Dear colleagues,
As for the first track (planning vs. markets) I would try to plainly put
the informational problem in terms of "distinction on the adjacent" (Guy
has also argued in a similar vein). Social structures either in markets or
in central plans become facultative instances of networking within the
whole social set. Then the market grants the fulfillment of any
weak-functional bonding potentiality, in terms of say energy, speed,
materials or organization of process; while the planning instances restrict
those multiple possibilities of self-organization to just a few rigid
instances of hierarchical networking. This is very rough, but if we relate
the nodes (individuals living their lives, with the adjacency-networking
structure, there appears some overall congruence on info terms... maybe.
On the second track, about hierarchies and boundary conditions, shouldn't
we distinguish more clearly between the latter (bound. cond.) and
"constraints"? If I am not wrong, boundary conditions "talk" with our
system and mutually establish which laws have to be called into action,
which equations.. But somehow constraints reside within the laws, polishing
their "parameter space" and fine-tuning which version will talk, dressing
it more or less. These aspects contribute to make the general analysis of
the dynamics of open systems a pain on the neck--don't they? I will really
appreciate input from theoretical scientist about this rough comment.
best regards
Pedro
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Tue Feb 27 19:47:18 2007
