Re: [Fis] Economic Networks

Re: [Fis] Economic Networks

From: Stanley N. Salthe <[email protected]>
Date: Mon 09 May 2005 - 23:24:39 CEST

As usua,l Aleks has presented us with a splendid analysis. I will comment
on a few points without really objecting to anything:

>Stanley N. Salthe wrote:
>> 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.
>
>I'd like to thank Stan for a very nice overview of different terms
>people use for the concept of the "final cause". I will go on a tangent
>here, apologies to Bob and Igor.
>
>It's the chicken-and-egg problem of what was there earlier, entropy or
>the final cause. I tend to view things from the epistemological
>standpoint, and I perceive Aristotelian causality as a construct.
>Because we're habituated to think in terms of the
>subject/object/how/why, we seek to answer these questions. Entropy is an
>approach to explaining the "why"-aspect of a phenomenon in a formal
>fashion.
>
>So while Stan sees entropy as an answer to "why", I see entropy as a
>particular model of "why". Structural attractors are also models of
>"why", for example.
    SS: Yes, exactly so. Note that finalities can be ranked across realms
{physical finality {chemical finality {biological finality {sociopolitical
finality}}}}.

By the way, "why" is not as precise as the actual
>definition of the final cause.
    SS: OK. Could we have this definition (I can't seem to recall it)?

>In all, I'm quite confident in the
>Aristotelian model, but I feel I can arbitrarily redefine what entropy is.
>
>All the four causes are equivalent. Trying to derive one of them
>(entropy) from another one (gravity), or vice versa (gravity from
>entropy) is a proven way of achieving splits between scientific and
>philosophical communities. Unless we transcend Aristotelian causality,
>let's not try to order the causes or eliminate them. It's been tried too
>many times, to no avail.
     SS: I have argued only for using the negotiations between all four of
them to explain events (by the way I would be willing to send a small pdf
showing my views on the four causes to whoever would like to see it). I
have just been involved in a discussion where I have advanced finality
alongside formality, but it sees to have been taken that I was denying the
importance of formality.

>However, there are examples of imbalance among the causes. For example,
>if you have a lot of energy (growth), it will disperse into a lot of
>entropy. If you have a lot of entropy, there is a lot of likelihood that
>some local gradient will get amplified and possibly self-organize. It's
>not that the model would "force" this to happen, it's just that our
>reality is such that all causes are needed.
     OK, Well put. I guess I am guilty of stressing finality in the
Second Law case because so many seem to wish to avoid seeing this aspect of
things.

I add a short reply to Igor:
I see that Igor tries to find a way to shield himself from the 'heat' of
univeral equilibration. Very adroit! BUT it has the consequence that he
joins the postmodern social construction of knowledge movement that most
scientists abhor. In this view, these constructions merely serve human
economic interests, and the amusement of philosophy.

STAN

>As for Soren's concern about the meaning: we're in-system, our models
>are intrinsically imperfect, but some models are more useful than no models
>at all, as the statistician Box used to say. You cannot liberate
>yourself from models, just as you cannot liberate your existence: give
>up reason and instinct, and you'll be ruled by your reflexes and
>sensations, give up reflexes and sensations, and if you've survived this
>far, you'll be consumed by those who haven't given up the reflexes and
>sensations, and your philosophy will perish along with you.
>
>--
>mag. Aleks Jakulin
>http://kt.ijs.si/aleks/
>Department of Knowledge Technologies,
>Jozef Stefan Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
>
>_______________________________________________
>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 Mon May 9 21:51:03 2005


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