Prof. Ilya Prigogine

[Christoph J.W. Schmees]

At 23:58 31.1.2001 +0000, you wrote:
>At 18:05 31-01-2001 -0500, Harrison Owen wrote:
>
>
>>>I suspect this can be very important to other questions
>>>we have discussed here, namely, that "normal organizations" are
>>>"constrained systems", that are in a sort of "equilibrium". So they
>>>DO NOT evidence the caracterhistics of self organization that are
>>>common in "non equilibrium Systems". Only about "non equilibrium
>>>systems" do the laws of "chaos" apply. The role of OST can very
>>>weel be one of "dissolving" the old order by way of "imposing"
>>>some new rules and principles during the duration of the meeting.
>>
>>But on the question above... I know that every organization would like to
>>think that it is a "constrained system" -- therefore a "closed system --
>>and I AM IN CHARGE. Whoever "I" is. But I think the truth is rather that
>>there is no such thing as a closed system, particularly in the world of
>>organizations -- and so they are all self-organizing systems.
>
>Sorry, Harrison, it is seams that I am arguing, but I have not completely
>undestood your point.
>
>I was not claimng that a "constrained system" is a closed one, and is not
>self-organized. I was only saying that there is a diference between self
>organization at Open Systems, that are "constrained", and therefore
>"close to equilibrium" (bood or bad, that's not the question). And self
>organization at Open System that are "far from equilibrium", the ones
>where Chaos theory apply.
>
>After all, Prigogine studied thermodinamical systems that were far from
>equilibrium and has discored chaos theory - that were not acting in
>systems at equlibrium or close to it.
>
>Any new enlightment you can share with me, so that I can understand?
>
>Thanks
>
>Artur

Hi folks,

let me put my 2 Cents in:

In the first place there is no connection between choas theory (fractals,
Julia sets, bifurcation, you name it) and Prigogine's work.

Will say: Prigogine researched cases of spontaneous order in highly
dissipative systems where the least you would expect is order. He defined
the conditions under which those cases of spontaneous order are *possible*.
This is what he got the Nobel prize for, as far as I know.
These conditions are:
First - a high flow of energy whith a clear direction (we physicists say
"gradient"). This is what makes a system "dissipative": A source of excess
energy which in turn is dissipated, i.e. transferred to the environment or
a defined sink.
Second - free flow of energy inside the system.

For chaos theory to apply you don't need open systems or high dissipation.
Actually there are fantastically simple mechanical experiments obeying
strong constraints *and* showing chaotic behaviour. Chaos theory is
applicable to a magnitude more cases than Prigogine's work.

And, by the way: No real world system or organisation is in state of
equilibrium. You may have stationary states, where a sort of dynamic
balance is maintained. But more often you find the transitional state to be
the most common, the "normal" case. And yes, here chaos theory as well as
Prigogine's self-organisation *may* apply. Not guaranteed. Still it is
worth while to use analogies and give them a try.

hth.

cu,
Christoph

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu
Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html

===========================================================
OSLIST at EGROUPS.COM
To subscribe,
1.  Visit: http://www.egroups.com/group/oslist
2.  Sign up -- provide an email address,
    and choose a login ID and password
3.  Click on "Subscribe" and follow the instructions

To unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at egroups.com:
1.  Visit: http://www.egroups.com/group/oslist
2.  Sign in and Proceed