Is Entropy Social? (was: RE: Is Entropy Natural?)
Kai Frederik Lorentzen
lorentzen at hotmail.de
Wed Oct 29 07:34:47 CDT 2008
Now, I think "fascinating metaphor" is a good way to put it in the case of Pynchon. For him ("But do not underestimate the shallowness of my understanding ... I havekept trying to understand entropy, but my grasp becomes less sure the more I read",as it says in the SL-intro) Entropy was, is and always will be basically a metaphor forsocial chaos. Super/Natural phenomena might get sucked into the black holes of ongoing history, but the process itself is social. In Niklas Luhmann's theory of socialsystems --- where the systems' operative autopoietical closedness is considered tobe the stipulation for their structural openness --- entropy is given when, under the conditions of temporalized complexity, any follower-element ("Nächstelement"), andyou have to remember here that the elements are not people but communications, is as probable as the next. This means: You can count on absolutely nothing. Thestructures of mutual expectations ("Erwartungserwartungen") that function as the systems' memory are set out of work. "The term [entropy.kfl] thus marks theborderline-case in which the system's reproduction becomes out of itself pure chance"(NL: Soziale Systeme. Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie. p. 80, eigen-translation).Add a little so called 'magic realism' and you have a perfect Pynchonesque landscape! kfl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXwQLy8aqgc
> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:22:26 +0100> From: mr.spoon21 at gmail.com> To: pynchon-l at waste.org> Subject: Re: Is Entropy Natural?> I think that one of the source in confusion in reguarding entropy is> comparing it to the notion of disorder, or thinking that it measures> the quantity of disorder. The concept of (dis)order is just relative> to the human perception and it's not applicable to sciences or to> physics or to any formal formulation. It just can be a fascinating> metaphor ... > ... ,but not a physical concept. Indeed, the usage of the term> "disorder" when talking about entropy is due to a misunderstood old> statement by Boltzmann (if I remember right).> > If you are curious enough (and with a lot of time to read), there are> some good sites about this matter:> > http://www.entropysite.com/#articles> > http://www.2ndlaw.com/> > Sometimes there are some formulas, but it explains everything in a> clear way. They also talk about the misconception about entropy and> evolution.> > And here (http://www.entropysite.com/order_to_disorder.pdf), for> example, there is a real proof, with real numbers, about why it is at> least inappropriate using order and disorder to describe entropy.> > One of the most clarifrying statement, I think, is that entropy> doesn't have to do with patterns of object, but just with the> dispersal of energy. So, if your room is in a mess, and you try to put> order in it to decrease entropy, you are wrong: the entropy will> increase, due to the energy you are spreading out to put order.> > Well, I hope you appreciate the sites.> > Bye,> Carlo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20081029/64c3c12c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Pynchon-l
mailing list