>
> If entropy is the release of energy as a sytem "equalizes" and extropy
> is a complex organization that arises from this energy dissipation
> during entropy then of course information states, in the brain, in the
> form of arousal and attention probably form complexity by free riding
> energy release from much larger systems. I will dig further for the
> relation of this directly to information. I think SirFred has some
> ideas on this also.
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extropy
>
> Self-Organization & Entropy - The Terrible Twins
> - by Chris Lucas
>
> Many people will have heard of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
> That's the one that states that the Universe is forever running down
> towards a "Heat Death". It is based on the concept of Entropy. This
> has several definitions - the inability of a system to do work; a
> measure of the disorder in a system and the one most often used
> nowadays - the tendency of a system to enter a more probable state,
> usually described as being to create chaos from order. Here we will
> look at the opposite idea, that order and not chaos is the most
> probable state.
>
> Probable States
>
> So, which states are probable exactly ? Well to give an example,
> suppose we have a pack of cards and shuffle them, are we then likely
> to deal a sequence of four cards that are all aces ? No, in fact the
> theory of gambling is based on the idea that a shuffle will randomise
> the pack and the cards dealt will be in no special order. Four aces
> are said to be so improbable that they would be expected to occur by
> chance only once in about 270 thousand such deals. Order thus has a
> low probability, any change to a system (such as a shuffling) will be
> expected to reduce its order significantly.
>
> Order in Context
>
> But what exactly is this order ? Essentially it is whatever we say it
> is ! A regularity, conforming to some human definition, 4 of a kind in
> this case (the kind could be anything - value, colour, size, age,
> etc.). Our classification of the world imposes order in various forms,
> depending upon our viewpoint. We largely see what we want to see...
> This means that order is contextual, it depends upon the environment
> in which it occurs, essentially being an interaction between an
> observer and the system, a correlation between object and subject.
>
> Entropy and Gasses
>
> Does this mean that Entropy is a meaningless concept ? Not quite, as a
> measure of a change it has great value in science, but is often
> misused as the only measure of a dynamic system. One originator of the
> idea, Ludwig Boltzmann, based his work on the theory of gasses, in
> which all the molecules can move randomly (a form of shuffle). In
> those circumstances the system can be proved to run down, any original
> order will dissipate over time until the system is homogeneous and in
> equilibrium, the state of maximum disorder and unchanging evenness.
>
> Beyond Ideal Gasses
>
> Does this then apply to solids also ? To see that (in one sense) it
> does not, let us look at an iron ball bearing in a box. Do the iron
> atoms expand to fill the box evenly ? Certainly not, yet a Boltzmann
> style gas would do so rapidly. What is the difference here ?
> Traditional Entropy, by assuming that ideal gas properties always
> apply, ignores many of the other constraints (or boundary conditions)
> that apply to real systems. In this case the attractions between the
> atoms are much stronger than the random (thermal motion) forces
> pushing them apart - the ball bearing retains its shape as a solid.
> Similarly, for man made objects, the many constraints inherent in
> their fabrication and assembly impose limits to their degrees of
> freedom (mechanically, electrically, chemically, thermally etc.) with
> the result that the freedom to move of their parts is largely
> abolished. It is the specific boundary conditions imposed on the
> system that restricts the state space of the constituents, and thus
> compels the organization that results .
>
> For liquids we have an intermediate case, the weaker attractions here
> allow for some motion, but the atoms when moving drag neighbouring
> atoms along - the liquid flows. This brings us to an interesting
> feature of these three states of matter. For gases the motion of the
> molecules is chaotic (this follows from simple gravitational
> analysis), for solids essentially we have a static system (atoms still
> vibrate chaotically, but the large scale structure is fixed and
> determined). Liquids are a special case, and can be regarded as
> collections of molecules whose interaction regime changes as they move
> about. There is a combination of small scale order (local attractions)
> and large scale disorder (uncorrelated over distance), the patterns
> that result (for example whirlpools) are emergent and not contained
> within the laws of electromagnetic interaction applicable to the
> chemistry.
