Replying to LO24912 --
Dear Organlearners,
Gavin Ritz <garritz@xtra.co.nz> writes:
>I had some after thoughts on this subject of using an energy
>theory or model.
>
>Many theorists talk about the point of energy release some
>in medicine (a vaccine), others in biology and in fact in all
>fields of endeavor.
Greetings Gavin,
Were it not for the possibility that energy has not only a physical
dimension, but also a spiritual dimension, then I would not have replied
at all. Ancient civilisations like the Greeks considered energy to
underspan both the physical and spiritual realms of reality. But since the
days of Newton energy has been gradually restricted to the physical realm
because of the insistence to measure it by its mechanical definition made
possible by Newton's discoveries.
I also promised one of our fellow learners who is a performing artist to
write on "free energy" once again. The word "energy" in your contribution
gives me the opportunity to make that fruitful connection.
In your very last paragraph you write:
>If this field is your passion there is so much out there, have
>fun reading and applying. I hardly know which model to read
>next.
It made me realise once again how important it is to have profound
knowledge on the context in which all the models which you imply are
situated. Without this context it will be extremely difficult to make
sense out of the complexity of all these models. Without this context it
will also be easy to misunderstand most models. This contribution will be
on that context.
Since our fellow learner is a preforming artist, I will try to "compose"
contribution like a "sonata". I will play around with two "minor keys"
designated E and S (rather than the usual tonal keys A or B or ... G) and
then switch over to the "major key" designated F.
Let us begin. The ancient Greeks did not distinguish between
energy and work. They used the word "ergos" for both. The distinction
between energy and work came only two millenia later after the
1850's when LEC (Law of Energy Conservation) was discovered. This
discovery lead to the classical definition of energy in "reversible"
physics symbolised by:
/_\E = W
(Following the systems convention, I do not use a minus before W.)
Here W symbolises the amount of "work" done. E symbolises the
"energy" of the source from which the work has been derived. The
curious symbol cluster /_\ (which ought to resemble the capital
Greek letter DELTA for D) symbolises "difference". Hence the
expression "/_\E" means that it is exactly equal to "E(2) - E(1)". In
the latter expression E(1) symbolises the value of the energy E in
the source before the work is done and E(2) the value after the work
has been done. Putting a tag like (1) to E is like a putting a bare
note somewhere on the lines of a score to give it a definite pitch.
Thus the experssion "E(2) - E(1)" for /_\E can be thought of as a
two-note chord.
Using this meaning for /_\E, the definition may be manipulated
easily by algebra so as to rewrite it as
E(2) = E(1) + W
It means that the energy E of a system is changed from the value
E(1) by doing work W on the system to the value E(2). This latter
expression may be illustrated graphically by:
+W
E(1) =============> E(2)
This diagram tells us that work is ENERGY IN ACTION or ENERGY
IN FLOW. It is a kind of becoming whereas the energy of the source
is a kind of being. Students in thermodynamics textbooks are told
that W leads to a path differential rather than a system differential
like E. This is the very distinction which people from the Greeks
up to the 1850's failed to make, although already Heraclitus stressed
how essential this flow is by his famous saying "panta rhei" (all
flows).
In terms of the two note musical chord as metaphor, W is the actual
jump in our hearing from the one note to the other.
Many theorists do speak a lot about energy E, the being. But any
practician have to deal with work W itself also otherwise nothing will get
done! I wish I could stress to fellow learners how important it is to seek
both the becoming and being (i.e. the essentiality "liveness") in any
phenomenon!
Even though physicists succeeded two millenia after the Greeks in making
this much needed distinction between energy and work, there are four
vitally important issues, yet extremely subtile, which I want to draw the
attention of fellow learners to so as to question their own understanding.
I will present them as playing four variations in the movement with key E.
The first variation. It is never the energy E which gets measured, but
actually the work W. The difference [E(2) - E(1)] which is written
concisely as /_\E is a MENTAL construct, a mathematical artifact!!! It
means that we have to assume mentally an energy E to exist and we assume
it to have the values E(1) before and E(2) after the exchange of work W.
But actually we have no measuring apparatus at all for measuring the
energy directly as we have, for example, a ruler to measure lenth or a
thermometer to measure temperature. Perhaps the fact that "/_\E is a
mental creation" is the very reason why it took so many millenia before
the distinction between E and W could have been made. A certain minimum
mental complexity was required ("law of requisite conplexity") before /_\E
could be created mentally and it took many millenia for the mental
complexity to evolve to the required level in the 1850's.
With what has been written above, any fellow learner has more than enough
reason to think of energy E as part of a theory or model and of work W as
its practice. Furthermore, since people can decide to use or ignore
theories or parts of it and since some people do use the concept energy
while others ignore it, even the more we are invited to think of energy E
as some part of a theory or model if not self a theory or model. However,
theories or models come and go as our consciousness evolves. But I believe
that the concept "energy E" has emerged from the tacit knowledge of
humankind to stay with us for a very, very long time, far longer than even
the concept "money $". The "energy E" is a concept with which we have
captured something essential to Creation itself, something factual rather
than something provisional or even fictuous. The symbol E is added to the
word "energy" as a reminder that the phsyicists merely refined this
ancient concept, using Newton's laws in their articulation.
