not exist in the form of a strict theoretical or methodological concept: it performs its heuristic functions, remaining a set of cognitive principles, the main meaning of which is the appropriate orientation of specific studies. This orientation is accomplished in two ways. Firstly, the substantive principles of the systems approach make it possible to record the insufficiency of old, traditional subjects of study for setting and solving new problems. Secondly, the concepts and principles of the systems approach significantly help to construct new subjects of study, setting the structural and typological characteristics of these subjects, etc. contributing to the formation of constructive research programs. The role of the systems approach in the development of scientific, technical and practical-oriented knowledge is as follows. Firstly, the concepts and principles of the systems approach reveal a broader cognitive reality compared to that which was recorded in previous knowledge (for example, the concept of the biosphere in the concept of V.I. Vernadsky, the concept of biogeocenosis in modern ecology, the optimal approach in economic management and planning, etc.). Secondly, within the framework of the systems approach, new explanation schemes are being developed in comparison with the previous stages of the development of scientific knowledge, which are based on the search for specific mechanisms of the integrity of an object and the identification of the typology of its connections. Thirdly, from the thesis about the variety of types of connections of an object, which is important for the systems approach, it follows that any complex object allows for several divisions. In this case, the criterion for choosing the most adequate division of the object being studied can be the extent to which it is possible to construct a “unit” of analysis that allows one to record the integral properties of the object, its structure and dynamics.

The breadth of the principles and basic concepts of the systems approach puts it in close connection with other methodological areas of modern science. In its cognitive settings, the systems approach has much in common with structuralism and structural-functional analysis, with which it is connected not only by operating with the concepts of system, structure and function, but also by an emphasis on the study of various types of connections of an object. At the same time, the principles of the systems approach have a broader and more flexible content; they have not been subjected to such rigid conceptualization and absolutization, which was characteristic of some interpretations of structuralism and structural-functional analysis.

Odessa National Polytechnic University

Department of Philosophy and Methodology of Science

Systems approach in science and technology

(abstract)

Kozyrev D.S. postgraduate student of the Department of Thermal Power and Electronics

Thesis topic: “combined energy supply systems based on alternative energy resources”

Scientific supervisor prof. Balasanyan G.A.

Odessa 2011

Introduction3

1 The concept of “system” and “system approach”5

2 Ontological meaning of the concept “system”8

3 Epistemological meaning of the concept “system”10

4 Development of the essence of the system in the natural sciences12

5 “System” and “system approach” in our time14

Conclusion26

Literature29

Introduction

More than half a century of systemic movement initiated by L. von Bertalanffy has passed. During this time, the ideas of systematicity, the concept of a system and the systems approach have received universal recognition and widespread use. Numerous system concepts have been created.

A closer analysis shows that many of the issues considered in the systems movement belong not only to science, such as the general theory of systems, but cover a vast area of ​​scientific knowledge as such. The systems movement has affected all aspects of scientific activity, and an increasing number of arguments are being put forward in its defense.

The basis of the systems approach, as a methodology of scientific knowledge, is the study of objects as systems. A systematic approach contributes to an adequate and effective disclosure of the essence of problems and their successful solution in various fields of science and technology.

The systematic approach is aimed at identifying the diverse types of connections of a complex object and reducing them into a single theoretical picture.

In various fields of science, problems of the organization and functioning of complex objects are beginning to occupy a central place, the study of which without taking into account all aspects of their functioning and interaction with other objects and systems is simply unthinkable. Moreover, many of these objects represent a complex combination of various subsystems, each of which, in turn, is also a complex object.

The systems approach does not exist in the form of strict methodological concepts. It performs its heuristic (creative) functions, remaining a set of cognitive principles, the main meaning of which is the appropriate orientation of specific research.

The purpose of this work is to try to show how important a systems approach is in science and technology. The advantages of this method, first of all, are that it expands the field of knowledge compared to what existed before. A systematic approach, based on the search for mechanisms of the integrity of an object and identifying the technology of its connections, allows us to explain the essence of many things in a new way. The breadth of the principles and basic concepts of the systems approach puts them in close connection with other methodological areas of modern science.

