Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Loet wrote: Yes: because the economy is equilibrating. Innovations upset the tendency towards equilibrium (Schumpeter) and thus induce cycles into the economy. This is the very subject of evolutionary economics. Marx's problem was that the cycles cannot be stopped and have a tendency to become self-reinforcing. However, the modern state adds the institutional mechanism as another subdynamics. Besides innovations, even stronger cause of instability of the capitalist economy is its tendency to create diversity as a consequence of competitive interactions. Diversity, like in ecosystems, means redundancy and informational entropy (just think about the variety of any consumer product available on the market). Because of general technical constraints in production (production indivisibility, economy of scale, etc.) and forward-looking investment decisions which are based on incomplete information, redundancy of firms transfers aperiodically in absolute redundancy of output (overcapacity) that clears itself during the downward phase of the economic cycle. Marx was right in that the cycles cannot be stopped but wrong on the prediction that they will become worse. After the Great Depression an nstitutional toolbox of countercyclical policies was gradually put in effect, which constrained the absolute values of peaks and bottoms, but did not eliminate the business cycle. Redundancy/diversity, on the other hand, is essential for competition and innovation to persist in a economy. It creates informational entropy and gives a momentum to material/energy entropy production, as the constant influx of diversity maintains the economic system in it juvenile, highly dissipative state. Best Igor - Original Message - From: Loet Leydesdorff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Stanley N. Salthe' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 8:22 AM Subject: RE: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity It is indeed tempting to suppose that, in the philosophical perspective, the object of human economies is to produce entropy! STAN Yes: because the economy is equilibrating. Innovations upset the tendency towards equilibrium (Schumpeter) and thus induce cycles into the economy. This is the very subject of evolutionary economics. Marx's problem was that the cycles cannot be stopped and have a tendency to become self-reinforcing. However, the modern state adds the institutional mechanism as another subdynamics. I am sometimes using the metaphor of a triple helix among these three difference subsystems of communication and control: economic equilibration, institutional regulation, and innovation. A triple helix unlike a double one cannot be expected to stabilize (in a coevolution), but remains meta-stable with possible globalization. I suppose that this has happened. With best wishes, Loet ___ 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
Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Let me add to Igor's points about instability: Redundancy/diversity, on the other hand, is essential ... It creates informational entropy and gives a momentum to material/energy entropy production ... that redundancy/diversity DOES NOT GET CREATED it isd always there, but we choose to neglect it, because Darwin has preferred those who recognise the constant, alike, similar before the background of diversity and similarity. The background DOES NOT GET CREATED by the figures in the foreground, it is there. In our case, it is the background of discontinuity before which we recognise the uniformity, continuity and existence of our logical units. Karl ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
reply to Karl: In fact I meant it creates informational entropy for an external observer. For the sake of precision, we may say that diversity neither get created nor it is always there - it evolves - initially there was no diversity at all, than it increased discontinuously in evolutionary time. Best Igor - Original Message - From: karl javorszky To: fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 1:00 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity Let me add to Igor's points about instability: Redundancy/diversity, on the other hand, is essential ... It creates informational entropy and gives a momentum to material/energy entropy production ... that redundancy/diversity DOES NOT GET CREATED it isd always there, but we choose to neglect it, because Darwin has preferred those who recognise the constant, alike, similar before the background of diversity and similarity. The background DOES NOT GET CREATED by the figures in the foreground, it is there. In our case, it is the background of discontinuity before which we recognise the uniformity, continuity and existence of our logical units. Karl -- ___ 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
Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Igor's is indeed an important point: initially there was no diversity at all, than it increased discontinuously in evolutionary time if we think the Big Bang to be one,undifferentiated clump of matter which got differentiated and ever more complex, we make us a wishful picture. The negation was always there, together with the assertion. The realised variants were quite simple and uniform, the non-realised alternatives were manifold and complex. Let me bring this into perspective with natural numbers: irrespective of which order we regard the additions, the cuts are there at the same time as the whole. Before we do anything, we have to visualise an extent. With the extent we should visualise that it is a heap of alternatives, too. The cuts are there at the same time with the continuity, they do not get evolved. We make a time-based sequence: first we wish the cuts away and then we reimagine them along with the stuff. But they were always there, neither our wishing them away not us wishing them back alters their existence. Maybe they were not actualised, but the whole of the set contains both its assertions and the negations thereof, too. This is not a religious belief, so I may drop this point, but in my feeling it is more symmetrical to think that the negation comes with the assertion and does not evolve therefrom. Alltogether they are part and parcel, like packaging and content. Which parts of the packaging are not useful and get discarded is another point. Maybe you refer to that. Karl 2007/3/8, Igor Matutinovic [EMAIL PROTECTED]: reply to Karl: In fact I meant it creates informational entropy for an *external observer*. For the sake of precision, we may say that diversity neither get created nor it is always there - it evolves - . Best Igor - Original Message - *From:* karl javorszky [EMAIL PROTECTED] *To:* fis@listas.unizar.es *Sent:* Thursday, March 08, 2007 1:00 PM *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity Let me add to Igor's points about instability: Redundancy/diversity, on the other hand, is essential ... It creates informational entropy and gives a momentum to material/energy entropy production ... that redundancy/diversity DOES NOT GET CREATED it isd always there, but we choose to neglect it, because Darwin has preferred those who recognise the constant, alike, similar before the background of diversity and similarity. The background DOES NOT GET CREATED by the figures in the foreground, it is there. In our case, it is the background of discontinuity before which we recognise the uniformity, continuity and existence of our logical units. Karl -- ___ 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
RE: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Pedro notes :
Thanks, Stan and others.
Very briefly, I was thinking on the economy (together with most of social
structure) as the arrows or bonds that connect the nodes of
individuals. Take away the arrows, the bonds, and you are left with a mere
swarm of structureless, gregarious individuals. Change the type of
connectivity, you get markets, planned economies, mixed ones, etc. Thus,
very roughly, in the evolution of social bonds I see a trend toward more
complex and info-entropic social structures: far less strong bonds, far
more weak bonds. Curiously, these complex societies also devour far more
energy and produce far more physical entropy (both types of entropies seem
to go hand with hand)... Well, and what are finally those social bonds
but information?
best regards
Pedro
PS. I would not quite agree with Pattee's view of constraints...
I especially note:
Curiously, these complex societies also devour far more
energy and produce far more physical entropy (both types of entropies seem
to go hand with hand).
Yes, but this is a complicated fact. As long as our economy is a
growing one, these facts will continue to hold. Growing -- immature --
systems are energy hot profligate compared with later stages. And, of
course, the harder any work is done, the greater the proportion of
dissipated energy that goes into entropy. We are entrained by the ideology
of youthfulness in all our endeavors, but many folks now see the day
arriving when this can no longer seem to be forward looking. Our culture
will have to mature sometime (in preparation for its being swept away!).
I also note Loet's
the former (social systems)may remain differentiated in terms of
distributions (which
produce and self-reproduce entropy).
It is indeed tempting to suppose that, in the philosophical
perspective, the object of human economies is to produce entropy!
STAN
At 23:28 01/03/2007, you wrote:
Guy -- Yes, you are right. But I was reacting to Pedro's The realm of
economy is almost pure information. Some aspects of an economy must be
seen to be dynamics, not just all of it pure constraints (here I reference
Pattee's 'dynamics / constraints' dichotomy). It is during the dynamics
that physical entropy is produced. Of course, informational entropy will
certainly be magnified in the constraint realm of an economy. As well, in
order to set up constraints, dynamical activities would have to be
undertaken.
Then Pedro asked:
On the second track, about hierarchies and boundary conditions, shouldn't
we distinguish more clearly between the latter (bound. cond.) and
constraints?
S: Basing my views on Pattee's general distinction between dynamics
and constraints, the relation between constraint and boundary conditions is
{constraint {boundary condition}}. That is, boundary conditions are one
kind of constraint. Constraints are informational inputs to any dynamical
system, and can be of many kinds.
STAN
-
Stan,
Aren't all constraints a form of information? I see constraints as
informing the bounds of the adjacent possible and adjacent probable. If
this is correct, then it would seem to render the economy as almost pure
information. In fact, I think it would render all emergent systems as
pure information. Wouldn't it?
