Replying to LO25552 --
Dear Organlearners,
Jon Krispin <jkrispin@prestolitewire.com> writes:
>Thanks so much for your contribution. It freed up a logjam
>in my mind with which I have been wrestling for some 6-8
>months. At least, I think it did. I have some comments on
>your contribution that I am articulating for you and others to
>scrutinize to make sure that I am thinking along the right
>path. This whole contribution, although written as if I have
>a perfect understanding (this was the most comfortable style
>of writing for me as I simultaneously wrote and thought over
>the past month since At wrote his post), is actually one long
>question - me trying to find out if I understand all of this "stuff"
>correctly. I welcome input, corrections, and observations from
>anyone.
Greetings Jon,
Thank you for your "long" question ;-) It gave me pro"longed" pleasure,
first upon reading it and then studying it closely.
My first comment is the following. When I first encountered the expression
/_\F < W in 1964, it was merely as a side remark that the second law of
thermodynamics could be used to "derive" this expression. I could not
"derive" the expression self. I also could not find a text book in the
library of the university where I studied to explore its derivation. Worst
of all, in high shool we did not learn anything of the order relationship
"<". My first baffling encounter with the "<" was also in 1964 in a course
of mathematics. What would I have given to have an explication like yours
in those years.
The next fifteen years until 1979 I had to be content with my knowledge on
/_\F < W growing by small bits in an irregular pattern. That knowledge was
like a loose aggregate rather than a solid rock. For the last ten years
(since 1969 when I came into contact with Prigogine's work) of those
fifteen my knowledge on "entropy production" itself increased rapidly. But
during all those years the meaning of /_\F < W remained elusive to me.
Among others, I found several "derivations" for /_\F < W. But each
"derviation" was so much clothed in differential calculus that I could not
say for certain that /_\F < W is a correct "derivation". Furthermore, I
was struggling to find the correct relationship between "spontaneity" and
"entropy production". Whenever I used /_\F < W, it felt like walking up
against a sand dune -- taking twenty steps upwards and sliding nineteen
steps backwards.
My greatest sliding backwards always happened when I had to bear in mind
/_\F < W as well as Einstein's insistence that /_\F = -W. I was thinking
along the lines of LEM myself -- either the one, or the other, but not
both. The worst of all is that both made perfect sense to me, but that
somehow I "had to make a choice" which I intuitively did not want to make.
My Mental Model was that I did not question the reason why "I had to make
a choice".
Then in 1979, when accepting a job at the university of Pretoria, I
decided to comprehend for once and all what the expression /_\F < W
entails. I somehow knew that I had to get a solid grip on this expression
so as to teach with confidence chemical thermodynamics. For many weeks I
tried to "derive" /_\F < W from the second law by making use as little as
possible differential calculus. (In those days I was still thinking in
terms of the First Law and Second Law of thermodynamics rather than LEC
and LEP as I am now doing.) I tried to shorten the "derivation" as far as
possible so that I could contemplate the rationale of each step
thoroughly, making sure beyond any doubt that the expression /_\F < W is
indeed acceptable to me.
I eventually produced the "derivation" which I described in my
contribution (LO25369 ) but without the SY and SU distinctions. I thought
that I understood this "derivation" (without the SY and SU distinctions)
thoroughly. But only after 1985 when I discovered the seven
essentialities, its actual significance struck me like a blow between the
eyes. It was no "derivation" despite all its appearances. It was actually
the synthesis of bringing LEC and LEP together (get the sum of the parts)
so that an emergence can happen (getting a whole more than the sum) by way
of a creative collapse (let /_\E involving LEC and /_\S involving LEP both
recede into minor importance.) In other words, /_\F < W involved both LEC
and LEP in a way which neither dominate the other, something which I tried
to articulate with the phrase "the dance of LEP on LEC".
My greatest relief was perhaps the understanding that only when I insisted
on LEM (Law of Excluded Middel of logic) I had to make a choice between
/_\F < W (sensu Gibbs) and /_\F = -W (sensu Einstein). However, by adding
the distinctions SY and SU as /_\F(sy) < W and /_\F(su) = -W (painting a
richer picture) it became clear to me that like Gibbs and Einstein I was
also "equating" apples (SY) with pears (SU) rather than "comparing" apples
with pairs. I wanted to invoke LEM because the picture was not rich enough
for me. The system SY and the surroundings SU can have many
correspondences so that we can think of each as a system, but they will
always have differences so that we can never equate them. Since then the
concepts "free energy" and "work" grew much more in meaning for me than
the concepts "total energy" and "entropy".
