Talk:Self-organization

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gmlk (talk | contribs) at 23:33, 7 July 2008 (→‎Self-organization vs self-ordering: argument extended). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconSystems B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Systems theory.

Self-organization in human society

You might care to mention that Marx and marxists often speak of the "self-organizion" of the working class.

Evolution and entropy

It seems that the "Evolution#Self-organization and entropy" section is no longer there. It is obvious that the energy input from the sun allows life to exist on Earth while the vast majority of the remainder of the universe tends towards increased disorder/entropy via the 2nd law of TD. I think that it is incumbent upon this article to explain its relationship to Biological evolution clearly. -- 199.33.32.40 04:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned evolution, but I avoided attempting to yet explain the relationship. -- 199.33.32.40 04:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WHEN did the 'self-organization' concept originate?

I note that [citation needed] is included on the two references to Descartes with the request for inline annotaion. I find that to be odd. Part V of the Discorse on Method has the following points which seem to be self evident to me, but far to long to put "in line" so i cannot determine how to make the article more clear. ..t

"""what would happen in a new world, if God were now to create somewhere in the imaginary spaces matter sufficient to compose one, and were to agitate variously and confusedly the different parts of this matter, so that there resulted a chaos as disordered as the poets ever feigned, and after that did nothing more than lend his ordinary concurrence to nature, and allow her to act in accordance with the laws which he had established. ... I showed how the greatest part of the matter of this chaos must, in accordance with these laws, dispose and arrange itself in such a way as to present the appearance of heavens; how in the meantime some of its parts must compose an earth and some planets and comets, and others a sun and fixed stars.""" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.202.202.25 (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims, without attribution, in the lead-in paragraph that self-organization concept originated in the field of Physics. I suspect that the concept likely originated in several fields relatively independently, and in Physics it may very well have arisen de novo by physicists unfamiliar with the concept in any other field. But that is not my primary concern here.

In the social sciences (my field), I am aware of significant early development of SO in ancient Chinese political theory. The Taoists were articulating ideas on self-organization in the 6th-2nd centuries BC (1979, Hsiao, Kung-chuan, A History of Chinese Political Thought -- Volume One: From the Beginnings to the Sixth Century A.D., Princeton Library of Asian Translations). Chinese development stopped, to my knowledge, after the 2nd C. B.C. Outside of political science, where there was admittedly little theoretical development until the 20th C., there is a long history of self-organization theorizing in economics at least since Adam Smith and Adam Ferguson in the later 18th C. and much more explicitly in book 3 of Carl Menger's 1883, Untersuchungen uber die Methode der Socialwissenschaftern und der Politischen Oekonomie insbesondere, Duncker & Humblot, Leipzig, which was first published in English in 1963 under the title: "Problems of economics and sociology," and again in 1985 under the (better translated) title of "Investigations into the method of the social sciences with special reference to economics."

So I make no claim as to which discipline had it first. Cross-discipline historiography is especially difficult. But I recommend we hash it out a bit on the discussion page and see if we can't agree on some improvements to the article. Perhaps a new section on the origin of the concept in various disciplines? Whadayathink? N2e 22:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If noticed that the article gives multiple origins.
  1. The most robust and unambiguous examples of self-organizing systems are from physics, where the concept was first noted.
  2. One of the earliest statements of this idea was by the philosopher Descartes,
  3. The term "self-organizing" ... introduced in 1947 by the psychiatrist and engineer W. Ross Ashby.
Personally I think it is to answer the question When did the 'self-organization' concept originate?. It's not quite clear what the concept exactly is, so you can link it to all kinds of things: robust and unambiguous (and unexplained) examples in physics...??; ideas on self-organization articulated by the Taoists...? I think terms as first and earliest shouldn't be used here. I think only the third statement makes sense. - Mdd 23:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just make the note here that article cleanup vis-a-vis when the concept originated has not yet been done in the article. Mdd obviously agrees that such clean up is necessary, and I agree with Mdd that the third statement of his makes the most sense as an approach to deal with the subject. I don't have time to clean up the entire article. (although I would be happy to help on the self-organization in the social sciences sometime.) Any other editors who care about the overall construct of the SO article want to give it a try? N2e 20:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of entrophy

And you might care to verify that science does not define such a thing a entrophy, only a change entrophy. Nothing has entrophy but when potential energy is reduced an increase in entrophy occurs. 199.80.65.51 17:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "entropy"? In that case, you are incorrect. See this. Now that is in the context of statistical mechanics, which you may think of as a more accurate microscopic version of classical thermodynamics. It may be correct that in classical thermo only differences in entropy are well-defined, but I am not sure. Joshua Davis (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Self-organization vs self-ordering

Is there a difference between self-ordering and self-organization? Are they equivalent?

The term ordering is used to describe a structural or logical order. The term organization is mostly used to describe a functional order. Organization does imply a structural and logical order, but requires more. This means that the term ordering is not really equivalent to organization.

For example, in Crystallization the term organization is never used, instead it uses the in this context proper term ordering. This applies to al the physical and chemical examples given: They show self-ordering not self-organization. -- gmlk (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]