It is also necessary to try to define the concepts of “system” and “system approach”. Understand the assertion that systems are complexes that can be synthesized and evaluated. I hope that the knowledge I have acquired will help me in solving scientific and practical problems that I intend to pose in my dissertation. Since the connection between the topic of this essay and the topic of my future scientific work is obvious. I have to design a combined energy supply system that will be based on alternative energy resources. In turn, each element of this scheme (cogeneration unit, individual heating point, heat pump, wind turbine, solar collector, etc.) is also a rather complex system.

1. The concept of “system” and “system approach”

As stated above, - currently, the systems approach is used in almost all areas of science and technology: cybernetics, for the analysis of various biological systems and systems of human influence on nature, for building control systems for transport, space flights, various systems for organizing and managing production, theory building information systems, in many others, and even in psychology.

Biology was one of the first sciences in which objects of study began to be considered as systems. The systems approach in biology involves a hierarchical structure, where the elements are a system (subsystem) that interacts with other systems as part of a larger system (supersystem). At the same time, the sequence of changes in a large system is based on patterns in a hierarchically subordinate structure, where “cause-and-effect relationships run from top to bottom, setting essential properties to those below.” In other words, the whole variety of connections in living nature is studied, while at each level of biological organization its own special leading connections are identified. The idea of ​​biological objects as systems allows for a new approach to some problems, such as the development of certain aspects of the problem of the relationship between an individual and the environment, and also gives impetus to the neo-Darwinian concept, sometimes referred to as macroevolution.

If we turn to social philosophy, then here too the analysis of the main problems of this area leads to questions about society as an integrity, or more precisely, about its systematicity, about the criteria for dividing historical reality, about the elements of society as a system.

The popularity of the systems approach is facilitated by the rapid increase in the number of developments in all areas of science and technology, when a researcher, using standard methods of research and analysis, is physically unable to cope with such a volume of information. It follows from this that only using the systemic principle can one understand the logical connections between individual facts, and only this principle will allow for more successful and high-quality design of new research.

At the same time, the importance of the concept of “system” is very great in modern philosophy, science and technology. Along with this, recently there has been an increasing need to develop a unified approach to various systemic studies in modern scientific knowledge. Most researchers probably realize that there is still some real commonality in this variety of directions, which should follow from a common understanding of the system. However, the reality is that a unified understanding of the system has not yet been developed.

If we consider the history of the development of definitions of the concept “system”, we can see that each of them reveals a new aspect of its rich content. In this case, two main groups of definitions are distinguished. One gravitates towards a philosophical understanding of the concept of a system, the other group of definitions is based on the practical use of system methodology and gravitates towards the development of a general scientific concept of a system.

Works in the field of theoretical foundations of systems research cover such problems as:

ontological foundations of systematic research of objects of the world, systematicity as the essence of the world;

epistemological foundations of systemic research, systemic principles and principles of the theory of knowledge;

methodological establishments of systemic cognition.

The mixture of these three aspects sometimes creates a feeling of contradiction in the works of different authors. This also determines the inconsistency and multiplicity of definitions of the very concept of “system”. Some authors develop it in an ontological sense, others in an epistemological sense, and in different aspects of epistemology, and still others in a methodological one.

The second characteristic feature of systemic problems is that throughout the development of philosophy and science in the development and application of the concept of “system”, three directions are clearly distinguished: one is associated with the use of the term “system” and its non-rigorous interpretation: the other is with the development of the essence of the system concept , however, as a rule, without using this term: the third - with an attempt to synthesize the concept of systematicity with the concept of “system” in its strict definition.

At the same time, historically there has always been a duality of interpretation, depending on whether the consideration is being carried out from ontological or epistemological positions. Therefore, the initial basis for developing a unified system concept, including the concept of “system,” is, first of all, the division of all issues in historical consideration according to the principle of their belonging to ontological, epistemological and methodological foundations.

