Reacting to both Igor's, Pedro's & Ted's communications: The many complexities facing us as society can be parsed as follows, using a specification hierarcy: {physical constraints (material/chemical constraints {biological constraints {sociocultural constraints}}}}. Here we an apply Ted's: "My understanding is that when those information abstractions (which evolve with the system) become overloaded, a new level of the system is created, with new, "cleaner" abstractions."
Ted continues: "But it might be - and I am sure of this - fruitful to look at layers "below" us." Please note that the emergence of each more specified level is formally a refinement. Thus, with the institution of bological constraints, many coordinate possible ways of being (based on various abiotic dissipative stuctures) have been excluded. That is, with this hierarchy being a tree of possibilities, only ONE branch has been selected by biology. That is to say that vast amounts of complexity have been rendered moot by moving onto one branch. The emergence of socio-cultural constraints has refined the number of possible relevant constraints even further. So here I agree with Loet, who said: "My main point is that the biological metaphor may be the wrong starting point for a discussion of social and cultural complexity". An example would be, as I am experiencing even now, I do not have to worry about changing temperatures as a winter storm (a physical perturbation)is approaching, because my society has provided heating machines to eliminate this worrying. However, what happens if the electricity is knocked out by the storm? Then would I have been cast back into biological world? -- not quite because I now have warm blankets, fire places and other accouterments to stave off physical danger. So, it is often pointed out that with the emergence of new integrative levels untold numers of possibilities are opened up, as a blossoming of positive complexity opportunities. What I point out here is that untold numbers of negative complexities have been left behind as well -- given only that the new level does not disappear entirely. Of course, the operation of social forces might unleash previously hidden dangers, as when our culture invented atomic weaponry. Prior to this we had little to worry about from fluctuatins in this aspect of the physical world. Yet even here it is social forces only that will make these subatomic forces emerge to confront us directly. In short, in society we exist within a cocoon of reduced complexity. STAN >Dear Igor and colleagues, > >Your question is fascinating, perhaps at the time being rather puzzling or >even un-answerable... > >What are the complexity limits of societies? Our individual limits are >obvious ---the size of "natural bands" depended both on ecosystems and on >the number of people with which an individual was able to communicate >"meaningfully", keeping a mutual strong bond. Of course, at the same >time the band was always dynamically subdividing in dozens and dozens of >possible multidimensional partitions and small groups (eg. the type of >evanescent grouping we may observe in any cocktail party). Pretty complex >in itself, apparently. > >Comparatively, the real growth of complexity in societies is due (in a >rough simplification) to "weak bonds". In this way one can accumulate far >more identities and superficial relationships that imply the allegiance to >sectorial codes, with inner combinatory, and easy ways to rearrange rapidly >under general guidelines. Thus, the cumulative complexity is almost >unaccountable in relation with the natural band --Joe provided some curious >figures in his opening. And in the future, those figures may perfectly grow >further, see for instance the number of scientific specialties and >subspecialties (more than 5-6.000 today, less than 2-3.000 a generation ago). > >Research on social networks has highlighted the paradoxical vulnerability >of societies to the loss of ... weak bonds. The loss of strong bonds is >comparatively assumed with more tolerance regarding the maintenance of the >complex structure (human feelings apart). Let us also note that >considering the acception of information as "distinction on the adjacent" I >argued weeks ago, networks appear as instances of new adjacencies... by >individual nodes provided with artificial means of communication ("channels"). > >In sum, an economic view on social complexity may be interesting but >secondary. What we centrally need, what we lack, is a serious info >perspective on complexity (more discussions like the current one!). By the >way, considering the ecological perspectives on complexity would be quite >interesting too. > >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