[Fis] Reply to Loet & Pedro (A Priori Modeling)
Hi Loet, Thank you for your Fri Jul 1 post: > to define information as “a difference which makes a < > difference”. . both differences have to be specified.< > Differences(1) can make a difference(2) for a system of < > reference (receiver). < • This is surely correct! This also aligns with what the video presents – that “differences themselves must be differentiated” (also Bateson), framed via metadata (data about data). But the video enlarges this view by naming four minimal needed differences (delta O [object], delta S [subject], delta Q [expansion],and delta x [reduction]) to infer a universal (evolving) model of information. But then I am struck by your post’s last line: >The idea that one can reconcile two analytical different < > concept in a “universal” theory is mistaken.< • I am unsure of what you mean here. Do you assert that an UTI is *per se* impossible? Or do you mean *at least* two distinct analytic concepts must be presented beside each other, in a complementary manner? The “impossible view” I disagree with, and I claim this is a psychological problem in how one frames their model (type theory is the answer). A “two concept” view I agree with, which I show as natural material duality (dual aspect: delta O & delta S) . . . but then one must go further to accommodate evolution – hence, four minimal modeled differences. • Again, I wonder *just how much* we agree and disagree – of course, as you say, there is no “cosmic commandment” saying that we must agree. Still, I hope to understand the details of any specific differences (pun wholly intended) that do arise. Dear Pedro, Your 29 June post notes an old session on Mechanics. I examined the archives (http://fis-mail.sciforum.net) for such a session and all I found was four brief entries that begin with: > Re: mechanics vs. info Erdi Peter (Tue 23 Feb 1999) < • Those entries did not offer much detail. Did you have another session in mind? Also, you close your last post: > sorry if this was a disruption, but your discussion < > invites [one] to transgress the boundaries. < • To an extent, this is true. But I also note, and briefly typify, this “difficulty” (e.g., order vs. disorder) in the introductory text. Further, a “UTI impossible” view noted in my reply to Loet seems plausible only when emphasizing “higher-order” roles. Thus, I stress an *a priori* model – which emphasizes a more-simplified view. • I say a bit more – a priori views demand something “well informed” individuals may find hard. A “beginners mind” is needed (from meditation), or an “intellectual innocence,” even if we never truly “forget what we know.” A *humble* view denies the detailed expertise most of us are trained in. “Expertise” also hinders true trans-disciplinary views. This is all part of the Cultural Legacy that we inherit and that I pointed to in my earlier post re Shannon’s usage of “information.” I will say a bit more on this in another post. Regardless, Loet and Pedro, I sincerely thank you both for your thoughts. Marcus ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] _ Reply to Loet (A Priori Modeling)
Dear Loet,
I hoped to reply to your posts sooner as of all the voices on FIS I
often sense a general kinship with your views. But I also confess I have
difficulty in precisely grasping your views – the reason for my delay.
>[while Shannon’s] concept of information (uncertainty) <
> is counter-intuitive. It enables us among other things <
> to distinguish between "information" and "meaningful <
> information". <
• Easily agreed; *how* to distinguish a presumed meaning (or
meaningless-ness) then becomes the remaining issue.
> Providing . . . meaning presumes the specification <
> of a system of reference; for example, an observer.<
• It is telling for me (in viewing our differences and likenesses) that you
suggest an observer. My “system of relating“ accommodates but does not
require an observer (okay – observer, defined how?), as shown immediately
below.
>Different[ly] . . . expected information is dimensionless<
> ("a priori"). <
• I suggest the act of “expectation“ already infers minimal dimensions –
for example, who/what/how is doing the expecting? Thus, in my view, this is
not truly a priori. A “readiness“ or a compelling functional need innate to
any “system of relating“ has bearing. For example, a single Oxygen atom has
a compelling/innate need to react with other elements, just as any agent is
compelled to react to “nutrients.“ Both imply dimensional expectations, no?
