INTRODUCTION
System (Greek systema – composed of parts, connected) – a set of elements that are in relationships and relationships with each other and form a certain integrity; unity. The concept of the system plays an important role in modern philosophy, science, technology and practice. Since the mid-20th century, intensive developments have been carried out in the field of the systems approach and the general theory of systems.
The concept of a system has a long history. Already in antiquity, the thesis was stated that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The Stoics interpreted the system as a world order. In the development of philosophy, starting with antiquity (Plato, Aristotle), great attention was also paid to the disclosure of specific features of the knowledge system. The consistency of knowledge emphasized Kont; This line was further developed by Schelling and Hegel.
In the 17th and 19th centuries, certain types of systems (geometric, mechanical systems, etc.) were investigated in various special sciences. Marxism formulated the philosophical and methodological foundations of the scientific knowledge of holistic developing systems. The dialectical materialist principle of systemism plays the most important role in this connection. In the middle of the 20th century, cybernetics and the cycle, associated with its scientific and technical disciplines, played an important role in understanding the mechanisms of the control system (large, complex systems). The concept of a system is organically linked with the concept of integrity, element, subsystem, relationships, relationships, structures, etc.
The system is characterized not only by the presence of links and relationships between its constituent elements (certain organization), but also by inseparable unity with the environment in which the system manifests its integrity. Any system can be considered as an element of a higher order system, while its elements can act as a lower order system. Hierarchy, multi-level characterize the structure, the morphology of the system and its behavior, functioning: certain levels of the system determine certain aspects of its behavior, and holistic functioning is the result of the interaction of all its parties, levels. Most systems are characterized by the presence of information transfer and control processes.
To the most complex types of system, whose behavior is subordinated to the achievement of a specific goal, and self-organizing systems, are able to change their structure in the course of their functioning. Moreover, many complex systems (living, social, etc.) are characterized by the existence of goals of different levels, often inconsistent with each other, cooperation and conflict between these goals, etc. In the most general terms, systems are divided into material and abstract (ideal).
The former, in turn, include a system of inorganic nature (physical, chemical, geological, and the like systems), living systems, a special class of material systems that forms social systems. Abstract systems are the product of human thinking, and they can also be divided into a number of types. Other bases of classification systems are also used.
Intensive development in the 20th century of systemic research methods and the wide use of these methods for solving practical problems of science and technology (for example, for analyzing various biological systems, systems of human influence on nature, for building a system for managing transport, space flights, various systems for organizing and managing production , systems for modeling global development, etc.), required the development of strict formal definitions of the concept of a system, which are constructed using the theory of set languages d, mathematical logic, cybernetics, etc. mutually complementing each other.
Systematic principle, the principle of dialectical materialist. Methodologies expressing philosophical aspects, a systematic approach and serving as the basis for studying the essence and general features of system knowledge, its gnoseological foundations and categorical-conceptual apparatus, the history of system ideas and system-centric methods of thinking, analysis of systemic laws of various areas of objective reality. In the real process of scientific knowledge of the specific scientific and philosophical directions, system knowledge complements each other, forming a system of knowledge in a systematic way. In the history of knowledge, the selection of system features of integral phenomena was associated with the study of the relations of part and whole, the laws of composition and structure, internal relations and interactions of elements, properties of integration, hierarchy, subordination.
However, this was a scattered knowledge of individual system forms that did not go beyond the consideration of the Instruction as a system. The assertion in science of the system as one of the universal principles of methodology began with the advent of ideas about the systemic structure of the world. The radical transformation of the old scientific picture of the world – the creation of the theory of social and historical development by K. Marx and F. Engels and the evolutionary theory of C. Darwin – introduced into scientific knowledge the materialist dialectics and macroscale ideas about the evolution and development of the objective world (including in particular theoretical and large systems – socio-economic forms and species of animals and plants). The method of knowledge was first theoretically substantiated in Marx’s theory of the dialectic of the natural-historical process, the development of socio-economic formations.
