I agree with Howard that Swenson's "fastest rate" hypothesis (SFRH) is in error.
I have been trying to dissuade Stan away from SFRH for 5-10 years, providing many examples, on at least a half dozen occasions on this and other lists, but not as eloquently and as convincingly as Howard: "A common example is a clock. The functional constraint (6259-1) is called the escapement. The escapement determines how fast the energy of the spring or battery driving the clock escapes (dissipates). There is no maximum or minimum energy or entropy principle involved. Most of our technology, like computation and communication depends on artificial clocks. If speed is important it is driven by maximizing profits, not physical extremum principles." "In all living organisms the escapement function is realized (6259-2) by enzymes. Enzymes are constraints that control local specific rates, and in turn they are often controlled by their environments, nervous systems and brains. Plants go to seed, animals hibernate and sleep, life cycles are clocked, species have gene-based life spans, language (all semiotics) is largely rate independent. These activities are clearly not maximizing entropy production." With all the best. Sung __________________________________________________ Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net > At 10:13 AM 7/27/2014, Stan wrote: >>I have taken up the MEPP/MEDP principle because of the large number >>of different discourses it could "disturb". It is implicitly >>revolting, going against cherished attitudes -- in particular the >>notion that humans "are in charge" even of our own actions. > > HP: I agree it is healthy to disturb established beliefs, but > probability statements and population statistics have no necessary > effect on an individual's choices or behavior. Don't confuse > correlation with cause. Each individual decides what to do, and if > you collect their statistics you don't cause their choices. > > I will also point out, once again, the fallacy in Swenson's "fastest > rate" hypothesis: "A system will select the path or assemblage of > paths out of available paths that minimizes the potential or > maximizes the entropy at the fastest rate given the constraints." > > There is nothing wrong with the statement except "given the > constraints" negates the intended principle. Universal laws certainly > satisfy variational principles, but local constraints generally do > not, especially in complex systems where it is the constraints that > control rates, not the laws. > > A common example is a clock. The functional constraint is called the > escapement. The escapement determines how fast the energy of the > spring or battery driving the clock escapes (dissipates). There is no > maximum or minimum energy or entropy principle involved. Most of our > technology, like computation and communication depends on artificial > clocks. If speed is important it is driven by maximizing profits, > not physical extremum principles. > > In all living organisms the escapement function is realized by > enzymes. Enzymes are constraints that control local specific rates, > and in turn they are often controlled by their environments, nervous > systems and brains. Plants go to seed, animals hibernate and sleep, > life cycles are clocked, species have gene-based life spans, language > (all semiotics) is largely rate independent. These activities are > clearly not maximizing entropy production. > > Swenson's hypothesis should read "Systems maximize the entropy at the > fastest rate except when the constraints minimize or optimize the > rate of entropy production." In which case it says very little. > > Howard > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
