Guy wrote: 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.
This distinction is recognized in ecological economics with natural
environment as an ultimate material (sorurce and sink) constraint and
institutions as socially "self-imposed limitations" that send a sociatey
along only one of the available pathways of evolution.
Best
Igor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy A Hoelzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pedro Marijuan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
