Dear Organlearners,
Winfried Dressler <winfried.dressler@voith.de> writes:
>Gibbs have to give in? Never! I would give my selfresponsibility
>to someone. I would never blame someone else for my
>incapability to understand his ideas. So have I to give in?
>The matter is too important and the result would be
>immergence.
Greetings Winfried,
Thank you very much for your persistent learning efforts. Through it
you help me to learn also. I will show you later where I have
foolishly erred by ommision.
One thing I am glad about -- that you consider both Gibb's idea and
your idea too important to let anyone of them immerge, thus forcing
yourself to think innovatively.
>While I fully agree that necessarily /_\F < 0 for a
>spontanous >process, I was thinking about it in a way,
>that
>/_\F = /_\F(SY) + /_\F(SU) < 0 in such a way, that
> /_\F(SY) > 0. There is no logical contradiction, as long
>as /_\F(SU) << 0 ("<<" meaning "sufficiently smaller than").
Winfried, I must explain one thing again. The brilliance of Gibbs was
to substitute both the Law of Energy Conservation (LEC), namely
/_\E(un) = /_\E(sy) + /_\E(su) = 0
and the Law of Entropy Production (LEP), namely
/_\S(un) = /_\S(sy) + /_\S(su) > 0
by one single expression, namely
/_\F(sy) < W
This order relation is most extraordinary. On the left hand side we
have /_\F which is a change in a systemic quantity, determined only by
the "begin" state (before the process) and the "end" state (after the
process) of the system. On the right hand side we have W which is path
quantity, determined by the actual path which will be followed. Now,
even for cases in which W=0, we must never forget that /_\F, although
itself a change in systemic quantity, is indissollubly connected to
paths through this order relation. It is very important to remeber it,
especially for cases in which W=0. Obviously, these are the very cases
for which the definition for spontaneity depends upon. If we forget
this, we will not become aware how much spontaneous (/_\F<0) and
non-spontaneous (/_\F>0) depends on path.
Another thing which I also must explain again, is the categorical
identity of the concept system. Not only the system SY is a system.
The very universe UN itself is a (super) system consisting of many and
only systems. One of them is taken to be the system SY which will be
studied while all the other systems of the universe will be taken
together as one system called the surroundings SU. It is crucial to
remember that the universe must be an isolated system for the LEC and
LEP to hold. However, the system SY and the systems in the
surroundings SU can range from completely open through every possible
closure to completely isolated. In this sense the systemic quantity
free energy F refers to the system and the system alone. If we want to
apply it to any other system in the surroundings, we have to bring
such a system into our system, thus making it more complex.
With respect to the Digestor model, the name Digestor refers to
universe UN which operates digestively (close to equilibrium). The
Crystal Digestor consists of one crystal as the system SY and all the
other crystals as the surroundings SU. What I have failed to make
clear in my original contribution and my reply to yours, is the
following. The quantity /_\F which is related through an equation to
three factors, refer to the change in free energy of the Digestor
(universe UN) and not only the system SY. I have stressed (perhaps too
much) that the path must ALSO be specified, namely the growth of one
crystal (or even a bunch of identical ones) in the presence of all
other different crystals. From this one may get the idea that /_\F
refer to that single crystal.
Obviously, you are a very creative person because you have designated
the quantity free energy also to the surroundings as a system. You had
to do it in order to consider the expression
/_\F(un) = /_\F(sy) + /_\F(su) < 0
This expression defines the universe as a spontaneous system. Let us
think for a while about the consequences.
Typical of human creativity, some cosmologists consider "creation"
itself as an open rather than isolated universe. This allows them to
disregard LEC and LEP. But this entails that even Gibb's order
relation must be disregarded and thus by necessity the definition of
spontaneity. I myself also consider Creation as an "open" universe,
but open only to the Creator, not to any creature inside it. In this
sense Creator and Creation form the ultimate universe which I call
reality. It is with a sense of humbleness and limitedness that I apply
Gibbs' order relation to reality itself, i.e.
/_\F(un) < W
But by doing it, it allows me to think that Creation is indeed a
spontaneous self-organising system when W=0. But by setting W=0 to
obtain the definition for spontaneity, I deny that the Creator is
still working. The theological ramifications of this act are profound.
I can arrive at the conclusion that everything is predestined. I can
also arrive at the conclusion that the Creator is dead. On the other
hand, by acknowledging that W <> 0 (not equal to zero), what am I
doing? By working with
/_\F(un) < W
I force the Creator into Creation to comply to its laws. The
theological ramifications of this act are different, but again
profound. But not equal to zero also allows the inverse possibility
/_\F(un) > W
With this possibility I force the Creator out of Creation, again
resulting in other profound theological ramifications.
Ok let us get back to your expression
/_\F(un) = /_\F(sy) + /_\F(su) < 0
in which you have noted that it allows the possibility
/_\F(sy) > 0 with /_\F(su) << 0
This exactly what the system of humankind's culture is doing. It
drives its own non-spontaneous processes with all the spontaneous
processes in the rest of nature. Study my reply to Leo Minningh on the
Icebreaker where I explain it fully.
This also what happens, for example, in nature in a plant. The plant
uses the massive transpiration of water (/_\F<<0) to drive the
translocation of other chemicals to the point of growth (/_\F>0). The
only difference is that in a plant it happens harmoniously with the
rest of nature. It is as if the plant has united a lower system
(translocation) and some of system (transpiration) from the
surroundings in itself as the higher ordered system (the plant). But
just to reflect the deep creativity in nature, succulent plants follow
a DIFFERENT PATH. They restrict their transpiration to the utmost.
Again it has profound ramifications. For example, they have to follow
a different photosynthesis path (called CAM -- Crasullacean Acid
Metabolism) than ordinary plants.
You are correct by having emerged (this is emergent learning) to the
idea that the same thing happens in the Crystal Digestor. For example,
you write:
>While the crystal has less free energy than the sum of the free
>energy of the grains with the same mass as the crystal, its free
>energy is surely increased compared to the free energy of the
>one grain out of which it grew.
Then you make the following remarkable challenge, deriving the power
form that emergence:
>To put it together in one yes/no-question:
>
>Do you agree that F(crystal) - F(only the initial grain) > 0 ?
Yes.
>If yes, I have not to give in either, and there is no contradiction.
Winfried, the goal the my previous reply to you was to lead you to an
emergence -- to realise that neither Gibbs nor you have to give in
when both of you are right, but to find an emergence which
accommodates both. You excelled far beyond my expectations. The worst
thing is that I was a fool. I assumed that it would be easier for you
to realise that free energy (in terms of the crystal structure)
obtained by digestion, can be put to service as a new source of free
energy for the next path provided it is different (by transforming the
structure). I hammered far too much on this assumption.
>At, I forgot to thank you for your reply and I know, there are
>more, and more important, points in it. But before I can start
>to work on them, I need your confirmation of my one question.
>I cannot go on before, because otherwise someone would have
>given in and I hope for something new to emerge. It woun't be
>Gibbs, so you or I or both of us.
Yes, the one crystal (predator) gained in free energy because the
other crystals (preys) have lost some free energy through digestion.
It is impossible for ALL crystals (system and surroundings) to gain
free energy through spontaneous digestion. Some have to give for
others to take. What a contrast to emergences where all has to give up
the past!
I hope to answer your questions on m and M in my next reply.
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 <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>