1.2. Ontological meaning of the concept “system”

When describing reality in Ancient Greece and, in fact, until the 19th century. in science there was no clear separation between reality itself and its ideal, mental, rational representation. The ontological aspect of reality and the epistemological aspect of knowledge about this reality were identified in the sense of absolute correspondence. Therefore, the very long use of the term “system” had a pronounced ontological meaning.

In Ancient Greece, the meaning of this word was associated primarily with social and everyday activities and was used to mean structure, organization, union, system, etc. Further, the same term is transferred to natural objects. The universe, philological and musical combinations, etc.

It is important that the formation of the concept of “system” from the term “system” comes through the awareness of the integrity and dismemberment of both natural and artificial objects. This was expressed in the interpretation of the system as “a whole made up of parts.”

Virtually without interruption, this line of awareness of systems as integral and at the same time dissected fragments of the real world goes through the New Age, the philosophy of R. Descartes and B. Spinoza, French materialists, and the natural sciences of the 19th century, being a consequence of the spatial-mechanical vision of the world, when all other forms reality (light, electromagnetic fields) were considered only as an external manifestation of the spatial-mechanical properties of this reality.

In fact, this approach provides for a certain primary dismemberment of the whole, which in turn is composed of entities separated (spatially) by nature itself and in interaction. In the same sense, the term “system” is widely used today. It was precisely this understanding of the system that gave rise to the term material system as an integral set of material objects.

Another direction of the ontological line involves the use of the term “system” to denote integrity, defined by some organizing community of this whole.

In the ontological approach, two directions can be distinguished: the system as a set of objects and the system as a set of properties.

In general, the use of the term “system” in the ontological aspect is unproductive for further study of the object. The ontological line connected the understanding of the system with the concept of “thing,” be it “an organic thing” or “a thing made up of things.” The main drawback in the ontological line of understanding the system is the identification of the concept “system” with an object or simply with a fragment of reality. In fact, the use of the term “system” in relation to a material object is incorrect, since every fragment of reality has an infinite number of manifestations and its knowledge is divided into many aspects. Therefore, even for a naturally dissected object, we can only give a general indication of the fact of the presence of interactions, without specifying them, since it is not clear which properties of the object are involved in the interactions.

The ontological understanding of the system as an object does not allow us to move on to the process of cognition, since it does not provide a research methodology. In this regard, understanding the system solely in the presented aspect is erroneous.

1.3. Epistemological meaning of the concept “system”

The origins of the epistemological line lie in ancient Greek philosophy and science. This direction gave two branches in developing an understanding of the system. One of them is related to the interpretation of the systematic nature of knowledge itself, first philosophical, then scientific. Another branch was associated with the development of the concepts of “law” and “regularity” as the core of scientific knowledge.

The principles of systematic knowledge were developed in ancient Greek philosophy and science. In fact, Euclid already built his geometry as a system, and it was precisely this presentation that Plato gave it. However, in relation to knowledge, the term “system” was not used by ancient philosophy and science.

Although the term "system" was mentioned as early as 1600, none of the scientists of that time used it. Serious development of the problem of systematic knowledge with the understanding of the concept of “system” began only in the 18th century. At that time, three most important requirements for the systematic nature of knowledge, and therefore the characteristics of a system, were identified:

the completeness of the initial foundations (elements from which other knowledge is derived);

deducibility (definability) of knowledge;

integrity of the constructed knowledge.

Moreover, by a system of knowledge, this direction did not mean knowledge about the properties and relationships of reality (all attempts at an ontological understanding of the system are forgotten and excluded from consideration), but as a certain form of organization of knowledge.

Hegel, when developing a universal system of knowledge and a universal system of the world from the standpoint of objective idealism, overcame such a distinction between the ontological and epistemological lines. In general, by the end of the 19th century. The ontological foundations of cognition are completely discarded, and the system is sometimes viewed as the result of the activity of the subject of cognition.