Regards,
Guy
___
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
RE: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
It is indeed tempting to suppose that, in the philosophical perspective, the object of human economies is to produce entropy! STAN Yes: because the economy is equilibrating. Innovations upset the tendency towards equilibrium (Schumpeter) and thus induce cycles into the economy. This is the very subject of evolutionary economics. Marx's problem was that the cycles cannot be stopped and have a tendency to become self-reinforcing. However, the modern state adds the institutional mechanism as another subdynamics. I am sometimes using the metaphor of a triple helix among these three difference subsystems of communication and control: economic equilibration, institutional regulation, and innovation. A triple helix unlike a double one cannot be expected to stabilize (in a coevolution), but remains meta-stable with possible globalization. I suppose that this has happened. With best wishes, Loet ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Thanks, Stan and others.
Very briefly, I was thinking on the economy (together with most of social
structure) as the arrows or bonds that connect the nodes of
individuals. Take away the arrows, the bonds, and you are left with a mere
swarm of structureless, gregarious individuals. Change the type of
connectivity, you get markets, planned economies, mixed ones, etc. Thus,
very roughly, in the evolution of social bonds I see a trend toward more
complex and info-entropic social structures: far less strong bonds, far
more weak bonds. Curiously, these complex societies also devour far more
energy and produce far more physical entropy (both types of entropies seem
to go hand with hand)... Well, and what are finally those social bonds
but information?
best regards
Pedro
PS. I would not quite agree with Pattee's view of constraints...
At 23:28 01/03/2007, you wrote:
Guy -- Yes, you are right. But I was reacting to Pedro's The realm of
economy is almost pure information. Some aspects of an economy must be
seen to be dynamics, not just all of it pure constraints (here I reference
Pattee's 'dynamics / constraints' dichotomy). It is during the dynamics
that physical entropy is produced. Of course, informational entropy will
certainly be magnified in the constraint realm of an economy. As well, in
order to set up constraints, dynamical activities would have to be
undertaken.
Then Pedro asked:
On the second track, about hierarchies and boundary conditions, shouldn't
we distinguish more clearly between the latter (bound. cond.) and
constraints?
S: Basing my views on Pattee's general distinction between dynamics
and constraints, the relation between constraint and boundary conditions is
{constraint {boundary condition}}. That is, boundary conditions are one
kind of constraint. Constraints are informational inputs to any dynamical
system, and can be of many kinds.
STAN
-
Stan,
Aren't all constraints a form of information? I see constraints as
informing the bounds of the adjacent possible and adjacent probable. If
this is correct, then it would seem to render the economy as almost pure
information. In fact, I think it would render all emergent systems as
pure information. Wouldn't it?
Regards,
Guy
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Curiously, these complex societies also devour far more energy and produce far more physical entropy (both types of entropies seem to go hand with hand)... Well, and what are finally those social bonds but information? Dear Pedro: *Social* bonds are by their very nature generated by the social system, that is, the self-organization (or non-linear dynamics) of interhuman interactions. The specification of these dynamics in terms of how meaning is processed in interhuman relations generates a research program for sociology (socio-cybernetics). One can expect this system to operate differently from psychological systems because the latter are integrated into identities, while the former may remain differentiated in terms of distributions (which produce and self-reproduce entropy). With 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Dear Colleagues, the discussion about complexity leads us back to our basic assumptions. The core point appears to be, how we perceive a): the world, and b): what we think about the world, and c): how a) and b) fit together. This can be formalised into a) how we feel, b) how we think, c) how we integrate what we think with what we feel. The question of how - in what ways, what extent, in whose judgement - that what one thinks and that what one feels interact is the subject of morality, theology, dramaturgy, choreography, music and art generally. So far, the interplay between what one thinks and what one feels has