(obviously – of different orders/types).
> In my opinion, a "real theory of meaning" should enable <
> us to specify/measure meaning as redundancy / reduction <
> of uncertainty given . . . I took this further in . . . <
> The Self-Organization of Meaning and the Reflexive . . .<
• My weak grasp of the concepts in this paper leads me to think you are
actually modeling the “processing of meaning,“ related-to-but-distinct-from
“generating meaning“ that I target. I also vaguely recall(?) in an offline
exchange I asked you if you saw this paper as presenting a “theory of
meaning“ and you answered “No.“
• In your later response to Pedro, I found your citation matrix a
interesting example of your thinking, but still too “high-order“ for my
reductive-but-meaningful aim. Your matrix (for me) presents an essential
complexity of high-order views, but in itself it is too simple to detail
*how* a citation is *meaningfully used.* Still, an intriguing concept that
might be meaningfully expanded? Perhaps there are more useful details in
the additional papers you list, which I have not had a chance to explore.
• Your last post then reinforces my sense you are actually exploring the
processing of meaning, rather than the generation of meaning. Diverse
“systems of relating“ you name seem to be “on point“ and
> can be considered as a semantic domain (Maturana,1978)<
But I find this unsatisfying as exactly *what(s)* is being related, and
exactly *how* it is being related, does not seem to be covered. It is in
precisely naming those “whats“ and “hows“ that true a priori models become
possible. For example, a *system of relating* between “a hominid and a
rock“ affords certain types of meaning, equally a *system of relating*
between “the same rock and an ant“ affords wholly different types of
meaning – all in regards to an identical (autonomous) rock.
> the same information is delineated differently and <
> considered from a different perspective <
arguing for essential subjectivity? This seems to point to my use of delta
O and delta S in the video.
• I am unsure if we are in: radical agreement, radical disagreement, or if
we just name subtle differences. . . but I thought I should at least
attempt a reply to your posts and see what ensues.
> In my opinion, the task is to specify mechanisms which <
> generate redundancy <
This leads me to believe we essentially agree but focus on different levels
of operation and complexity. Any thoughts you have to share are appreciated.
Sincerely,
Marcus
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] reply to Loet
Joseph said: >Of course it is persons, and not "systems", in their complexity, that are communicating and not communicating and wondering whether to continue to communicate or not, or are sorry they communicated. Any attempt at a more complete understanding of communication should be able to take such complexification of the notion of system into account, in my opinion. S: Here, in my thinking, you are broaching the internalist / externalist dichotomy. Hierarchy, as I have just outlined it in a recent posting, is a global systems model -- an externalist construction such as is used in the natural sciences. When you refer to a human person, you are referring to an entirely different order of entity. Persons peer out at the universe from their local positions -- from inside themselves. They have no place -- as unique persons -- in systems diagrams or models like the hierarchy models. Bruno said: >This thread reminds me George Bush when he said that that corporations are persons. S: It was the Supreme Court -- many appointed by Butch -- that said that. In any case, you can see from my comments above that this statement is sheer nonsense. Corporations are subsystems of a Corporative State (phrase coined by Mussolini). They are unable to vote, as such, but they can deploy costly messages aimed at defeating politicians who are not striving to increase their corporate power. STAN On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Joseph Brenner wrote: > Dear Gordana and Loet, > > I think that you here and Loet, with his idea of local inversion of the > hierarchy, have an intuition of something I consider potentially very > important. In reality, it is the processes in the "hierarchy" that > have been moving and continue to move partly in a non-univocal manner, > countercurrently if you like. My logic gives a framework for such > movement in a spiral, not circular manner by alternating actualization and > potentialization. > > Of course it is persons, and not "systems", in their complexity, that are > communicating and not communicating and wondering whether to continue to > communicate or not, or are sorry they communicated. Any attempt at a more > complete understanding of communication should be able to take such > complexification of the notion of system into account, in my opinion. > > Best, > > Joseph > > - Original