Marx introduced the epistemology and methodology of two series of qualitative certainty of phenomena. The second qualitative dimension (formational) assumes that the object is considered not only by itself, but also as a part (element) of the species-genus system, where its qualitative properties are explained indirectly – as typical manifestations of the properties of the macrosystem.
The concrete realization of this principle of the methodology of complex knowledge was found in Marx’s theory of labor (concrete and abstract), the product (its consumer value and cost), the natural and social qualities of things – goods, general and formational laws of population, etc.
The appearance in the second half of the 19-20 centuries. fundamental theories of the macro- and microworld led to the assertion of a multi-level and multi-dimensional systematic understanding of objective reality, to the development of adequate methodological principles of displayed complex objects. One of these principles is the method of knowledge as an integral part of modern scientific methodology.
The dialectical materialist methodology covers both procedural and object (static) aspects of reality, relying on a diverse arsenal of scientific methods. The way of knowledge is mainly focused on the study of stable forms, structural dependencies and relationships (part and whole, stable unity, the relation of subordination and hierarchy, etc.). However, in the practice of scientific research, he appears in a dialectical connection with the principle of development, organically complements the knowledge of the processes of change, formation and development.
The way of knowledge is one of the methodological foundations of the synthesis and integration of modern scientific knowledge. Differentiation of scientific knowledge generates a significant need for the systemic synthesis of knowledge, for overcoming the disciplinary narrowness generated by the subject or methodological specialization of knowledge.
On the other hand, the multiplication of multi-level and multi-order knowledge of the subject necessitates such a systemic synthesis, which expands the understanding of the subject of knowledge in the study of deeper foundations of being and a more systematic study of external interactions. The method of cognition serves as a methodological method of identifying the system specifics of theoretical-cognitive tools used in the natural sciences and engineering, as well as the development of heuristic methods of cognition and practical activity. Also important is the systematic synthesis of a variety of strength knowledge, which is a means of long-term planning, predicting the results of practical activity, modeling development options and their consequences, etc.
System analysis
1. In one sense – a set of methodological tools used to prepare and justify decisions on complex problems of a political, social, economic, scientific, technical nature.
2. In a broad sense, the term истемsystemic analysisФ is sometimes used as a synonym for the истемSystemic approachФ.
Attracting methods of system analysis to solve these problems is necessary first of all because in the decision-making process one has to make a choice in the conditions of uncertainty, which is caused by the presence of factors that cannot be quantified. Procedures and methods of system analysis are aimed at promoting alternative options and comparing options for one or another efficiency criteria.
Intensive expansion of the use of systems analysis is closely related to the spread of the program-target management method, in which a program is designed specifically for solving an important problem, an organization is formed (an institution or a network of institutions) and the necessary material resources are allocated. The first broad program of this kind was the GOELRO project, developed in 1920 on the basis of the instructions of V. I. Lenin.
In developed capitalist countries, and above all in the United States, the use of systems analysis in the field of private business began in the 1950s. At the same time, system analysis has increasingly penetrated the sphere of management of the state apparatus, primarily in solving problems related to the development of the armed forces and space exploration.
The basis of system analysis is considered a general theory of systems and a systems approach. System analysis, however, borrows from them only the most general initial representations and prerequisites; its methodological status is very unusual: on the one hand, system analysis has detailed methods and procedures drawn from modern science and created specifically for it, which puts it in line with other applied directions of modern methodology; on the other hand, in the framework of system analysis it is not strictly applied, it is based on intuition, qualitative judgments, evaluations and methods, however, the need to use them in each case is specifically justified. In system analysis are closely intertwined elements of science and practice.
The most important principles of systems analysis are as follows: the decision-making process must begin with the identification and clear formulation of goals; it is necessary to consider the whole problem as a whole, as a single system and identify all the consequences and interrelationships of each particular solution, it is necessary to identify and analyze possible alternative ways of achieving the goals; the goals of individual units should not conflict with the goals of the entire program.