not been investigated by classical mathematics. There are now some approaches which suggest that indeed there is a rational way of comprehending the methods, aims and goals of that what governs the interplay among what one feels and what one thinks. The approach states that what we think is a realisation of discharges of the nerve cells of our brain, are therefore linear (as the bursts of the ganglions are in a temporal distance among each other). What we feel is in this approach a realisation of a composition made up of commutative symbol carriers (as the biochemical hormones of the nerve cells in our brain are liquid and not sequential, they are treated as a commutative collection). There appear some quite interesting cause-consequence relations just within the realm of natural numbers. This suggests that Nature - as recognisable via the natural numbers - does have a concept of an a-priori order, and we can read the ordering principles off the natural numbers. The complex discussion going on in FIS could be enriched in two ways by this person: explaining the connex among the symbols (detailing, what the logical operation of an addition implies, and which of the implications are in themselves contradictory), or mobilising the emotional-hormonal connex among the meanings of the symbols (eg by pantomimical presentations of relations between disjunct and monotone, by asking you to partake in a ballett performance so you feel the relations of closeness and belonging vs. freedom and lonesomeness). It is the interplay, neither the correct explanation, nor the virtuous feelings are in themselves in disarray, but how they are connected to fixed structures among each other is what the song is about and the additions list. The formal presentations have been made. Presently, this person works on a communication detailing the relations among emotional symbol carriers. This results in a piece of art, not in a piece of reasoning. The artwork is now present, so I am now ready again to attend these talks, and may offer to explain it all, by literary - emotional - means, in the form of a dialogue, not as a writeup. The writeup is now with a publisher, so we can exchange questions and answers. Karl ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
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
RE: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Guy -- Yes, you are right. But I was reacting to Pedro's The realm of
economy is almost pure information. Some aspects of an economy must be
seen to be dynamics, not just all of it pure constraints (here I reference
Pattee's 'dynamics / constraints' dichotomy). It is during the dynamics
that physical entropy is produced. Of course, informational entropy will
certainly be magnified in the constraint realm of an economy. As well, in
order to set up constraints, dynamical activities would have to be
undertaken.
Then Pedro asked:
On the second track, about hierarchies and boundary conditions, shouldn't
we distinguish more clearly between the latter (bound. cond.) and
constraints?
S: Basing my views on Pattee's general distinction between dynamics
and constraints, the relation between constraint and boundary conditions is
{constraint {boundary condition}}. That is, boundary conditions are one
kind of constraint. Constraints are informational inputs to any dynamical
system, and can be of many kinds.
STAN
-
Stan,
Aren't all constraints a form of information? I see constraints as
informing the bounds of the adjacent possible and adjacent probable. If
this is correct, then it would seem to render the economy as almost pure
information. In fact, I think it would render all emergent systems as
pure information. Wouldn't it?
Regards,
Guy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Stanley N. Salthe
Sent: Sat 2/24/2007 2:51 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Pedro said:
Dear Igor and Stan,
-snip-
The realm of economy is almost pure information. Rather than planning,
markets are very clever ways to handle informational complexity. They
partake a number of formal properties (eg, power laws) indicating that they
work as info conveyors on global, regional sectorial, local scales.
Paradoxically, rational planning can take a man to the moon, or win a
war, but cannot bring bread and butter to the breakfast table every day.
Planning only, lacks the openness, flexibility, resilience, etc. of
markets. A combination of both, with relative market superiority looks
better...
It is hard for me to visualize the economy as being almost pure
information! This is to forget about so-called 'externalities' -- sources
and sinks, storms, wars, climate change -- even holidays! The larger scale
material environment constrains the economy, while that(perhaps mostly as
information) constrains human action.
