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.
__________________
Now, replying to Igor's:
>Stan's views are, however, directly relevant for the discussion of
>sustainability, when he relates entropy production for the Universe and
its
>role as the final cause of violent human behavior:
>" We cannot resist warfare because we cannot resist the most
prominent law
>of Nature. As long as we engage in war while denouncing it at the same
time,
>I am entitled to say that we build in order to burn so that we may rebuild
>again -- endlessly, with the ultimate result (after our superstructures
lie
>in the sand like the pyramids) of having satisfactorily contributed to
>Universal equilibration. ... In warfare we only destroy our own things, in
>building we destroy everything.
>
>Compared to this views economics, which has been long labeled as
"dismal
>science", appears as a fairy tale. The humanity appears to be doomed
between
>two options: to destroy endlessly its own civilizations or to destroy
>nature. I don't believe that world is that much deterministic but I agree
>that Stan's two options are perfectly real and do play part of our own
>history. Perhaps it is the bias of myself coming from social sciences,
that
>I have to believe that a third option must be allowed to exist - that of
>sustainable living. We may fail to reach this option, but I believe that
we
>should allow it the possibility to exist at least in principle. If social
>sciences were unable address human problems from that normative, value
laden
>perspective, they would be useless for the society as whole. Therefore, I
>think that Stan put the problem of sustainability in a strikingly sharp
>perspective by proposing its alternatives: endless wars or environmental
>collapses, or both of these at the same time.
>The key question that arises quite naturally is whether we as scientists
are
>able to find viable, systemic solutions to avoid the latter alternatives.
>The immediate second question is, even if scientist are able to find an
>answer, will human societies be able to implement it via political
>processes and on time to avoid ecological catastrophe (and probable
>consequent violent conflicts (see for example works of Thomas Homer-Dixon
on
>that issue).
>>From the discussion so far, it appears that knowledge based economy,
for
>reasons related to entropy production and its inherent metastability, may
>not be the solution to the problem. In that sense we moved some steps from
>where we started. What may be the next step?
SS: I can only say that I have great sympathy with the thrust of Igor's
statement here. My formulation should, I think, be taken as the
'formulation of a problem' that we seem too readily to generate for
ourselves. If there is not some middle ground, "viable" answer to this, we
certainly are doomed. As one who always thinks between extremes, I will
cite here certain human behaviors that do go to the opposite extreme from
careless entropy production. We have had some sects devoted to quietism,
to contemplation and to meditation. These are the radical opposites of dam
building, football and warfare. It is the midddle ground between these
that social scientists and economists must be seeking, it seems to me. The
global capitalist system is too far in the direction of entropy production,
and seems wedded as well to warfare.
I thank Igor for his good interpretation of my challenging statements
_________________
Then replying to Søren, I believe that he has misinterpreted my meaning, as
I will try to explain in interleavings:
>Dear Stan and others
>
>It is important to notice that Aristotle's final cause was thought into a
>worldview where everything had its natural place and over a lifetime would
>develop from potentiality to actuality and fulfill that place. The purpose
>was to fulfill you place in this Cosmos, which had always been like this -
>moved by the immovable mover who had also given his rationality to the
>humans, so they by induction could recognize the order of things. Now
Peirce
>is able to take over this point of view in his evolutionary semiotic,
>hylozoist view of the world. In a Peircean pan semiotics it is the pure
>feeling that through evolutionary love manifests as life and mind at the
>same time as the universe is moving towards a state of frozen structure.
So,
>here the drive towards heat death creates structures that carry life and
>consciousness and therefore love - as I interpret him. As the energy is
>converted to entropy, evolution and the universe will come to a hold.
SS: OK. Søren has spoken of the origin of, and of a subsequent
interpretation of finality. In fact there have been yet further, later
interpretations -- mine among them (again, I am willing to send to anyone
who wants to see it, a diagram outlining my view of the four causes).
Finality as a concept does not depend upon the world view wherein it was
invented. It has escaped by way of reinterpretation.
>What confuses me about Stan's answers is that he on one hand say and writes
>that he is a pansemiotist and on the other hand speak of thermodynamics as
>if he was a physicalist. From a physicalist's point of view it does not
make
>sense to speak of a final cause outside living beings - for many of them
>not even with animals. Some even do not believe in free will or that out
>self-consciousness has any causal influence on the material world.
SS: I am aware that final cause is not accepted (yet) in ANY
modern
science -- tant pis! I am bringing it in under the banner of pansemiotics.
Semiotics deals with the construction/interpetation of meaning. I believe
that the way to bring meaning into science in general is to generalize it
from its usage as a human attribute. It could go like this:
{variational principle in physics <- {interactional preferences in
chemistry <- {function in biology <- {purpose among humans}}}}
otherwise:
{teleomaty <- {teleonomy <- {teleology}}}.
>I cannot see, Stan, how you can say that the heat death of the universe is
its
>purpose or final cause?
SS: Because that is its tendency as a result of its accelerated
expansion having generated a radically noneqiuilibrium world.
>I am then disturbed by, that we come to humans you just say that there are
>plenty of meanings of the meaning of life and the universe. But they are
>subjective, cultural and often superstitious constructions and many of the
>are contradictory? What kind of argument is that?
SS: It is because there are/have been many cultures, and each has
constructed its own version of the meaning of existence. These are
multiple meanings upon whih diferet poples cannot agree. We need some
basic meaning that may be unerstandable to all.
>I fail to see a consistent
>view point in what you say. It confuses me, as we in many ways have the
same
>basic philosophies.
SS: I hope the above diagrams will help.
>In the line of Peirce's work I see both science, philosophy and religion -
>even politics - working on the understanding of reality and life - trying
to
>get them to make sense. It sure does not now - and the various symbolic
>generalized medias (as Luhmann calls them) does not interact and corporate
>very much. We have instead a growth in fundamentalistic views in both
>religion, politics and science, which I agree threatens to bring the world
>to horrible wars again.
SS: Alas, my point was that EVERY culture has had wars and more wars,
and none have been able to explain it to our satisfaction. (For example,
Ghengiz Kahn expressed satidfaction that Samarkand was converted into
grazing land for horses. So he went to war to promote horse farming!) So
I venture the simple explanation that we have been fated to be pulled into
wars because we cannot resist maximizing our energy usage.
>But exactly the problem of if material growth is the answer to the problem
>of survival and happiness has been discussed between the church and
>politicians plus economists and lately be the environmentalists from the
>idea of scarcity of resources and deeper purposes of human life. Also if
the
>meaning is just to be as many living humans here as possible or there is a
>deep quality to human life - like enlightenment in some form. What would
be
>the broadest common good? It is one of the most important discussions
going
>on now.
SS: Unfortunately I think most of these discussions take place in a
'cloud-cuckoo land'!
>My problem is if we can ever know from a common philosophy of science point
>of view, which some of you now turn into an internalist philosophy. To me
it
>is just basic epistemology. It may indicate that final goals has to found
in
>the emotional and spiritual realm, not in the scientific and political.
SS: It would be a good thing if you could find this! Perhaps the
challenge I gave in my consciously provocative statements could stimulate
thinking in this direction.
STAN
STAN
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Mon May 16 16:47:20 2005
