Talk:Self-organization

message: You might care to mention that Marx and marxists often speak of the "self-organizion" of the working class.
:True self organization requires that the units be free to "organize themselves". In human societies---made up of individuals---the units are not free currently to self organize.
:This lack of freedom is an economic phenomenon: we are told that we have to earn the right "to be here" or be supported by some one (parents, sponsors, etc.,) who is "economically viable". Hence the basic social units are subject to the un-freedom imposed by "economic conscription".
:This was inevitable throughout human history (civilizations had to be based on the enslavement---in some form of other---of the majority of individual units) until the onset of the Industrial Revolution. After this evolutionary milestone, while the "industrial and cultural arts" advanced in leaps and bounds, social institutions failed to adapt to the changes advancing science and technology introduced into the the wealth creating capacity of economies: Instead of gradually releasing individuals from the need to earn their right to the means of life by selling their labour, society is still pressing individuals into the a-human role of factors of production by the anachronistic concept work ethic.
:This must change, else three thousand years worth of painful civilization-building will be wasted. Ref: The Economy of Abundance, Manhood of Humanity, etc.,
:"...the point is to change it."
:Janosabel (talk) 12:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-organization in human society 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Definition of entrophy 

message: The roots of the words indicate a clear distinction: ordo means rank or regular arrangement  whereas organizare means to contrive, arrange. Clearly these words do not even apply to the same conceptual level.
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.
The term ordering is used to describe a structural or logical arrangement. The term organization  is used to describe functional relations within a system.  Organization implies a structural and logical arrangement, but requires much more. Something can be orderly without being a system.
This means that the term ordering is not really equivalent to organization (or organizing). -- gmlk (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-ordering phenomena should not be confused with self-organization. Self-ordering events occur spontaneously according to natural “law” propensities and are purely physicodynamic. Crystallization and the spontaneously forming dissipative structures of Prigogine are examples of self-ordering. Self-ordering phenomena involve no decision nodes, no dynamically-inert configurable switches, no logic gates, no steering toward algorithmic success or “computational halting”. Hypercycles, genetic and evolutionary algorithms, neural nets, and cellular automata have not been shown to self-organize spontaneously into nontrivial functions. Laws and fractals are both compression algorithms containing minimal complexity and information. Organization typically contains large quantities of prescriptive information. Prescriptive information either instructs or directly produces nontrivial optimized algorithmic function at its destination. Prescription requires choice contingency rather than chance contingency or necessity. Organization requires prescription, and is abstract, conceptual, formal, and algorithmic. Organization utilizes a sign/symbol/token system to represent many configurable switch settings. Physical switch settings allow instantiation of nonphysical selections for function into physicality. Switch settings represent choices at successive decision nodes that integrate circuits and instantiate cooperative management into conceptual physical systems. Switch positions must be freely selectable to function as logic gates. Switches must be set according to rules, not laws. Inanimacy cannot “organize” itself. Inanimacy can only self-order. “Self-organization” is without empirical and prediction-fulfilling support. No falsifiable theory of self-organization exists. “Self-organization” provides no mechanism and offers no detailed verifiable explanatory power. Care should be taken not to use the term “self-organization” erroneously to refer to low-informational, natural-process, self-ordering events, especially when discussing genetic information. ( Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2006.07.003 )  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmlk (talk • contribs) 11:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-organization vs self-ordering 

message: Overview is ending by a clarifying list, but point 3 obviously refers to some technically defined terms "exploitation and exploration", meaning something that regards the system's balance to the outer world. I removed the links that pointed to the colloquial exploitation and exploration, since such links would be misleading. In this context I put exploitation (systems theory) and exploration (systems theory) on my wish list. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Exploitation vs. exploration

message: The form of notes 21 and 23-36 are not useful - I want to consult the articles cited, but how can I do this when all that's given is a surname name and year?  The journal name, date, and volume number should be supplied, with external links if available.  This would be very useful, thanks in advance. Sascrutcher (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  All the citation numbers you mentioned in the July 2009 version of the article appear to be just as incomplete today.  I have added  tags to see if someone familiar with the linguistics literature can help expand the citations so that others might be able to verify them.  In the meantime, someone might want to research through the article history and find what editor added most of the linguistics-self-organization section; perhaps that editor would be willing to come back to the article and help improve the citations. N2e (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  references not properly cited 