My second comment concerns the definition of spontaneous. Since 1964 I
clinged like a flea to the chemist's definition that a system changes
spontaneously when and only when for the system /_\F < 0 (its free energy
decreases). I was very happy with the chemist's definition because it
allowed me powerful insights. But I was also very unhappy with their
definition. They all refered to Gibbs who gave the original definition and
were happy for merely having it. But he did not motivate enough for my
liking why he created this definition self. However, when I came self to
the expression
. /_\F(sy) + /_\F(su) < 0
i.e
. /_\F(universe) < 0
by letting LEP dance upon LEC, my joy had no end.
The evolution of the universe as a whole is definitely spontaneous.
Within this universe some systems can force other systems to react
non-spontaneous so that their free energy have to increase (/_\F > 0).
However, such a forcing of non-spontaneous changes are usually detrimental
(destructive immergences). One of the great mysteries between the Old
Testament (OT) and the New Testament (NT) in the Bible became clear to me.
As I now understand it, in the OT God, as seen through Creation, is
presented by the prophets largely as a supreme Ruler who seeks retribution
for sin through punishment. But in the NT God, as seen through Jesus self
rather than the rest of Creation, is presented by the apostels as the
loving Parent who allowed Jesus to take all punishment for sin so that
humankind can live without further judgement. It is especially St John and
St Paul who stress that whatever Christians do, they ought to do it in
weakness and love rather than force and strict judging. In other words, as
I understand it, they ought to follow the path of spontenous
self-organisation as far as possible. Jesus came to reveal constructive
creativity whereas Creation reveal better destructive creativity when
certain contingencies were not met (sufficiently mature). The fault was
not with Creation itself, but with humans elevating immature perceptions
to mature understandings.
I stress that the above interpretation is mine and that nobody else has
even to contemplate it. Therefore I am in considerable anguish for even
having articulated it here to fellow learners whatever their religous
disposition. My only concern was to inform you what goes on in my mind and
not to prescribe what must happen in your mind or even slightly suggest
what ought to happen in your mind. In fact, I will feel happy if I am the
only person with such an unterstanding of this strange difference between
the OT and the NT.
However, such an understanding also helped me to fathom some of the
difference between "hard core" psychologists like Freud and the
behaviorists on the one hand and the "soft core" psychologists like
Rogers, Jung and Frankl on the other hand. It also helped me to
understand why creativity can never be engineered since all engineering
has as goal to make /_\F > 0 happen.
My third comment concerns the meaning of terms. You write:
>To summarize the relationship between these three
>quantities: Energy forms the content of all things (objects
>and systems, static and dynamic), and the total energy in
>the universe is constant. Entropy is a measure of the
>organization of the energy, while a change in the entropy of
>a system of energy over time is an indication of a change
>in organization, or an evolution of the system. At least a
>portion of the energy in a system is tied up in maintaining
<the organization of that system and is therefore not available
>for performing work on the system and changing its organization.
>Once this energy has been accounted for, any remaining energy
>is Free Energy - that portion which may be harnessed to perform
>work - either work on its surroundings or work required to
>change the organization, or entropy, of the system itself.
Jon, do you realise how, seemingly without effort, you have used each of
the concepts "system", "organisation" "form, "content", "static",
"dynamics", "evolution", "accountability", "total energy, "work" and
"free energy" in creating a "solid rock" rather than a "loose aggregate".
This "solid rock" allows me and now you also to climb vertical cliffs, but
the Richter angle (thanks again Leo for reminding me) makes the climbing
of the slopes of the loose aggregate treacherous. Just think about the
other topic "Structures Implicit to the Systems" in our LO-dialogue. The
second worst possible mistake we can make is now to assume what is
seemingly clear to us, is also clear to others. The worst possible
mistake is to think that they will get a clear meaning also by following
the path of rote learning.
