Cari Tutti, sto seguendo con attenzione il dibattito che è appena iniziato, ma confesso qualche smarrimento. D'altra parte quando si affrontano le analisi di sistemi complessi, non lineari e lontani dall'equilibrio mi viene istintivo ancorarmi o aggrapparmi a tutto ciò che insegna la termodinamica. Questi sistemi, auto ed etero organizzativi, ad-attativi o dis-adattativi, asimmetrici o simmetrici, creano ordine dal disordine mediante fluttuazioni o instabilità. Sono cioè delle organizzazioni o strutture "dissipative" che producono il beneficio della neg-entropia sostenendo il costo dell'entropia. Se poi abbiamo a che fare con regimi caotici o geometrie frattali, come quelli che spesso si verificano nei mercati immobiliari, monetari e finanziari dell'economia finora nessuno, dico nessuno, ha elaborato algoritmi affidabili capaci di prevedere l'andamento dei valori futuri nè del loro rischio. La crisi speculativo-finanziaria che ha inginocchiato il mondo è la prova provata che gli scambi sono imprevedibili, irregolari, discontinui e caratterizzati da leggi di potenza o esponenziali. E' da circa mezzo secolo, a partire da "Il giudizio di valore"(1971-72) che ho criticato aspramente i cosiddetti scienziati "normali" della teoria economica neoclassica basata sui comportamenti razionali dal punto di vista individuale in un sistema statico che non esiste neanche nella mente malata di qualche studioso. Ecco perché ho inventato o scoperta, come più volte ho scritto, una "Nuova economia" fondata sul triangolo dei tre surplus: termodinamico o naturale, eco-biologico o genetico, semiotico-ermeneutico. Qui però nasce un problema. Per quanto sia sostenitore dell'armonia del sapere e adotti una procedura multi-criteriale, non mono-fattoriale, non sempre e non facilmente i diversi sistemi sono comparabili, confrontabili e analizzabili alla stessa maniera. Ad es., il significato di comunicazione è convenzionale. La radice etimologica del termine (communicatio)) significa "porre in comune", o "diffondere".Si possono classificare i seguenti livelli di comunicazione: Livello vegetale; livello tonico; (si basa su processi continui fondamentali per lo sviluppo individuale, quali la escrezione e il metabolismo cellulare; comprende la produzione di essudati chimici, e alcune forme di comportamento trofallattico e di ricerca di tracce), livello fasico (emissioni di energia); livello dei segnali bisociali o psico-sociali; livello simbolico (plastico e variabile); livello linguistico (comunicazione di idee astratte, parlato, meta-linguaggio: limitato all'uomo). Allora bisogna in-centrare i nostri studi su due triadi: la prima è costituita dalla significazione, informazione e comunicazione; la seconda dalla sintattica, semantica e pragmatica. Queste due triadi sono fondamentali per l'intera esistenza e tutta la conoscenza. Concludo affermando che, seppure adottando e adattando una visione olistica e globale, non possiamo essere esperti di tuttologia, quindi è consigliabile alla luce di una certa impostazione epistemica o paradigmatica fornire le esperienze delle discipline coltivate onde metterle insieme o in comune, cioè comunicarle, senza scoraggiare i voli pindarici o i comportamenti da monaci delle piccole o singole cose. Non si può certo pensare, in buona fede, di fare sfoggio, di sapere essere, sapere conoscere, sapere avere e sapere fare, sfuggendo alla "grammatica della fantasia" o creativa e alla concretezza della tecno-scienza o ingegneria generale. Questo è un soffio o un granello del mio pensiero pensante e lo rassegno con molta umiltà e dichiarando che sono educato all'armonia del dis-accordo, ma rifuggo dalle confusioni o accumulazioni o ammucchiamenti ai quali non sono abituato: ricordo, a questo proposito, che l'economia (come attività o come conoscenza) è una mezza arte e una mezza scienza, Quindi quando si accosta ad altre "sensate esperienze" o alle diverse conoscenze bisogna stare molto attenti. Un abbraccio. Francesco
2015-11-27 17:07 GMT+01:00 Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>: > Dear Nikhil, > > I think it is a very interesting exercise to see how a consensus might be > reached on your work by both adding to and subtracting from the different > perspectives. Thus, I agree with Stan that we are looking at instances of > isomorphism at different levels, and this for me is entirely logical (;-). > Levels of reality exist and the rules that apply in them are not identical, > and this constitutes a discontinuity between them. Also, within a given > level involving three elements, even if they all influence one another, it > should be possible to decompose the interactions into those between A and > B, the resultant of which interacts with C. This is Pedro's comment in > somewhat different terms. > > On the other hand, as I have argued elsewhere, the use of the term > 'self-organization' does not bring any additional knowledge. It diverts > attention from the dynamics of the different flows, which are also affected > by such a multitude of external factors, actual and potential, that the > process could equally well be called hetero-organization. Also, and I > really just ask this as a question, how does the concept of hierarchy > affect the analysis? If as you write there are different species involved > in exchange networks across ascending levels, what would be important to > know are the details of these