However, the concept of “system” was never formulated because knowledge as a whole, like the world as a whole, is an infinite object that is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of “system”, which was a way of finite representation of an infinitely complex object.

As a result of the development of the epistemological direction, such features as whole, completeness and deducibility turned out to be firmly associated with the concept of “system”. At the same time, a departure was being prepared from understanding the system as a global embrace of the world or knowledge. The problem of systematic knowledge is gradually narrowing and transforming into the problem of systematic theories, the problem of the completeness of formal theories.

4 Development of the essence of the system in the natural sciences

Not in philosophy, but in science itself there was an epistemological line, which, while developing the essence of understanding the system, for a long time did not use this term at all.

Since its inception, the goal of science has been to find relationships between phenomena, things and their properties. Starting with the mathematics of Pythagoras, through G. Galileo and I. Newton, an understanding is formed in science that the establishment of any pattern includes the following steps:

finding that set of properties that will be necessary and sufficient to form some relationship, pattern;

searching for the type of mathematical relationship between these properties;

establishing repeatability and the necessity of this pattern.

The search for that property that should be included in the pattern often lasted for centuries (if not to say millennia). Along with the search for patterns, the question of the foundations of these patterns has always arisen. Since the time of Aristotle, dependence must have had a causal basis, but even Pythagoras’ theorems contained another basis for dependence - interrelationship, interdependence of quantities, which does not contain a causal meaning.

This set of properties included in the pattern forms some single, integral group precisely because it has the property of behaving deterministically. But then this group of properties has the characteristics of a system and is nothing more than a “system of properties” - this is the name it will be given in the 20th century. Only the term “system of equations” has long been firmly established in scientific use. The awareness of any identified dependence as a system of properties occurs when trying to define the concept of “system”. J. Clear defines a system as a set of variables, and in the natural sciences the definition of a dynamic system as a system of equations describing it has become traditional.

It is important that within the framework of this direction, the most important feature of the system has been developed - the sign of self-determination, self-determination of the set of properties included in the pattern.

Thus, as a result of the development of natural sciences, such important features of the system as the completeness of the set of properties and the self-determination of this set were developed.

5. ONE APPROACH TO GENERAL SYSTEMS THEORY.

The epistemological line of interpretation of the systematic nature of knowledge, having significantly developed the meaning of the concept “system” and a number of its most important features, has not taken the path of understanding the systematic nature of the object of knowledge itself. On the contrary, the position is being strengthened that a system of knowledge in any discipline is formed by logical deduction, like mathematics, that we are dealing with a system of statements that has a hypothetic-deductive basis. This led, taking into account the successes of mathematics, to the fact that nature began to be replaced by mathematical models. The possibilities of mathematization determined both the choice of the object of study and the degree of idealization when solving problems.

A way out of this situation was the concept of L. von Bertalanffy, with whose general theory of systems the discussion of the variety of properties of “organic wholes” began. The systemic movement has become essentially an ontological understanding of properties and qualities at different levels of organization and the types of relationships that provide them, and B.S. Fleishman laid the basis for systemology by ordering the principles of increasingly complex behavior: from material-energy balance through homeostasis to purposefulness and long-term activity.

Thus, there is a turn towards the desire to consider the object in all its complexity, multiplicity of properties, qualities and their interrelations. Accordingly, a branch of ontological definitions of the system is formed, which interpret it as an object of reality, endowed with certain “systemic” properties, as an integrity that has some organizing community of this whole. The use of the concept “system” as a complex object of organized complexity is gradually emerging. At the same time, “mathematizability” ceases to be the filter that simplified the task extremely. J. Clear sees the fundamental difference between the classical sciences and the “science of systems” in the fact that systems theory forms the subject of research in the fullness of its natural manifestations, without adapting to the capabilities of the formal apparatus.

For the first time, the discussion of systemic problems was a self-reflection of systemic concepts of science. Unprecedented in scope attempts are beginning to understand the essence of the general theory of systems, systems approach, systems analysis, etc. and above all, to develop the very concept of “system”. In this case, in contrast to centuries-old intuitive use, the main goal is methodological establishments, which should follow from the concept of “system”.

