Re: [Fis] Economic Networks

Re: [Fis] Economic Networks

From: Igor Rojdestvenski <[email protected]>
Date: Thu 05 May 2005 - 22:13:38 CEST

Dear all,

As a physicist I doubt very much that autocatalysis does not obey the Second
Law. Typically when a natural system seems to violate the Second Law it
finaly turns out that the interpretation was faulty. Lots of mystically
inclined people always produce such interpretations and, on the basis of
them, suggest new Perpetuum Mobile of the second type. In fact, people fail
to understand that to suggest that the second law is faulty for a certain
system is the same as to suggest a Perpetuum Mobile based on this system

Igor Rojdestvenski

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stanley N. Salthe" <ssalthe@binghamton.edu>
To: <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Economic Networks

> 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

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu May 5 22:13:52 2005


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 on Wed 15 Jun 2005 - 12:06:44 CEST