This brings me to my fourth comment. I am so happy that you have
extended the ideas in my contribution to include Prigogine's most
creative and decisive distinction, namely
. /_\S(sy) = /_\S(i) + /_\S(e)
I would like to write it as
/_\S(sy) = /_\(i)S(sy) + /_\S(r)S(sy)
The total change of entropy /_\S in a system SY has two components,
that which is produced irreversibly within the system (you symbolise it as
/_\S(i) like Prigogine does, but I have changed it slighly to /_\(i)S(sy) )
and that which changes reversibly in the system (you symbolise it as
/_\S(e) like Prigogine does, but I have changed it slighly to /_\(r)S(sy) ).
I had to think very much self whether I would incorporate that distinction
or leave it out so as to bring it in at a later time. I decided upon the
latter course and now want to thank you for introducing it rather than me.
It makes the topic more complex, but this will allow us to and exciting
insight between authentic and rote human behaviour.
The question now is, how do /_\(i)S(sy) on the one hand change and
/_\(r)S(sy) on the other hand change. We have to be thankful to Prigogine
(and for that he was awarded the Nobel Prize) that /_\(i)S(sy) (he calls
it dissipation, but a few others like De Groot call it "entropy
production") increases by entropic "force- flux" pairs of the form
. [Y(2) - Y(1)] x /_\X > 0
Each form of energy WITHIN the system can (but will not necessarily do so)
give rise to an entropic force (the [Y(2) - Y(1)] ) with and entropic flux
(the /_\X ).
But how does /_\(r)S(sy) change? Prigogine pays far to less attention to
this question, perhaps assuming that others would answer this question as
easily as he does. Furthermore, in physical systems such a question is
often merely academical. But in systems having also a mental or spiritual
dimension, answering this question becomes very important. This
/_\(r)S(sy) changes as a result of the importation (even deluge) of
entropy into the system -- entropy which originally had been produced
elsewhere in the surroundings according to the same entropic force-flux
pattern. However, this reversible entropy can never be imported or
exported as such a bare thing self. It must be imported from or exported
to the surroundings IN TERMS OF one or more forms of energy -- each form
of energy having an internal organisation and thus value of entropy. When
the system self now does nothing to the organisation of that form of
energy it has imported reversibly, but only stores it so as to let some of
it be exported on request later, it gives rise to the rote behaviour of
the system.
For example, rote learning involves the importation of sensory energy from
information having the organisation depicted as /_\(r)S(sy). This sensory
form of energy is then stored in the memory. Some of it can be exported
later again into information with exactly the same organisation. On the
other hand, authentic learning modifies the organisation of the
information as soon as it enters the mind so that the entropy of that
information does not stay the same, but changes irreversibly, even before
any of it is memorised!
The big difference between reversible and irreversible entropy changes
is that
. /_\(r)S(sy) + /_\S(r)S(su) = 0
i.e
. /_\(r)S(sy) = -/_\S(r)S(su)
This you have expressed superbly as
>We have no such constraint on the reversible exchanges,
>or flow, of entropy between an open system and its
>surroundings. This may be positive or negative. This term
>/_\S(e), is merely the opposite of the term /_\S(su) that we
>have used in the fourth form of the LEP given above
However, for irreversibe changes we have
. /_\(i)S(sy) + /_\S(i)S(su) > 0
i.e
. /_\(i)S(sy) <> -/_\S(r)S(su)
It means that for reversible entropy changes, there is a one-to-one-mapping
between the system SY and its surroundings SU. This one-to-one-mapping
is usually expressed as an equality. But for irreversible entropy changes,
this one-to-one-mapping emerges into a one-to-many-mapping. The river
which had only one stream suddenly fans out into a delta having many
branchings like the tree's trunk into several branches and the branches
into many twigs.
Jon, your remark
>Critical in all of this is the difference between the influx
>of entropy into the system (its magnitude and organization)
>and the SPONTANEOUS entropy production of the system
>(its rate and organization).
tells for me your own deep insight into the "dance of LEP on LEC".
To put it in symbols, the influx /_\(r)S(sy) and the internal production
/_\(i)S(sy) are two completely different things. In the symbolization of
the information the difference is merely an (r) or an (i), but in the
understanding or knowledge of the difference is very much more. The
understanding is to produce a long reply with /_\(i)S(Jon Krispin) as the
one which you did. And what did you receive from Prigogine as information?
/_\(r)S(Jon Krispen) as the equation
. dS = d(sub i)S + d(sub e)S
which you reformulated for our convenience as
. /_\S(sy) = /_\S(i) + /_\S(e)
Dear Jon, my fifth comment is a direct answer to your "long question"
of which I will quote the appropiate part once again
. "This whole contribution .... is actually one long
. question - me trying to find out if I understand all
. of this "stuff" correctly.