Message - > *From:* Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic > *To:* Loet Leydesdorff ; 'Stanley N > Salthe'; > 'fis' > *Cc:* Инга > *Sent:* Saturday, November 02, 2013 9:51 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Fis] reply to Loet > > > Could it possibly be imagined as a circular motion (bottom-up--top-down— > and-back-again)? > > Just a thought. > > > All the best, > > Gordana > > > http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/ > > > From: Loet Leydesdorff > Date: Saturday, November 2, 2013 8:21 AM > To: 'Stanley N Salthe' , 'fis' < > fis@listas.unizar.es> > Cc: Инга > > Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Loet > >S: (Nothing can go against the 'entropy law'.) A nice example for you > might be communication over distances by flashing lights using the Morse > code. The actual local operations here may not be the best framework to > view this (including in thermodynamic terms). Again, I could subsume this > example into my above argument -- that is, it is the social system that is > communicating, not individual persons. It takes two positions for this > communication to occur, and this makes the system a large scale one, and so > its speed of communication is understandable in terms of natural hierarchy > principles. > > I don’t follow the argument completely: the larger social system would > then be subsumed under the individual system (because of its larger size > and speed), but it is a social construction on top of the individuals, > isn’t it? Is there room for a local inversion of the hierarchy (and thus of > the second law?) such as the generation of redundancy? > > Best, > > Loet > > ・Inga Ivanova and Loet > Leydesdorff, Redundancy Generation in University-Industry-Government > Relations: The Triple Helix Modeled, Measured, and > Simulated.<http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.3836> > > ・Loet Leydesdorff and > Inga Ivanova, Mutual Redundancies in Inter-human Communication Systems: > Steps Towards a Calculus of Processing > Meaning<http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6849>, > *Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology *(in > press). > > -- > > ___ > fis mailing list > fis@listas.unizar.es > https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] reply to Loet
Hi, On 02 Nov 2013, at 17:40, Joseph Brenner wrote: Dear Gordana and Loet, I think that you here and Loet, with his idea of local inversion of the hierarchy, have an intuition of something I consider potentially very important. In reality, it is the processes in the "hierarchy" that have been moving and continue to move partly in a non-univocal manner, countercurrently if you like. My logic gives a framework for such movement in a spiral, not circular manner by alternating actualization and potentialization. Of course it is persons, and not "systems", in their complexity, that are communicating and not communicating and wondering whether to continue to communicate or not, or are sorry they communicated. Any attempt at a more complete understanding of communication should be able to take such complexification of the notion of system into account, in my opinion. This thread reminds me George Bush when he said that that corporations are persons. If that is taken literally, that can only be a threat for the human individual rights. That would lead to the human's lost of (Turing) universality, and would be an advantage for some higher level entity in which humans would be the equivalent of specialized cells. You can compare this with the amoeba lost of immortality and "freedom", when beginning to cooperate through multicellular organism. Personally, I think humans should try to keep their Turing universality at all costs, but corporations will opposes naturally to this. The tension between universality at different levels is unavoidable. But if we abandon an atom of human Turing universality for some ideal security, we will lose both. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] reply to Loet, Stan, Joseph
Dear Joseph and Stan, Loet, Inga, FIS,
Stan's description seems to me fine when it comes to the relationship between a
system/group/society and its single constituent/part/individual.
But one may also be interested in another relationship, between a system and a
group of all individuals/constituents that constitute it, such as for example
the difference between FIS and a group {Stan, Loet, Joseph, Inga, Pedro, …} of
all its members.
Individuals constitute different groups for different reasons, through
different interactions.
In that case a set of individuals is not less than a system, they are
potentially even more,
as the same individuals/parts can form different groups/systems - depending on
circumstances.
I agree with Joseph's description of dynamics as a spiral motion and the
process of complexification through "alternating actualization and
potentialization".