The central procedure in system analysis is the construction of a generalized model (or models), reflecting all the factors and interrelations of the real situation that may appear in the process of implementing a decision. The resulting model is investigated in order to determine the proximity of the result of applying one or another of the alternative courses of action to the desired, comparative resource costs for each of the options, the degree of sensitivity of the model and various undesirable external influences. Systems analysis is based on a number of applied mathematical disciplines and methods that are widely used in modern management activities. The technical basis of the system analysis is modern computing machines and information systems.
The system approach, the direction of the methodology of special scientific knowledge and social practice, which is based on the study of objects as systems. The systems approach contributes to the adequate formulation of problems in specific sciences and the development of an effective strategy for studying them.
The systems approach is tentatively explored in disclosing the integrity of an object and ensuring its mechanisms, to identify the diverse types of communication of a complex object and to bring them into a single theoretical picture.
The tasks of adequate reproduction in the knowledge of complex social ideological objects for the first time in a scientific form were set by K. Marx and C. Darwin. Marx’s UKFax has served as a classic example of systems research as a whole and various spheres of public life, and the principles of studying an organic whole embodied in it (ascent from the abstract to the concrete, the unity of analysis and synthesis, logical and historical, the identification of different-quality connections in the object and their interaction, the synthesis of structural – functional and genetic ideas about the object, etc.) was the most important as a moment in the dialectical materialist methodology of scientific knowledge. The theory of biological evolution created by Darwin not only introduced the idea of development into natural science, but also approved the idea of the reality of the above-organized levels of the organization of life, the most important prerequisite for systemic thinking in biology.
In the 20th century, system knowledge is one of the leading places in scientific knowledge. The prerequisite for its penetration into science was, above all, the transition to a new type of scientific problems. In a number of areas of science, the problems of organization and functioning of complex objects begin to occupy a central place; knowledge begins to operate with systems whose boundaries and composition are far from obvious and require social research in each individual case.
In the second half of the 20th century, similar tasks arose in social practice; in social management, instead of the previously prevailing local, sectoral tasks and fundamentally leading role, large complex problems began to play, the requirements of close interconnection of economic, social, economic and other elements of social life (for example , global problems, problems of social and economic development of the countries of the regions, problems of creating modern industrial complexes, development of cities, Tille for Nature Conservation).
Changes in the type of practical tasks are accompanied by the emergence of general scientific and specially-scientific concepts, which are characterized by the use in one form or another of the basic ideas of the systems approach. Along with the spread of the principles of a systematic approach to new areas of scientific knowledge, and practically from the middle of the 20th century, the systematic development of these principles in methodological practice begins. Initially, methodological studies were grouped around the tasks of building a common theoretical system.
However, the development of research in this direction showed that the totality of problems of methodology systematically investigated the existence of a superior framework of problems of the general theory of systems. To refer to this broader area of methodological problems, the term Hierarchy Approach is used, which has become firmly established in scientific use since the 70s. The systems approach does not exist in the form of rigorous methodological concepts. It performs its heuristic functions, remaining a set of cognitive principles, the main meaning of which is the corresponding orientation of specific research.
This orientation is carried out in two ways.
Firstly, the substantive principles of a systematic approach allow the formation of insufficiently old, traditional subjects of study for the formulation and solution of new problems.
Secondly, the concept and principles of a systems approach significantly help to build new subjects of study, setting the structure and typological characteristics of these subjects and thus contributing to the formation of structural and research programs.
The significance of the critical functions of the new principles of knowledge was convincingly demonstrated by Marx, UkapitalF, which is not by chance the subtitle of the UKritics of Political Economy. It is precisely the consistent criticism of the principles of classical political economy that made it possible to reveal the narrowness and insufficiency of its initial conceptual basis and clear the way for building a new subject of this science, adequate to the tasks of studying the holistic functioning and development of political economy.