>
> Complexity of Information
>
> Order can also be regarded as information, so we can classify the
> complexity of a system by how much information we need to describe it.
> If we do this we find that both solids and gasses have low complexity
> (simple descriptions) yet to fully describe a whirlpool would need a
> very extensive description, forever changing with time - liquids have
> a potentially high information content. Local interactions of liquid
> molecules give a dynamic structure to the liquid which can cause the
> emergence of unexpected features. These features are not predicted by
> traditional entropy considerations, they are too improbable...
>
> This discrepancy is perhaps best explained by noting that it is usual
> in equilibrium systems work to simplify the terms and use only what is
> better known as the 'conditional entropy'. Yet entropy overall is
> conserved, and to complete the picture we need to add in the 'entropy
> of correlation' which relates to the information known about the
> system by the observer. As a system 'runs down' and becomes more
> disorganised the knowledge held by the observer decreases, hence the
> conditional entropy increases (as tradition dictates), yet in self-
> organizing systems this 'run-down' does not happen, so we can have
> either a static entropy or an decreasing one. When that occurs, then
> the complex state is the probable one and no discrepancy exists. In
> essence this is an empirical question, not a theoretical difficulty.
>
> Self-Organization
>
> But where have we seen self-organization before ? Well, in the field
> of Artificial Life, which studies those emergent features that result
> from the interactions of multiple agents following their own local
> laws. So, what determines which emergent properties occur ? That is
> precisely the question we are trying to answer. The phenomenon of
> emergence we could call Extropy, the tendency of systems to create
> order from chaos - the opposite of Entropy. Generally this term isn't
> used, instead Self-Organization is the general term employed, with
> other terms like Autopoiesis and Homeokinetics used in some
> contexts.
> Is this phenomenon widespread ? Yes, it certainly is, stretching from
> the organisation of galactic superclusters, via planets, all forms of
> life (e.g. bird flocking), to inorganic chemistry and perhaps even
> atomic structure. Complexity Theory searches for the laws that apply
> at all scales, the inherent constraints on visible order.
>
> Laws of Organization
>
> Do such laws actually exist ? Well, if the 2nd Law (as usually
> outlined) is to be believed, then there should be no order at all, any
> order of the type with which we are familiar is far too improbable to
> have ever come into being by chance, even over the entire age of the
> universe. A totally disordered system, as implied by the big bang,
> cannot create order except randomly (quantum fluctuation is usually
> invoked), yet the tendency is then for it immediately to disintegrate
> again ! Nethertheless as far as we can see the Universe has persistent
> order at all scales - and possibly that order is increasing rather
> than decreasing, at least from our own viewpoint. There is currently a
> law relating matter and energy (Einstein's famous E=mc2), yet
> information is also fundamental in the Universe - so we seem to need a
> law incorporating all three.
>
> This 4th Law (as it is sometimes called) would add creativity to the
> destruction of the 2nd, balancing the symmetry. Given any probability
> of new combinations of parts (e.g. in random chemical reactions), we
> can say that there will be a constant drift from a zero presence of
> these combinations in the system to a non-zero one. This is an
> innovative drive, which will continue until an equilibrium state is
> reached (if ever). Such novelty is, in essence, an increase in
> dimensionality - new (emergent) variables that can then be manipulated
> to explore (expanded) state space. Note that state space expands
> continually as these innovative combinations (new building blocks)
> occur, thus maximum entropy also expands. If an existing form
> persists, then this implies a corresponding increase in self-
> organization, i.e. a lowering of local system entropy.
>
> As the number of variables increases our observation of the system
> necessarily becomes more selective, less knowledgable. Shared
> information is exchanging knowledge of such variable states between
> agents, so we can perhaps reformulate entropy in terms of this
> information exchange, bringing together both sides of the entropy
> equation and extending it to a multi-agent scenario, rather than the
> over-simple 'single isolated observer' in the usual formulation.
