>>1. There are two kinds of self-organization. 1) Equilibrial and 2)
>> non-equilibrial self-organization.
>>
>>1.1. Examples of equilibrial self-organization: snowflakes, crystals.
Once again, I strongly advocate adding the following examles:
oil-water partition, lipid micelles, lipid lamellae, black lipid membranes
Reason: central importance in the origin of compartmentalization via cells
in evolution.
>>
>>1.2. Examples of non-equilibrial self-organization: Benard cells,
>> vortices, cellular automata, autopoiesis.
>
> I believe that the usage more in keeping with the technical literature to
> capture the same concept is "static equilibrium" vs. "dynamic equilibrium".
> If my hand rests on a table, that's static; if mine pushes against yours
> with equal force and neither moves, that's dynamic. Each is equilibrial in
> that there is no movement. Dynamic equilibria result from the emergence of
> a higher level of analysis. New properties at the new level are in
> equilibrium just as and just because actions at the lower level are ongoing
> in a dynamical process.
Help me please! How does the hand on the table countering gravity by
the existence of a stationary table differ from one stationary hand
countering the motion of the other. In fact, as far as hands go, there
is never anything approximating equilibrium in either case, so you must
be talking about mechanics vs. statics here. The notion of dynamic
equilibrium in that context has a lot more meaning when we thing of the
least action principle as an alternative to Newtonian mechanics.
Clearly, there is a semantic problem here, since in neither of your examples
are you refering to thermodynamic equilibrium, while in the discussion
on self-organization you seem to be. I find this very confusing!
>
> See: Joslyn, Cliff: (1991) "On the Semantics of Entropy Measures of
> Emergent Phenomena", Cybernetics and Systems, v. 22:6, pp.631-640 [
> Semantic analysis of entropy; syntactic vs. semantic definitions of
> entropy; type-specificity of entropy measures; the origin and
> identification of emergent levels in physical systems; and the ontological
> status of non-thermodynamic entropies. ]
>
>>2.1. Dissipative structures are generally organizationally _open_.
>> That is, the systems cannot be distinguished from their
>> environment.
>
> NO system can be UNEQIVOCALLY distinguished from its environment, that is
> to be different from it in ALL ASPECTS. Similarly, no system is COMPLETELY
> closed, not even a black hole. The distinction between organizationally
> closed and open systems (closed or open with respect to the property of
> organization) is sufficient to result in distinguishability or
> indistinguishability with respect only to the organizational aspects of the
> environment.
The way we deal with notions of open and closed in thermodynamics is
quite clear and unambiguous. Three types of system are possible:
1) isolated: enclosed by a "skin" through which matter and energy can
not pass: such systems must go to thermodynamic equilibrium.
2) closed: enclosed by a skin through which energy may pass but matter
may not: these systems are therefore able to maintain steady states
away from equilibrium as long as matter can be recycled through cycles within
3) open: both energy and matter can flow through. anything goes as
long as the first and second laws are obeyed.
I suggest very strongly that we do not loose sight of these
definitions, since they are so widely (I'd say universally) accepted.
>
>> They have a certain autonomy, but no
>> self-control. They are variables of their environment.
>
> I have no idea what this means.
>
> From here on out I lose you completely.
>
> O---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> | Cliff Joslyn, NRC Research Associate, Cybernetician at Large
> | Mail Code 522.3, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771 USA
> | joslyn@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov http://groucho.gsfc.nasa.gov/joslyn 301-286-2598
> V All the world is biscuit-shaped. . .
Best wishes,
Don Mikulecky