The solution of similar problems is an important precondition for the construction of a modern concept system. The prerequisite for the development of effective measures to protect the environment was consistent criticism of the approach to the development of production, ignoring the communication systems of society and nature.
The adoption of system principles in modern biology was accompanied by a critical analysis of the one-sidedness of the narrow evolutionary approach to living nature, which did not allow fixing the importance of the independent role of the factors of biological organization. Thus, this function of the systems approach is constructive and is associated primarily with the detection of the incompleteness of available subjects of study, their inconsistency with scientific tasks, as well as with the identification of deficiencies in various principles and methods of knowledge construction. The effectiveness of this work involved the consistent implementation of the principle of continuity in the development of knowledge systems.
The positive role of the systems approach can be summarized as follows.
First, the concept and principles of a systems approach reveal a wider cognitive reality as compared with that which was fixed 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 ).
Secondly, the system approach contains a new, compared to the previous, explanation scheme, which is based on the search for specific mechanisms for the integrity of an object and the identification of the technology of its connections.
Third, from the important for the systems approach the thesis on the variety of types of connections of objects, it follows that a complex object admits several dismemberments. In this case, the criterion for selecting the most appropriate dismemberment of the study of an object can be the extent to which the Unity of Analysis can be constructed (such as, for example, the product in Marx’s economic doctrine or biogeocenosis in ecology), allowing to fix the integrity of the property of the object, its structure and dynamics.
The breadth of the principles and basic concepts of a systems approach puts them in close connection with other methodological areas of modern science.
In terms of their cognitive attitudes, the systems approach has a lot in common with structuralism and structural-functional analyzes, with which it connects not only their operation with concepts of structure and function, but also an emphasis on the study of various connections of the object, however, the principles of the system approach have a broader and with more flexible content, they were not subjected to too rigid conceptualization and absolutization, as was the case with some lines in the development of these areas.
Without directly solving the philosophical problem, the systems approach is faced with the need for a philosophical interpretation of its provisions. The very history of the formation of a systems approach convincingly shows that its philosophical basis is the systemic principle that has received the most profound development in the works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism.
It is dialectical materialism that gives the most adequate philosophical and materialistic interpretation of the systems approach: methodologically it fertilizes them with its enrichment of its own content; at the same time, however, between the dialectic and the systems approach, the relationship of subordination is constantly maintained, as they represent different levels of methodology; The system approach acts as a concretization of the principles of dialectics applied to research, designed and constructed objects as systems.
1. The main part
1.1. The value of the principle of consistency in cognitive activity
Gnoseology and ontological schemes of science
The question “what is the world?” in consciousness precedes the question “in what way (by what method) can one obtain knowledge of the world?” and this, in turn, is set before a conscious need arises to ask: “What knowledge is possible about the world?” . Today the question is “what is the world?” to a large extent went to the competence of specifically – scientific disciplines. While we are talking about the natural world, the question of its structure is solved by the natural sciences.
If we understand the world as everything that really exists, then a description of the picture of the world requires the involvement of specific social and humanitarian disciplines. It is this separation of the sphere of competence of specific sciences that led to the fact that the sphere of philosophy proper was the theory of knowledge (gnoseology), which studies the general laws of thinking.
In fact, starting with Kant, philosophy abandoned the task of deriving the system of being by reasoning about the essence of the world and its foundations, replacing this task with the problem of studying knowledge itself, the very foundations of thinking about being, thereby declaring Uchistoi’s bankruptcy, the Marxist theory of knowledge based on the idea about human sensual activity, practice. The object is known in the framework of human subjective activity.
The knowledge of the starry sky became possible when the starry sky was used as a tool for determining the time, for navigation purposes. Cognizability of the world means that, in principle, any fragment of the world can be included in human activity, it can be understood. So, the ontological premise, which consists in recognizing the fundamental possibility of mastering any fragment of reality, lies at the basis of Marxist gnoseology.
