Reacting to both Igor's, Pedro's & Ted's communications: The many
complexities facing us as society can be parsed as follows, using a
specification hierarcy:
{physical constraints (material/chemical constraints {biological
constraints {sociocultural constraints}}}}.
Here we an apply Ted's: "My understanding is that when those information
abstractions (which evolve with the system) become overloaded, a new level
of the system is created, with new, "cleaner" abstractions."
Ted continues: "But it might be - and I am sure of this - fruitful to look
at layers "below" us."
Please note that the emergence of each more specified level is formally a
refinement. Thus, with the institution of bological constraints, many
coordinate possible ways of being (based on various abiotic dissipative
stuctures) have been excluded. That is, with this hierarchy being a tree
of possibilities, only ONE branch has been selected by biology. That is to
say that vast amounts of complexity have been rendered moot by moving onto
one branch. The emergence of socio-cultural constraints has refined the
number of possible relevant constraints even further. So here I agree with
Loet, who said: "My main point is that the biological metaphor may be the
wrong starting
point for a discussion of social and cultural complexity". An example would
be, as I am experiencing even now, I do not have to worry about changing
temperatures as a winter storm (a physical perturbation)is approaching,
because my society has provided heating machines to eliminate this
worrying. However, what happens if the electricity is knocked out by the
storm? Then would I have been cast back into biological world? -- not quite
because I now have warm blankets, fire places and other accouterments to
stave off physical danger. So, it is often pointed out that with the
emergence of new integrative levels untold numers of possibilities are
opened up, as a blossoming of positive complexity opportunities. What I
point out here is that untold numbers of negative complexities have been
left behind as well -- given only that the new level does not disappear
entirely. Of course, the operation of social forces might unleash
previously hidden dangers, as when our culture invented atomic weaponry.
Prior to this we had little to worry about from fluctuatins in this aspect
of the physical world. Yet even here it is social forces only that will
make these subatomic forces emerge to confront us directly. In short, in
society we exist within a cocoon of reduced complexity.
STAN
>Dear Igor and colleagues,
>
>Your question is fascinating, perhaps at the time being rather puzzling or
>even un-answerable...
>
>What are the complexity limits of societies? Our individual limits are
>obvious ---the size of "natural bands" depended both on
ecosystems and on
>the number of people with which an individual was able to communicate
>"meaningfully", keeping a mutual strong bond. Of course, at the
same
>time the band was always dynamically subdividing in dozens and dozens of
>possible multidimensional partitions and small groups (eg. the type of
>evanescent grouping we may observe in any cocktail party). Pretty complex
>in itself, apparently.
>
>Comparatively, the real growth of complexity in societies is due (in a
>rough simplification) to "weak bonds". In this way one can
accumulate far
>more identities and superficial relationships that imply the allegiance to
>sectorial codes, with inner combinatory, and easy ways to rearrange
rapidly
>under general guidelines. Thus, the cumulative complexity is almost
>unaccountable in relation with the natural band --Joe provided some
curious
>figures in his opening. And in the future, those figures may perfectly
grow
>further, see for instance the number of scientific specialties and
>subspecialties (more than 5-6.000 today, less than 2-3.000 a generation
ago).
>
>Research on social networks has highlighted the paradoxical vulnerability
>of societies to the loss of ... weak bonds. The loss of strong bonds is
>comparatively assumed with more tolerance regarding the maintenance of the
>complex structure (human feelings apart). Let us also note that
>considering the acception of information as "distinction on the
adjacent" I
>argued weeks ago, networks appear as instances of new adjacencies... by
>individual nodes provided with artificial means of communication
("channels").
>
>In sum, an economic view on social complexity may be interesting but
>secondary. What we centrally need, what we lack, is a serious info
>perspective on complexity (more discussions like the current one!). By the
>way, considering the ecological perspectives on complexity would be quite
>interesting too.
>
>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 Fri Feb 2 22:25:07 2007