The second variation. The work W is calculated in terms of its MECHANICAL
definition based on the mechanics of Newton. It is calculated in terms of
"force"x"displacement parallel to force". Although Newton defined force
more than three centuries ago, he did not create the more complex
definition of work. It is a mystery who did that, but perhaps it might
have been Lebniz in the same period.) Anyway, since those days up to about
WWII every "flow of energy", even if it could be measured in its own
manner, had to be REDUCED or SIMPLIFIED into mechanical work before that
flow of energy would be accepted as a valid flow of energy. This
mechanical definition for "flow of energy" as work W created a serious
bottle neck in thinking on physics. It led to a severe fixation of the
paradigm of simplicity and reductionism as its prime methodology to
validate all forms of energy. In my opinion it also strongly intensified
rote learning by setting examples in physics which were then imitated
blindly and habitually in many other subjects.
Please observe how I apply, and not theorise, our topic "Bifurcation,
bottleneck, leverage point and TOC" to the evolution of physical science.
The equivalent of this "constraining of all energy flows to mechanical
work" in music would be like constraining the entire course of a complex
sonata to one and only one key. It would be like requiring a dog to walk
with only its back left leg. Perhaps it is feasible, but it is not natural
and even less beautiful. However, as soon as we let go of the
"constraining of all energy flows to mechanical work", some bifurcation
will be reached sooner or later. This is exactly what will happen in the
third variation below. It is all based on the the remarkable discovery of
J P Joule, namely that heat is also a flow of energy like work and that an
exact amount of work can be converted into an exact amount of heat. It is
not a surprise that the SI name for the unit of energy is "joule" to
honour JP Joule for this discovery.
The third variation. A certain two-note chord "E(2) - E(1)" played
on a piano will sound different to its playing on a violin or even a
third instrument. If all three instruments play the same chord at
exactly the same time, even this collective outcome is different
to the individual outcomes. The difference is because of the higher
harmonics (tonal organisation) involved. The values E(2) and E(1)
describe only the basic pitches and not the higher harmonics
involved. This basic description is done on the left side of the
equation
/_\E = ??????
On the right side (the ????) the kind of instrument (and thus its
implicate tonal organisation) is indicated. For example, an equation
like
/_\E = W
may be thought of metaphorically as involving the piano, while
/_\E = Q
may be thought of as involving the violin and
/_\E = W + Q
as involving both. The more additional terms are added to the right
side like W and Q, the more the equation becomes metaphorically
like a symphony. It is then the task of the conductor to tell each
player W, Q, .... exactly how much each must contribute to the
total loudness (intensity) of the sound so that a unique timber can
emerge.
Not let us go beyond the metaphorial to the phenomenon itself. The
definition
/_\E = W
makes use of the "equivalence relationship =" which is used to
compare beings. It is this very equality "=" which reduced physics
into "reversible" physics. It also opened up the way for thinking
about efficiency because this definition implies 100% efficiency
in the conversion of some of the total energy (the /_\E) to MECHANICAL
work (the W). Only one term W on the right hand side can be
allowed to have 100% efficiency at all. Should there not be 100%
efficiency, the equation would of necessity have at least two terms
on the right hand side. It might have, for example the form
/_\E = W + Q
Here, for example. W might be 90% of /_\E so that Q will be the
remaining 10% of /_\E. Here Q is the symbol which phycisists use
for heat which is the flow of thermal energy. But we even could have
had, for example
/_\E = W + Q + D
where D symbolises the flow of chemical energy by means of
diffusion into the system. This latter equation shows that the
efficiency will become gradually less as a result of /_\E (the ONE)
mapping not only on W (the one), but on W and Q and D (the MANY).
The best way to symbolise this one-to-many-mapping is not by
an "equivalence relationship = for being", but by the "order
relationship < for becoming" as
/_\E > W
By introducing this order relationship, our mind will have to follow
suit by shifting from the paradigm of simplicity which involves
reversibility, exclusivity, efficiency and one-to-one-mapping to the
paradigm of complexity which involves irreversibility, inclusivity,
distributivity (shared outcomes) and one-to-many-mapping. Should
we not make this pardigm shift, we can stop expecting any
understanding of the context to which the topic "Bifurcation,
bottleneck, leverage point and TOC" applies.The paradigm of
simplicity just do not provide for the requisite complexity to
understand concepts such as irreversibility, inclusivity,
distributivity (shared outcomes) and one-to-many-mapping
The equation /_\E = W + Q (which now implicitly denies 100%
efficiency and favours a one-to-two-mapping) is not just another
equation. Its like a sonata now making use of two keys rather
than the one key /_\E = W. The discovery of Joule made this
switching from the first to the second key possible (but not vice
versa). Suddenly the sonata is now able to rapture in a rhapsody,
something which most musicians know. Nevertheless, the
musician may be very surprised to learn that this "two-key" equation
/_\E = W + Q is actually the very one taught in the far majority of
courses in thermodynamics to symbolise the Law of Energy
Conservation (LEC). Yes, as soon as physicists dropped their
"one only" constraint on what will change the energy E, they
discovered by a mental emergence LEC, one of the most beautiful
rhapsodies in the sonata of physics up to this day.
