Re: [Fis] Economic Networks

Re: [Fis] Economic Networks

From: Viktoras Didziulis <[email protected]>
Date: Tue 10 May 2005 - 09:46:28 CEST

Is there a clear distinction between entropy and reallocation of resources
both from economical and ecological standpoints ?

Oxygen is produced by plants as waste. However it is consumed by animals as
a resource...
Mitochondria wastes lots of energy into their environment still it enables
superior systems (cell, organ, body) functioning, moving or sustaining
stable temperatural regime.

And, once we speak about money flows - taxes play a role of entropy (just
paid my taxes, so it really looks like entropy from internalist positions :)
). Still one has to admit that taxes are used by a superior system (country)
as a resource by redistributing it elsewhere to ensure functioning of its
parts that otherwise would have not influenced each other.

Isn't then entropy and (self)organisation like two sides of a coin ? What is
a loss for one system, may easily become a resource or direct gain from a
point of view of an embracing superior system. And so on - through many
scales and embedded systems in a fractal-like fashion...

Best wishes
Viktoras
 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: Stanley N. Salthe
Date: 2005 m. gegu�� 09 d. 13:00:12
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Economic Networks
 
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
&gt;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
.

IMSTP.gif
Received on Mon May 9 23:46:28 2005


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