Re: [Fis] Economic Networks

Thank you Stan for the comments,

they provoked some more comments from my point of view focusing more to the
other side of the "coin" though...

SS:
>Entropy production finds its
>meaning in Universal disequilibrium, the result of accelerated expansion of
>the Universe, while self-organization finds its meaning only locally in the
>drive for self-realization.

V:
isn't the Universe a self-organizing "global system" sustaining its
internals (with us amidst all the scales and levels of systems) intact by
means of expansion "in order" to minimise heating effects of Entropy
production. It cools down to keep us alive and expansion of the Universe is
a sign of it's "sustainability" and "global long-range correlations". This
is local position from global system's (Universe's) point of view.
Self-organization plays also a global role here.

If we look at the history, then we also see that economies that survive
longest periods of time and expand are not the most aggressive ones. The
most aggressive empires with their bulky "world domination" plans - all are
dead. Interestingly some of them were destroyed from inside - the subsystems
enforced to serve to an empire one bright day refused to do so. So survivors
are the most relatively sustainable ones - where culture, knowledge plays a
major role, and not weaponry and number of divisions. What was the Soviet
Union 50 years ago and where is it now ? What about Maya, Inka, Roman Empire
 Hitler, Stalin, Alexander, Chingiz Chan ? All they were too "hot"- so they
burned themselves from inside, either were exterminated by a supersystem. At
certain levels of produced entropy system can no longer sustain its internal
structure, and self-destruction starts. So whats is left - those whose
internal Entropy production levels are lower - i.e. where heat due to an
entropy production is higher than T1 but lower than T2. Natural selection
and limited heat-resistance of bonds among system parts rules out all that
are lower than T1 and higher then T2. Its like "entropic niche" of a system.
So it does not look like entropy maximisation, rather it is an optimization
task. If we think about apoptosis and destruction of non-sustainable
cancerous cells - there are some parallels with examples from above
economies indeed.

By the way, number of wars decreases... Sweeden for example hasn't had major
wars for some 200 years (it did not participate in WW2) and probably is
among the most sustainable and the most developed countries in Europe. It is
probably most educated too. It is a nice example where absence of wars plays
a major role in evolution of sustainable and prospering economy, science and
technology as well as high prices and the most possibly highest taxes.

Best wishes
Viktoras

 
-------Original Message-------
 
From: Stanley N. Salthe
Date: 2005 m. gegu�� 16 d. 07:56:57
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Economic Networks
 
Replying to Viktoras, then to Igor, and then to Søren
 
First to Viktoras, who said:
 
> Is there a clear distinction between entropy and reallocation of
>resources both from economical and ecological standpoints?
SS: I have argued that in non-perfect Second Law dissipation, waste
products of better energy quality than heat should also be considered to be
'entropic'. They certainly function to reallocate resources, as other
systems can (and do) move in and utilize them.
 
>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.
SS: This kind of thing is just the point of my view above. I believe
that ecosystems (and economic systems) are basically formed by primary
energy gradients being fragmented by initial poor Second Law dissipators,
to be distributed by increasingly better Second Law dissipators in a tree
of consumption ending with heat energy being produced from the final
dissipators.
 
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-------
SS: Yes, I agree with Viktoras here. I like to distinguish, however,
between the 'purposes' of the two sides. Entropy production finds its
meaning in Universal disequilibrium, the result of accelerated expansion of
the Universe, while self-organization finds its meaning only locally in the
drive for self-realization.