The behavioral methodology of studying nervous activity comes from the idea that consciousness is determined by the physiological structure and does not form an independent phenomenon. The methodology of physics is based, in particular, on the principle of homogeneity and simplicity of the world, which guarantees the reproducibility of the phenomena under study in appropriate circumstances.
A researcher armed with such a methodology, in fact, cannot detect those properties of reality and those phenomena that do not fit into the ontological model corresponding to the accepted methodology. The presence of a methodological circle makes a very acute problem of the emergence of new knowledge. Fundamentally new knowledge can arise only as a result of breaking this circle, overcoming the frozen ontological model.
The absolutization of ontological models, the transformation of concrete scientific ideas into a congealed natural philosophy closes the path to the emergence of new knowledge. It is necessary to clearly distinguish the Uontological models accepted by science, forming the general synthesis of scientific knowledge, on which the methodology of science grows, from the ontological and epistemological problems of philosophy proper.
The dialectical understanding of the relationship between the form and essence of materialism, and therefore the relationship between ontology and gnoseology, constitutes the spirit of dialectical materialism.
1.2. The value of the principle of consistency in geology
System analysis of oil and gas accumulation conditions
The integration of studies of natural objects practiced in geology involves arrays of empirical data in its field of activity. Processing such inhomogeneous information by traditional means is a laborious task. Therefore, now increasingly used mathematical methods and computers. Experience shows that mathematics and computer allow to present geological information in a compressed form, contribute to improving the reliability and objectivity of the findings. Success is tangible when the tasks originally formulated in meaningful terms are then translated into the formal language of mathematics. In some situations, the effectiveness of research using a computer is below the expected level. A possible reason is the choice of homogeneous models where objects are heterogeneous, ignoring interconnections of geological objects.
In the practice of exploration for oil and gas, methods of image recognition are used.
These methods solve classification problems. The most commonly used method is the pattern recognition of images. The scheme for implementing the method consists of the following procedures: according to previous studies, two reference samples are formed, each corresponding to its own class, Productive ClassF and Unproductive ClassF. On reference objects, a complex of technical, physical, chemical, and other signs is measured. Which carry the information for the correct recognition of objects by their productivity.
Mathematical techniques are used to construct a decision rule (DR) – a linear function is admissible, its arguments are formalized and other features of objects. Discriminating properties of the DR in the beginning are checked on the material of training, then on the objects of the area not included in the training set. If the recognition is performed with a small error, then the DR is considered as a formalized analogue of the criterion of petroleum productivity, coal-bearing, outburst, etc.
This approach is acceptable if the researcher took into account the essential and general ones that control productivity when selecting the training objects and attributes. In this case, the transfer of the action of the DR on new objects reaches a positive effect. Often, the geological setting in the form of the arguments of the discriminant function is different outside the objects of study. This reduces the effectiveness of the DR.
Thus, neither the multidimensionality of research nor the mathematical methods of data processing on computers do not guarantee the accuracy of conclusions. The reasons for errors in this situation are the absolutization of the formal side of the classification procedures. This means that a mathematical solution of geological problems will be successful only with constant contact between the formal (and the construction of the DR) and the substantive (selection of objects and signs) aspects of the problem. Such contact is provided by the transition from the integration of research to the system level.
At present, the problems solved by science and practice have become more complicated. This applies to those branches of knowledge that investigate the problems of the genesis, development, and functioning of multi-component and complex objects. Traditional scientific methods aimed at dividing the original complex objects into parts with their subsequent study (apart from communication with each other) are ineffective in such cases.
The direction based on the concept of integrity is one of the most promising. From her point of view, you must first find what unites these objects – then we get the possibility of their deeper knowledge.
A group of objects, under certain conditions, which behaves as a holistic entity — the system, detects special properties that are not deducible from the properties of individual objects — the elements composing this system. The study of such properties (they are called emergent) makes it possible to obtain new, non-trivial information about the nature of the system being studied and its elements.
