[p2p-research] Towards a P2P Thermoeconomic Theory

[paola.dimaio at gmail.com]

Marc
thanks for the interesting snippet
I published an article that discusses thermodynamics in relation to
digital ecosystems
I am sorry that it is locked, but some of you may acces ieee via their
academic accounts,
let me kno if you  are interested, and i ll send you my working copy

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4635217&isnumber=4635078

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 9:32 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Per Michel's request for implications of thermoeconomics in the context of
> P2P social theory:
>
> (This is a very rough slice of a much larger future blog post)
>
> ---
>
> Premise:
>
> We can come up with a morally optimal model of society with the only
> constraints being our own conscience and ideas, but if we do not look at the
> observed laws of nature (and particularly the laws of thermodynamics) that
> constrain any model that involves physical resources then the model will run
> aground sooner or later.
>
> This does not make the social model any less relevant than the physical
> model. They are both equally important to understand, and they can be made
> to work together in harmony.
>
> Dialog:
>
> I'll start with a useful definition of thermodynamics:
>
> Thermodynamics is a branch of physics which deals with the energy and work
> of a system. Thermodynamics deals only with the *large scale response* of a
> system which we can observe and measure in experiments.
>
> 1st Law (also related: conservation of energy, conservation of mass,
> conservation of momentum):
>
> "Within a given domain, the amount of energy remains constant and energy is
> neither created nor destroyed. Energy can be converted from one form to
> another (potential energy can be converted to kinetic energy) but the total
> energy within the domain remains fixed."
>
> 2nd Law (as a follow up to the 1st law):
>
> "We can imagine thermodynamic processes which conserve energy but which
> never occur in nature. For example, if we bring a hot object into contact
> with a cold object, we observe that the hot object cools down and the cold
> object heats up until an equilibrium is reached. The transfer of heat goes
> from the hot object to the cold object.
>
> We can imagine a system, however, in which the heat is instead transferred
> from the cold object to the hot object, and such a system *does not violate*
> the *first law* of thermodynamics. The cold object gets colder and the hot
> object gets hotter, but energy is conserved. Obviously we don't encounter
> such a system in nature and to explain this and similar observations,
> thermodynamicists proposed a second law of thermodynamics. Clasius, Kelvin,
> and Carnot proposed various forms of the second law to describe the
> particular physics problem that each was studying.
>
> The description of the second law stated here was taken from Halliday and
> Resnick's textbook, "Physics". It begins with the definition of a new state
> variable called entropy. Entropy has a variety of physical interpretations,
> including the statistical disorder of the system (very relevant to
> thermoeconomic information processing), dispersal of energy, etc, but for
> our purposes, however entropy may be defined (in different interpretations),
> let us consider entropy to be just another property of the system, like (not
> as) temparature, with whatever interpretation you want to use.
>
> What the second law states, is that for a given physical process, the
> combined entropy of the system and the environment remains a constant if the
> process can be reversed.
>
> An example of a reversible process is *ideally* forcing a flow through a
> constricted pipe. "Ideal" means no boundary layer losses. As the flow moves
> through the constriction, the pressure, temperature and velocity change, but
> these variables return to their original values downstream of the
> constriction. The state of the gas returns to its original conditions and
> the change of entropy of the system is zero. Engineers call such a process
> an isentropic. Isentropic means constant entropy.
>
> The second law states that if the physical process is irreversible, the
> combined entropy of the system and the environment must increase. The final
> entropy must be greater than the initial entropy for an irreversible
> process.
>
> An example of an irreversible process is the problem discussed in the second
> paragraph. A hot object is put in contact with a cold object. Eventually,
> they both achieve the same equilibrium temperature. If we then separate the
> objects they remain at the equilibrium temperature and do not naturally
> return to their original temperatures. The process of bringing them to the
> same temperature is irreversible.
>
> When it comes to bits and bytes some of the the physical constraints that
> follow from the first and second laws of thermodynamics are:
>
> Hardware/Physical Domain:
> 1. The continuous cost of energy (whatever it is, e.g. near zero) used for
> powering the hardware (including the cost of maintaining and evolving the
> capability of the energy generation capacity)
>
> 2. The continuous cost of energy used for the maintenance of the hardware at
> every point, from desktop to network core, mesh infrastructure or the
> hardware landscape, including the communication channels. This includes
> energy used in manufacturing of new hardware or replacement parts.
>
> Information Processing/Virtual Domain:
> 3. The continuous cost of energy for evolving the capacity, scale and
> quality of the communication/transportation/connectivity
>
> 4. The continuous cost of energy to power our "human bandwidth for
> information process," i.e. the energy we need to power our brains/bodies ...
>
