AW: [Fis] general theory of order and disorder

Dear Loet,

thank you for picking up the discussion. I understand you to mean that
“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.”

Please allow me to point out that the Set N (1,2,3,…) is indeed firmly
rooted in a theoretical specification of the system of reference.
That the Set N is specific is a point one may discuss long about, presumably
arriving at the definition of the word “specific”. If anything can be
general in science (non-specific, transcending each specific science), then
it is – so I believe – the system of measurements (that is, the set N).

Hope to have given you back the faith in the possible theoretical existence
of a general theory of order and disorder.

Karl

-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es]Im
Auftrag von Loet Leydesdorff
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. April 2004 13:04
An: fis@listas.unizar.es
Betreff: [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. 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
loet@leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet@leydesdorff.net> ;
http://www.leydesdorff.net <http://www.leydesdorff.net>
The Challenge of Scientometrics;
<http://www.upublish.com/books/leydesdorff-sci.htm> The Self-Organization
of the Knowledge-Based Society
<http://www.upublish.com/books/leydesdorff.htm>
Received on Thu Apr 29 16:40:44 2004