Replying to Igor --
>Igor: If I recall well, Schr–dinger wrote that "life thrives on
low
>entropy". In the absence of energy gradients there is no life. On the
other
>hand, energy gradients by themselves may not necessarily create life to
>degrade them. This argument can be seen in the Lee Smolin's book
"Life of
>the Cosmos", where he points at the astonishing number of improbable
>parameter values present in the elementary particles and in the atomic
>structure, which, if were slightly different would not allow the formation
>of basic, "heavy" elements the life is made of (carbon,
hydrogen, phosphorus
>etc.). As we happen to live in the Universe where parameters are set
right,
>so that life is in principle possible, we may expect life to evolve in the
>direction of dissipating extant energy gradients (both in terms of faster
>and more trough dissipation). If our Universe is definitely heading
towards
>the heat death, than life may appear as an auxiliary force in the overall
>process - as Stan wrote: "Autocatalysis, and any building-up
tendency, is
>simply parasitic upon this necessary dissipation." However, even if
we are
>pretty sure today that the Universe is accelerating we are not that much
>sure about the final outcome (i.e. the heat death or the Great Crunch),
>because of the dark energy and matter effects, which we just stumbled upon
>recently. Therefore, it is possible that there may be no Second Law
>"ultimate finality" in the processes at the level of the
universe.
>If we were to live in a different Universe, e.g. consisting of helium
only,
>if I recall correctly, there would be no stars, no galaxies and,
therefore,
>no energy gradients to dissipate. In such a Universe the Second Law may
have
>no relevance at all. It is also possible that the Big Bang would have
>produced an Universe with energy gradients but no possibility for life to
>evolve. Providing that this universe is accelerating/expanding, these
energy
>gradients would, eventually, disappear according to the Second Law.
>This would be the perspective from the level of the total, closed system,
-
>the universe. If we look at things from the perspective of the semiclosed
>sub-sub-sub system {galaxy, (solar system, (Earth))}, than I agree
>completely with Bob and his argument about fossil fuels, which, in
>principle, may exist without ever being dissipated until the Sun burns out
>the whole solar system. The basic argument in favor of his statement is
that
>human species was also an improbable event in the evolution of life, so
the
>chance that there will no species able to dissipate energy bound in fossil
>fuels was extremely high.
SS: The view expressed here is one that sees a system, if I may say
so, without systematicity. By this I mean that the various parameters are
considered independent, so that each may be varied independendently of the
others, giving permutational possibilities of different universes. My view
tends to be more systematic, even organicist -- or, indeed, holistic. It
is not at all clear that imagining such permutations reflects other than
the traditional mechanicist perspective. In any case, I speak of the one
world as it seems to be.
I agree that Bob's and my views are mostly a matter of different
emphasis and choices made, in that neither of us can point out where the
other is in actual error.
_____________________
Replying to JohnH, who said:
>If all the world's entropy enthusiasts are laid end to end they may not
>reach finality.
>Is all human thought a slave to the Second Law? C'est la question. I'm
>agnostic about that.
SS: Of course, not much of human thought is ABOUT the Second Law, but
in a way it is indeed "a slave to" it. The brain has the greatest energy
flow density of all tissues. And the fact is, it never rests (even
asleep), entrained by one quest after another (or several simultaneously).
It takes great affort to quiet the brain, as in meditation. It takes great
effort to sit still and not fidget (as we continually do). I am not sure
if these 'efforts' are energy demanding, but they are extremely difficult
to maintain. Meditation requires a kind of hypnotic inner repetition of a
mantra, which, I would be willing to entertain, is more energy demanding
than is the open 'stream of consciousness'. So, we would have {entropy
production {neuronal activity {thinking}}}.
___________________
Pedro said:
> When Stan mentions me (see below from his last message) he is referring
>to a clonic Pedro, as I have never written such paragraphs. Presumably
>that is an e-glib, I assume.
SS: I am sorry to make this error! In any case, the point I make in
my last posting about the distinction between the two kinds of hierarchies
is, I think, of some importance, as hierarchy is coming to be more
important model in complexity discourse. Perhaps I was misled by, as in
this current posting, Pedro's use of the term 'levels'.
>Pedro: Apart from the entropy discussion, important themes have just
>surfaced: interdisciplinary metaphors, structure of 'levels', and the
>Batesonian (plus Bertalanffy's & Wiener's) legacy of the golden 60's.
SS: This term 'level' is central to hierarchy theory, as hierarchies
are composed of levels. Whenever I see 'levels', I think 'hierarchy'. The
scale hierarchy has SCALAR LEVELS, differing dynamically/behaviorally by
rates of order of magnitude, as in [macroscopic dynamics [molecular
dynamics]], while the specification hierarchy has INTEGRATIVE LEVELS, as in
{molecular dynamics {cellular dynamics}}.
___________________
Igor wrote:
>SOC has been used as a metaphor or a model of biological and socioeconomic
>dynamics. After tinkering with it for the past few years, I am akin to
>believe that SOC might be a good model for ecosystems and evolution but
not
>so for socioeconomic systems. The main argument (details are available in
a
>paper, if someone wishes, I can e-mail it) is that human systems are
>dominated by institutional design, which constraints self-organizing
>processes, (e.g. economic activities), in a non-trivial way (the market
>itself is an institution). The nature of institutional design is in
>contradiction with the self-organizing principle which is at the root of
>critical behavior.
SS: I am wondering if institutional design is really conceptually
different in its effect from boundary conditions imposed on SOC by physical
surroundings. No natural phenomenon -- say a tornado -- is unaffected by
its environment, and in descriptive equations we must add the values of
constants to represent these effects. Why is institutional design not just
part of the 'enviroment' of economic activity, contributing somewhere to
the values of constants in its descriptive equations?
>Also, the formation and behavior of autocatalytic
>networks, which is endogenous, does not fit well with formal
characteristics
>of SOC, which refers to "externally driven" systems.
SS: Are not most material phenomena combinations of both of these?
Certainly a tornado is. In this case the tornado is actually only a part
of a larger phenomenon -- a rotating supercell -- which self-organizes,
making it look like its tornado part is externaly driven. Of course,
self-organizing autocatalytic systems also must be afforded by
environmental configurations before they can occur. This applies as well
to organisms as to simpler forms -- and this contextualization by
environment is a key principle of scalar hierarchy theory.
__________________
STAN
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Sun May 22 22:18:05 2005