All the best,
Gordana
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/<http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/%7Egdc/>
From: Joseph Brenner mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>>
Reply-To: Joseph Brenner mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>>
Date: Saturday, November 2, 2013 5:40 PM
To: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic
mailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se>>, Loet
Leydesdorff mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>>, 'Stanley N
Salthe' mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu>>, 'fis'
mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Cc: Инга mailto:inga@mail.ru>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Loet
Dear Gordana and Loet,
I think that you here and Loet, with his idea of local inversion of the
hierarchy, have an intuition of something I consider potentially very
important. In reality, it is the processes in the "hierarchy" that have been
moving and continue to move partly in a non-univocal manner, countercurrently
if you like. My logic gives a framework for such
movement in a spiral, not circular manner by alternating actualization and
potentialization.
Of course it is persons, and not "systems", in their complexity, that are
communicating and not communicating and wondering whether to continue to
communicate or not, or are sorry they communicated. Any attempt at a more
complete understanding of communication should be able to take such
complexification of the notion of system into account, in my opinion.
Best,
Joseph
- Original Message -
From: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic<mailto:gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se>
To: Loet Leydesdorff<mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net> ; 'Stanley N
Salthe'<mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu> ; 'fis'<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>
Cc: Инга<mailto:inga@mail.ru>
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Loet
Could it possibly be imagined as a circular motion
(bottom-up--top-down—and-back-again)?
Just a thought.
All the best,
Gordana
http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/
From: Loet Leydesdorff mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>>
Date: Saturday, November 2, 2013 8:21 AM
To: 'Stanley N Salthe' mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu>>,
'fis' mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>>
Cc: Инга mailto:inga@mail.ru>>
Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Loet
S: (Nothing can go against the 'entropy law'.) A nice example for you might be
communication over distances by flashing lights using the Morse code. The
actual local operations here may not be the best framework to view this
(including in thermodynamic terms). Again, I could subsume this example into my
above argument -- that is, it is the social system that is communicating, not
individual persons. It takes two positions for this communication to occur,
and this makes the system a large scale one, and so its speed of communication
is understandable in terms of natural hierarchy principles.
I don’t follow the argument completely: the larger social system would then be
subsumed under the individual system (because of its larger size and speed),
but it is a social construction on top of the individuals, isn’t it? Is there
room for a local inversion of the hierarchy (and thus of the second law?) such
as the generation of redundancy?
Best,
Loet
・Inga Ivanova and Loet
Leydesdorff, Redundancy Generation in University-Industry-Government Relations:
The Triple Helix Modeled, Measured, and
Simulated.<http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.3836>
・Loet Leydesdorff and Inga
Ivanova, Mutual Redundancies in Inter-human Communication Systems: Steps
Towards a Calculus of Processing Meaning<http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6849>,
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (in
press).
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] reply to Loet
Dear Gordana and Loet, I think that you here and Loet, with his idea of local inversion of the hierarchy, have an intuition of something I consider potentially very important. In reality, it is the processes in the "hierarchy" that have been moving and continue to move partly in a non-univocal manner, countercurrently if you like. My logic gives a framework for such movement in a spiral, not circular manner by alternating actualization and potentialization. Of course it is persons, and not "systems", in their complexity, that are communicating and not communicating and wondering whether to continue to communicate or not, or are sorry they communicated. Any attempt at a more complete understanding of communication should be able to take such complexification of the notion of system into account, in my opinion. Best, Joseph - Original Message - From: Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic To: Loet Leydesdorff ; 'Stanley N Salthe' ; 'fis' Cc: Инга Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Loet Could it possibly be imagined as a circular motion (bottom-up--top-down—and-back-again)? Just a thought. All the best, Gordana http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/ From: Loet Leydesdorff Date: Saturday, November 2, 2013 8:21 AM To: 'Stanley N Salthe' , 'fis' Cc: Инга Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Loet S: (Nothing can go against the 'entropy law'.) A nice example for you might be communication over distances by flashing lights using the Morse code. The actual local operations here may not be the best framework to view this (including in thermodynamic terms). Again, I could subsume this example into my above argument -- that is, it is the social system that is communicating, not individual persons. It takes two positions for this communication to occur, and this makes the system a large scale one, and so its speed of communication is understandable in terms of natural hierarchy principles. I don’t follow the argument completely: the larger social system would then be subsumed under the individual system (because of its larger size and speed), but it is a social construction on top of the individuals, isn’t it? Is there room for a local inversion of the hierarchy (and thus of the second law?) such as the generation of redundancy? Best, Loet ・Inga Ivanova and Loet Leydesdorff, Redundancy Generation in University-Industry-Government Relations: The Triple Helix Modeled, Measured, and Simulated. ・Loet Leydesdorff and Inga Ivanova, Mutual Redundancies in Inter-human Communication Systems: Steps Towards a Calculus of Processing Meaning, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (in press). -- ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] reply to Loet
As my last posting for the week ...