STAN
with 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
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
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
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
Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Dear Pedro the mediation of markets for the production and distribution of goods and services that serve the majority of human needs is possible also outside of the capitalistic system, albeit its dynamics is then slower and the rate of novelty and technological change it may generate is significantly lower. The case in point is the system of socialist self-management which was operative in the former Yugoslavia for the period of 40 years. It was the combination of plan and market, which was more efficient than the Soviet planning system but less efficient than the Western, full market model. However, it was very efficient in bringing the bread and butter to the everyday table. Insisting on surrogates, eg, hierarchical schemes, or even most of complexity science, is worse than wrong: self-defeating, cul-de-sac. Well, social science may use all kind of tools and models, including statistical and econometric modeling, but also narratives and agent-based modelling, all depending on the problem at hand. What we cannot hope to achieve is the precision and reliability of the same models and tools when used for problems in natural sciences. This has been known for long - but choice do we have...? Best Igor - Original Message - From: Pedro Marijuan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity Dear Igor and Stan, Just a couple of pills to continue the e-conversation. Rather than an outlandish theme, I consider this discussion of social complexity as central to FIS agenda and --should be crucial-- to the new science of this century. it is so obvious that our personal limitations and the limitations of our shared knowledge are not conducing to proper managements of social complexity, either in economic, political, ecological (global warming), or energy grounds... As often argued in this list, the mental schemes and modes of thought so successful in physics during past centuries, do not provide those overall contemplations needed for the social realm. Insisting on surrogates, eg, hierarchical schemes, or even most of complexity science, is worse than wrong: self-defeating, cul-de-sac. The realm of economy is almost pure information. Rather than planning, markets are very clever ways to handle informational complexity. They partake a number of formal properties (eg, power laws) indicating that they work as info conveyors on global, regional sectorial, local scales. Paradoxically, rational planning can take a man to the moon, or win a war, but cannot bring bread and butter to the breakfast table every day. Planning only, lacks the openness, flexibility, resilience, etc. of markets. A combination of both, with relative market superiority looks better... with 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
RE: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Stan, Aren't all constraints a form of information? I see constraints as informing the bounds of the adjacent possible and adjacent probable. If this is correct, then it would seem to render the economy as almosst pure information. In fact, I think it would render all emergent systems as pure information. Wouldn't it? Regards, Guy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Stanley N. Salthe Sent: Sat 2/24/2007 2:51 PM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity Pedro said: Dear Igor and Stan, -snip- The realm of economy is almost pure information. Rather than planning, markets are very clever ways to handle informational complexity. They partake a number of formal properties (eg, power laws) indicating that they work as info conveyors on global, regional sectorial, local scales. Paradoxically, rational planning can take a man to the moon, or win a war, but cannot bring bread and butter to the breakfast table every day. Planning only, lacks the openness, flexibility, resilience, etc. of markets. A combination of both, with relative market superiority looks better... It is hard for me to visualize the economy as being almost pure information! This is to forget about so-called 'externalities' -- sources and sinks, storms, wars, climate change -- even holidays! The larger scale material environment constrains the economy, while that(perhaps mostly as information) constrains human action. STAN with 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
RE: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Aren't all constraints a form of information? I see constraints as informing the bounds of the adjacent possible and adjacent probable. If this is correct, then it would seem to render the economy as almosst pure information. In fact, I think it would render all emergent systems as pure information. Wouldn't it? In my opinion, one should distinguish between the distributional properties which are information and the substantive ones. The systems differ in terms of *what* is communicated. For example, one can consider an economy as an information system communicating prices and commodities. The constraints, for example, are then resources and regulations. The regulations, however, communicate information very different from prices and commodities. With 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ Now available: The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, Simulated. 385 pp.; US$ 18.95 ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Dear Igor and Stan, Just a couple of pills to continue the e-conversation. Rather than an outlandish theme, I consider this discussion of social complexity as central to FIS agenda and --should be crucial-- to the new science of this century. it is so obvious that our personal limitations and the limitations of our shared knowledge are not conducing to proper managements of social complexity, either in economic, political, ecological (global warming), or energy grounds... As often argued in this list, the mental schemes and modes of thought so successful in physics during past centuries, do not provide those overall contemplations needed for the social realm. Insisting on surrogates, eg, hierarchical schemes, or even most of complexity science, is worse than wrong: self-defeating, cul-de-sac. The realm of economy is almost pure information. Rather than planning, markets are very clever ways to handle informational complexity. They partake a number of formal properties (eg, power laws) indicating that they work as info conveyors on global, regional sectorial, local scales. Paradoxically, rational planning can take a man to the moon, or win a war, but cannot bring bread and butter to the breakfast table every day. Planning only, lacks the openness, flexibility, resilience, etc. of markets. A combination of both, with relative market superiority looks better... with regards, Pedro ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Dear Pedro
regarding social openness: very tenuous rumor may destroy an entire company,
or put a sector on its knees.. This can only happen if there is a
fundamental reason for the company or the sector to get into trouble (e.g. time
before the collapse the WorldCom had been in financial troubles but was
corrupting its accounting data to hide it). Therefore, a rumor is only a
trigger, and if it is rumor only, nothing will happen to the system.
