For the record, Pedro, replying here to Aleks, confuses which hierarchy
Aleks is referring to. This is quite commonly done -- so much so that I
think it worthwhile to give some pointers.
Aleks is here using the scale hierarchy: [Biggest scale [intermediate
[smallest scale]]], interpreted as [higher level [lower level]]. These
refer to wholes and parts.
Pedro is using (what I call) the specification hierarchy: {most general
{more specific {most particular}}}, interpreted as {lower level {higher
level}}. These are sets and subsets.
(Both hierarchies branch from left to right.)
Aleks' statement
>> one avoids the recursive self-referential loop (What is A to A? What
is the
>> feeling of feeling cold? What is the meaning of meaning?)
works only in the scale hierarchy, where each level has a completely
different lexicon, as in [cell descriptors [molecular descriptors
[fundamental particle descriptors]]], and where the dynamics at the
different levels differ by at least order of magnitude.
STAN
>Aleks:
> > I was merely trying to concoct a physicalist theory of meaning in
terms
> > of Stan's hierarchies: the higher level is the 'meaning' of the
lower
> > level, and the lower level is the 'fact' to a higher level.
>Pedro:
>The description of the set in terms of its subsets will always have an
>arbitrary touch in it, if there are several "layers" of subsets.
Specifically
>so, if the segmentation of the set into subsets happens several times
>concurrently. Given some properties of a subset, its included subsets have
>also some predictable properties. The properties of subsets of a subset
>depend heavily on the properties of the mother subset.
>Aleks:
> > This way one
> > avoids the recursive self-referential loop (What is A to A? What is
the
> > feeling of feeling cold? What is the meaning of meaning?),
>Pedro:
>There are two languages which describe a set: one details the proportions
of
>subsets among each other, the other details the properties of individuals.
______________________
Replying to Viktoras:
> 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.
SS: I am using 'global' to refer not only to the 'whole thing', but
also to any intensive property. 'Local', then, is a portion, as well as
any extensive properties. I agree that the accelerated expansion of the
whole Universe is the source, and support, for all material objects,
including self-organizing systems. Furthermore, self-organization and
growth are also afforded by the accelerated expansion. Without that
expansion they could not occur. The resulting disequilibrium globally then
calls for entropy production locally, and this is realized as a tax on
work, including the work of self-organization.
>Self-organization plays also a global role here.
SS: Well, we know so little about the Universe as a self-organizing
system, I tend to see it thermodynamically rather as the context of local
self-organizations. I don't disagree in principle, but I find that the
Universe is more useful in my thinking as a thermodynamically global
system.
>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.
SS: I don't think I implied that the hottest economies were the
longest lasting. They are the ones that subvert and destroy their
neighboring ones, and ultmately themselves.
>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.
SS: Yes. That is why living systems in general are successful.
Because of the filter of reproduction, they maximize work rate (and
therefore entropy production) only to the degree necessary to outcompete
their neighbors (those that overdo this fail to reproduce adequately). In
order to get the most energy, to heal injuries as fast as possible, and to
outreproduce their neighbors, they maximize the dissipation of external
energy sources -- to a limit that stops short of burning themselves.
>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.
SS: I take it as maximization because of the necessary competition
with others. Those who dissipate a gradient fastest get most of it.
>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... Sweden 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.
SS: Well, I wonder to what degree Sweden has lasted so well because it
has been implicitly supported by some of the hot systems (in the 'West').
The Soviet Union would undoubtedy have taken it if that were not opposed by
the hottest economy in the world. But, I agree that our goal for
'sustainability' should be to get away from the Global Capitalist System,
and to drop the nonsense about the necessity for 'economic growth'.
_______________
Replying to Bob -
>> BU: My take is that the creation of entropy is "accidental"
to all real
>> processes, not always causative.
>> SS: Thus Bob eschews final causality.
>
>Stan, I most assuredly do not eschew final cause. Rather, I wish to posit
>final cause in the domain of some agency. I don't see agency per-se in the
>action of the second law. The second law is what happens in the absence of
>agency.
SS: Then you are not willing to generalize agency, which is what I do,
as in {physical agency {biological agency {human agency}}}. Or, {teleomaty
{teleonomy {teleology}}}. My point of view is that any attribute can be
generalized. And, if you need a distinct agent, the Universe is a distinct
entity in cosmology discourse.
>>BU: 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?
>
>Certainly, autocatalysis doesn't occur in the absence of energy input, but
>the input doesn't drive the autocatalysis in the same determinate way that
>is common among non-living systems.
SS: This sounds perilously like you are thinking that biological
systems can transcend their physical ground! Autocatalytic systems merely
have contraints added to the ones working in all physical systems.
>To be more specific, autonomous
>systems engendered by one energy gradient are capable of switching to
>other gradients. We see that all the time in ecology and economics. The
>final cause is not to be found in the energy gradient, but rather in the
>"centripetal" behavior that is a hallmark of autocatalytic
behavior (and
>life) itself.
SS: Two points: (1) I don't find final cause in energy gradients, but
in the need for Universal equilibration. (2) I don't deny finality to the
autocatalytic system. The setup is {entropy production {autocatalysis}}.
The latter is particular way to accomplish the former, which contextualizes
it.
>>BU: 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.