Loet, Gordana --
Loet Leydesdorff
3:21 AM (6 hours ago)
to *Инга*, me, fis
S: (Nothing can go against the 'entropy law'.) A nice example for you
might be communication over distances by flashing lights using the Morse
code. The actual local operations here may not be the best framework to
view this (including in thermodynamic terms). Again, I could subsume this
example into my above argument -- that is, it is the social system that is
communicating, not individual persons. It takes two positions for this
communication to occur, and this makes the system a large scale one, and so
its speed of communication is understandable in terms of natural hierarchy
principles.
L: I don't follow the argument completely: the larger social system would
then be subsumed under the individual system (because of its larger size
and speed), but it is a social construction on top of the individuals,
isn't it? Is there room for a local inversion of the hierarchy (and thus of
the second law?) such as the generation of redundancy?
SS: Ah, we have here opened a difficult and intriguing question. First, a
non-social animal -- say, a leopard -- is an individual utilizing its
species' genetic potenialities. These are contained within it, and its
acts as its species' representative -- but it acts alone, as a single
organism.
But a social animal is not alone, cannot act naturally alone. It is a
portion of a larger group. It is not an individual organism except when it
dies. Then we transit to a human social individual within his/her
socially-constructed frameworks. Even calling to another person in the
street is a group action (via language and expectations). More clearly, if
the individual (as we think of ourselves) sends an e-mail message -- this
action is NOT an individual, personal action. It is the social system
acting through one of its parts. The message itself is socially
constructed, as is the thought behind it.
Hierarchically (the compositional hierarchy is relevant here), the social
system is of much larger scale than its organismic parts. One of these
cannot call by voice beyond the distance of two streets. But the social
system can send messages at comparatively great speed (more power), and so
to greater distances. As a social being, I can void waste alone, but I can
do hardly anything else by myself. Even my language is an aspect of the
society, and so also any possible message I might make using it (otherwise
I would be judged insane!).
So -- no, the social system is not "subsumed within the individual", but,
instead, as the larger scale entity, occupies the individual, guiding
his/her actions. Even terrorists act within systemic guidelines, utilizing
a system's powerful products, guided by allowable alternative entrainment.
Thus, Gordana, bottom-up, yes. Also top-down! Bottom-up supplies and
generates possibilities, top-down regulates the deployment of these in
various constructions.
Concerning the Second Law of thermodynamics (a social construct!), it can
be viewed as imposing a finality upon our actions. Along with other
finalities -- (utilizin the subsumptive hierarchy) on the template of:
{physical world {material world {biological world {socioeconomic world
We have:
{entropy production {free energy dispersion {work {projects
The requirement for entropy production is weak compared to entrainment by
social projects, but it acts continually, in anything anyone does, by way
of the constitutively poor energy efficiency of any and all effective work.
Consequently, as we build, we serve the expanding universe even more!
