Global cyber attack risk

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Excellent formulated!

We could translate by: You speak the same language as me ...

[humus]

Ahmed, thank you for your explanations however I note a lot of inconsistencies?
The explanation you give to the sentence: "the dominated are dominated by their own domination"is in fact explanation of:"the dominants are dominated by their own domination".
What I subscribe to.

However, only represents an interface of the determinisms which push all things to maximize the dissipation of energy (I refer you to the thread on Roddier and thermodynamics for more details).

This is wrong, nature shows us.
Everything tends to optimize energy consumption up to a state of equilibrium (slightly dynamic).
For example, if maximization was the rule, lions would devour all prey, grow to their maximum, and self-destruct in the end.

If the maximization of energy dissipation guided the course of the world, we would have a peak of growth of the best competitor, followed by his self-destruction.
This may be what the human being will achieve but it is the result of a poorly managed mental anomaly: the hubris
The first peoples live in perfect balance with nature.

[ABC2019]

Everything tends to optimize energy consumption up to a state of equilibrium (slightly dynamic).
For example, if maximization was the rule, lions would devour all prey, grow to their maximum, and self-destruct in the end.

If the maximization of energy dissipation guided the course of the world, we would have a peak of growth of the best competitor, followed by his self-destruction.
This may be what the human being will achieve but it is the result of a poorly managed mental anomaly: the hubris
The first peoples live in perfect balance with nature.

There are quite a few errors and misunderstandings, even misinterpretations, which have been said about the application of the non-equilibrium thermodynamics developed by Prigogine to social problems.

Well, you should know that these theories were established to describe fairly simple physical systems (convection cells, oscillating chemical reactions), and that their extrapolation to very complex phenomena such as societies is quite daring, and sometimes open to criticism. However, they are based on fairly general principles and therefore interesting for all systems.

Prigogine's work tackled the question of the second principle, which we have already spoken of in other contexts, and specifically the paradox: since the second principle says that the Universe is heading towards death and the standardization of all quantities (the growth of entropy), why do we observe that certain things organize themselves spontaneously, such as growing living beings or societies? it seems contradictory because the structures DECREASE the entropy, whereas it should increase! at the very beginning, certain scientists but especially philosophers like Bergson, who did not understand physics very well, thought that living beings had a "vital force" which allowed them to contradict the second principle. In reality, we quickly understood that these structures did not contradict the second principle, because by organizing themselves they produced a lot of entropy around them (by eating and excreting heat and shapeless matter), and that therefore the total balance of entropy was always positive, as the second principle said.

However, it was not explained why these structures formed locally, and what conditions were necessary for their appearance.
This is what Prigogine sought to understand, using simple examples.

First a point of vocabulary: we very often speak of "energy consumption", but energy never disappears. It is transformed, while passing from "ordered" forms (of low entropy), work, chemical energy, to "disordered" forms, heat, of high entropy. It is therefore indeed a entropy production or a consumption of "negentropy" (the opposite of entropy). We do not consume energy, as we often say, we consume negentropy, that is to say energy in ordered form, which we transform into disordered energy.

This is universal and it concerns all processes (hence the ban on completely transforming monothermal heat into work ), but that does not explain the local organization. What Prigogine showed is that if the entropy dissipation (the consumption of negentropy) was large enough, i.e. if the system was far enough from equilibrium, then structures could appear, taking advantage of the enormous production of ambient entropy, to decrease it a little locally in the form of "dissipative structures": localized structures through which a lot of entropy creation passes.

However, contrary to what is said and very often believed, it is not a question of MAXIMIZING the creation of entropy: on the contrary the dissipative structures MINIMIZE the creation of entropy, as much as possible - but they do not cancel it out. not, otherwise they would no longer exist. To cancel the creation of entropy is death, the absence of any process, and any structure: this is the true state of equilibrium. Dissipative structures can be "stationary", but not they are not equilibria, they are based on the production of entropy and are therefore never eternal. It's a bit like you pour liquid at a constant speed: it's stationary, but it will only last as long as there is liquid left to pour, it's not a real balance.

Exponential growths are not stationary states (even less equilibrium states of course), but they are temporary states, which generally connect quasi-stationary states: they are rather transitions, temporary, of a state. to another. Or phenomena that are never stationary, which increase, then decrease, like a fire for example. They appear when external conditions change, and the old state becomes unstable, and during the transition to a new state.

This being said, we can draw a parallel with complex systems like life. Undeniably, life is a collection of dissipative structures, organized objects that dissipate entropy. The essential source of negentropy, which is constantly consumed, is solar energy. And this for a very deep physical reason and quite simple to understand: the solar flux is not in equilibrium, on the one hand because it is anisotropic (the sun is in one direction), and on the other hand because its spectrum, its frequency distribution, is that of a body at about 6000 K, while its energy density, at earth level, is that of a body at 300 K (the equilibrium temperature earth approximately). the two do not match, so the Earth makes a huge production by intercepting a photon at 6000 K (in the visible, typically yellow), and transforming it into 20 photons at 300 K, which it sends back into space as infra red. This physical process produces considerable entropy, and that's what life uses to make structures.