Those few scientists (please note, not physicists) who discovered
by way of emergent Team Learning the LEC, did actually make the
effort to describe the symphonic rhapsody which they have experienced.
M Faraday did it in his own unique manner with the timber of the
chemist. J R Mayer followed his own timber as a medical doctor.
J P Joule followed his own timber as a physicist. But unfortunately,
soon afterwards all these timbers were lost and thus of necessity the
knowledge of the rhapsody which this discovery of LEC brought
about. LEC was reduced into a law of physics discovered by some
physicist. By claiming all the honour for physicists, it appears as
if physics was 100% efficient in paving the way for the discovery of
LEC. When one instrument in a symphony keeps on oversounding
the rest, a rhapsody is never possible.
The fourth variation. The definition
/_\E = W
is "ignorant" to any change of organisation (as order and chaos)
within the system accompanying the change /_\E in its energy.
But as soon as we write
/_\E = W + Q
we include more (indicated by the Q) than one (indicated by the W)
kind of "flow of energy". In other words, we now deal with more than
one form or organisation of energy. Accordingly we will have to
complexify our idea of "energy E". We will now in future speak of it
as the "total energy" (two words, but one concept) indicated by the
symbol E. Failing to use the "total" when many forms of energy
exist thus indicates that we failed to make this shift in complexity.
To talk of "energy" is like speaking of people or humans while to
talk of "total energy" is like speaking of all peoples or humankind.
When speaking of people or humans, some are included while
others may be excluded. But when speaking of humankind, not
a single person since the dawn of humankind is excluded. In
"total energy" no form of energy is excluded. In other words, LEM
is completely suspended. It means that the concept "total energy"
is very powerful because of the wholeness which it embodies.
So far the four variations of the first movement in "minor key E".
Let us now play the second movement. Gavin writes:
>VSM does the same things just using different language,
>Stafford Beer talks about attenuation and amplification, under
>inputs and outputs and energy transformation (others call this
>entropy). This is such a huge field on its own.
Gavin, it seems as if you say that "energy transformation" is called by
"others" entropy. You are absolutely free to say whatever you want, even
on entropy, and that goes for any other fellow learner on this list.
Scientific truth is not the issue here. What is important is our ability
to learn authentically. To perform authentic learning dynamically, each of
us needs requires "spiritual free energy". Thus the "spiritual free
energy" is such a valuable asset that I have to work very carefully with
it. The more I use any concept, including the concept "entropy". in a
manner which ignores one or more of the seven essentialties, the more I
waste the "free energy" which such a concept affords me.
Accordingly, I want to urge fellow learners to question firstly my own
understanding of "energy" and "entropy" in terms of what I now will be
writing. Then I want to urge them to question their own understanding too
because after all the authentic learning of each of us is most important
to me.
The concept "energy transformation" is much closer related to the
concept "entropy production" (the movie or becoming) than the
concept "entropy" (the picture or being). But let us first think of
merely the quantities (total) energy E and entropy S. The Greek
etymology of energy is "en"(in)-"ergos"(work). Actually, only after
the discovery of LEC (Law of Energy Conservation) so that the
equation
/_\E = W
became clear, the name "energy" was suggested and accepted.
Before that time, physicists designated Newton's mechanical force
as the "dead force" and energy as the "live force"! These two names
were suggested by Leibniz almost two hundred years earlier soon
after Newton formulated his concept of force. The name "entropy"
was suggested by Clausius who himself discovered LEP (Law of
Entropy Production). The name "entropy" came roughly a dozen
years in use after the name "energy". Thus, in terms of the span
of the history of humankind itself, they are twins because the one
was born a "few minutes" before the other one with which it shared
the same womb.
Perhaps the most profound thing for me about the discovery of LEC and LEP
is that whereas LEC was the result of extraordinary Team Learning, the
discovery of LEC was the result of Individual Learning. In the team who
discovered LEC, only one man insisted that they should seek further than
merely that "live force" (energy) which cannot be created or destroyed.
He was the only "midwife" expecting a twin! It was nobody else than
Michael Faraday with his seemingly super-human mentalness. He urged that
they should sldo seek what causes "live force" to change from one form to
another. Today we will say he urged them to seek what causes "live force"
(energy) to become transformed.