message: Among other missing citations, there is one that I think is important in the overview section.
There is no reference to where this is taken from and for what I've read there's no consensus on the main "ingredients" for a self-organizing system.
TheSen (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely correct TheSen.  This article needs a lot of work.  I am aware of no reliable sources that make an effort to compare the progress of self-organization in scientific thought between the various disciplines (e.g., physics, economics, chemistry, etc.).  Thus, it is quite difficult to say exactly what "self-organization" is in a one-size-fits-all general way.  We can however find definitions for self-organization in the context of several of the various disciplines mentioned in the article.  I'm not quite sure how to handle a generic definition at the top of the article, but am happy to work with others to improve it.  My own familiarity is with SO within the context of economics and the social sciences.  My guess is that most of the editors who have edited this article over time have generally come to it with expertise in only one or a few of the many disciplines in which self-organization has been theoretically explicated.  N2e (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to work on a complete make over of this article, but I'm new to both Wikipedia editing and SO. I'm starting my PhD in Computer Science and my research topics are Complex Systems in general and SO, swarm intelligence and complex networks being a little more specific (I still have to deepen in the field). Anyway, I'm currently working with biological and social systems so anything I can do, it will be my pleasure.TheSen (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are willing to do some hard work to improve this article, I would encourage you to BE BOLD and go for it.  Having said that, I think it best you describe proposed major changes (only the major ones) on the Talk page for a day or two so that you don't inadvertantly "gore someone's ox".  My only strong viewpoint on matters outside of self-organization in economics and the social sciences is that, clearly, the self-organization theoretical concept has been developed, under many different names, in many different disciplines (and even in the same discipline; e.g., in economics we have quite different terms from Adam Smith ("the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord", Wealth of Nations, 1776) to a number of economists in the 20th century ("grown order", to "spontaneous order," to "complex adaptive economics", etc.).  Thus, you and I have to be careful not to overrepresent the entire phenomenon in terms from computer science (you) or economics (me).  I will try to help you if you are interested, especially on the social science section as I'm familiar with a bit of the literature.  So, go for it. N2e (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I didn't forget this, I'm a little busy this days but I'm preparing some changes. Hope to have something, even if it's short, for this weekend. --TheSen (talk) 08:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing citation in the overview 

message: Hello there!
I changed my user account, I was previously TheSen. I was studying a little on the topic and although I cannot rewrite it completely I think that I can make some small change to start with. I will need some help writing some technical parts or parts from physics and linguistics for example.
To start with, I think the introduction (the part before the Overview) should be something like:
Now it includes some confusing ideas that can be explained later and misses to address the concept itself.
I would also change the Overview and historical notes, to include a few more references and deal with some of the key ideas as the 2nd law of the thermodinamics, attractors, noisy search and robustness/resilience. I'm working on it.
----------------------
Juan, although this is a great improvement over previous introductions, I think it could be clearer, for these reasons:
1. Self organization is less a process of its own, than it is a process governing processes (i.e., a principle or physical law).
2. When one speaks of structures or patterns that "appear," one is likely to confuse self organization with emergence.
3. The distinction between local and global is misleading; self organized behavior is always interpreted as a global property of the system. (Self organized criticality, OTOH, makes a local-global distinction.)
4. " ... act at the same time" does not always apply.  E.g., Braha & Bar-Yam (Braha, D. & Bar-Yam, Y. [2006]. “From Centrality to Temporary Fame: Dynamic Centrality in Complex Networks.” Complexity vol 12, no 2, pp 59-63) showed time dependence in communication networks, such that changing hub configurations can vary radically at short intervals of observation, even while the system remains relatively static over longer intervals, using the principle of multi-scale variety.
My suggested change:
"Self organization" descibes a system of cooperative elements, whose patterns of global behavior are distributed (i.e., no single element coordinates the activity) and self limiting.
What do you think?
Tom RayThomas h ray (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting the article 

message: please see this page 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_animal_behavior_and_brain_behavior
it is yet not very articulated article  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienficreal (talk • contribs) 21:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collective animal behavior and brain behavior 

message: In an article titled: "What is 'Life' and What is 'Consciousness'" [Ref:Science & Culture, published by Indian Science News Association, Vol.70, No.7-8, July-August, 2004], Hasmukh K. Tank has proposed that Self-Organization seems to be the mechanism responsible for the emergence of 'Life' from 'Matter'. And our subjective experience of 'Mind' and 'Consciousness' may be arising from the "Balance of the electrostatic fields produced by individual neurons" similar to the 'dark energy' contained in the space.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.215.239 (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-Organization as an Explanation for the Emergence of 'Life' from 'Matter'

message: I am starting translate this article to hebrew  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharonr2012 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  translate to hebrew 