As long as the sun is shining, and the physical conditions allow it (Earth not too hot), life can continue. It is in a "quasi stationary" form, stable on the scale of centuries or millennia, but not on the scale of millions of years, species evolve, climatic conditions change, there are catastrophes, etc.

Industrial civilization undeniably shows a profound change of conditions, and a phenomenon of exponential growth.

But like I said, exponential growth is only a temporary state due to changing conditions. What is this change? essentially the discovery of fossil fuels, which made it possible to increase the production of entropy on the surface of the Earth: indeed life had produced negentropy, part of which had been stored underground in the form of fossil fuels , like a treasure that would have been buried underground. The discovery of this treasure led to squandering it, for the moment more and more quickly, hence the exponential growth. But it is of course a very temporary phenomenon. Exponential growth can't last, anyway. Either it will result in a new stationary state higher than the old one because we know how to use renewable resources better than before (which many people believe but it is doubtful in my opinion), or we will return roughly to it. state of yesteryear.

Thus the current growth is only a temporary phenomenon due to the discovery of a new source of negentropy, which will probably be extinguished with its exhaustion, as a fire goes out when it has burned everything.

[Ahmed]

Humus, I am very confused for the shell that you have raised very well: of course, it was about dominants and not dominated which it was question!

On the second point, you have to see things globally and dynamically of course, which I forgot to say.
This is, moreover, a decisive point which explains, for example, the current dissociation between a "masculine" and a "feminine" cultural sphere * that had already been noted approximately. Adam Smith in its time: the competitive capitalist structure is the bearer of so much negativity and self-destruction that it could not, any more than the lions of your example, survive without a sphere of "care" which takes charge of the reproduction of life (in the very broad sense of the term). It is a question of establishing a balance between two phenomena opposed in appearance, but complementary in reality: the cold waters of the performative rationality (producer of goods) on the one hand and the "feelings", the minimum empathy allowing this. society to survive.
From an ideological point of view, this mixture allows to maintain a good dose of confusion in the minds by obscuring the reality of the intrinsic perversity of the system and by transforming it into "excess" or "drifts", throwing the blame on agents of the system for moral reasons of rapacity or hubris ...

* I put quotes because this distinction is not strictly gendered, in the sense that a male individual can quite invest in a "female" role and the reverse is obviously observed: Angela Merkel ou Maggie Thatcher are biological women, but represent the male category ...

[Ahmed]

ABC, I appreciate your analysis and particularly the end: this is what constituted my introduction to a presentation I made in front of the project managers (the term is a bit pretentious, but roughly speaking, that's it ..) .) on waste reduction. I explained why the waste appeared due to an event that occurred 360 million years ago, that it had inexorably increased and that it would disappear, with or without its action ...

I'm less following you on your last sentence, because it doesn't all boil down in terms of physical resources (although it's important). Currently, growth is necessitated by the gradual decrease in the possibility of realizing abstract value. At the same time, the development of the technology which is the cause of it makes human labor (which produces abstract value, social category) more and more obsolete and supports the production of physical (or sensitive) wealth, according to the criteria of the system in which it is deployed. This implies an inability in the long term to return to a very previous state, not only for demographic reasons which can be arranged (one can easily imagine a regressive scenario ), but cultural: technology dispossesses us of ancient knowledge and being able to press buttons is of little use without what goes behind ...
We should not underestimate this tropism towards a technosphere capable, much better than humans of adapting to a degraded environment, but very suitable for machines. Of course, this supposes the switch towards the "singularity", that is to say the appearance of a new autonomous, non-biological species, capable of achieving what the previously present species pretentiously attributed to its genius: to maximize dissipation of energy.

[sen-no-sen]

If the maximization of energy dissipation guided the course of the world, we would have a peak of growth of the best competitor, followed by his self-destruction.

This remark is only true for a simplified process as is the case for example with a forest fire.

In the case of life, several other parameters will be taken into account such as self-catalysis,homeostasis et learning(parameters that define Life in the broad sense).
Life forms are therefore able to memorize information so as not to tend towards self-destruction.
The idea of ​​maximum entropy production is therefore not only realized in the way of dissipating energy (in terms of movement for example) but also by the flow of information that they record, which allows them to maximize the rate of entropy production.

The example with the techno-industrial society is striking: imagine an industrial society where no environmental standards would be put in place, in such a case the ecosystem and health damage would quickly lead such a system to collapse.

In the case of a society taking environmental damage into account, memorizing ecosystem issues would quickly lead to legislative and technical countermeasures allowing the system to function again and again. ET to be able to replicate itself in the world ... this is essentially the current model!
Question: which of its two models dissipates the most energy in finality? A local and ephemeral model or a "sustainable" and global model?