Faraday, the greatest practical scientist among them all noticed that work
W could be converted exactly (100% efficiently) into heat Q, but that the
opposite was practically not possible. He found it most curious. He
thoughts, although authentic, was not original. Sidi Carnot before him
was just as much puzzled by this curioisity. But the theorists of their
age considered it only as slightly inconvenient for practice with no
critically theoretical importance. It took several decades for the great
theoretician Maxwell to show that this "slight incovenience" has profound
theoretical importance. What aroused Faraday's curiosity was that he was
actually trying to connect to LEP. (I will soon come to LEP). Whereas
Faraday in the team fitted the "law of requisite complexity", the others
did not. Since they ignored his pleas and his curiosity, they were not
able to discover LEP too.
More than a dozen years later, beginning with studies done by
Sidi Carnot on the dissipation of kinetic energy into heat when
canon balls move through turrets, Clausius created the concept
"entropy" S. Thus through his unique Individual Learning he gave
humankind the formulation of LEP (Law of Entropy Production) as
follows:
Die Energie der Welt is konstant.
Die Entropie der Welt strebt einem Maximum zu.
The way in which he used the German word "Welt" entails that
when we translate it into English, we will have to use the universe
UN as the most encomassing system we can think of -- the largest
created whole. What he writes then becomes
The energy of the universe is constant.
The entropy of the university seeks maximum value.
Using the /_\ notation, E for total energy and S for entropy, these
two sentences may be symbolised into
/_\E(UN) = 0
/_\S(UN) > 0
We make use of the fact that when anything X is constant, any
change /_\X in it will be equal to zero like in the case of total
energy E. But when anything X has to increase, any change /_\X
in it will have to be greater than zero, i.e. positive like in the
case of entropy S.
As a matter of interest, it is today standard to demonstrate in
taxtbooks of thermodynamics how
* Clausius' articulation of LEP using the concept "entropy S",
* Carnot's articulation devoid of this concept and
* Faraday's obervation that thermal energy cannot be converted
100% efficiently into work W. although the converse (see Joule)
is possible,
are three different ways in which LEP manifests itself. LEP also
manifests itself in innumerous other ways.
The UN in brackets tagged to E and S as E(UN) and E(UN) means
that we have to think of E and S of the whole universe itself as the
encompassing system (ecosystem). In other words, whereas the
expressions
/_\E(UN) = 0
/_\S(UN) > 0
are valid, the expressions
/_\E(SY) = 0
/_\S(SY) > 0
and
/_\E(SU) = 0
/_\S(SU) > 0
are invalid and meaningless! Observe that we had to make use of
LEM to obtain these latter two sets of expressions since the
UN "is" SY "and" SU. The UN "is not either" SY "or" SU "but not
both".
The transformation of the one-to-one-mapping in
/_\E = W
into the one-to-two-mapping in
/_\E = W + Q
opened up metaphorically both "minor keys E and S" for use in
the sonata through the expressions:
/_\E(UN) = 0
/_\S(UN) > 0
Its like an irreversible change to the initial key somewhere in the
sonata. Although it happens somewhere in the sonata, it affects
the outcome of the whole sonata and not merely that part in it
after the change has been made. This musical metaphor hopefully
illustrates that the essentiality wholeness is absolutely important
to develop a profound knowledge on LEC and LEP. It means that
we should never fragment energy E and entropy S from each other
and work only with the remaining one. It means that we should
never try to compose the whole sonata in only one key. The first
movement used the "minor key E". The second movement requires
a different "minor key S". It will then develop with its own
variations.
So let me again play four variations in this new movement.
The first variation. When working with E and S together, we ought to
observe that like for the total energy E, the entropy S cannot be measured
directly by any apparatus. It means that the entropy S have to be
calculated in terms of two other measurements just like it was done for
work W in terms of "force" and "displacement". In other words, the entropy
S is a mental creation just like the energy E. What I have played above
with regard to the "total energy" E in four variations, may be played out
for entropy S too, although the theme will now be different because
entropy S is calculated differently.
Should you want to know how /_\S can be calculated, please study
the "Primer on Entropy" in the LO-archives:
http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0265.html
http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0272.html
http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0273.html
http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0304.html
http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0334.html
http://www.learning-org.com/98.11/0335.html
The second variation. We ought to observe that "total energy" E and
"entropy" S are, to use a bad metaphor, the "two sides of the same
coin". A far better metaphor is to imagine a drawing with charcoal.
The amount of charcoal used represents the total energy E and the
forms into which that charcoal has been applied represents the
entropy S. Technically, we will call the total energy E and the
entropy S a "complementary dual" of the universe UN satisfying the
patterns
/_\E(UN) = 0
/_\S(UN) > 0
They are not identical twins, but rather twins in the sense of Esau
and Jacob some four thousand years ago.
The third variation. We ought to observe that /_\S(UN) > 0 is an order
relationship and not an equivalence relationship. Thus we cannot simply
assume that S is a systemic quantity like E. We will have to prove it. And
this exactly where the reversible Carnot cycle comes in which gives
students in physics such mental anguish to master. The "reversible"means
that it is a cycle with zero (neither positive, nor negative) feedback.
