Re: [Fis] teleology of entropy

replying to Victoras:

>A Calculus of Purpose - an essay by Arthur D. Lander published in PLoS
>(Volume 2, Issue 6, June 2004) deals with some aspects of teleology in
>sciences with emphasis on complex systems in biology. Here is a link:
> http://www.plosbiology.org/plosonline/?request=get-document&doi=10
>1371/journal.pbio.0020164
     SS: I have just written a short text on this subject myself. Anyone
who wishs to see a copy can just request a pdf from me.

>If one tried to describe a purpose of such a (complex) system in terms of
>entropy (2nd law), then from the discussions on FIS it would seem that both
>statements below can be true at the same time:
>1) a purpose of a complex (e.g. organism, ecosystem, etc...) system is to
>release entropy
>2) a purpose of a complex system is to reduce entropy
>
>Would it be more correct to specify the action place:
>1) a purpose of a complex (e.g. organism, ecosystem, etc...) system is to
>release entropy in their environment
>2) a purpose of a complex system is to reduce entropy internaly
     SS: Yes this would be the correct reading in my view. The reason we
want to include the first statement (along with the now traditional second
statement) is, proximately, ecological, and utimately has to do with the
Second Law as a final cause of any activity, giving one, general,
explanation of WHY anything happens. Then, since 'why' questions are
seldom if ever constructed within modern science, this finality remains the
only one apparent in physico-chemical world.

>Then having hierarchical levels of systems (..., atom, molecule, ...,cell,
>tissue, organ, body,.., star, nebula, galaxy, etc...) in mind it would seem
>that entropy is sort of "pushed out" from smaller scales to larger, yet
>larger, etc (following a 'scale up' direction).
     SS: This scenario still, urgently, requires careful, mathematical (and
therefore excludes me!) treatment. In my view, equilibration proceeds at
different rates at different scales, so that, in a nested configuration of
systems, those at the smallest scale should be at any time nearer to
equilibrium than the larger scale ones. Of course, the very smallest scale
particles could never get to global equilibrium as long as they are
contained within larger scale systems. These would need to break down
first.

>Thus if the Universe is a
>closed system all what we call entropy should accumulate within. Otherwise -
>it should be pushed yet "somewhere up".
     SS: Since the Universe is expanding at accelerated rate, we don't
have, yet, to worry about canonical distributions, or about power law
fluctuations either. As long as expansion continues to accelerate,
equilibration could never catch up.

>Although Closed Universe has yet one
>more alternative to "fight" accumulation of entropy by accelerating
>expansion. Or vice versa - it is the entropy that forces the Universe to
>expand... It lets to draw a speculative conclusion, that an accelerated
>emergence of complexity may be a cause of Universe's accelerating expansion.
>May it be it so ?..
     SS: Whew! I thought I was a cutting edge speculator! I hope you will
try to draw this picture in more detail for us. I am a bit suscpicious of
this kind of thought since it is basically bottom->up, the basic action
being from the lower levels. On my view of scale hierarchies, this could
not work unless the upper (larger scale) levels were configured in such a
way as to invite the possibility. Even if the sequence: decoherence ->
strong force attractions -> gravitation -> organizing work is in some way
fundamental, remember that this is driven by the accelerated expansion of
the Big Bang, and so that that largest scale event is the global efficient
cause here.

>Some parallels (take it as a joke): Expansion acts like the only possible
>cooling mechanism for a closed computing system to prevent overheating of
>the main processor :) by increasing computing loads.
     SS: I don't see it as a joke at all. It is about time that computation
became more materialist in spirit. I have been calling for computation
energy use to be monitored closely, and to be programmable as well, so why
not expanding memories as a result of the computation well?

STAN
>
>Best regards
>Viktoras
>
>_______________________________________________
>fis mailing list
>fis@listas.unizar.es
>http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Sun Jun 20 21:23:06 2004