John wrote: "In particular I argued that dissipative and (072914-1) non-dissipative is a scale dependent distinction."
I would agree. That is, there may be no "absolute" scale at which some systems are dissipative and some are at equilibrium. Perhaps we can define a dissipative system only relative to its associated equilibrium system, for example, a magnetic tape and its sound or images that can be produced from it upon input of energy through a tape-reading device. As Clark pointed out, a magnetic tape can be viewed as not at equilibrium in an absolute sense, since it's atomic configuration is not random and can undergo changes under right environmental conditions. Anything that can undergo a change is, by definition not at equilibrium. Another example would be the pair of an artificial rose but and a real rose bud. An artificial rose but is an equilibrium structure only in relation to its real counterpart, since, again as pointed out by Clark, even an artificial rose bud can undergo changes to a lower energy level upon being burned to ashes and gases. 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 > <html> > <body> > At 11:28 PM 2014-07-28, Clark Goble wrote:<br> > <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">(Sorry for any repeats - I > accidentally sent several emails from the wrong account so they didnt > make it to the list) <br><br> > On Jul 26, 2014, at 7:28 PM, Sungchul Ji > <<a href="mailto:[email protected]";>[email protected]</a>> > wrote:<br><br> > <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Peircean scholars and > philosophers in general seem to find it difficult<br> > (or trivial) to distinguish between the two categories of > structures,<br> > equilibrium and dissipative, probably because most philosophies have > been<br> > done with written, not spoken, words since the invention of > writing.</blockquote><br> > A perhaps pedantic quibble. I think philosophy has been conducted with > writing really just since the modern era and even then only on a large > scale in more recent centuries. Its just that the major works of > philosophy that we have recorded are written. However I think for a large > portion of our history (and perhaps arguably even today or at least until > the advent of email) philosophy was dialogical in nature.<br><br> > Of course I think theres a continuum between what you call equilibrium > and dissipative (Im a bit unsure what you mean by equilibrium - > apologies if youve clarified this before. Im behind in reading the > list) Writing is frequently lost after all, we reinterpret its meanings > as new contexts are introduced, etc. And of course old recordings degrade > over time. Even data stored on hard drive loses data and can become > corrupt. At the end all we have are traces of the original dialog. To > follow Derrida (although he makes his point in an annoyingly petulant > way) all we have are traces rather than some pure presence of > communication we call speech.<br> > </blockquote><br> > I made the relevant distinctions in a book chapter in 1990, > <ul> > <li><a href="http://web.ncf.ca/collier/papers/intrinfo.pdf";>Intrinsic > Information</a> (1990) > </ul>but I had to introduce some new concepts and definitions to the > usual thermodynamic ones. The lack of those has caused multiple > confusions and misunderstandings when I have discussed the issues on > mailing lists. In particular I argued that dissipative and > non-dissipative is a scale dependent distinction. The goal was to ask > what the world must be like if we get information from the world, as some > philosophers hold. At that time I thought that semiotics was too far from > my audience that I didn't mention it, tough I have dome some extensions > in later papers. <br><br> > John</body> > <br> > > <body> > <hr> > Professor John > Collier > [email protected]<br> > Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South > Africa<br> > T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: > +27 (31) 260 3031<br> > <a href="http://web.ncf.ca/collier"; eudora="autourl"> > Http://web.ncf.ca/collier<br> > </a></body> > </html> > >
----------------------------- 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 .