This zero feedback is intended to fix the "becoming" /_\S in terms of two
beings S(1) and S(2). There is nothing wrong with it, unless it causes us
to have the Mental Model that S(1) is prerequisite to /_\S. This Mental
Model will then increase our resistance to change. It will specifically
suppress the emergence from "entropy" the picture (being) to "entropy
production" the movie (becoming). I have seen this too many times
happening in students not to doubt it any more.
However, as soon as we extend our explorations from "reversible
cycles" to any irreversible change, whether cyclic (positive or
negative feedback) or open ended, the /_\S (the performing stage
from which the movie was taken) becomes prerequisite to
distinguish different values S(1) and S(2) (two pictures in the
movie).
This /_\S is then always one or other becoming pattern with the
implicate form
[Y(2) - Y(1)] x /_\X > 0
as I have explained in the series "To become or not to become".
Here the difference [Y(2) - Y(1)] (which has to be divided by the
absolute temperature T) is the "entropic force" and the increment
/_\X is the "entropic flux". The product pair YxX itself is nothing
else than a specific form of energy.
The fourth variation. We ought to observe what we will get when
we combine the two patterns
/_\E(UN) = 0
/_\S(UN) > 0
into one complex pattern. In other words, what is that thing of
which energy E and entropy S are its complementary duals?
The combination of the two patterns lead into the pattern -- and
now make sure that your seat belts are fasten --
/_\F < W
We will now enter the third movement in the "major key F".
As soon as the interaction between the various forms of energy becomes
factual, even the evolution from the concept "energy E" to the "total
energy E" is not sufficient to reflect this diversity of interactive forms
in the content (value) of E. In other words, even the concept "total
energy E" does not provide for the requisite complexity. In terms of the
sonata as metaphor it means that one key in a movement is not sufficient
to explore all the creative possibilities. Another concept ("minor key"
for the sonata) in a second movement is also required. History has it that
about a dozen years after the mental construct "total energy E", the
additional mental contruct "entropy S" was made so that the requisite
level of omplexity could be attained. This requisite level of complexity
allowed J W Gibbs to create the mental construct "free energy F" (two
words, but one concept) designated by the symbol F.
The "free energy" F of any system is specifically that part of its
"total energy" E which is available to change IN ANY WAY the
organisation in the system SY, or its SU or both. (All the systems
which surround the system SY are taken together as one complex
system SU. The SU is the systemic environment or field of the
system SY.) Whereas for the "total energy" E we have the order
relation
/_\E > W
we have for "free energy" the order relation
/_\F < W
This is a peculiar inversion since we rather would have expected for
the part
/_\F > W
just as it is for the whole.
The change from the 100% efficient definition
/_\E = W ...[1] where E = total energy, W = work
into the far less than 100% efficient order realtionship
/_\F < W ...[2] where F = free energy, W = work
seems to be trivial. It is not. It is a profound change which again
requires the paradigm shift from simplicity to complexity to
understand its full meaning. For example, in [1] we make use of
LEM (Law of Excluded Middle). It means that what changes inside
the system (the /_\E) is reflected by what goes in over the border
(the W). But in [2] LEM does not apply to any change in the
"free energy" F. A change in "free energy" may involve any KIND OF
ORGANISATION -- either chaos or order or both. Furthermore, it
may happen ANYWHERE -- either in the system SY or its
surrounding systems together as SU or in both as the universe UN.
In other words, the "free energy" is the UNIVERSAL indicator for
the capacity of any system to change the organisation of any system
in its FUTURE.
It is interesting to observe that futurists (teleology, eschatology) have
little to say even remotely to "free energy" F. The quantity "total energy
E" which cannot change for the universe UN, is somewhat like the past in
time. We cannot change the past. The quantity "entropy" S which can only
change by increase for the universe UN, is somewhat like the present in
time. We can change the present by becoming increasingly aware of it. The
quantity "free energy" F is pre-eminently for the future in time. It
entials that we have to bring the past and the present together so as to
open up the future. However, in the backgound we have to see the "law of
requisite complexity". Should our combination of the past and present not
be complex enough, we cannot automatically unlock the future.
How do we express or measure complexity? One of the most
illuminating ways for me personally is by means of the seven
essentialities. Stafford Beer considers variety as a measure of
complexity. Should we extend this idea to incorporate all seven
essentialities and not merely otherness (variety), we have a
pwoerful measure. For example, to understand
/_\E = W
involves mainly three essentialities, namely
liveness ("becoming-being")
sureness ("identity-categoricity")
wholeness (" monadicity- associativity")
as I have discussed earlier in this contribution. But to understand
/_\F < W
involves all seven essentialities. In other words, it also involves
fruitfulness ("connect-beget")
spareness ("quantity-limit")
otherness ("quality-variety")
openness ("open-paradigm")
It means that should we care little for the seven essentialties,
especially the last four, we will cannot ever expect to come to
profound knowledge on "free energy" F. We will simply fail the
"law of requisite complexity".