message: As the Arrow of time is defined through the Second Law of Thermodynamics, self-organization seems to either
*introduce an idea which is opposite to the Second Law, or
*introduce an idea of causality which in breach with standard notions of such.
This needs to be discussed more closely in the article. I put a  tag after this sentence: "This process is spontaneous: it is not directed or controlled by any agent or subsystem inside or outside of the system" as this is at best questionable. For instance, the Game of Life example was actually created, or caused, by Conway, who is outside the system, a computer whose energy is continuously caused by a power plant, etc. Hence, there are causes from outside the system. Self-organization seems to be a concept which is analogous to homeostasis but which according to the current article makes a controversial claim about homeostasis as a perpetual motion machine. From my POV, the article right now reads as a poster for a POV. Notice that the Spontaneous order article (what's the difference?) states, "Spontaneous order, also known as "self-organization", is the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos." (my emphasis). Narssarssuaq (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to these grievances, I added a Criticism section. Narssarssuaq (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] and [[Causality]] 

message: You take a large flat stainless steel pan or Pot on a full gas Flame or stove.
You add 3-5mm Water and allready cooked Rice. (was a pot of steamed chicken). Just enough that it rarely covers the bottom of the pan in one layer.   On strong Boiling, the Lengthly Rice corns will align around Boiling Zones of one ricecorn size.   
the interesting Part of it:   it will form a stable GRID. 
The grains oscillate a bit. during cooking it is a Stable prismatic Grid. Several 5 cells large that is correct. a bit disturbing the rice is not completely cylindrically. Can someone please confirm this observation, and e.g. using oblique electric fields, etc. could one produce lenghy Dipol Nanoparticle Surface Grids, that then would be fixed burning the thing?  A prismatic GRID IS ALWAYS of USE in nanostructure surfaces. For example, fill cavities with magnetic materials, produce storage, create optical filters, etc. the Grid is the only mechanically stable variant for the particles. On a random oscillation the particles align skew according to their density in a fitting grid. --Wikistallion (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[New Example for Self organizing Structure]] 

message: The following material did not seem to fit as part of "History" (Descartes, etc) so I've brought it here. I suspect we have here a case of axes being finely ground, i.e. POV-pushing. If you know better then perhaps you can find a home for some of it. If you are sure it's nonsense then please say so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: "Developing views"

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Self-organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5oxBzwQCm?url=http://www.csupomona.edu/~jarego/pubs/RD2_LC.pdf to http://www.csupomona.edu/~jarego/pubs/RD2_LC.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The present article states (as of Nov 30 2018) that "A system cannot spontaneously increase its order without an external relationship that decreases order elsewhere in the system (e.g. through consuming the low-entropy energy of a battery and diffusing high-entropy heat)."
But this statement appears evidently false when we consider, for example, water spontaneously turning into crystalline ice as it cools, which can occur without any associated increase in entropy elsewhere. This happens because below 0 C at standard atmospheric pressure the "ordered" state that constitutes crystalline ice is more probable than the state of "disordered" liquid water. In other terms, the crystalline macrostate is identified with more microstates than the liquid macrostate. Nevertheless under those conditions the solid has, one may reasonably say, more "order" than the liquid from which it formed. 
The problem with the statement in the article is that "order" is not well defined. High degree of order is being used in that sentence as though it were synonymous with "low entropy." The subject of the article is self-organization; we do not call the formation of ice from water an example of self organization in that sense.
The law of increasing entropy says that what is most probable will inevitably happen. This is invariably true for macro states of large systems (>= 10^23 parts) if not always for the far smaller ones we sometimes study in connection with the mathematics of probability. Dratman (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a system cannot spontaneously increase its order" 

message: I propose to merge Spontaneous order into this article Self-organization, because both articles essentially talk about the same phenomenon, and Self-organization already has more details and covers a broader viewpoint than just the social sciences, which includes much of what is already in the Spontaneous order article. It seems that "Spontaneous order" is simply another name for Self-organization that is commonly used in the social sciences.  216.125.251.48 (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given the uncontested objection and no support. Klbrain (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The criticism of 1985 not make sense today (!), there are a lot of scientific evidence and applications for the original concept of self-organization (formal definition at Non-equilibrium thermodynamics), see for example 
this 2020 article on the evidence of Thermodynamic Self-Organization, in the field of metallurgy: https://doi.org/10.3390/e22030372
Perhaps some other criticism exist in nowadays, but in other fields, where the evidence is still disputed (is not a "field consensus").  As the  main section of the article is By field, important to enclose the criticism in its field to avoid confusion. Krauss (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section need correction and "By field" contextualization 

message: Apa benar kesalahan account harus di tangung peminjam dengan jaminan 2001:448A:3051:13E6:C1C6:7A68:2506:76A3 (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apa benar kesalahan account harus ada jaminan keuangan dari peminjam?