In 1959, a center for systems research, or more precisely, systems research, was created at the Case Institute of Technology (Cleveland Ohio), combining the departments of operations research, computer technology and automation. Before this scientific team, which was headed by the famous automation specialist prof. D. Ekman (who died tragically in a car accident in 1962), very broad and complex tasks were set. The center was supposed to begin developing qualitatively new methods of analysis, synthesis and study of complex or large systems, create a methodology for systems research, and promote the development of a general theory of large systems.

It is obvious that considerable efforts had to be made just to formulate a specific work program for the center. To this end, in the spring of 1960, the first symposium was convened under the motto “Systems - Research and Synthesis,” at which well-known scientists representing various disciplines put forward a number of problems in the field of systems research. The proceedings of this symposium were published in 1961.

In 1963, a second symposium took place under the motto “Views on General Systems Theory.”

One of the speakers at the second symposium was W. Churchman, who presented his axioms, reflecting his views on the general theory of systems.

Churchman's axiomatic approach to general systems theory seemed quite interesting to me and I decided to present it.

The author is convinced that everyone interested in the general theory of systems strives to consider all possible approaches to this direction, because otherwise this fascinating theoretical endeavor would give rise to only an insignificant closed circle of sterile scholastics.

The purpose of the proposed axioms is to postulate the following statements: 1) systems are complexes that can be synthesized and evaluated; 2) the adjective “general” in the expression “general theory of systems” refers both to the “theory” and to the “systems” themselves. The axioms are formulated as follows.

1. Systems are synthesized and designed. A necessary condition for synthesis is the ability to evaluate. Consequently, systems can be evaluated and proposed alternatives can be compared with the original one in terms of whether they are better or worse than that option. To express this idea more precisely, we can set an objective function to assess the quality of alternative systems on which a system of restrictions is imposed, which in turn represent certain goals that the designer seeks to achieve.

“Design” includes the practical implementation of the synthesized system, as well as changing the structure and parameters based on accumulated experience.

With this interpretation of systems, astronomical, mechanical, and similar systems are excluded from consideration. In this case, systems are synthesized to describe events and these systems meet the first axiom, since they can be synthesized and constructed.

2. Systems are synthesized in parts. Constructor divides the general synthesis problem into many particular problems, the solution of each of which determines an integral part of a larger system.

3. Components of systems are also systems. This means that each component can be assessed and developed in the above sense. This also means that each component can be considered as consisting of smaller components and that the process of such dismemberment is logically endless, although in practice the designer stops at his discretion at some level, considering the components corresponding to this level to be the “elementary blocks of the system.”

4. A system is closed if its estimate does not depend on the characteristics of its environment, which belongs to a certain class of environments. The meaning of this axiom comes down to the fact that the designer strives obtain some stable system that retains its properties even when environmental conditions change. If the designer believes that possible changes in the environment can worsen the functioning of the system, then during the development he will strive to synthesize a system that is resistant to these disturbances.

When it can be assumed that all possibilities of this kind have been sufficiently taken into account, the designer considers the created system to be closed. As a rule, he does not try to take into account all possible changes in the environment. If he took this point of view, then in this case the axiom is true:

5. A generalized system is a closed system that remains closed in all possible environments. In other words, the generalized system is characterized by absolute resistance to environmental changes.

The questions that arise in connection with generalized systems are reminiscent of well-known philosophical problems. First of all, how many elements are there in the class of generalized systems? If the answer to this question is “not a single one,” we come to philosophical anarchism. If the answer is “one,” we arrive at philosophical monism, corresponding, for example, to the teachings of the Stoics, Spinoza, Leibniz and some other philosophers. If the answer is “many,” then we are faced with philosophical pluralism. The question then arises whether the generalized system is good or evil. The author believes that system designers should clearly speak out in the sense that systems can be created both in the name of good and in the name of evil . There are no reasonable grounds for distinguishing between the tasks of building systems that meet scientific criteria of perfection and the tasks of creating systems that carry good and evil within them. When building systems, their creator is equally responsible for using the entire arsenal of scientific knowledge and technical means, as well as acceptable ethical criteria in building the system. However, concerns may arise. I believe that if a person ever manages to create some truly closed generalized system, then in the end it will not be good, but evil. The next two axioms express the beliefs of y. Churchman on these issues.