I have now played the four variations intended of the first
movement.
Physicists spend a lot of their spiritual free energy on expression
/_\E = W ...[1]
The transformation from this expression to
/_\F < W ...[2]
is called by physicists a derivation because of their Mental Model
that LEC is fundamental. This derivation (originally done by Gibbs)
is seldom given in a text book of physics in its thermodynamics
section. But as soon as we move from physics to chemistry,
expression [2] becomes far more important to be able to deal with
the increasing complexity in chemistry. However, while also following
the paradigm of simplicity with its fundamentalistic methodology of
reductionism, chemists have discovered a most remarkable insight.
When simplifying [2] into the special case for W = 0 (no transfer of
energy as work is involved), expression [2] reduces into
/_\F < 0
Eventually it became clear for chemists that this last expression is
the crucial key for understanding spontaneity! In fact, whenever any
particular change in the system is contemplated and the associated
change in "free energy" /_\F calculated in advance, such a change
will happen SPONTANEOUSLY when
/_\F < 0
In other words, spontaneous changes involves a decrease in "free
energy". Conversely, the change is non-spontanous when
/_\F > 0
and thus the change will never happen on its own accord.
When we move from nature to culture in which not only the body
of a person plays a role, but also the person's spirit, we will not
come very far by working with
/_\E = W
Even by extending it as chemists do into the expression
/_\F < 0
we will still not be able to handle the complexity in human
spirituality. It is only when we consider the full version
/_\F < W
that the rich picture with sheer beauty may be developed. Long ago
I wrote a little bit on how this latter expression is related to the
very heart of human ethics. Since there was no interest then in this
"extraordinary claim" of mine, I discontinued "painting rich picture"
on this order relationship and ethics.
Perhaps it may interest fellow learners that Andrew Campbell
asked me a couple of weeks ago in private what is the distinction
between ethics and spirituality. In their facilitation WORK it has
now become crucial. Andrew, should I ever have to write a monograph
on "deep ethics", the exposition will have to connect very soon to
the order relationship
/_\F < W
Without it, the monograph on ethics will become just another
"dog chasing its own tail" as had been the case since Aristotle via
Augustinus, Aquinas, Hobbes, Locke, Smith, Kant and many
other great thinkers. But with this relationship it is possible to
answer ethical questions which remained unanswered for many
centuries. For example, it becomes possible to explain why
external control to any kind of evolution is so dangerous and often
downright destructive. It is even possible to explain that the "good"
which plays the key role in ethics is not just "something which is
out there" as has been assumed in past ethical studies based on
the paradigm of simplicity. This "good" actually have to "arise from
within" and can be destroyed by making it banal.
>One of the many discussions in this chat room has been
>around Prigogine and the bifurcation point (it is worth mentioning
>again).
Yes, he did much to explicate the concept "bifurcation" and to show that
it basically happens as a result of increase in entropy. (I will come
again to entropy.) The word "bifurcation" means "event forking into two".
Another way to describe it, is a "one-to-two-mapping".
Many people keep on claiming that I am a disciple of Prigogine.
The reasons they give for doing this will fill a book. Nevertheless,
all those making such claims fail to notice some pretty important
differences between Prigogine and me. For example, I seldom use
the word "entropy" on its own and I do it only when I want to stress
the static being of organisation. But I have used the phrase "entropy
production" (one concept) thousands of times. Prigogine would
have used the word "dissipation" rather than "entropy production".
It is because the transformation of the 100% efficient
/_\E = W
into the emergent form
/_\E = W + Q
which is less than 100% efficient in terms of W, is seen as a
dissipation of W into Q rather than in raising E(1) with /_\E into
E(2).
Here is another difference. In the book "Order out of Choas" the concept
"free energy" F is not even mentioned once. In the book "From being to
Becoming" it is mentioned only once on p80 as a side remark. Never does he
stress that the "dissipation of energy" (which I would describe as
"entropy production") depends on the system having a requisite
(sufficiently high) "free energy" F to do so. He merely assumes the
"dissipation of energy" as a fact in being which has to be dealt with in
self-organising systems. I deal with "entropy production" as something
which has to become a fact by requiring "free energy" F to do so. I wonder
just how many times I have used the concept "free energy" F?
A third difference is that Prigogine's most extraordinary extension of the
"dissipation of energy" to self-organisation from chemistry to also
biology (awarded by the Nobel Prize) is despite this brilliant emergence
still restricted to the physical realm of reality. This comment is not
intended in any way as critique or judgement. Why? Because Prigogine nor
any other physicist or chemist had any experimental data pointing to the
possibility that "entropy production" also happens in the spiritual realm
of reality. Thus nowhere in all his writings will the researcher find any
direct referance how the "dissipation of energy" (i.e. "entropy
production") may be linked to typical human acts like creating, learning,
thinking and believing. On the other hand, how many times have I not
written a seemingly incomprehensible sentence like "learning is one of the
many manifestations of entropy production"? Just as incomprehensible seems
to be my elementary description of creativity as "entropy production is
the primordial cause of creativity".
