> In systems theory, a system provides one or more functions.
Ok I like starting with the definition. It sounds "purpose-based", but that's fine.
> We can use this approach to analyse both natural and artificial systems.
So long as both conform to "purpose".
>We can divide a system up into subsystems in order to analyse their function in isolation from the other subsystems.
Right, especially if the isolation can be tested against a variety of pre-conditions (especially shooting random at one link in the chain). I finished this course in coursera a while ago; it's really effective at this
>A system is simple if it is just an aggregation of the subsystems, without any of the subsystems interacting with each other
Let it be known that defining things cleans up discourse. Latent variables, for example, may "show up" only once two (previously isolated) factors get introduced in a certain context. These may be separate (and undetectable) from any other error.
>An emergent property is a function of a system that arises over time as a result of interaction between the subsystems, but is not a function of any subsystem in isolation.
Ok this sounds like latent variables which react in a chamber. This can run into graph theory isomorphism problems.
>but the overall system may fail to meet the requirements if the interaction between the subsystems puts the overall system outside of the requirements.
yes. I have some historical engineering examples I can provide here but I'll hold off. Something to consider: "why are there requirements for "function"" ? (Basically a Ship of Theseus problem involving "function of sailworthy").
> In ages gone by if we saw something in the natural world that looked too ordered to be random we would either conclude that it was by design of some intelligent being, either human or divine.
Think about how many people concluded "We don't know yet, but don't assign it to purposeful order". That's what I would've said in those ages gone.
>They do not require a designer, only each other and time.
and purposeful function of each subcomponent.
>the reproduction process is still not a result of the interactions between vesicles and is therefore not complex.
if this level of diagram were to include "sexual selection", would that change your answer? Additionally, if 2 vesicles become 1 "mega" vesicle, that could be the same thing.
>I would therefore conclude that the rotational motion is an emergent property that is self-organised by the interaction between water molecules when acting under an external force.
Water molecules exert gravitational forces on one another. I don't think you can label it as an "external force".
> Are there at least some methods you think are helpful or conclusions you think are justifiable? For example how did you reach this conclusion?
As for methods, ecodynamics at Washington State provide ways to take a look at this. One thing I'd advocate more for these models (compared to economic ones) is that they can take data of non-humans (vegetables, sheep, cows, whatever). Humans measuring and assessing cattle is a more universal (IMO) set of criteria then people measuring and assessing themselves. Because whether you re-create this type of ecological context, cows are still cows.
So a group of people can rotate through crops and living spaces without insisting that it be a trade network. You might say that a trade network would emerge. But I'd claim how these anthropological and ecological models reveal how division of labor / specialization, or other commercial-first roles aren't elevated more than any other relationship (political, gifts, families, altruistic social, war).
>For example how did you reach this conclusion?
I keep reading books about how money is created. Most of the trade history I was taught in high school (that I remember) acts as if money is some sort of grassroots movement, when in fact (I can provide examples) it's based from the State (King).
Thus the trade history is impacted by a King's influence. There might be nuggets of knowledge by which reassembling of trade networks happened "anyway", giving more credit to commoners' decisions, and that's what I'd say is the difference between "financial" and "economic" decisions.
"The problem" for me stems from the fact that more financial records (ledgers) were kept, giving an impartial sense of power. Thus any debt holder or creditor who makes records has an unfairly louder "voice". This "voice" drowns out other possible ingenuity from someone non-involved with this.