Greetings,
I agree with Loet and Pedro that it seems important to distinguish between
environmental constraints (including material constraints emanating from the
qualities of components of a system) and self-imposed limitations associated
with the particular path taken as a dynamical system unfolds through time.
In other words, I see some information being generated by the dynamics of a
system, much of which can emerge from the interaction between a system and
the constraints of it's environment. I have come to this view largely by
considering the process of biological development. For example, I have come
to the conclusion that the genome is far from a blueprint of a phenotype,
although it is more than a static list of building parts. I see the genome
as containing a small fraction of the information ultimately represented by
an adult organism, and I think that most of that information is generated
internally to the system as a consequence of the interaction between the
genome and its environment.
Regards,
Guy
on 2/27/07 6:24 AM, Pedro Marijuan at marijuan@unizar.es wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Tue Feb 27 20:31:11 2007