exchanges. Here, the above discontinuity > between levels seems to be replaced by a degree of continuity. Your > statement implies to me interactions /between/ different levels, but are > these interactions bi-directional reactions? How would the rates of forward > and back reactions be related? > > I look forward to your comments on the above which I assure you is > intended to be constructive. > > Best wishes, > > Joseph > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" < > pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> > To: <fis@listas.unizar.es> > Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 1:39 PM > Subject: Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, > Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1 > > > > Dear Nikhil and colleagues (Bob, Stan...), >> >> Let me concur with Stan's arguments. I think you are working with >> original ideas about two different instances of self-organization in Nature >> where metabolic-energetic flows are modulated by third parties in order >> to maintain some maximum of stability in a very complex co-assemblage so >> that it may result compatible with the existing limitations of the global >> environment. It is sort of a fiscal agency or an energy police-body that >> keeps an overall adaptive order in the multifarious exchange of flows. >> >> The two instances you describe are widely independent, in spite of the >> relative links existing (in the ecosphere, it is very difficult the >> complete independence). Forcing them into a hierarchy is not the best idea, >> in my opinion, as the two description are quite interesting, original, and >> advanced by themselves--particularly in order to land on the global >> problems of the economic order of our times. Connecting meaningfully with >> the path discussed by Bob and his colleagues requires quite a bit of >> further thinking. Economic organization is based finally on symmetry and >> symmetry breaking at different "levels" (just from the double-entry >> accounting of the agent to the collective market prices and valuation of >> stocks, to the financial coupling with the "real" economy). Like in the >> biological organization of information flows, there is a generalized >> dialectics of balances and modulations, of symmetry and symmetry breakings, >> yes, in some hierarchical framework. Unfortunately the information/symmetry >> topic is far from being properly developed as a "complexity engine", except >> maybe in physics, and we prefer indulging in independent disciplinary >> conceptualizations, preferably inspired in mechanics, that obfuscate >> understanding. >> >> It is a rather difficult discussion... Further efforts from yours and >> your colleagues, and other parties in the list would be needed. From my >> part, this weekend I will re-read your papers and Bob's links. We cannot >> renounce to advance in this discussion. >> >> All the best--Pedro >> >> >> Nikhil Joshi wrote: >> >>> Dear Stan, >>>> You raise a very interesting and important question. >>>> >>> >>> Recent findings suggest that mycorrhiza could modulate the rate of >>> assimilation of molecules (driven by changing rates of photosynthesis) >>> across groups of plants by modulating the flow of phosphorous (from the >>> subsoil sources) across competing autotrophic species. Such modulation >>> alters the overall conversion of geochemical (molecular) resources into >>> biomass. Hence the modulatory effects of mycorrhizal modulation are at the >>> level of molecular flows between geo-cycles and autotrophs (level 1). >>> >>> What is suggested here is that gut bacteria are involved in the >>> modulation of rate of reproduction of cellular and multicellular species. >>> Hence their effect is at a cellular level (level 2) >>> Hence the activities of the two modulator systems are at two different >>> scales- molecular and cellular. >>> A multilevel view reveals a growing complexity in the species involved >>> in exchange networks across ascending levels (compositional hierarchy) from >>> molecules, to cells, multicellular species, and social Organization. A >>> compositional hierarchy is also seen at each level in the emergence of >>> community structure at each level. However, I agree that these observations >>> do not constitute a complete description of the hierarchal relationships in >>> these systems. The developing a formal hierarchical view would provide much >>> clearer view of these systems and their interconnections. Given my limited >>> knowledge of formal hierarchies, I would appreciate your assurance and >>> views on this. Thanking you, Warm regards, >>> Nikhil >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> Nikhil Joshi >>> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------- >> Pedro C. Marijuán >> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group >> Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud >> Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) >> Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X >> 50009 Zaragoza, Spain >> Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) >> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es >> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ >> ------------------------------------------------- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fis mailing list >> Fis@listas.unizar.es >> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