When I refer to {biological {sociocultural }} constraints in understanding and
managing complexity I primarily have in mind the nature of constraints as such,
in terms that certain things cannot or are not likely to happen under their
influence. For example, our brains cannot handle more than 3 or 4 variables at
one time and grasp their causative interrelations, so we have a natural
heuristic process that cuts trough the many and reduces it to few. This
results in oversimplification of the reality and overemphasizing of the
variables that were not left out. A lot political and economic reasoning
suffers from that bias. Mathematical procedures and modeling can help us with
this biological constraint but math, unfortunately, did not prove itself yet to
be helpful to deal complex social problems. Artificial societies may be a
hopeful way, but this is yet to be seen.
Another biological constraint on our capacity to manage complex social reality
is that we intermittently use rational procedures and emotions, so a situation
which may be solved by an analytic process can erupt in conflict only because
certain words have been uttered or misinterpreted, which steers the whole
interaction and the problem solving process in a different direction. This
biological trait is only partially controlled by the culture at the next
integrative level, trough norms and rules of behavior (institutions).
The impact of sociocultural constraints on managing complexity is evident form
my last example on managing the energy sector: there is no reason as why the
energy sector could not be managed in a fully planned and rational way by a
group of experts who would optimize the production and transmission processes.
Did we need the market process to send the spacecraft to the Moon or it was a
large-scale project carefully managed for years before it succeeded? Or, is the
carbon trading the best response to climate change problem? However, the
primacy of markets is part of our dominant worldview, so we have the propensity
to exclude other options that may do the job better or with less uncertainty.
So I have the feeling that as we continue to build more socio-economic
complexity our biological and cultral capabilities to manage it are lagging
seriously behind.
The best
Igor
Original Message -
From: Pedro Marijuan
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Dear Igor and colleagues,
I have the impression that there is an agreement about the existence of
biological and sociocultural constraints that impact on our ability to
understand and manage socioeconomic complexity. These constraints are organized
hierarchically, as Stan puts it, {biological {sociocultural }}.
I would agree that this is the way to organize our explanations. But
dynamically the real world is open at all levels: very simple amplification or
feed forward processes would produce phenomena capable of escalating levels and
percolate around (e.g., minuscule oxidation-combustion phenomena initiating
fires that scorch ecosystems, regions). Socially there is even more openness:
a very tenuous rumor may destroy an entire company, or put a sector on its
knees... Arguing logically about those hierarchical schemes may be interesting
only for semi-closed, capsule like entities, but not really for say
(individuals (cities (countries)))... My contention is that we should produce
a new way of thinking going beyond that classical systemic, non-informational
view.
To some extent, it may be a sign of diminishing returns to complexity in
problem solving that Joe addressed in his book The collapse of complex
societies... If we cannot manage the energy sector to serve certain social and
economic goals, how can we hope to be able to manage more complex situations
like the climate change, poverty reduction and population growth in the South?
Did we reach the limits (cognitive and cultural) to manage our complex
world?
After the industrial revolution, on average every passing generation (say
each 30 years) has doubled both the material and the immaterial basis of
societies: social wealth, income, accumulated knowledge, scientific fields,
technological development, social complexity... provided the environment could
withstand, maybe the process of generational doubling would continue around
almost indefinitely, or maybe not! Euristic visions like
RE: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Yes, Igor, I agree that we participate in two layers and with different
capacities to differentiate (e.g., rationally). Our (and the politicians')
reflexive capacities to communicate with a double (or even more complex)
hermeneutics are limiting the capacity of the social system to process
complexity. The remaining uncertainty will remain unresolved, and thus the
system of inter-human communications is failure-prone. One can expect it to
produce unintended consequences.
I don't share your optimism about experts who would be able to leave this
human condition behind them. It is like Marx's dream of a state of freedom.
:-)
With 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/
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Igor Matutinovic
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 10:21 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Dear Pedro
regarding social openness: very tenuous rumor may destroy an entire
company, or put a sector on its knees.. This can only happen if there is
a fundamental reason for the company or the sector to get into trouble (e.g.
time before the collapse the WorldCom had been in financial troubles but was
corrupting its accounting data to hide it). Therefore, a rumor is only a
trigger, and if it is rumor only, nothing will happen to the system.
