Dear Organlearners,
Bill Harris <billh@lsid.hp.com> writes:
> Many thanks for the helpful reply. I found your analogies helpful, and I
> understand why you are focusing on your book, not papers. What is the
> projected publication date of that book?
It has been a pleasure to help you on these tricky quantities.
I am still awaiting the reply of the last publisher. After that I will
know what to do. I expect the reply to be negative, as with the others. In
that case I will publish the first edition privately. It will be a waste
not to make use of the resources of existing publishing houses. But it
will be interesting to establish once more the nature of a scientific
revolution and its associated paradigm shift.
> I didn't understand if what we were doing was adding entropy or energy;
> that is, if we were maintaining the present structure or enabling the
> future. If I recall, it sounded like you were suggesting we were adding
> entropy, but you also say that free energy is what determines future
> development, and it felt like we were adding energy to change the future.
> I think I'm close to understanding more, but I've got another threshold to
> cross. Further comments might help me.
Bill, many readers may wonder if our contemplations on energy, entropy and
free energy have anything to do with manipulation. I would have answered
you in private were it not for the fact that these quantities definitely
play a central role in manipulation.
Let me first answer your question concerning the relationship between free
energy, entropy and the future of a system. In the topic "Entropy and its
production" I have written that:
The free-energy F of any system affects (has a decisive say
in) the FUTURE organisation (development) of that system.
If the total energy of the system is denoted by E, I have concluded that:
(E - F) is necessary to maintain the present organisation of
the system. The development into the future organisation must
have as starting point the present organisation (structures
and processes) of the system.
Since the entropy S of the system is related to (E - F) by
S = (E - F)/T where T is the absolute temperature
the present entropy S is thus a measure for the present organisation
(structures and processes) of the system. Thus, since it cannot also be a
measure for the future organisation, the future organisation is affected
by an additional, netto production (creation, dissipation) of entropy -
the insight of Prigogine.
Bill, I think that you question concerns a possible relationship between
the free energy F and the additional entropy produced. It is clear that
you have studied the topic "Entropy and its production" in detail. I only
mentioned the relationship between the present free energy F of the system
and the present entropy S of the system. I did not discuss the
relationship between the present free energy F (which affects the future
organisation) and the extra entropy which have to be produced to maintain
the future organisation.
The relationship between the two is unique. Of all the forms of energy
which contribute to the total energy E, it is only those forms of energy
which contribute to the free energy F which become entropy producers. In
more concise words, only the free energy F is the source for the future
production of entropy.
Here is an example to think of. One kg of rock and one kg of coal has the
same total energy E since their masses are the same (E = mc^2). For the
piece of rock none of its E is available for burning in air whereas for
the piece of coal some of its E is available. In other words, the free
energy for the burning of coal is higher than the free energy for burning
the rock.
When burning the coal in an OVEN merely to produce heat and simple
combustion products (eq carbon dioxide), the free energy had been employed
to produce mostly chaos (of becoming). However, it is possible to "burn"
the coal with an insufficient supply of oxygen as in the Fischer-Tropps
process to produce a very complex set of chemicals. (This is how SASOL,
the petroleum-out-of-coal industry, in South Africa operates.) Thus the
free energy had been employed not only to produce chaos (heat), but also
order of being (chemical substances with complex structures).
Obviously, this example has little to do with organisations. But the
following one indeed has. Compare the French Revolution (1795) with the
Russian Revolution more than a hundred years later. Both revolutions
employed the existing organisation (described by its entropy) between the
despotic ruler with its nepotic ruling class and the proletariat to obtain
the free energy F to affect the future. This free energy was then used to
produce additional entropy. This additional entropy was subsequently
manifested as chaos and order. The French revolution resulted in more
order and less chaos (like SASOL) than the Russian revolution (like an
OVEN).
Bill, I sense that your problem is not so much in understanding what the
function of each of energy E, entropy S and free energy F are, but how
these quantities are functionally interrelated. In other words, what
happen to them if they are brought together? (This is one of the reasons
why my book seems to be so esoteric - the fact that I show carefully how
concepts weave into each other.) In the following description I will be
very brief - so brief that it may lead to a misunderstanding.
Energy E has content and form. With form I mean organisation into
structures and processes. When we express the the amount of energy E, we
express its content and not its form. If we want to express the present
form of the energy, we have to measure and calculate the entropy S. If we
want to express the ability to affect the future form of the energy E, we
have to measure and calculate the free energy F. Thus F is a pricipal form
we acknowledge in E so that F, unlike E, has not merely content, but also
form. The principal form of F is that F is the source to produce
additional entropy - to give new form to E as is measured by S.
To see the relationship between E, S and F, it might be instructive to
think of money! If money has to represent one of the three quantities,
which one will it be? It cannot be E because then we will pay the same
price for one kg of rock and one kg of coal. It cannot be S because then
we will invest the same amount of money in an OVEN and in SASOL. Thus it
has to be F. We can dissipate (spend) our money in a casino (which results
in more chaos than order for us unlucky ones) or we can invest it on the
stocks of a business (which usually results in less chaos and more order -
the dividends).
By thinking of money as free energy F, we have another way to understand
how much free energy has to do with manipulation! Think of how much future
manipulation is affected by means of money! It is not necessary for me to
say one word more about it.
Whereas we can consider money to be some measure for free energy, the
converse is not true. In other words, not all free energy can be expressed
by money. Why? Because money is not complex enough, it cannot produce all
the entropy needed. There are many forms of free energy which transcends
the level of complexity of money.
For example, consider unconditional love which is the free energy of our
highest level of creativity. Money cannot procure an organisation (like a
family) in which love abounds. Thus love cannot be bought (measured) by
money.
Best wishes
--At de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre for Education University of Pretoria Pretoria, South Africa email: amdelange@gold.up.ac.za
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>