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