A fourth important difference is that I beseech any fellow learner
whatever the "level of excellence" not to trust anything which I have
written, neither my own authentic discoveries, nor the authentic
discoveries of others by which I was guided and with which I have alligned
myself. Should any fellow learner get even the feigntest idea that my
writing is jeopardising his/her own authentic mental behaviour, then burn
my writing at the first possible opportunity. Should you want to burn me
too, how can I make a difference to what has happened so innumerous times
in the past? Prigogine, on the other hand, believes in the infallibility
of the scientific method (the loop involving observation, speculation and
falsification). Hence he, like all others before him, eventually have to
conclude that certitude is not possible any more. But for me a persisting
lack of serenity (ultimate certitude) points to a serious lack of depth in
the scientific method. This lack prevents science to become an art too.
>This is what EKS does, the methodology allows one to navigate
>to the bottleneck or bifurcation point and then unleashes the
>energy at that point to either create a new structure to meet an
>certain demand (purely from a business point of view). TOC is a
>lower order EKS methodology (those that swear by it would not be
>happy with that statement). Every theory, model gets its disciples.
Gavin, you wrote about the "either", but what about the "or"?
If I had to write that last sentence, I would have "completed" it as:
Every theory/model gets its disciples by way of rote learning.
It is not my task to make a discipline or even convert disciples to that
discipline. It is not my task to refute all wild claims about me, except
when they jeopardise authentic learning. My task is primarily to help
fellow leaners how to learn authentically. The concept "authentic
learning" is not a discipline, but prerequisite to human living. Without
"authentic learning" we may still live as biological organisms, but we
will certainly lose our humanness in doing so. Our humaneness cannot be
found by using LEM to exclude ourselves from all other living organisms or
vice versa to force all other living organisms to fit into our ways of
living (anthropocentrism). As I understand it, based on my own
observations, our humaneness will emerge as we link what we know to rest
of humankind, all other creatures, the rest of Creation and the Creator.
In other words, our humaneness will emerge as we become whole with the web
of reality.
So let us continue with the third movement based on the "major
key F" for the future.
The concept "free energy F" is almost worthless should we fragment
it from the order relation
/_\F < W
For example, the word and concept "creativity" was seldom used
before WWII. But WWII, despite all its hurtful immergences, also
gave rise to the requisite level of complexity making the emergence
of "creativity" from tacit to formal knowledge possible. Similarly, the
requisite level of complexity will soon be reached making the concept
"free energy F" common. How will fellow learners then be able to
distinguish between the grain and chaff when deluged by information
on "free energy F"? The order relationship above makes the
difference! So let us go a little deeper into this order relationship.
Up to now I have hidden some complexity, except letting a little
of it through by the tags (UN) in
/_\E(UN) = 0
/_\S(UN) > 0
What will the corresponding "tags" be in
/_\F < W
To make sure of them, we should actually follow step by step
the transformation form the former two expressions to the latter
expression. Unfortunately, this will involve far too many intricate
mathematical manipulations for our fellow learner who is a
performing artist. But I have left enough clues in the former two
movements to motivate these tags in
/_\F < W
precisely as
/_\F(SY) < W(SU-SY)
The two expression are exactly the same in content, but in form the second
one has these tags added to the quantities involved. It says that "free
energy" F of the system SY consists of two complementary duals, namely its
total energy E and its entropy S. When we think of the two patterns
separately, we have to think of the universe UN as our system. But when we
think of them together as one pattern, we may think of a system SY as part
of the universe PROVIDED WE ALSO think of its border indicated by SY-SU.
In other words, the very fusion of these two patterns into one is the very
reason for the manifestation of our systematical thinking, or Systems
Thinking as others would call it.
The difference /_\F = F(2) - F(1) again involves metaphorically
two entities from the score. But think of them now as the two
principal notes of a strophe, F(1) the one with which it begins and
F(2) the one with which it ends. In other words, /_\F is not an
instantaneous "chord", but one in which there is a passage of
time with a profound reorganisation during it. The work W(SU-SY)
needed to move from the first note F(1) in the strophe to its last
note F(2) is far more than what the difference between them as
one instantaneous chord would indicate. This is indicated by the
expression
/_\F(SY) < W(SU-SY)
With a slight and simple algebraic manipulation, we may transform
/_\F(SY) < W(SU-SY)
into
0 < W(SU-SY) - /_\F(SY)
This expression says the following
"zero"
"is smaller than"
"border interaction" corrected by "internal action".
It is the same as saying
"border interaction" corrected by "internal action".
