Search results

PurposeThe study of anticipatory systems assumes the existence of two distinct types of systems in nature. Some systems anticipate the future and such anticipation forms part of the system itself, while other systems, however, do not anticipate and solely rely on past states. This article aims to argue that this distinction is inadequate given the current understanding of fundamental physics and it seeks to propose instead that all systems need to be considered fundamentally anticipatory.Design/methodology/approachThe analysis centers on showing how classical and quantum mechanics implies the concept of anticipatory system by showing how systems are relational and inherently anticipatory because of the potential interaction from a given reference frame of another system.FindingsThis article shows the fundamental relationship between the physical state of the system and its energy, first in classical mechanics and then in quantum mechanics. This serves, first, to remind that energy is arbitrary and so is the system, and second, that the role of potential energy is precisely one of anticipation of interaction with another system at the boundaries.Research limitations/implicationsThis article shows there is a fundamental concept of anticipation built in the concept of a closed system, but open systems can get around the analysis presented.Practical implicationsSystems engineering and decision theory fields may benefit from a renewed understanding of the role of anticipation in systems.Originality/valueThis analysis contributes to the fundamental understanding of the concept of anticipation, systems, and their fundamental role in physics.

Engaging an account of a judicial decision made in the Los Angeles Mental Health
Court, this article interrogates the role of anticipation in the lived negotiation
of moral, social and institutional orders. As Judge Samuel Benton recounts his
attempt to let himself 'emotionally off the hook' in the wake of a patient's suicide,
anticipation emerges as: 1) an ordered, linear sequencing of events towards logical
ends; 2) unsettled, temporally disjunctive engagements with the past in order to
make sense of present experience and ambiguous futures; 3) existential negotiations
of one's potential morality and social belonging; and 4) distributed organization of
information between people and across objects in order to elaborate present and
future experience. These manifestations of anticipation reveal the social and temporal
contingency and deep intersubjectivity of our negotiations with uncertainty in the
unsettling process of becoming moral.

The Supreme Court has rendered two lines of decisions about the remedies available for a violation of the Takings Clause. One line holds that courts have no authority to enter anticipatory decrees in takings cases if the claimant can obtain compensation elsewhere. The other line, which includes three of the Court's most recent takings cases, results in the entry of an anticipatory decree about takings liability. This Essay argues that the second line is the correct one. Courts should be allowed to enter declaratory or other anticipatory judgments about takings liability, as long as they respect the limited nature of the right created by the Takings Clause and do not usurp the limited waivers of sovereign immunity for actions to recover compensation from the government. Anticipatory litigation should not be routine. In ordinary condemnation cases and in most regulatory takings cases that turn on the particular facts presented, the action seeking compensation should provide complete and adequate relief. But where remitting property owners to an action for compensation will result in an incomplete, impractical, or inefficient outcome, anticipatory relief about whether a taking has occurred is appropriate and should be permissible. The Essay argues that recognizing the appropriate role for anticipatory remedies under the Takings Clause would help reduce the many pitfalls of litigating takings claims, and provide more consistent and effective enforcement of this constitutional right.

The Supreme Court has rendered two lines of decisions about the remedies available for a violation of the Takings Clause. One line holds that courts have no authority to enter anticipatory decrees in takings cases if the claimant can obtain compensation elsewhere. The other line, which includes three of the Court's most recent takings cases, results in the entry of an anticipatory decree about takings liability. This Essay argues that the second line is the correct one. Courts should be allowed to enter declaratory or other anticipatory judgments about takings liability, as long as they respect the limited nature of the right created by the Takings Clause and do not usurp the limited waivers of sovereign immunity for actions to recover compensation from the government. Anticipatory litigation should not be routine. In ordinary condemnation cases and in most regulatory takings cases that turn on the particular facts presented, the action seeking compensation should provide complete and adequate relief. But where remitting property owners to an action for compensation will result in an incomplete, impractical, or inefficient outcome, anticipatory relief about whether a taking has occurred is appropriate and should be permissible. The Essay argues that recognizing the appropriate role for anticipatory remedies under the Takings Clause would help reduce the many pitfalls of litigating takings claims, and provide more consistent and effective enforcement of this constitutional right.

PurposeThis article aims to be an expository introduction to Robert Rosen's anticipatory systems, the theory of which provides the conceptual basis for foresight studies.Design/methodology/approachThe ubiquity of anticipatory systems in nature is explained.FindingsCausality is not violated by anticipatory systems, and teleology is an integral aspect of science.Practical implicationsA terse exposition for a general readership, such as the present article, by definition cannot get into too many details. For further exploration the reader is referred to the recent book More than Life Itself by the author.Originality/valueThe topic of anticipatory systems in particular, and methods of relational biology in general, provide important tools for foresight studies. It is the author's hope that this brief glimpse into the world of relational biology piques the interest of some readers to pursue the subject further.

Anticipatory policy is premised on the need to respond to warnings about future threats and opportunities by positive political action. Discusses the notion of anticipatory policy by using three cases from ocean policy, deepwater ports, ocean thermal energy conversion, and deep seabed mining. Such policies tend to be extremely vulnerable to changes in the economic and political environments within which they operate. Decades, not just years, of studying policy implementation are needed to understand how such policies succeed or fail. Although there has been a move in this direction in assessing social welfare policies, this approach has been far less evident in the natural resources area. (Abstract amended)