STAN
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote:
> S: (Nothing can go against the 'entropy law'.) A nice example for you
> might be communication over distances by flashing lights using the Morse
> code. The actual local operations here may not be the best framework to
> view this (including in thermodynamic terms). Again, I could subsume this
> example into my above argument -- that is, it is the social system that is
> communicating, not individual persons. It takes two positions for this
> communication to occur, and this makes the system a large scale one, and so
> its speed of communication is understandable in terms of natural hierarchy
> principles.
>
>
>
> I don't follow the argument completely: the larger social system would
> then be subsumed under the individual system (because of its larger size
> and speed), but it is a social construction on top of the individuals,
> isn't it? Is there room for a local inversion of the hierarchy (and thus of
> the second law?) such as the generation of redundancy?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Loet
>
>
>
>
>
> ·Inga Ivanova and Loet Leydesdorff, Redundancy Generation in
> University-Industry-Government Relations: The Triple Helix Modeled,
> Measured, and Simulated.
>
>
>
> ·Loet Leydesdorff and Inga
Re: [Fis] reply to Loet
Could it possibly be imagined as a circular motion (bottom-up--top-down—and-back-again)? Just a thought. All the best, Gordana http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc/<http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/%7Egdc/> From: Loet Leydesdorff mailto:l...@leydesdorff.net>> Date: Saturday, November 2, 2013 8:21 AM To: 'Stanley N Salthe' mailto:ssal...@binghamton.edu>>, 'fis' mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es>> Cc: Инга mailto:inga....@mail.ru>> Subject: Re: [Fis] reply to Loet S: (Nothing can go against the 'entropy law'.) A nice example for you might be communication over distances by flashing lights using the Morse code. The actual local operations here may not be the best framework to view this (including in thermodynamic terms). Again, I could subsume this example into my above argument -- that is, it is the social system that is communicating, not individual persons. It takes two positions for this communication to occur, and this makes the system a large scale one, and so its speed of communication is understandable in terms of natural hierarchy principles. I don’t follow the argument completely: the larger social system would then be subsumed under the individual system (because of its larger size and speed), but it is a social construction on top of the individuals, isn’t it? Is there room for a local inversion of the hierarchy (and thus of the second law?) such as the generation of redundancy? Best, Loet ・Inga Ivanova and Loet Leydesdorff, Redundancy Generation in University-Industry-Government Relations: The Triple Helix Modeled, Measured, and Simulated.<http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.3836> ・Loet Leydesdorff and Inga Ivanova, Mutual Redundancies in Inter-human Communication Systems: Steps Towards a Calculus of Processing Meaning<http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6849>, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (in press). ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] reply to Loet
Loet -- You wrote: This is the case for natural systems and engineered systems (Herbert Simon). However, above the individual the hierarchy is inverted because collectively the communication is faster than the individual can reflexively follow. S: In general, while smaller scale systems can accelerate more quickly than large scale ones, large scale ones are capable of greater absolute rates of speed. Now, I gather that you are here speaking of non-natural systems -- i.e., human mechanical arrangements and social constructions. It is a complex question, but I will venture the possibility that what is happening here is NOT acceleration, but absolute speeds, which in larger scale systems can be faster. As a possible example, consider a firearm. The bullet seems to be of small scale, and this might match its initial acceleration, but its continued speed would be the speed of the large scale social system that constructed it. The complexity and speed of communication can be enhanced by codification. The cultural system operates in terms of expectations (from the perspective of hindsight) and therefore against the entropy law. S: (Nothing can go against the 'entropy law'.) A nice example for you might be communication over distances by flashing lights using the Morse code. The actual local operations here may not be the best framework to view this (including in thermodynamic terms). Again, I could subsume this example into my above argument -- that is, it is the social system that is communicating, not individual persons. It takes two positions for this communication to occur, and this makes the system a large scale one, and so its speed of communication is understandable in terms of natural hierarchy principles. Then... Krassimir wrote: The concept “window” not exactly correspond to reality. Building the “hierarchy”, the Nature uses “structuring” of low levels to build upper ones. S: This building from 'bottom-up' is only part of the system. Everything exists somewhere, and so, your "bottom" was somewhere too before it started building upwards. This somewhere was its physical context, which will have imposed various boundary and initial conditions upon the building process. This is sometimes called 'downward causation'. So the new level built would be a level in between the original upper (constraining) and lower (building) levels. What we call “window” is the set of elements which are “used” to create the new level entities with “emergent” features. S: And what that window 'saw' was the various initial and boundary conditions that would be imposed upon the building. STAN In other words, “channels” do not exist but chains of “structuring” and “restructuring” processes. On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: > S: Yes. These 'windows' are the channels for constraint imposition from > level to level -- transactions, not direct interactions -- between them. > The lower, faster acting, level provides 'data' constructed as ensemble > data by the higher level, while the higher level imposes relatively > continuous constraints upon the lower level. > > > > In short, there IS need for hierarchy, properly understood. > > ** ** > > Dear Stan, > > ** ** > > This is the case for natural systems and engineered systems (Herbert > Simon). However, above the individual the hierarchy is inverted because > collectively the communication is faster than the individual can > reflexively follow. The complexity and speed of communication can be > enhanced by codification. The cultural system operates in terms of > expectations (from the perspective of hindsight) and therefore against the > entropy law. > > ** ** > > Thanks otherwise! > > ** ** > > Best, > > Loet > > ** ** > ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] reply to Loet
S: Yes. These 'windows' are the channels for constraint imposition from level to level -- transactions, not direct interactions -- between them. The lower, faster acting, level provides 'data' constructed as ensemble data by the higher level, while the higher level imposes relatively continuous constraints upon the lower level. In short, there IS need for hierarchy, properly understood. Dear Stan, This is the case for natural systems and engineered systems (Herbert Simon). However, above the individual the hierarchy is inverted because collectively the communication is faster than the individual can reflexively follow. The complexity and speed of communication can be enhanced by codification. The cultural system operates in terms of expectations (from the perspective of hindsight) and therefore against the entropy law. Thanks otherwise! Best, Loet ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
[Fis] reply to Loet
Commenting upon Loet's statement: >No need for reductionism or hierarchy! S: Hierarchy does not (therefore should not) imply reduction. Levels in a compositional hierarchy operate dynamically independently, as you say: >The dynamics operate in parallel with windows on each other. One can try to specify the mechanisms of these windows. S: Yes. These 'windows' are the channels for constraint imposition from level to level -- transactions, not direct interactions -- between them. The lower, faster acting, level provides 'data' constructed as ensemble data by the higher level, while the higher level imposes relatively continuous constraints upon the lower level. In short, there IS need for hierarchy, properly understood. STAN On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 6:11 AM, Loet Leydesdorff wrote: > Ok, but in order to understand the emerging macro-variables of the social structure, one must always take into account the whole cognitive capabilities of the individual. Dear Raquel and colleagues, It seems to me that this misses the point that the non-linear dynamics of the macro-system do not require that specific individuals participate at all levels, in all dimensions, and at all times concurrently. One can only access this system of expectations (horizons of meaning) insofar as has developed cognitive competencies in relevant dimensions. For example, one cannot be an expert in all sciences at the same timebecause of the different literatures. Thus, the social has a dimension ofits own (as cogitatum) which is reflexively accessible to cogitantes (us). There is no need for reductionism. Luhmann, for example, used the concept of "interpenetration" for this interfacing between meanings available at the supra-individual and individual levels. I would take from him that theinterface can be considered as an operational coupling (in language and symbols) that adds to the structural coupling between the social andpsychological. No need for reductionism or hierarchy! The dynamics operate in parallel with windows on each other. One can try to specify the mechanisms of these windows. Best, Loet ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