> There is also the 0th, 3rd and 4th laws of thermodyanmics which complete the
> picture, but it's xmas guys and I have 20 minutes to shower and get to the
> mall before someone here shoot me.
>
> Anyway, while having an engineer's understanding of thermodynamics I would
> like to invite a rational dialog that would help to bridge the gap between
> social and physical theory, which is a process of reconciling two different
> axiomatic deductive systems :-)
>
> Seems like everything is fractal, with problems expressing themselves in
> other problems with lower and lower resolution (more wiggle room) as we go
> down the chain and more resolution (less wiggle room) as we go up the chain,
> but "reality" operates at all levels in the chain. We just have to recognize
> the common patterns across all our different deductive systems because its
> those common patterns that will allow us to build a common picture.
>
> Merry xmas/Happy Holidays :)
>
> Marc
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Dante-Gabryell Monson
> <dante.monson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Marc for your reply.
>>
>> Hmm, I have been experimenting with such "usership" and "sharist"
>> approaches for the last years. Some platforms, such as hospitality
>> platforms, have huge potential
>> ( couchsurfing - cs, hospitalityclub - hc, bewelcome - bw)
>>
>> I have been involved with cs and hc and their development models turned
>> out to become closed,
>> which prompted the development of bw by hc and cs volunteers :
>> http://bewelcome.org
>>
>> It is realist to believe that there is enough of a critical mass to build
>> up a viable economy with "sharist" types of intentional currencies.
>>
>> You do not need to have everyone on board. Currencies can be vectors for
>> the emergence of real social networks, and can be combined with other real
>> social networks sharing common intentions, such as a number of individuals
>> relating their lifestyles to hospitality networks.
>>
>> We do not need to coerce everyone into the systems we develop.
>> But offer the solutions, and the best designs, for the hundreds of
>> thousands, or perhaps the millions of individuals that are ready to start
>> experimenting with them.
>>
>> My view.
>>
>> Writing from a cafe - limited internet access for the moment,
>>
>> Merry Christmas if you celebrate it,
>>
>> Greetings
>>
>> Dante
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 6:51 PM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dante,
>>>
>>> I really like what you're saying.
>>>
>>> If I was to support any alternate view on the economy besides the model
>>> I'm working with it would be yours because I know it's "all we ever want to
>>> do but cannot because of realism"
>>>
>>> In other words, I think it's great that you think this way and I think
>>> you can get people to follow the message if you keep it succinct as powerful
>>> and not get too philosophical with it (going over people's heads)
>>>
>>> But for me, I'm looking at a technically radical and philosophically
>>> "centrist" solution, not too far to the left or too far to the right. The
>>> radical aspect of it is combining energy and economy (which will happen
>>> sooner or later)  and the philosophical part of it is that it trains people
>>> to think different, from "winner takes all" to "winner shares all" ... I
>>> like moving in steps not one giant leap. The next step would be to motivate
>>> the sharing of land.. i.e. the material basis for the economy, but I haven't
>>> thought about it yet.
>>>
>>> Good enough?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Dante-Gabryell Monson
>>> <dante.monson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >From my current perspective,
>>>>
>>>> - ownership, especially accumulation of ownership,
>>>> most often reduces potential for "development" :
>>>> the potential to deal with greater complexity to the benefit of the
>>>> greater self,
>>>> with a integral awareness.
>>>> For me, a monetary information system based on ownership addiction
>>>> enslaves transactions into the aim of ownership monopoly.
>>>>
>>>> - usership, and the architecture/modalities of usership processing,
>>>> can optimize access to transactions by liberating them from constraint
>>>> of the promotion of competitive coercive increase of ownership
>>>> concentration. in other words, liberate it from the aim of a coercive
>>>> paradigm.
>>>> usership architectures, according to their modalities, have the
>>>> potential to open up access to transactions embodying , instead of coercion,
>>>> the intention of sustainable processes of cocreative learning paradigms.
>>>>
>>>> ---------
>>>>
>>>> As to be able to facilitate meaningful transactions: meaningful
>>>> transactions being understood and visualized as a creative process from a
>>>> integral/holistic perspective.
>>>>
>>>> A process dimensions engine can allow the visualization of such
>>>> development economics: the creation and the opening up of the use of new
>>>> process objects through 1"increased trust",2 action/love, 3 non-coercive
>>>> contemplation, and 0 inspiration connecting  such dimensions - and at a
>>>> "shared" meta level ( relation between two meta levels / awareness and brane
>>>> position at higher level of abstraction then meta level ) :
>>>>
>>>> 1 - transcendence ( increase of the overcoming of limitations to greater
>>>> trust : meta-"increased trust" : "increased trust of increased trust" :
>>>> increased potential to open up channels that increase the potential to open
>>>> up channels) ,
>>>>
>>>> 2 - care ( meta love )
>>>>
>>>> 3 - faith ( meta non-coercive contemplation )
>>>>
>>>> 0 : inspiration ( point enabling movement of experience along positions
>>>> of meta process dimensions )
>>>>
>>>> ///////////////////
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>