Replying to LO27727 --
Dear Organlearners,
Ross Wirth <RWIRTH@citgo.com> writes
>Is there a relationship between "free energy" and
>"potential energy" in that the energy is not currently
>in use supporting the organization, but has the
>potential to do that or other tasks?
Greetings dear Ross,
I thought about your question in the context of your contribution for days
and I still feel not sure what you ask. So if my answer does not satisfy
you, please ask again and feel free to tell me where I did not understand
you. If you feel that in what follows my imagination run wild, I would not
mind.
The term "potential energy" has a strict meaning in physics. It means the
energy which any body has in terms of its POSITION with respect to other
bodies. The potential energy can have various forms like gravitational or
electrical energy. Should the body change its position and its potential
energy changes too, then a force is exerted on that body.
The general public use "potential energy" in a different sense. It is
energy possible for a certain task, but not actually used for that action.
The "free energy" F of a system is a holistic concept. In other words, the
more the wholeness we obtain in our personal knowledge, the more we begin
to understand what "free energy" F (two words, one concept) means.
The "free energy" F of any system depends on all its own internal
organisation as well as all its organisation in the rest of the universe.
Every system has a certain amount of "total energy" E. Some of that E is
locked up in its internal and external organisations. The rest of the
"total energy" E is its "free energy" E. Thus the system may increase its
"free energy" F by giving up some of its internal or external
organisations or both. The outcome of giving up some of its internal
organisation is vastly different from giving up some of its external
organisation. The former may be used to drive an emergence, but the latter
will usually cause an immergence or ablation. The former is usually a
creative collapse (deconstruction) while the latter is usually a creative
destruction.
When the organisation within a system or the organisation with its
environment changes, the free energy will of necessity change too.
Conversely, when a system wants to change SPONTANEOUSLY its internal or
external organisation, it will have to use some of its OWN free energy to
do so. No two changes in an organisation are the same. Thus the free
energy needed to drive any organisational change will be different form
the free energy needed to drive any other change.
After the change, the system may still have free energy for other changes.
However, when the system has used up all its free energy for a certain
change before the change has been completed, any further proceeding in
that change is impossible with only two exceptions. The one exception is
for the system to import free energy from the outside. Such an importation
of free energy will of neccesity cause changes in the external
organisation. A system lacking in wholeness will then increase its own
internal organisation with the external organisation paying for it with a
decrease.
The other exception is for the system to release some of its total energy
E bound in its organisation by giving up some of its internal
organisation. This will only happen when the system have reached a
sufficient level of wholeness for the particular change it is attempting.
The sign that any system has free energy for any spontaneous change is the
ability of such a system to do work during that change. It needs not to do
the work too, but it can do that work. The sign that any system does not
have free energy for any spontaneous change is the fact that work has to
be done on that system to force that change. The system needs that forcing
work otherwise the change will be impossible. Such changes are called
non-spontaneous changes.
A system may experience two kinds of deficiencies in free energy. The one
is the digestive deficiency. This happens when the system spends too much
of its free energy on bifurcations by living continuously at the edge of
chaos. The system becomes too lean and eventually dies. The other one is
the bifurcative deficiency. This happens when the system grows too much in
its free energy through digestions by living continuously in the valley of
equilibrium. The system becomes too fat and eventually dies.
I have a suspicion that the demise of Enron was because of a digestive
deficiency in free energy. With all the hype of living at the edge of
chaos many other organisations in first world countries are heading
towards this "lean death". However, many organisations in third world
countries are still heading towards the "fat death" due to the bifurcative
deficiency of free energy. Many people in first world countries looked
with contempt upon third world countries because of these "fat deaths". I
begin to perceive the first signs of some people in third world countries
looking with contempt upon first world countries because of these
increasing "lean deaths". This is crazy because humankind will have only
more suffering because of these contempts.
The relationship between "free energy" and "potential energy" is very
interesting. All the various potential energies which a system have, adds
up to its "free energy". However, free energy is more than all these
potential energies together. All the system's "actual energies" also adds
up with its "potential energies" to form its "free energy".
Let me try to explain with one example. Imagine a truck with a horse in
it, a hill and a road over it. The truck may use some free energy of its
gasoline to get on top of the hill. On top of the hill the truck will have
some potential energy due to gravitation. This form of free energy may be
used to get at the bottom of the hill gaining a certain speed and thus
kinetic energy. It may use the latter form of free energy to go up a next
hill. If the hill is too high, the horse may be put in front of the truck
to pull the truck up. Here the biochemical form of free energy has been
used.
In terms of systems of which the focus is on organisation, I prefer to
think of "potential energies" as the free energy which the system has with
respect to its structures. Hence I think of the "actual energies" as the
free energy which the system has with respect to its processes. I prefer
to think of these structures together as "being" and the processes
together as "becoming". Hence I think of the system's organisation as a
"becoming-being". The system's free energy depends on how much it can put
the "becoming-being" of its organistion to service. Obviously, once again
we are over our head in the 7Es because "becoming-being" or liveness is
one of them.
Now to answer you question. Yes, there is a relationship between "free
energy" and "potential energy". Potential energy is that part of free
energy which the system may derive from its "being", but not from its
"becoming". It may certainly use that potential energy for tasks, even for
supporting the EVOLUTION of that organisation. But for supporting the
organisation as such, no potential energy nor any other free energy at all
is required. The organisation is supported by that part of the total
energy which had been locked up in that organisation. If the system does
not evolve, for better or worse, it does not need any free energy.
I cannot expect all of the above to make sense to you and fellow learners.
The least which I can expect is that some will understand more and others
less of it. The most which I can expect is that all of us can learn more
about free energy as I had been doing for the past 39 years since the
first time I had heard about it in a chemistry lecture at university.
During all those years the one thing which excited me immensely is that
the relationship between free energy and work form the basis for the
complexity version ethics. This I have explained long ago in "Free energy
and work LO22384" < www.learning-org.com/99.08/0001.html >
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.