Dear Victoras and Stan
I do not think it is consistent to discuss meaning of operations in a
universe within a physicalistic paradigm. I admit that a thermodynamic
paradigm is more advanced that a mechanistic one encompassing the basic
evolutionary mechanisms and if you add a Wienerian cybernetic information
theory and the inspiration from Schr�dinger, then you now have scientific
concepts that can say something about systems building up structures and
evaluate if they become more complex.
But this objectivistic scientific philosophical framework - and I am tempted
to still call it physicalistic - does not have any theory of meaning, only
of truth. Bateson developed a theory of ecological cybernetic mind as
recursive loops folded into each other carrying differences, but it never
said anything about qualia, free will and consciousness as a first person
experience. I do not know if you want to use fraises like: "what is the
meaning of the computers work seen from the computer?"
My point is that you need to define a concept of meaning within your
paradigm's ontology (including both a world view and a conception of the
human) and relate your concepts of truth and meaning to that, to be able to
answer the questions you ask. This is why I found it necessary to go from a
cybernetic informational world view to a Peircean semiotic one like Stan
-although I think we have different versions. Your question cannot be
answered on the thermodynamic level.
Even on the semiotic it is very difficult. Is the goal of the universe or
rather the Semios to evolve as much semiotic freedom as possible? Is it the
goal of living systems? Is free will the highest gift in the universe?
You can then easily add a spiritual dimension to your pan semiotic theory
and include the idea of the mystical union. If so is the meaning of life
then to unify mentally with the universe and its cause in a mystical union
maybe on a transcendental level? If yes to these questions, then: why??
Even if the answer is: To obtain the highest love and happiness and wise
conduct, you can ask again: Though love and happiness they feel nice and
make us live in a better way together you can still ask why? To what
purpose?
You can add heaven and hell or reincarnation with thousands of life cycles
in learning to be good, wise and loving, and Buddha nature or a personal or
triune God - and the question still remains unanswered. What is the purpose
and meaning of God and what he does with us?? The answer is - even in the
Bible - that only he/she knows.
I am afraid that the condition of being inside a system does not allow us to
answer questions about its purpose and meaning.
I will be grateful if anyone can provide a more satisfactory answer.
Søren
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es] P�
vegne af Stanley N. Salthe
Sendt: 7. maj 2005 18:46
Til: fis@listas.unizar.es
Emne: Re: [Fis] Economic Networks
Victor wrote:
>some questions to meditate on :-)
>
>whatever occurs there are two sorts of "things" always going on:
>A) production of entropy - 2nd law,
>B) production of structure - (self)organization (???law).
>
>If we assume that whatever occurs, it does so in order to produce entropy
(A)
> then (self)organization (B) is "just" a side-effect of entropy
production..
SS: From the Universe's point of view that is exactly so. It can be
justifed arithmetically by noting that effective (irreversible) works
always lose half or more of the available energy tapped for them.
>Otherwise whatever occurs, it does so in order to produce structure (B),
then
>entropy (A) is "just" a side-effect of (self)organization...
SS: This is the point of view of a local system. It cannot be justified
arithmetically. As well, the Second Law, as a global tendency was in
effect prior to any local system, all of which must serve it in order to
develop and maintain themselves.
>Which one of the two statements above is true ?
SS: Both are true from different perspectives. As a natural philsopher
interested in the Unity of Nature program, I take the Universe's point of
view. (As well, I tend to favor the seeming underdog!)
>Is it so that when I write the message (like this particular one) I am
>driven by the final reason to produce entropy by increased usage of
>electricity, making keyboard and processor of my PC a bit warmer and
heating
>some cables on the way to people I communicate with, in order to force
>somebody's brain to burn more glucose in order to release more warm into
>environment thus increasing global warming and adding some more heat into
>the expanding Universe in order to drive it's state a bit further from
>thermodynamic equilibrium then it is now ?
SS: VERY well put!
>Is the meaning of the message
>encoded within grammatical language structures just a waste-product of the
>entropy production chain ? Whichever - entropy or (self)organization is
the
>purpose and the driving force of whatever occurs ?
SS: As I said, both. We can parse this nicely by using a
specification hierarchy of final causes in the form of {physical process
{chemical interaction {biological configuration {sociopolitical intent}}}}.
Thus, {entropy production {lowering free energy {muscle movement
{writing}}}}. In the Unity of the Sciences we want to see the whole
picture. As it was put by the systems scientist Hector Sabelli, {primary
{superior}}. If you like the suprior, take it.
>The same would be valid for any complex structure or system, would it be
>genetic code, living organism, ecosystem, or architecture, cities,
countries
> creations of science or art. In every process of (self)organization there
>are always two results produced - structure and waste (entropy). Content
of
>energy is higher in wastes while content of information is higher in
>structures. Whichever - energy or information - is more important in this
>context ?
SS: Take your pick. As an example where the Universal point of view
seems to emerge more cogently, perhaps, we can examine the following:
{entropy production {animal agression {human warfare}}}. Universally we
see all scripted cultures denouncing warfare, but all engaging in it as
much as possible nevertheless. In that situation, we cannot find an
informational content explanation/justification (stimulating the economy?
-- why do that? S o our population can grow? Why do that?, etc.), and so
it is easy to drop down to a lower integrative level. Well, here animal
aggression does not really well explain modern warfare, although this is
entrained by it in the young males usually assigned to carry out the
destruction. However, we can easily see that entropy production for the
Universe is a perfect explanation for it. We cannot resist warfare because
we cannot resist the most prominent law of Nature.
>So is the ENTROPY the final cause of (self)organization, or is it an
>inevitable side-effect ?
SS: It is one (the most general or primary) final cause of it. If you
are interested in other causes, be my guest -- efficient, material, formal
causes are all waiting for you to examine them. I am interesting in
bringing final cause back into the fold of thinking.
>Do we build our architecture (and overall
>civilization) in order to produce waste and release more energy into our
>environment (***thus driving our civilization towards a sure death), or in
>order to build something that we could look at, walk through or live in ?
SS: As long as we engage in war while denouncing it at the same time,
I am entitled to say that we build in order to burn so that we may rebuild
again -- endlessly, with the ultimate result (after our superstructures lie
in the sand like the pyramids) of having satisfactorily contributed to
Universal equilibration.
>Are we having environmental problems because of all the waste (heat,
>pollution released into our environment) we produce, or should we look at
>production of all that waste as the driving force and the final reason of
>emergence of our human civilization and all economies ?
SS: As long as we pursue the fastest energy flowthrough in producing
whatever we produce, we are first contributing to Universal equilibration,
and building whatever in order to accomplish that. For example the American
love of heavy, fast cars makes no sense unless seen in this light. Here we
have: {entropy production {nervous system thrill {car racing}}}.
>If the Entropy is the final reason, then it also means that the final
reason
>of our civilization is its final death (refer to ***)...
SS: One must conclude this when looking at, say, American history.
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
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Sat May 7 18:53:08 2005
