A battery with a negative and positive side is very balanced in the sense that it has two different sides to it — DanielP

Well, let me join you in believing everything is about balance. Would it be fair then to say that there has to be imbalance as a counterweight to balance?

Which is prior, imbalance or balance? In my opinion imbalance precedes balance, providing the motive force that moves a system towards balance. Balance can't cause imbalance because the opposing forces are equal and no net change can occur.

You say a battery is balanced because it has a positive and negative but then what causes the electrons to flow and generate a current? It can't be balance because balance simply lacks an unopposed force to do anything. Ergo, there has to be an imbalance that results in a current.

Here's a question. [1]If this is not a balanced world, then why is a fundamental force of nature such as gravity always seem to be so constant and stable? [2] Have you experienced random zones of non-gravity on earth where the stable laws of nature break down? — DanielP

You asked two questions. I numbered them in the quote above. My replies are correspondingly numbered.
[1] I don't know.
[2] No I have not.

Are you trying to prove with these two answers that there is balance in nature as a guiding force? I would like to see the proof.

Something stably pervasive in existence does not mean it's a sign of balancedness.

You might as well try to prove that god exists with the fact that gravity is pervasive and consistent.

The Op is belief in balance. That you wish to define a system is your prerogative and I was willing to humour you. I don't believe it is in any way relevant to the discussion. Systems are human constructs maintained and serviced by humans and can not be used as an analogy to natural processes. Google 'system definition '

Banno seemed to think that a system could exist without balance, so I thought it might be a good idea to clear up this misunderstanding. You chose to defend the erroneous principle. Now Banno nor you, appear interested in clearing up the misunderstanding.

Google 'system definition ' — ovdtogt

Banno already took this approach, and I produced the one off Wikipedia

From Wikipedia on "system": A system is a group of interacting or interrelated entities that form a unified whole. — Metaphysician Undercover

The interaction between entities spoken of here can be described in terms of force, and the force of these interactions must be in some way balanced in order that we can speak of the group of interacting entities as a unified whole. The boundary of the system is a description of the limits of the unity, which is the parameter of balance, equilibrium. An interaction of entities outside this description, have not the described unity because they have not got the prescribed equilibrium of that system.

Systems are human constructs maintained and serviced by humans and can not be used as an analogy to natural processes. — ovdtogt

That's a bold statement. I think "systems theory" does exactly that, uses systems as an analogy to natural processes. Do you believe that systems theory has no premise to support what it is doing?

↪Metaphysician Undercover I can't see this argument as worth the time, Meta. Check it on google, or argue with ovdtogt who seems keen. — Banno

I too have lost interest in this line of thought.