I will repeat once again my respons to it:
. It gave me pro"longed" pleasure, first upon reading
. it and then studying it closely.
I will also say why? I am extremely sensitive of the difference between
authentic and rote mental behaviour -- of the difference between
/_\(i)S(sy) (authenticity) and /_\(r)S(sy) (illegitimacy). What you had
to deal with, is the information of my own contribution as /_\(r)S(At).
You received it as -/_\(r)S(At-Jon), but immediately began changing its
organisation irreversibly as /_\(i)S(Jon) to suit your own knowledge. Then
you wrote your own contribution in which I had to deal with its
information as /_\(r)S(Jon) {far different from /_\(r)S(At)} as the
imported /_\(r)S(Jon-At). >From this I had to make immediately changes as
/_\(i)S(At) to suit my own knowledge. Then I used this knowledge to create
a reply to you with information having /_\(r)S(At). This second
/_\(r)S(At) is far different to my original /_\(r)S(At) to which you have
responded. What I am looking closely at is how these reversible exchanges
differ and correspond from each other. Should my /_\(r)S(At) and your
/_\(r)S(Jon) change very little as the LO-dialogue goes on, then at least
one of us got stuck in rote mental behaviour.
What I appreciated extremely, is how you coherently relate (not equate)
what happens in the system SY with what happens in the surroundings SU
(the complexity of all other systems). Such "systemS thinking" is very
rare when compare to "system thinking" which involves the system SY, but
which is oblivious of the complexity of other systems taken together as
the surroundings SY. The system is ocnsidered as system, but there the
"system thinking" stop. This is indicated by the absence of the
capitalised plural S in "systemS thinking". In this relationship between
SU and SY you consistenly distinguish in each of SY and SU between
reversible and irreversible changes. The system has its own production
/_\(i)S(sy) and likewise the surroundings its /_\(i)S(su). The only way in
which the SY and SU can communicate is through /_\(r)S(sy) = -/_\(r)S(sy).
But here is the difference between SY&SU as an Individual OrganisationS
and SY&SU as a Learning Organisation. In the case of SY&SU as Individual
organisationS there is not such a thing as /_\(i)S(sy&su). Each produces
its own entropy and each (as we say in my mother tongue) "feels feathers
for one another". It means that there is no common care between them. But
when SY&SU begin to act together as the Learning Organisation, the shared
entropy production /_\(i)S(sy&su) becomes as important as the unshared
entropy productions /_\(i)S(sy) and /_\(i)S(su). Peter Senge express it
that Team Learning becomes as important as Personal Mastery. In other
words, it means that we begin to focus on "entropic force-flux pairs"
which go beyond the individuals so as to involve teams and even the whole
community.
This is propably the wierdest (and also the most difficult ;-) way in which
a Learning Organisation ever has been defined. But for me it has brought
profound insights. Ordinary organisations depend mostly on
. /_\(r)S(you) = - /_\(r)S(me)
for commuting some of the /_\(i)S(you) and the /_\(i)S(me). But learning
organisations also depend on /_\(i)S(you&me) for commuting, opening
up a new dimension to organisation. As a bonus to this new dimension,
the /_\(i)S(you&me) leads to metanoia because of constructive emergences.
The /_\(i)S(you&me) in ordinary organisations often lead to destructive
immergences.
Please pardon me, but I have to mention once again a certain message of
the Bible in terms of the perspective above. The idea is not to use that
message as vindication, but to help giving meaning to that message. The
universe had been operating as LO until that tragic day told in Genesis
(as in other ancient documents too) of the "eating in paradise of the
fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and bad". As a result humankind
lost its capacity to work together with the rest of Creation as a LO, told
in Genisis as "Adam and Eve had to leave paradise". A boundary was
created by humans between themselves and between them and the rest of
Creation. However, the shearing of the curtain in some temple some four
millenia later upon a certain event signified that humans can overcome
this boundary which made of each of them separate islands in conflict with
the rest of Creation.
For me to "can" is not to "will". To "will" takes far more than to "can".
Your conceptual understanding is exceptional. I cannot wait to hear from
you what your deeper understanding of psychology will be when you look at
it anew with this deeper understanding of "the dance of LEP on LEC".
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.