Replies

Could you possibly be wrong ... because the transition from an unstable configuration to a stable one is possible, but the converse is not. This principle implies a fundamental asymmetry in evolution: one direction of change (from unstable to stable) is more likely than the opposite direction. The generalized, "continuous" version of the principle is the following: The probability of transition from a less stable configuration A to a more stable one B is larger than the probability for the inverse transition: P (A -> B) > P (B -> A) (under the condition P (A -> B) =/ 0) A similar principle was proposed by Ashby in his Principles of the Self-Organizing System (1962):"We start with the fact that systems in general go to equilibrium. Now most of a system's states are non- equilibrial [...] So in going from any state to one of the equilibria, the system is going from a larger number of states to a smaller. In this way, it is performing a selection, in the purely objective sense that it rejects some states, by leaving them, and retains some other state, by sticking to it. " This reduction in the number of reachable states signifies that the variety, and hence the statistical entropy, of the system diminishes. It is because of this increase in neguentropy or organization that Ashby calls the process self-organization.

But how does your formula fit in with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy in closed systems cannot decrease? &;-)

OK. You two have managed to lose me with all the algebra and entropy vs. thermodynamics stuff. All I care about is that when all is said and done something goes BOOM and results in a re-organization of mattter - regardless of how self-organizing it might be. ;-]

Sounds like a good book Trievers. I myself am reading Clancy's latest, "Red Rabbit". Very good, especially if you want to know why the Soviet Union collapsed. Clancy really did some serious homework on this. I suspect he's spent some time hanging at the Hoover Institute and similar places.