Dear Organlearners,
Winfried Dressler <winfried.dressler@voith.de> writes:
>I suspect that you view At de Lange as such a guru and me
>as one of those strangers who approached him and now trying
>to become fluent on fluff, right? I check this point whenever I
>see your or for example John Zavakis questioning of At de
>Lange on the list. I do this checking by wondering whether I
>clearly can follow your reasoning and whether it hits what I
>could grasp so far as At's message or not.
Greetings Winfried,
Steve's request to you involved the things which I care to write about in
our on-going dialogue. Thus I suspected that you would use my name a lot
in your reply to Steve.
I want to state it emphatically that I do not like my name to be linked as
an authority to a dialogue such as this one. I am not important at all,
but rather the concepts which I write about are very important in my
opinion. It is not that I am afraid to accept creatorship of some of the
ideas involving these concepts. It is because that once we look at the
messenger of ideas rather than the ideas themselves, we loose track of
reality. I have seen it happening so much in the Old and now the New South
Africa that I want to get sick of it.
It reminds me of the topic of this specific dialogue, namely Entropy. I
have said many times that should we fix our understanding on the concept
"entropy", we will have little hope to understand what goes on in reality.
A number of replies have now been added to our dialogue. (Even Rick seems
to become worried that the dialogue may end up in a lot of debate with no
associating learning.) I searched in vain for a reply to which I could
connect to (essentiality fruitfulness) and stress that we must look beyond
"entropy" to "entropy production" -- that which made it necessary for
scientists to think of "entropy" in the first place.
It is interesting to observe how frequently ordinary people use the words
"force", "power" and "energy" in there day-to-day talk on their lives. It
was not like that before the eighteenth century. Try to tell them to apply
Occam's razor and cut the concept "energy" from their lifes. It might have
worked two centuries ago, but it will never work today. It means that the
concept "energy" became essential to their understanding of reality. Will
this also happen to the concept "entropy"?
I have for many years now observed how people use the concept "energy".
They SELDOM use it in the sense of "total energy" (for which physicists
use the symbols E or U so as to make sure what they are talking about).
Thus many of them are still surprised to learn that the total energy of
the universe -- which we can symbolise as E(un) -- is constant. It is most
telling that although they are surprised at the constancy of E(un), the
majority of them have a tacit knowledge on the transformation of some
forms of energy [contributing to E(un) ] to other forms of energy [also
contributing to E(un) ]. Please note that Clausius selected the name
entropy very carefully -- it had to mean "in transformation". I will come
back to this very important point.
So far we have done one "dirty deed", namely to symbolise "total energy"
by E. We have done it to make sure what we are talking of. But how will we
make sure that we mean "total energy" is constant? Let us guide ourselves
by a number of questions. To which "total energy" E do we refer to? Every
system (even including each of us) has a total energy E. Do we mean that
the "total energy" E of the system is constant? If any one of you think
that it is the case, get of that bus because it is heading for a mental
disaster.
One system may lose (or gain) total energy E. That deficit (or credit) in
total energy is the EXACT credit (or deficit) in total energy of at least
one other system. (See the one-to-many-mapping already working here.) In
other words, when we add up all these credits and deficits, the "book has
to balance". In other words, the total energy E of ALL THE SYSTEMS TAKEN
TOGETHER is constant.
So what for a thing is this "ALL THE SYSTEMS TAKEN TOGETHER"? For the
physicist, chemist, geologist, engineer and biologist it is the phsyical
(or material) universe. That is how far their physical measuring
instruments will allow them to go. Again, how will we make sure that they
mean? By symbolising it -- carry on with the "dirty deed"! One way is to
write
E(sy) + E(su) = E(un) = constant.
Here SY refer to ANY particular SYSTEM on which we focus while SU refer to
all the remaining systems (on which we do not focus) taken together. Now
with respect to what is E(un) is constant? I am not going to answer that
one because I am already wandering too far away from that which I want to
focus on.
But I had to get to this point just to ask one very important
question.
Why do we exlude the spiritual universe form the Law of Energy
Conservation? Now back to on to my main focus.