"is greater than"
"zero".
or symbolically
W(SU-SY) - /_\F(SY) > 0
The simple change from
/_\F < W
into
0 < W - /_\F
or with tags supplied
0 < W(SU-SY) - /_\F(SY)
may seem to be a slight modification with little significance. It
is not. It says that we may think of the universe UN in an organic
way like in terms of "cell wall" (indicated by the SU-SY) and
"cell guts" (indicated by the SY). The "cell" (wall plus guts) works
(indicated by the W) spontaneously (indicated by the <).
It tells me personally that the most profound facet of the history
of time (or Creation) is its "deep evolution". This "deep evolution"
is the propensity of the universe to become more complex second
by second, thus gradually revealing the "singularity of complexity"
along the arrow of time [/_\S(UN) > 0]. The
0 < W(SU-SY) - /_\F(SY)
may be metaphorically expressed as
0 < CELL (wall AND guts)
says that the universe is more than "zero" because the universe
is LIFE like the life of a cell. Crucial to the guts of that cell is
its
"free energy" F. (Do fellow learners still remember the topic long
ago on on out LO-dialogue on "guts"?)
I am deeply under the impression how much more complex the
monadic expression
/_\F < W
is than the dualistic expressions
/_\E = 0
/_\S > 0
Each of them involves only one quantity ("total energy" and
"entropy"). But the former monadic expression involves two
quantities, work and guts. There is no end to the latter two
expressions, except the very boundary of the universe UN itself.
But for the former monadic expression which its cellular message,
the essentiality spareness becomes most important. Cells without
spareness are the cause of cancer. Hence, should we wish to avoid
these cancerous tumors, we should always try to bear in mind the
cellular way of Systems Thinking whenever we speak of "energy
which is important for changes". It will help when we bear in
in mind that
* it is specifically the "free energy" F part of the "total energy"
E which drives all changes by means of "entropy production",
as well as
* all sources of "free energy" are limited and thus will become
exhausted unless they have the ability to collapse creatively
so as to reborn themselves.
This is our "leverage point" so as to shift from the paradigm of
simplicity to the paradigm of complexity. This is how the sonata
of this universe becomes a sheer rhapsody.
The wonderful interplanetary space explorations of the last two decades
have helped to uncover a most extraodinary cosmology of our own solar
system, even though it is one out of zillons of other solar systems. Out
of the Big Bang energy began to freeze into hot matter forming the
zillions of primary stars of which many we are still seeing today. Soon
afterwards (some five billion years ago) one of those first primary stars
collapsed creatively by a supernova -- the one which preceded our own
solar system. Then it became reborn as its exloded hot matter condensed
once again into our sun -- a secondary star, with all its planets
revolving around it and their moons around them.
What a profound multifurcation or one-to-many-mapping! One and only one of
the planets in this solar system had exactly the perfect conditions as
well as the "free energy" for eventually DNA to be formed some four
billion years ago. It was sustained within a cell wall preformed in clay
pores filled with water. Thus the first prokaryotic cells were created. By
producing too much oxygen, even though it took a billion years, they made
life too difficult for themselves. So out of them emerged the eukaryotic
cells to cope with an oxygen rich environment. They began as unicellular
organisms. But some have evolved into massive multicellular organisms like
the Baobab tree, the whale and the elephant.
This is our Mother Earth and how she becomes -- the most remarkable
singularity of complexity which I can think of. Some people say that since
there are zillions of other stars too, life must be plentiful elsewhere in
the cosmos. However, should they compute exactly what complexity is
required for humankind to emerge, all those zillions of other stars cannot
match what Farther Sun with Mother Earth have provided for. The
Intelligence of the Creator is indeed awesome.
It is within this unique solar system that we have to rethink our human
organisations. Why, to make some buck here and get some fame there? No,
not for me. As I have indicated in my contribution "On Cells and Learning
Organisations", we have reached the end of whatever our organisations
based on the paradigm of simplicity can offer. What is worse is that this
paradigm of simplicity has become our most severe constraint. We will
have to shift from simplicity to complexity. Thus we will need the guts to
do so.
By endeavouring to reach that level of complexity to understand how "free
energy" F drives the "entropy production" needed to change the
organisation of whatever system, we will understand how important creative
collapses are to furnish us with the required "free energy" F. This is the
background of what Gavin wrote with "point of energy release" quoted in
the beginning of this contribution.
In terms of our musical metaphor, this is what makes the sonata so great.
The composer gradually builds up its musical organisation until the very
point of giving it up for a new, deeper and complexer form to emerge. It
seems to be a secret like in the quote below, but it is not. It requires
dilligent work of first the composer and then the performing artists
towards increased complexity. This is implied between the lines in the
quote:
>The secret is to understand the similarities, distinctions
>and differences of the models that are out there where they
>fit (that is why I designed the Problematic Paradigm Grid) a
>framework to make sense of all these models. Some are
>theories, others models, others methodologies, using
>different variables at differing levels of abstraction.(this is the
>key to understanding when and where to use a specific model)
(snip)
>Happy learning.
and may I add, complexifying ;-)
With care and best wishes,
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.