When I refer to {biological {sociocultural }} constraints in understanding
and managing complexity I primarily have in mind the nature of constraints
as such, in terms that certain things cannot or are not likely to happen
under their influence. For example, our brains cannot handle more than 3 or
4 variables at one time and grasp their causative interrelations, so we have
a natural heuristic process that cuts trough the many and reduces it to
few. This results in oversimplification of the reality and overemphasizing
of the variables that were not left out. A lot political and economic
reasoning suffers from that bias. Mathematical procedures and modeling can
help us with this biological constraint but math, unfortunately, did not
prove itself yet to be helpful to deal complex social problems. Artificial
societies may be a hopeful way, but this is yet to be seen.
Another biological constraint on our capacity to manage complex social
reality is that we intermittently use rational procedures and emotions, so a
situation which may be solved by an analytic process can erupt in conflict
only because certain words have been uttered or misinterpreted, which steers
the whole interaction and the problem solving process in a different
direction. This biological trait is only partially controlled by the culture
at the next integrative level, trough norms and rules of behavior
(institutions).
The impact of sociocultural constraints on managing complexity is evident
form my last example on managing the energy sector: there is no reason as
why the energy sector could not be managed in a fully planned and rational
way by a group of experts who would optimize the production and transmission
processes. Did we need the market process to send the spacecraft to the Moon
or it was a large-scale project carefully managed for years before it
succeeded? Or, is the carbon trading the best response to climate change
problem? However, the primacy of markets is part of our dominant worldview,
so we have the propensity to exclude other options that may do the job
better or with less uncertainty. So I have the feeling that as we continue
to build more socio-economic complexity our biological and cultral
capabilities to manage it are lagging seriously behind.
The best
Igor
Original Message -
From: Pedro mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Marijuan
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Dear Igor and colleagues,
I have the impression that there is an agreement about the existence of
biological and sociocultural constraints that impact on our ability to
understand and manage socioeconomic complexity. These constraints are
organized hierarchically, as Stan puts it, {biological {sociocultural }}.
I would agree that this is the way to organize our explanations. But
dynamically the real world is open at all levels: very simple amplification
or feed forward processes would produce phenomena capable of escalating
levels and percolate around (e.g., minuscule oxidation-combustion phenomena
initiating fires that scorch ecosystems, regions). Socially there is even
more openness: a very tenuous rumor may destroy an entire company, or put
a sector on its knees... Arguing logically about those hierarchical schemes
may be interesting
Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Dear Igor and colleagues,
I have the impression that there is an agreement about the existence of
biological and sociocultural constraints that impact on our ability to
understand and manage socioeconomic complexity. These constraints are
organized hierarchically, as Stan puts it, {biological {sociocultural }}.
I would agree that this is the way to organize our explanations. But
dynamically the real world is open at all levels: very simple amplification
or feed forward processes would produce phenomena capable of escalating
levels and percolate around (e.g., minuscule oxidation-combustion phenomena
initiating fires that scorch ecosystems, regions). Socially there is even
more openness: a very tenuous rumor may destroy an entire company, or
put a sector on its knees... Arguing logically about those hierarchical
schemes may be interesting only for semi-closed, capsule like entities,
but not really for say (individuals (cities (countries)))... My contention
is that we should produce a new way of thinking going beyond that classical
systemic, non-informational view.
To some extent, it may be a sign of diminishing returns to complexity in
problem solving that Joe addressed in his book The collapse of complex
societies... If we cannot manage the energy sector to serve certain
social and economic goals, how can we hope to be able to manage more
complex situations like the climate change, poverty reduction and
population growth in the South?
Did we reach the limits (cognitive and cultural) to manage our complex world?
After the industrial revolution, on average every passing generation (say
each 30 years) has doubled both the material and the immaterial basis of
societies: social wealth, income, accumulated knowledge, scientific
fields, technological development, social complexity... provided the
environment could withstand, maybe the process of generational doubling
would continue around almost indefinitely, or maybe not! Euristic visions
like those mentioned by Igor on energy policies by the UE or the US have
been the usual and only tool during all previous epochs: the case is
whether after some critical threshold human societies cannot keep their
complexity any longer... Joe might agree on the necessary collapse of
complex societies.
best
Pedro ___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
RE: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Yes, politicians steer on the institutional constraints of the
self-organizing system. The center of control is dynamic and potentially
responsive to the steering. Thus, the steering of a complex and adaptive
system mainly generates unintended consequences.