>
>I wouldn't agree. I can conceive of gradients existing for indeterminate
>time without being dissipated. That's why we had fossil fuels. Human
>society, which arose out of the solar gradient, for reasons vested in its
>own autocatalytic economy, sought out and switched to fossil fuels to
>serve those ends. Fossil fuels didn't force themselves upon humans, nor
>did they beckon to humans simply to be dissipated (some current wasteful
>human activities notwithstanding. :)
SS: First, my point about gradient instability is that it is
perfectly general. No energy gradient can survive forever. They are
CONSTITUTIONALLY destined, in this disequilibrated Universe, for
dissipation. So, e.g., in their formal representations there must be a
factor diminishing them, whose value may be large (as, say, in a coconut)
or very small (as in an oil field prior to industrialization). Who would
have guessed that the alloy of lead used 500 years ago in pipe organs would
now begin to corrode? All gradients will eventually dissipate, awaiting
only encounter with a system for which they become 'available'.
Next, we must consider scale here. People don't use oil, industrial
culture's do. At the timescale of entities the size of industrial cultures
(where a coup d'oeul of ours is comparable to maybe a year), the oil has
not been waiting very long since being formed for its dissipation. On this
head, note that vegetation had to wait a long time before animals developed
the ability to to consume it, with the evolution of bacterial gut flora.
(Indeed, it was prior to this that the oil, and coal, got a chance to be
deposited.) The oil was dissipated as soon as it could be. Otherwise one
needs to show an example where some economic possibility arose and was
deliberately left unexplored.
Finally, the more determinate evolution is, the more likely one can predict
that, say, industrialization will arise to consume fossil fuels.
Darwinians do not believe in determinacy in evolution, but there are many
examples of parallel and convergent evolution of different biological
lineages, as well as convergences of whole biotas. These are not
understood today partly because Darwinians do not recognize these
phenomena, and they rule the evolution roost by disbursing the purse. So,
taking a radical position, I will propose that the evolution (really
development) of ANY planet of the same type as ours will go through roughly
the same stages as ours has, and in that scenario the energy in fossil
fuels will be consumed at a particular stage.
________________
Replying to Pedro, who said:
>Economy is not a domain of energies and entropies but of information and
>knowledge --entirely within the symbolic realm.
SS: This opinion on economy is similar to the one evidently behind the
shift toward the entirely idealistic world of instant computer trading in
the stock markets -- a trend which, in my opinion, will destroy our economy
by overheating aspects of it.
>Only one species among 10
>millions on Earth (over 40 or 50 millions?) has developed such
>sumperimposed world of "economy". Why? Just for the same
entropy/energy
>"reasons" applying to any happenstance? One needs a robust
language,
>artificial ecosystems, a counting system, a socialization network,
>elementary institutions, etc., in order than one can progressively assist
>to the emergence of universal equivalents, currencies, values, markets,
>"economic networks", cultures, etc.
SS: Every species has its own inventions. Each has its own economy,
as Aleks points out. Our characteristic invention was language &
associated mentality. None of these inventions allows escape from the
stringencies of the material world (which I freely admit is both boring and
terrifying -- I prefer poetry and music myself). If we do not locate our
economy in the material world, we will exclude understanding of
'externalities' at our peril. Furthermore, I think that if one wishes to
argue for the reality in evolution of de novo appearances that have no
precursors, it is incumbent upon that person to first argue for de novo
appearance in general. This would be to argue for miracles, I'm afraid.
Classical economics is being rebuffed even by many economists, in favor of
a more materialist perspective rooted in ecology. I always try to root my
thinking in the whole of science, not just in one discipline.
>Unfortunately, social information is misunderstood yet (and pragmatically
>mistreated by social disciplines). How could one run a discussion on
>computing &software in entropy grounds?, not much practically indeed.
SS: As the main perpetrator of the entropy viewpoint, I can only say
in my defense that I have no objection to anyone pursuing other avenues of
investigation. Let all flowers bloom! I have not prevented alternative
perspectives with my paltry two postings per week!
_________________
Turning to Bob's support for Pedro's views:
>Bateson distinguishes between "pleroma", which are the mindless,
>indistinguishable elements of physics, and "creatura" which in
my lexicon
>translates as configurations of processes occuring among distinguishable,
>complex entities. Of interest here is that Bateson allows that pleroma
>can be treated adequately using only material and efficient causalities.
>It is ONLY when one regards creatura that the need arises to invoke final
>causality.
SS: Here I can only say that I champion the use of ALL causal agencies
for all phenomena. Let me hear detailed arguments why I should not exaine
this possibilitu. I have explained carefully how I proceed with this, as,
say, with purpose: {physical teleomaty {biological teleonomy {human
teleology}}}. The viewpoint on physics stated by Bob is that deriving from
the time before dissipative structures were understood, and were relegated
to 'applications'. When, instead, one sees dissipative structures as the
fundamental dynamical entities at all integrative levels, the picture
changes. This all came about after Bateson's thinking.
>So I discover a new way of expressing what I have been trying to say in
>this discussion, namely that the proper agency behind final cause (i.e.,
>that which calls the system into the future) should be a creatur (like
>autocatalytic configurations inherent in ecological and economic systems)
>and not a pleron(?) (like entropy.)
SS: In fact, autocatalytic systems occur at all integrative levels,
and are associated with, if not being themselves, dissipative structures.
As this posting is now rather long, I will wait 'til next week for my next
installment.
STAN
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu May 19 22:28:22 2005