6. There is one and only one generalized system (monism).

7. This generalized system is optimal.

The most general task of system synthesis is approximation to some generalized system. In other words:

8. There is a general theory of systems, a methodology for searching for a generalized system. In conclusion:

9. Finding a generalized system is becoming increasingly difficult With over time and will never end (realism).

CONCLUSION

A systematic understanding of reality, a systematic approach to theoretical and practical activity is one of the principles of dialectics, just as the category “system” is one of the categories of dialectical materialism. Today, the concept of “system” and the principle of systematicity have begun to play an important role in human life. The fact is that the general progressive movement of science and knowledge occurs unevenly. Certain areas are always identified that are developing faster than others; situations arise that require a deeper and more detailed understanding, and, consequently, a special approach to the study of the new state of science. Therefore, the promotion and intensive development of individual aspects of the dialectical method, contributing to a deeper penetration into objective reality, is a completely natural phenomenon. The method of cognition and the results of cognition are interconnected and influence each other: the method of cognition contributes to a deeper insight into the essence of things and phenomena; in turn, the accumulated knowledge improves the method.

In accordance with the current practical interests of humanity, the cognitive meaning of principles and categories changes. A similar process is clearly observed when, under the influence of practical needs, there is an intensified development of systemic ideas.

The system principle currently acts as an element of the dialectical method as a system and performs its specific function in cognition along with other elements of the dialectical method.

Currently, the principle of consistency is a necessary methodological condition, a requirement of any research and practice. One of its fundamental characteristics is the concept of systematic existence, and thereby the unity of the most general laws of its development.

During the scientific and technological revolution, the problem of creating large systems and managing these systems became a central problem both in science itself and in the development of society. The entire national economy as a whole, its individual branches and units, industrial enterprises and research institutions, technical objects of the most varied nature, programs for the development and implementation of large projects, in short, countless diversity can and often simply must be considered as large systems.

The fact is that when studying large systems, it is necessary to analyze the enormous wealth of connections between elements and phenomena, subject them to comprehensive research, take into account the interaction of parts and the whole, the uncertainty of the behavior of the system, its connections and interaction with the environment. Systems of this class act, as a rule, in the form of complex human-machine systems, the synthesis and control of which requires the use of the entire arsenal of methods and tools from various branches of science and technology. Alas, this seemingly inexhaustible arsenal often turns out to be insufficient to solve systemic problems at the level required by the needs of modern society.

The problem is further complicated by the fact that, in contrast to traditional formulations of problems in the exact sciences, when studying large systems, extremely complex problems arise of scientific substantiation and formation of such criteria, as well as coordination of the criterion for the functioning of the entire system with the criteria for its individual parts, which in turn queues, as a rule, are quite complex systems.

LITERATURE

Knyazeva E.N. Complex systems and nonlinear dynamics in nature and society. // Questions of Philosophy, 1998, No. 4

Zavarzin G.A. Individualistic and systemic approach in biology // Questions of Philosophy, 1999, No. 4.

Philosophy: Textbook. A manual for university students. / V.F. Berkov, P.A. Vodopyanov, E.Z. Volchek et al.; under general ed. Yu.A. Kharina. Mn., 2000.

Uemov A.I. Systems approach and general systems theory. – M., 1978.

Sadovsky V.N. Foundations of the general theory of systems. M., 1974

Clear J. Systemology. Automation of solving system problems. M., 1990.

Systems research. Materials of the All-Union Symposium. M.D. Akhundov - M., 1971.