The information value of emergent properties is due to the fact that they reflect the relationship existing and arising between the elements of the system, the system and the environment, the elements and the environment as a result of certain interactions. Studies aimed at identifying and studying systems are called system-oriented.
The need for such an approach stems from the scientific concept, determinism – the most important principle of materialist dialectics.
The basis of modern understanding of determinism is the connection of everything, interpreted as a necessary connection, an objective connection of all parties, forces, trends in this area of phenomena. Ignoring the interconnectedness of various properties, the sides of natural objects inevitably leads to the emergence of an element of metaphysicality in natural science knowledge. V.I. Lenin wrote: In order to really know a subject, it is necessary to embrace, study all its sides, all connections and mediations. We will never achieve this completely, but the requirements of comprehensiveness will warn us against mistakes and death.
Any system description involves the implementation of procedures such as discrediting the system (identifying the backbone elements) and identifying the structure of the system (opening connections, relationships between elements of the system).
Before defining the concepts, the element and structure of the system, let us clarify: The system, being an idealization, can be isolated from things only by mental abstraction. So, on one factual material describing a given set of objects, arbitrarily many systems can be constructed. The differences between them are due to the fact that each system models one or another aspect of the studied set of objects that is important for the researcher. This ambiguity disappears if the researcher appropriately specifies the goal pursued by him.
The definiteness of a goal means the definiteness of the properties of an aggregate of objects — a system. These properties must be taken into account in the designed system model. Let us clarify the concept: an element is a limit of division within the framework of a given quality of a system; it does not consist of components and represents an elementary carrier of this quality that is undivided further. The element is indivisible not at all, but only within the framework of this quality.
The nature of the relationship of the elements follows from the definition: structure – the internal organization of the system, a specific way of interconnecting the elements forming it. That is, for the elements of the system, not any, but only a specific relationship – the backbone connection, is permissible. Relationships are chosen in such a way as to ensure the allocation of a system with a predetermined systemic quality, the nature of which is governed by the meaning of the problem facing the researcher.
The description of the system will be incomplete without characterizing the interaction of the system and the environment. Environment – that is, objects that, being external to the system, participate in the formation of its integrated properties indirectly through the individual elements of the system or system as a whole.
By setting systemic qualities, we specify the external factors involved in the system-environment dialogue.
We introduce the following notation: X is the set of input values (values of external factors affecting the system), C is the set of system states, Y is the set of output values (system parameters reacting to changes in external factors).
Most of the systems studied by natural scientists, dynamic, that is, developing in time. Therefore, it is more convenient to explore relationships on the time axis T = {t}.
The nature of the interaction between the system and the environment is reflected in the following relations between X, C and Y: pt: C tx X t -> Y t (system response) jt: C tx X t -> C t ‘(state transition function, t <t * <t ‘) The values of p, j, as well as the values of C and X, make it possible to accurately predict the output values of Y, that is, not only describe satisfactorily the functioning of the system, but also predict its behavior. Such systems are called rigidly deterministic. However, when studying natural objects, the researcher usually does not have the necessary information about the response of the system; moreover, information about the input effects and the state of the system may be incomplete. M. Mesorovich and Y. Takahari suggest calling such systems open. The uncertainty of open systems can be reduced to some extent, if we go from the exact values of the subsets P (X) and P (Y): P (X) -> P (Y).
The last expression is deciphered as follows: a certain class of input effects corresponds to well-defined class of input values. Further progress in predicting the behavior of such systems can be achieved by introducing additional structuring of P (X) and P (Y), that is, more strictly determine the nature of the relationship between the classes of input and output parameters. So, in many cases it is useful to refer to the idea of the probabilistic effect of the environment (X) and the system (C, Y).
Yu. G. Antonov proposes to distinguish two types of probabilistic interactions of the system and the environment: weak and strong. With a weak interaction, the system and the environment are relatively independent.
So, if the medium has a well-defined law of distribution of its states, p e, thus, in the system, a certain set of laws of probability distribution of its states can correspond to this law: {p s, p s … p s}. For this reason, the study of such systems does little to solve genetic problems.