The function of politics, therefore, has changed. It is mainly propelling
itself as a political discourse which disturbs other subsystems of society,
both in terms of setting conditions and as legitimation. For example,
politicians try to be on television in order to legitimate their functions.
The political system can only gain in steering power by being more reflexive
about its functions.
With 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/
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Igor Matutinovic
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:42 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Dear colleagues
I have the impression that there is an agreement about the existence of
biological and sociocultural constraints that impact on our ability to
understand and manage socioeconomic complexity. These constraints are
organized hierarchically, as Stan puts it, {biological {sociocultural }}.
As far as I can tell, social science is not much interested to explore the
constraints below the biological, and if we take the perspective of
evolutionary psychology, than the psychological level may be subsumed in the
biological.
Perhaps we could address socioeconomic complexity from the minimum of three
different perspectives: behavioral, informational or semiotic and material
(the latter refereeing to the artifacts and material substances that we pile
up in our environment and which impact we cannot fully understand nor
control; e.g. products of nanotechnology; toxic chemicals, weaponry).
One behavioral and informational aspect of socioeconomic complexity can be
identified in unintended consequences of political actions aimed to design
an institutional framework in order to achieve certain social or economic
purpose. Consider a simple example of the liberalization of electric energy
market in the US, UK and more generally in the EU. The aim of policy makers
was to unbundle the vertically integrated companies (power generation,
transmission, distribution and supply) in order to create a competitive
environment which would ensure investments in new capacity and in energy
efficiency, and at the same time drive down the prices of electrical energy
to the consumers and industry. What happened after nearly twd decades of
liberalization (apart the California energy crisis in 2000/01) is that
prices were fluctuating quite unpredictably, originally deintegrated firms
(like in England and Wells) started to vertically integrate while
cross-border mergers and acquisitions created bigger and more powerful
energy companies than before (market concentration was one of the thing that
lineralization wanted to change). According to some authors none of the
original aims (price reductions, energy-efficiency, new investments) was
fulfilled.
Now, the point for me is not that an unintended consequence did happen but
the fact that policy makers in the EU are continuing to push institutional
reforms in spite of the fact that it does not seem to work the way they want
it. As long as we do not postulate that there is a hidden agenda behind
their stated goals, then either the decision makers are not rational
(beacasue they push the agenda with full awareness that it will not work) or
they do not understand the processes and the constraints they hope to
affect. The latter may be the sign of the (social) system inability to
achieve certain goals in a complex sociocultural environment. This would not
be surprising: the signs that come from the energy market are not fully
consistent and thus allow for different interpretations; there are several
competing theories that may be used to explain the market dynamics and make
predictions; interpretations may be biased by different ideologies and
worldviews.
The liberalization of the energy market is a complexifying process: from the
monopolistic, and state regulated to the competitive, and profit driven
industry. In this process institutional constraints are continuously added:
markets are composite institutions themselves and to these the policy makers
add numerous new rules to achieve their specific goals. The aim to
streamline the energy sector by using markets with additional institutional
constraints may exceed our capability to handle the process and forsee the
consequences. To some extent, it may be a sign of diminishing returns to
complexity in problem solving that Joe addressed in his book
Re: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Dear Joseph, I think it is a mistake to consider the brain in isolation as a structural complexity. Especially, if your goal is to lead to questions of social and cultural complexity. It seems to me that aspects of form independent of the structural complexity of the human brain are likely to introduce dominant complexities that are transparent to such an analysis. For example, height and weight, gender, ethnicity and social status are eliminated in such an analysis and each of these are contributors to social and cultural complexity that is unrelated to the superficial complexity in the form of the brain. I also think it is an error to consider the brain in isolation to the rest of the physiological form in general, but that seems to be quite a different objection. With respect, Steven -- Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith Institute for Advanced Science Engineering http://iase.info On Jan 26, 2007, at 1:31 PM, Joseph Tainter wrote: ... The immediate example is not social/cultural complexity (although the example certainly generates social and cultural complexity), but something more fundamental: the complexity of the human brain. As I hope to show, some questions about brain complexity lead into general questions about social and cultural complexity, and indeed about complexity in general. ... ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