>
> Far-From-Equilibrium Science
>
> Many discussions about entropy assume near-equilibrium states, yet due
> to the constant innovation mentioned above we can show that the
> Universe overall is not close to equilibrium. Non-equilibrium dynamics
> relates not to steady-state systems (a simplified special case) but to
> systems undergoing change, systems either on a transient (flow)
> towards equilibrium or away from it. Which direction the system takes
> depends on driving forces, strong energy input for example will force
> the system far away from equilibrium. For such far-from-equilibrium
> systems, complex behaviours can set in, the stresses on the system
> become high and, like environmental stress, can cause breakdowns and
> jumps in behaviour. The system explores all possible ways to reduce
> the conflict. In fact, this situation is compatible with the 2nd Law,
> since in such systems (dissipative ones) the gradients encourage the
> system to self-organize to an ordered state since this actually
> increases the rate of entropy production and thus stress reduction. It
> can be shown that the greater the energy flows in such systems, then
> the greater the order (and information) generated becomes - some of
> which is employed by living organisms to do work (exergy) in order to
> create (temporarily) higher-level 'material' structures (the set of
> chosen states perhaps being those which maximise entropy production -
> one candidate 4th Law).
>
> Non-Ergodic Searches
>
> The methods available to do this will depend on the flexibility and
> complexity of the system interconnections. Any system comprising a
> large number of parts allows a vast range of possible combinations.
> Within those combinations most will be disordered, yet many forms of
> order are also possible. For a random system, all of these ordered
> forms should appear, each with its relevant probability (as expected
> from an ergodic exploration of state space), but is this what occurs ?
> Animals should therefore occur equally often with one, two, three,
> four or more legs (or eyes, or even heads ?). The same should apply to
> chemical compounds and galactic forms - it should be impossible that
> the same ordered forms appear constantly to the exclusion of all
> others, yet that is what we see. It seems clear that largely unknown
> constraints restrict the valid forms to a narrow subset of those
> possible (occupying a small region of state space in the jargon). In
> other words stressed systems follow specific paths through the immense
> reaches of state space, a directed not ergodic walk.
>
> Specialists may argue that they already understand why each of these
> behaviours occur (citing natural selection, bonding energy or gravity
> perhaps) yet these are just local explanations, similar to those in
> vogue before Newton's time to explain mechanical phenomena -
> reductionist and specific. The search is now on for the general laws
> that are applicable at all scales and allow prediction of form on a
> macro scale - something not currently possible. Research in Complexity
> and ALife or Boolean Networks, by using carefully controlled
> experiments (with well understood local interactions) allows us to
> probe the vastness of state space and gain a better understanding of
> the likely structure of these unknown laws.
>
> Dissipative Systems
>
> Most research in the sciences assumes that order requires what are
> called dissipative systems, that means that energy must be expended
> (wasted) to create the visible order or information from the chaos.
> This assumption then leaves intact the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
> Yet we also claim that energy is conserved (the First Law), thus the
> energy used to create the order still exists in the Universe. Whether
> this wasted energy can ever be made 'useful' again is I think still an
> open question, despite conventional rejection of the idea (which
> ignores that fact that these two laws are ontologically rather
> incompatible, the first assumes a static universe, the second a
> dynamic one). There are some indications that organization itself
> functions by concentrating energy, by lowering barriers, and of course
> technology does the same - transforming low frequency, low energy
> power to high frequency, high energy power (albeit with some losses).
> If this becomes universally possible (somehow) in the future then the
> "heat death" (like the "big bang") may yet perhaps prove to be just
> another figment of man's inadequate imagination and tendency to
> dogma...
>
> Self-Organization & Entropy -
> - The Terrible Twins
> - by Chris
Lucashttp://www.calresco.org/extropy.htm