A different picture is observed with a strong probabilistic interaction. The indicators of the organization of the environment and the system reach a maximum degree of consistency, and most importantly – the adequacy between the system and the environment is established at the level of the distribution laws p s and p e. The only law of probability distribution p s corresponds to a certain law p e. This circumstance predetermines a deeper knowledge of the nature of external factors, even if they are not directly observable. The elements that interact strongly with the same factors are closely interrelated, and this, in turn, is reflected in the structure of the system.
So, the existence of specific mechanisms (for example, the functions C t x X t -> Y t or the ratios p e -> p s) that fix in the structure and structure of the system are most characteristic of the characteristics of a constantly changing environment, turning system analysis into a highly efficient method for solving human problems.
The first purposeful application of system methods in geology was carried out by V.I. Vernadsky. He formulated the main methodological principles: Organization is the universal property of any natural bodies that are products and agents of natural processes.
The fundamental admissibility of any fragmentation of nature.
Isolation of natural bodies – systems is a logical procedure. For any logical procedure, the elements of schematization, idealization are characteristic, which ensures the transition from the original of a natural body, which has an infinite number of very different properties, to its model, which takes into account only some of them.
Models only have cognitive value when they are built with and in accordance with the goals and objectives arising in the process of scientific and practical human activity.
Within the framework of one methodology, two different approaches are implemented, one is constructive (the system is being constructed), the other is declarative (any complex object is treated as a system). What to see the difference we use the definition of the system A. I. Tsepova: S = def [R (m)] P, where S is the system symbol consisting of the elements m; R – the relationship between the elements of the system; P is some important property of the system that determines the choice (specification) of the system-forming relation R.
When designing a system at the beginning, based on some substantive considerations, the property (or set of properties) P defining the specifics of the system is set, then the class of relations R is found, which is consistent with this property, and finally the set of elements {m} is formed on which R. In this situation, the procedure for executing the system can be represented as a sequence P-> R-> S.
The choice of property P is largely determined by the specific goal that is pursued by a geologist during research and exploration, as well as the specifics of scientific and technical means used to achieve this goal. Changing the goal leads to a change, reformulation of the system concept.
Thus, the basis of the constructive approach lies in the principles that were set forth in the approach of V. I. Vernadsky. The systematic nature of natural bodies as products of natural processes (1), the admissibility of separating a multitude of geological systems on the same natural objects (2), the model nature of any system description (3), the focus of systemic fragmentation of nature (4). The declarative approach ignores all the principles listed above, except for principle (1) – which is absolutized. Any products of traditional fragmentation of nature (minerals, rocks, sedimentary basins, oil and gas provinces, etc.) are declared system objects, and only then are they searched for their emergent properties, as well as their structural characteristics. With this approach, the sequence of system analysis procedures looks different than when designing systems S-> P-> R (structuring task) with S-> R-> P (the task of identifying emergence).
Methods of system solving problems of petroleum geology.
The main procedures constitute an interconnected sequence of operations that are conveniently divided into four main stages:
I. Statement of the problem
It includes questions: finding out the conditions for the formation of geological objects, patterns of location of deposits, etc. Comprehending the problem from the point of view of the expected end results (formulation of the goal), as well as methodologically (the formation of the system concept P) allows the researcher to get an idea of the nature, amount of necessary geological information. Therefore, the next operation is the collection, systematization and storage of information about the studied geological objects.
II. Description stage
At this stage, one of the main procedures is the construction of geological systems. Depending on the task facing the researcher, a system of geological features or a system of geological bodies is formed. The stage includes three operations: selection of objects (features or bodies) mЄ M to be studied systematically; the choice of a backbone solution R; construction of systems S 1, S 2, …, S n whose elements are mЄ M.
The operations of this stage are easily formalized, therefore they are implemented by special computer programs.
