Bob said:
...
>[Stan and I] disagree as to whether or not the
>second law is the final cause of all organization. Stan feels it is. I
>don't.
SS: I would like to elaborate on this since that could bring in
something of importance to economic networks. I champion full use of all
the Aristotelian causal categories: material / formal, and efficient /
final. We could see these as: what something happens to / what happens to
it, and, when it happens / why it happens. All four are involved in any
event whatever. Traditionally science has exluded final cause -- why
something occurs. However, it would be allowed by most folks that in the
economic framework finality would have a place, since humans are allowed to
have agency. I insist on bringing in final cause to any scientific inquiry
of any matter whatever. Examples relative to science would be: classical
Aristotelian TELOS, which can be seen in the guidance of embryonic
development by genetic information; development occurs in order to
materialize a species' information. In mathematical models we have the
pull on dynamics of STRUCTURAL ATTRACTORS; e.g., in Darwinian discourse
reproduction occurs in populations in order to maximize fitness. In
dynamical systems we have the governance of dynamics by BOUNDARY
CONDITIONS; dynamical processes occur at all only because there are in
place values for CONSTANTS in the governing equations, which 'call for' the
results. Of more direct implication in my dialog with Bob is the
Aristotelian idea that a final cause is that FOR WHICH something occurs.
Given that (because of its accelerated expansion) the Universe is very far
from thermodynamic equilibrium, all events tend to contribute to Universal
equilibration, and locally this goes by way of entropy prduction. Nothing
happens irreversibly without producing entropy, and in usual cases more of
available energy goes into entropy than into exergy. Because of this
generally poor energy efficiency, it is legitimate to say that whatever
occurs does so IN ORDER TO PRODUCE ENTROPY. The construction of anything,
as in self-organization, involves this as well. Self-organization occurs
so that entropy may be produced. Now, this is not reductionist because I
fully acknowledge other finalities, which can be accounted for by using a
specification hierarchy, such as: {physical process {chemical interaction
{biological tendency {sociological intent}}}}. Thus, ranking final causes,
we have as a very current example: {entropy production {seeking lowest free
energy {male agression {warfare}}}}.
>My take is that the creation of entropy is "accidental" to all
real
>processes, not always causative.
SS: Thus Bob eschews final causality.
>In particular, I see in autocatalysis a
>"self-entailing" aspect that is not derivative of any associated
gradient
>in energy (or exergy, to be more exact.)
SS: So autocatalysis can occur without any energy input?
>Hence, my opinion is that nature
>is not all scripted by the second law.
SS: Note that I do not say everything is scripted by the Second Law; I
say that it is involved in everything irreversible.
>There is an opposing tendency,
>attributable mostly to the action of autocatalysis (and the partial
>autonomy thereof) that acts in almost dialectical fashion against entropy.
SS: My take is that this works WITH the Second Law. Indeed, since all
gradients are unstable to metastable, they all must be dissipated.
Autocatalysis, and any building-up tendency, is simply parasitic upon this
necessary dissipation.
>The metaphor of the dialectic is important, because the opposing
>tendencies are actually mutually obligate at a larger scale. But I won't
>bore anyone further with that now.
SS: I can accept "mutually obligate". Dissipation (as
a material
cause)makes autocatalysis possible; autocatalysis furthers the aim of
dissipation (as a final cause).
>> >The issue of loss of socioeconomic diversity is closely related to
that
>> >of scale of dissipative processes: as the number of
industrialized
>> >economies increases (maximum power efficiency increases)
>>
>> SS: "efficiency"? What is this efficiency?
>
>This is efficiency in the first law sense of the word, i.e., use of power.
>It is to be distinguished from "efficiency" in its second law
sense of the
>word, which is extent of utilization. I.e., a given amount of energy is
>available to a system. The degree to which that energy is utilized is its
>efficiency in the second-law sense of the word.
SS: OK. So increasing power results in lowered rnergy efficiency, and
so more kinds of waste products are produced, so we can easily calculate
First Law conservation. So Bob's use of "efficiency" above is really
anti-energy efficiency.
>The two senses are not entirely compatible. To utilize power at a high
>rate requires a system to export lots of unutilized energy. Conversely,
>maximal utilization can be approximated only at very low rates, as Odum
>and Pinkerton explained in their 1955 article (Am. Sci. 43: 331-343.) When
>resources are very abundant, efficiency in the first law sense seems more
>significant, whilst when there are very rare, second law efficiency
>becomes the decisive factor. Ascendency was scripted to bridge the
>transition from one to the other. When resources are abundant, first law
>efficiency prevails and maximal power (in the sense of Alfred Lotka, as
>exhibited by an increasing TST) is a decisive advantage. As they become
>rare, increasing ascendency is maintained by second law efficiencies
>inherent in a high AMI.
SS: Sounds good to me.
STAN
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu May 5 21:31:15 2005
