Dear Jerry and colleagues at the list,
Your posting raises the important question about how simulation studies
relate to empirical realizations. It seems to me in two respects: first,
substantive theorizing about empirical phenomena provides us with
constraints/selections/conditions when formulating the equations, and second
further observations sometimes cause us to revise initial assumptions
because the hypothesis/hypotheses can be tested. In my paper, it is the
first of these two relations: the notion of "double contingency" in
interhuman relations can be provided with a model using Dubois's
hyperincursive equation:
Ego (at xt) operates on the basis of an expectation of its own next state
(xt+1) and the next state of an Alter (1 - xt+1):
xt = axt+1(1 - xt+1)
This second dimension of the contingency was expressed by the American
sociologist Talcott Parsons in 1951 as follows:
The expectation is not defined "Being what I am, alter's treatment of me
must take one of the following alternatives" but "Depending on which of
several alternatives open to me I take, I will set alter a problem to which
he will react in terms of the alternative system of his own which is
oriented to my action."
This second dimension of the contingency was never operationalizable in
sociology--it is partly in game theory--and Dubois's equation provides us,
in my opinion, for the first time a model for this operationalization.
Luhmann further specified that the interactions among reflexive expectations
can be micro-interactions (face-to-face communications), organizations of
interactions at the meso-level, and self-organizations of interactions among
expectations at the macro-level of society. My paper is about the further
elaboration of the anticipatory equations in relation to these theoretical
notions. New equations are derived on the basis of these theoretical
notions.
The relation with the empirical "reality" can only be indirect in the case
of intangibles like expectations and knowledge. Different from your body
which is integrated and tangible :-), expectations operate upon each other
in a second contingency. Nevertheless, the dynamics of these intangibles
are of utmost importance for understanding something like a knowledge-based
economy. Ideally, the simulations should enable us to specify the conditions
under which one expects the production of positive or negative
(probabilistic) entropy in the phenomena. I have tried to do this in my book
(2006) and in a number of articles for the German and Dutch economies. For
example:
Loet Leydesdorff and Michael Fritsch, Measuring the Knowledge Base of
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/germany> Regional Innovation Systems in Germany
in terms of a Triple Helix Dynamics, Research Policy, 35(10), 2006,
1538-1553. <pdf-version <http://www.leydesdorff.net/germany/germany.pdf> >
The specification is still very preliminary: as you note, the perspective of
hindsight inverts the time axis and therefore produces a negative entropy.
In which empirical (social) systems can we measure the production of this
negative entropy and why? Which production rules have to be distinguished?
The theory and computation of anticipatory systems may enable us to specify
answers to the latter question about the production rules. In the recent
paper, I specified three of them: interaction, organization, and
self-organization of expectations. The empirical elaboration of the
differences in terms of empirical research are a next step. It follows from
the equations, for example, that the meso-level organization of expectations
can be expected to produce a positive entropy (unlike the self-organization
of expectations at the macro-level).
Please, do not consider this as a final answer to empirical questions about
how your mind relates to your body :-), but as a step in a longer-term
research program. These assumptions need to be tested! One can easily see
the relation between my triple helix-model and Equation 17 in the current
paper:
xt = b(1- xt+1) (1- xt+1) (1- xt+1)
The relation between the triple helix model and the production of negative
entropy in the mutual information in three dimensions is explained in the
above noted paper about the German economy using Bob Ulanowicz's notions
from ascendency theory. It is therefore heavily related to the discussions
on this list. The emerging paradigm about inversions of the time axis as the
basis of knowledge-based systems needs further elaborations.
Best wishes,
Loet
_____
Loet Leydesdorff
Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR)
Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam
Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ;
<http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Now available:
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581129378>
The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$
18.95
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126956>
The Self-Organization of the Knowledge-Based Society;
<http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1581126816>
The Challenge of Scientometrics
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 2:43 AM
> To: fis@listas.unizar.es
> Cc: Loet Leydesdorff
> Subject: Re: The communication of meaning in anticipatory systems
>
>
> Loet, List:
>
> As we both know, we tend to view our worlds from different
> perspectives. I will attempt a few comments and leave the last word
> for you.
>
> I asserted that I am a "psychological system."
> Your responded that "your mind can be considered as a psychological
> system. :-)"
>
> I would disagree that my "psychological system" is restricted to my
> "mind". I exist as an integrated whole; my senses, my muscles, my
> physiologic dynamics are intimately (biochemically) connected with
> multi - neuronal pathways.
>
> We differ on the notion of what constitutes a "model". As this list
> serve focuses on information, I expect the term "model" to be an
> encoding within symbols (such as the symbolic encodings of
> the DuBois
> equations you use) such that the symbols can be transmitted and
> decoded by others. Mere thought about what possible course
> of action
> one may take in different situations hardly are more than daydreams
> from the perspective of rigorous thought.
>
> Your paper was well organized and well presented. I have no reason
> to doubt that the mathematical calculations were correct. My
> reference to your linguistic objectives refers to the necessity for
> scientific modeling to exist in correspondence with the real world.
> Without showing some sort of correspondence between the "predicted"
> and the "observed", what does one have beyond some mathematical
> calculations and possibly some sound ideas?
>
> It appears to me that the vast richness of POSSIBLE mathematical
> models combined with the equally vast richness of social interaction
> were not adequately addressed. Given these two sources of
> perplexity, I would be very receptive to a carefully designed case
> study. At least in the biomedical community, both clinical trials
> and "disease epidemiology" have generated persuasive models
> of social
> interaction.
>
> Approaching the situation from another angle, the necessity for a
> well-grounded semiotic analysis was not addressed.
>
> So, these are really big issues that you are addressing from the
> perspective of human communications about social interactions.
>
> One point that you made in you oral presentation was very well
> taken. You pointed to the fact that the recipient of a message,
> after decoding, must apply "hindsight" in order to interpret the
> message. To my mind, this was a novel expression of the role of
> human memory in generating impulses of understanding and preparing
> for a meaningful response.
>
> Finally, it appears we completely failed to communicate in the tone
> of the last paragraph. I was referring to your elevation, as I
> understood your talk, of mathematical reasoning to a level that
> lacked association with empirical correspondence relations.
>
> As for wrestling with truths, spiritual or otherwise, I love the
> challenges of fitting concepts into patterns. Why not push the
> boundaries of thought as far as we are capable?
>
> By deeper drives, I was referring to my inheritance from my parents,
> my siblings and the early memories of growing up in a warm
> midwestern
> dairy farming community. I wonder if this is connected with an
> absence of need "for a plethora of models of myself." Is internal
> consistency a possible substitute for a "plethora of models
> of myself."?
>
> Cheers
>
> Jerry
>
>
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