[ABC2019]

Of course, this supposes the switch towards the "singularity", that is to say the appearance of a new autonomous, non-biological species, capable of achieving what the previously present species pretentiously attributed to its genius: to maximize dissipation of energy.

here we are in science fiction speculation. We can of course not exclude that the development of human civilization will tip the biosphere irreversibly into a "new world", a bit like the appearance of cyanobacteria led to the production of oxygen and aerobic life, very different of the bacterial world that came before it (although bacteria weren't extinct!), and we can fantasize about new non-biological species (I guess self-reproducing robots). However it seems to me that we are very, very far from it, and above all, robots do not function at all like an evolutionary species based on DNA. It does not make sense to gradually mutate a robot to improve its functions, if you disturb a computer it does not work at all and you can put it in the trash. Computing has nothing of an organism having survived and evolved in an external environment, or rather its external environment which controls it, it is the world of humans. Without humans, no robot is viable for very long (yes I know we sent probes into outer space but they are not capable of reproducing themselves).

[ABC2019]

The idea of ​​maximum entropy production is therefore not only realized in the way of dissipating energy (in terms of movement for example) but also by the flow of information that they record, which allows them to maximize the rate of entropy production.

as I pointed out, the idea that systems evolve towards maximum entropy production is scientifically wrong. The production of entropy may start to increase, but the establishment of structures leads rather to minimize (as much as possible), this entropy production. For example, life uses solar energy but ends up re-emitting everything in the form of heat, so in the end it doesn't change anything ... except that for example fossilization has led to preserving part of the solar negentropy, and therefore finally the Earth created LESS entropy than it would have done without life. Well, of course, we are catching up by consuming these fossils. But this consumption of fossils is nevertheless accompanied by structures (for example buildings or metal objects) which contain LESS entropy than the initial materials. So the use of fossils by humans creates LESS entropy than if they had just spontaneously burned (but of course, more entropy than if they had not burned at all).

It cannot therefore be reduced to a "maximum production of entropy". It's a bit dialectical in the Marxian sense, but dissipative structures both need a minimum of entropy production, but also tend to limit it.

[sen-no-sen]

as I pointed out, the idea that systems evolve towards maximum entropy production is scientifically wrong. The production of entropy may start to increase, but the establishment of structures leads rather to minimize (as much as possible), this entropy production.

You are talking about a internal entropy to the system, while in the framework of an MEP principle it is a question of global entropy.
A dissipative structure like a star is able to increase through its level of organization the speed of the energy flow which passes through it. This is much less the case of a gas cloud for example.

For example, life uses solar energy but ends up re-emitting everything in the form of heat, so in the end it doesn't change anything.

It never changes anything from an energy point of view because of the first principle of the thermo The question here is that of the circulation of the energy flows with regard to a considered system, not of the final sum of energy of the universe which always remains the same.

But this consumption of fossils is nevertheless accompanied by structures (for example buildings or metal objects) which contain LESS entropy than the initial materials.

Be careful not to confuse entropy in the informational sense (e.g. a smartphone is more ordered than a puddle of oil and a pile of silica, rare earths etc. raw elements at the origin of its composition) with the entropy necessary for the implementation of said object (i.e. the sum of knowledge accumulated in human brains necessary for the creation of a smartphone as well as the technical deployment of the means to achieve said smartphone).

[ABC2019]

as I pointed out, the idea that systems evolve towards maximum entropy production is scientifically wrong. The production of entropy may start to increase, but the establishment of structures leads rather to minimize (as much as possible), this entropy production.

You are talking about a internal entropy to the system, while in the framework of an MEP principle it is a question of global entropy.
A dissipative structure like a star is able to increase through its level of organization the speed of the energy flow which passes through it. This is much less the case of a gas cloud for example.

a star does not lead to a maximum production of entropy, precisely, otherwise it would explode instantly! This happens sometimes in the case of supernovae, but it is precisely because there are no longer any stable structures possible.

For example, life uses solar energy but ends up re-emitting everything in the form of heat, so in the end it doesn't change anything.

It never changes anything from an energy point of view because of the first principle of the thermo The question here is that of the circulation of the energy flows with regard to a considered system, not of the final sum of energy of the universe which always remains the same.

Yes, I said it, but I'm not talking about energy but entropy. Between heating a stone that re-emits infrared, and using the light that will feed lichens that will form structures that make a metabolism ... and end up re-emitting infrared, there is no fundamental difference. , except that the lichen will have "temporarily" slowed the entropy flow a bit, and eventually store some negentropy as a fossil. But he will not have accelerated the production of entropy, he will have used it.

Be careful not to confuse entropy in the informational sense (e.g. a smartphone is more ordered than a puddle of oil and a pile of silica, rare earths etc. raw elements at the origin of its composition) with the entropy necessary for the implementation of said object (i.e. the sum of knowledge accumulated in human brains necessary for the creation of a smartphone as well as the technical deployment of the means to achieve said smartphone).

I'm talking about physical entropy, thermodynamics. A metallic object has a lower entropy than the ore it comes from. "Informational" entropy is a different story, and it poses other difficult problems to solve.