[Fis] general theory of order and disorder

Dear colleagues,

>From an evolutionary perspective order is a consequence of selection. Selection and variation belong together as two sides of the same coin. For example, one can consider the expected information content of a distribution as a measure for the variation, and the complement of the redundancy as an indicator for the selection. However, the epistemological status of the two concepts is different. While observation can be observed without further reflection, the specification of a redundancy and thus a selection operating requires a theoretical specification of the system of reference. This system of reference is always specific and therefore there can be no general theory of order and disorder. There are specific theories of communication and a mathematical theory of communication (as the formal abstraction of the specific theories of communication), but the one theory cannot be reduced to the other. In other words, these theories can be considered as specific windows on the complex dynamics or the chaos. The various theories are differently codified and therefore expected to specify different selection mechanisms.

At the formal level, one can note that if a variation occurs, other variants must have been deselected. Thus, a selection mechanism can be infered. The selection mechanism, however, has the status of a hypothesis. For example, in biology one operates with a notion of "natural selection" which allows for the specification of (non-observable) missing links. The operation of a market on commodities as another selection mechanism can be expected to be different from "natural" selection because markets are not natural, but culturally constructed. For example, selection mechanisms on the market may differ with institutional and constitutional frameworks among nation states.

Selections can be selected, for example, for stabilization. Selection operates at each moment in time, but stabilization operates over the time axis. Stabilizations can be selected for globalization. Thus, selections are recursive operations. The generate order from the chaos of variation, but this order is produced reflexively, that is, in terms of (scientific) discourses. Of course, the orderings refer to external realities and can be tested against them. This plays a role in the further codification of the scientific insights that are retained.

Is this a general theory of order? I would say "no" because it denies the next-order from either the formal theorizing (math) or the substantive theorizing. The latter is addressed as soon as one asks "what is communicated when the system communicates". For example, in classical physics the system communicates in terms of energy and momenta (because these two quantities have to be conserved). In addition to conservative systems, we entertain also notions of dissipitative systems. They provide us with yet other discourses. In summary, the order is a knowledge-based order.

Let me finally note how this relates to the issue of symmetry. If one observes a variation which provides the impression of symmetry, one can proceed by raising the question of the mechanism which produced the symmetry. This mechanism will have to be articulated in one scientific discourse or another. Symmetry is not an essential characteristic of a presumed "reality", but an attribute provided by the reconstructing discourse.

With kind regards,

Loet

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel: +31-20-525 6598; Fax: +31-20-525 3681
[email protected] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net
The Challenge of Scientometrics; The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society
 
Received on Thu Apr 29 14:26:36 2004