III. Stage of explanation
The main task of this stage is a meaningful interpretation of the geological systems obtained in the previous step. The central place is given to finding common factors, which, in this case, are understood to be some specific features of the environment, causing quite definite interrelationship of the elements forming the system. The task is to identify and substantive interpretation of the factors that control the correlations of the elements included in one system. One of the main methods for solving this problem is a special one, that is, from a geological standpoint, the analysis of the composition of systems designed on the basis of fixed P and R is carried out.
Another way to detect and identify the desired common (for a given system) factors is the calculation and subsequent geological analysis of quantities (J), reflecting to a certain extent the direction and intensity of the action of system-forming factors. This way is realizable only within the framework of special methods for studying the structure of correlation matrices. The values of J can be plotted on a geological map, which makes it possible to correlate them with the tectonic setting, and to link them with the spread of certain sedimentary, volcanogenic and other rocks.
The next step of this stage is the construction of a genetic model and the verification of its adequacy with a real object. If on these objects the consequences arising from genetic constructions are not confirmed, but the procedures are amended: clarification of common factors; designing the system (changing the composition of the set M, changing the system-forming relationship R, calling another method of analyzing the correlation matrix; information support (checking actual material, expanding and refining the set of geological features); formulating the system concept P object).
IV. Forecast stage
The genetic model gives the researcher only a general idea of the formation of certain geological objects. In this regard, in order to turn the genetic model into a prediction tool, it is necessary to perform an action aimed at concretizing this retrospective construct, oil and gas content, etc. Criteria should contain clear and not ambiguous rules for the classification of the investigated body, area, region, etc. and a well-defined class of prospects they are formulated with the use of additional information – general theoretical provisions, specific information on the predicted territory.
1.3. The principle of consistency in the valuation activity
The problem of value and evaluation in general and technical ethics
The history of mutual relations of general aesthetics and technical aesthetics is marked by the same opposing aspirations as the relations of general aesthetics with other affiliated disciplines – musical aesthetics, aesthetics of verbal creativity, cinema art aesthetics, etc. General aesthetics often builds their conclusions, extrapolating certain philosophical principles to the sphere of artistic activity while ignoring the real diversity and diversity of art forms, and the theoretical understanding of each of them just as often neglects the conclusions of general aesthetics, based on the idea that or any other specific area of artistic creativity there is no need to know its general laws, that consideration of this type of art by the Large Plan, without referring the claim to the whole world sstva, though sufficient for true and deep comprehension of it.
Such attitudes cannot but have unfortunate consequences: representatives of general aesthetics not only reach the denial of the right to exist of private aesthetics, but do not stop at expelling from the realm of art those of its branches that do not fit into the abstractly designed model ), and representatives of private aesthetics often with complete disdain relate to all that goes beyond the direct analysis of the specific field of artistic activity that interests them That is a normal characteristic of the art. This is actively promoted by the bizarre concept of aesthetic activity, which serves to isolate certain areas of culture from the artistic activity, in particular, the design opposed to the visual arts and even architecture.
We proceed from the methodological premise that the relationship of philosophy, general aesthetics and private aesthetics, including technical aesthetics, should be based on a clear understanding of the dialectic of the general, particular and individual: philosophy considers human activity and culture in general; general aesthetics – the laws of artistic activity and artistic culture (we are now distracted from the fact that the content of aesthetics cannot be reduced to this); and private aesthetics are specific forms of the refraction of these laws in each specific field of art.
It follows that the relationship between general and technical aesthetics should be based on mutual interest and recognition of their mutual need: general aesthetics cannot ignore the information that technical aesthetics supplies to it in their theoretical generalizations, and this latter should proceed in its constructions from knowledge general laws of artistic mastery of the world, which reveals the first. Another thing is that with the current disarray of ideas about the essence of technical aesthetics art, one has to independently choose a general aesthetic position that one can reliably rely on, as well as general aesthetics – make a lot of effort not to get lost in that forest of design interpretations that, as if with by deliberate cunning, it was raised by the theorists.
