In my current thinking/writing I have been exploring ideas behind quantum social theory, for example the potential of an entropic society. Here, such a society exhibits a default (temporal) tendency toward disorder. Entropy increases unless society works to reduce it. Why? Because, from a quantum super-positional perspective on a society of individuals, there is an infinite potential for interference through quantum interdependency: there is an indeterminate potentiality to disorder, with only a limited number of determinable, observable events that may signify order.
Statistically, unless we invest in reducing the range of interdependencies and thus work to reduce the indeterminacy of state changes and/or interferences, by implementing (social) negentropic constraints, we will experience emergent disorder. Such constraints, including our social institutions, laws, ethics and morals, are designed to increase the probability that a given/anticipated/expected/desired state change within society may be observable. This is society’s desire for normativity.
Yet, as I think on these lines, I begin to see the potential of the entrepreneurial mind and its consciousness as a radical free agent unbound to the idea of the negentropic normativity of corporate life. This, to my mind, is a positive prospect: the entrepreneur’s value to our social-economy. Our socio-economic life needs its free radicals to prevent excessive negentropy. By attention to the radical free agents of society, we can be reminded that corporate normativity cannot (and should not) rule out indeterminacy entirely: the socio-economic society must respect its entropic potential. And, while corporations seek to normalise their activities, we can look to the entrepreneurs to remind us of our full, unrealised potential.
Thoughts? All opinions, normative and non-normative are welcome.
Changes and transformations of social−economic systems in this era are rooted in science and technology progress and changes . Now days, the survival of organizations requires finding solutions and new ways of dealing with problems which very dependent on innovation, invention, creation of products, processes, and new managerial methods. What has become increasingly apparent to researchers is that when pursuing new opportunities with limited resources, the entrepreneur must use innovative approaches in the face of these uncertainties
Thank you, Stephen X. Zhang I am exploring this theory in a number of related contexts. I think that the practical utility is essential. As an example, I think it may also provide one perspective on the distinction between human and humanoid that will be critical to developing an ethics for AI-powered replications of human activity. Where is the radical-free agent in the humanoid, and how can it be managed?
Thank you, Ca Dr. Gaurav Bhambri . Your comment is thought provoking. On the surface, there is nothing to disagree with in your observations. But, if I may respond with a challenge? While I would certainly agree "science and technology progress and changes" are related to transformations of social-economic systems, can we really say they are 'the' root? (Or even 'a' root?) Without the collective action of human individuals, how could there be "science and technology progress and changes"? Is "science and technology" (broadly defined) not just a moderator/mediator of human socio-economic organisation? Most of it is designed, with negentropic potential to normalise, constrain or substitute for human activity; while some of it realises (in a creative/destructive sense) an element of entropy. The role of the entrepreneur cannot just be about science and technology and the application of "innovative approaches"? What is an "innovative approach", if not a variation on a search for negentropy?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Biochemistry
- Enzymology
- Enzymes