John C said:
>Incidentally, this was what I was trying to lead Loet to a while back
>when I argued that no new information arises from sociality alone. This
>is just one of many difficult cases. Many physicists will say (as they
>have to me) that the phase space of the system is a given, and thus all
>of the information in the system is given in advance by that structure
>of that phase space, so new information is impossible. I say that if we
>have dissipation of the same order as that of a central property of the
>system (especially its cohesion, or dynamical individuating property --
>see, e.g. Collier and Hooker, “Complexly Organised Dynamical
Systems”,
>Open Systems and Information Dynamics , 6 (1999): 241-302), then new
>information can appear, in the sense that a) it cannot be computed from
>the original system, as long as its properties are localized, and b)
>nothing can control the system to select one attractor over another
>(unless it uses high power and substantially changes the phase space
>itself).
>
>What I was trying to lead Loet to was the requirement of additional
>conditions on mere sociality, but he cleverly blocked my attempt to
>illuminate him.
I would like to support John's view here.
Suppose we have two heterogeneous systems with the same numbers of the same
kinds of molecular constituents.
System A is purely physical/chemical. The states of the system pass on
endlessly to new configurations, each one is historically unique but in the
long run the system is ergodic. It is not very far from the most likely
configuration of thermodynamic equilibrium.
System B has further levels of organization (say, both 'biological' and
'social'). But we are reductionists, and we seek to observe only the
chemical level constituents at any time. We will find that these low level
configurations in System B are selected from possibilities that might arise
in System A. There is no new information here -- except INFORMATION
itself. That is, System A (except for the heterogeneity itself) is one of
pure informational entropy, while system B has had constraints put on
possible configurations -- by the emergent biological and social level
constraints.
History has worked in System B too, but so has selection and preservation
of (using a Peircean term) 'habits' (= information). So there is no
statistical difference in these systems at the phys-chem level, except that
state transitions have been drastically slowed down (generating friction)
in System B. The generation of new historical states (and of entropy! --
which is produced as well during the higher level arrangings) has been
partially moved upscale, to the higher levels in System B. But at the
molecular level, we find no states not observable in System A, merely
strange associations of such states and lags in their replacements.
How might the transition from System A to System B be generated? By
accelerated expansion of the overall system (as in the Big Bang). In the
Universe this has increased the force pulling matter together, so that
bigger and bigger configurations (or configurational constraints) become
possible.
Is it possible that some phsical-chemical configurations might be reached
during imposition of the higher level constraints that could not be
possible in System A? I don't think it is possible to know the answer to
this. If not, then the only new thing to have emerged has been stability
of states, which, again = information.
STAN
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Jan 26 22:42:33 2006