I want to focus on the fact that most people, when they use the
concept energy, they use it in the sense of "free energy" (for which
physicists use the symbols F or G to make sure what they are
talking about). Well, here is the great surprise. Whereas for E
we have
E(sy) + E(su) = E(un) = constant.
we have for F in the phsyical world
F(sy) + F(su) = F(un) <> constant
NB Here I use the "<>" to symbolise "is not equal".
Can you understand why so many people are so surprised to
learn that the total energy E of the universe is constant? They
were thinking on a tacit (intuitive, implicate) level of something
which does not get articulated into the form
###(sy) + ###(su) = ###(un) = constant
So how can we articulate what they were thinking about? First
of all, we cannot articulate their tacit thinking, not even after
the horses got horns. Each of us can only articulate our own
thoughts, I mine and you yours as a small step in our authentic
learning. But do each of us really want to do it?
I want to do it for a very good reason. We humans are not
good at communicating on the tacit level of thinking. (Some
days in a more depressive mood I wonder if we can communicate
on that level at all.) It is for this very reason what we have
developed natural languages. (Some days in a really depressive
mood I wonder if we can communicate even on that level at all.)
Anyway, let me go on with the job. It is very enticing to say that
when people use the concept "energy", they use that kind
of energy (say ###) for which
###(sy) + ###(su) = ###(un) <> constant
They have an intuitive knowledge based on experience that this
### is not constant (conserved) for the universe. In other words,
it is very enticing to articulate the ### with "free energy".
However, again I can only articulate myself and nobody else.
For me it is indeed the case
F(sy) + F(su) = F(un) <> constant
Why? Because I can
elaborate in a manner on this symbolic
expression which makes sense to me.
In other words, I have to carry on with the "dirty deed". One of
the most profound eleborations ("dirty deeds") comes from JW
Gibbs himself. I will now repeat it, but use my own symbolisation,
to arrive at:
/_\F(sy) - W(sy|su) < 0.
It says literally the following:-
the change (symbolised by /_\) in free energy (symbolised
by F) without (symbolised by -) the work (symbolised by W)
transferred between the system and its surroundings
(symbolised by sy|su) is always smaller (symbolised by <)
than zero.
Steve Eskow, John Zavacki and others claim that it makes perfect
sense to me. Perhaps they have the ability to articulate my
thoughts. Let me articulate my own thoughts. The expression
/_\F(sy) - W(sy|su) < 0
and its literal translation
the change (symbolised by /_\) in free energy (symbolised
by F) without (symbolised by -) the work (symbolised by W)
transferred between the system and its surroundings
(symbolised by sy|su) is always smaller (symbolised by <)
than zero.
makes as little sense to me as to any of my students to whom
I have to teach. Its only when I begin to trace the meaning of
every symbol in the expression and elaborate on them in terms
of my own experiences when its meaning becomes clear to me.
I had to learn it the hard way -- accept the expression
/_\F(sy) - W(sy|su) < 0
as the jewel articulation of Gibbs and find applications for it.
Nobody taught me how to arrive at the expression in the first
place by beginning with my direct experiences and do it
step by step. For example, I will take a car battery and symbolise
its function (charging and work delivery) to arrive at
/_\F(sy) - W(sy|su) < 0
Since I have learnt it the hard way in the sense that I had to
do it without guidance, and try to guide my students how to
do it themselves finding the guidance within themselves,
(sometimes using the car battery as exemplar) I have gained
additional experience and tacit knowledge. This allowed me
to perceive in
/_\F(sy) - W(sy|su) < 0
the very summary of the ethics of work! Wierd, is it not,
thinking of physical batteries and eventually realising a
spiritual platform for a work-ethic. Any way, I must take care
not to meander too far away from what I want to focus on.
Think of the total energy E and
E(sy) + E(su) = E(un) = constant.
as the law which it applies to. Now think of entropy S.
It seems that S apply to the law
S(sy) + S(su) = S(un) <> constant
almost exactly like
F(sy) + F(su) = F(un) <> constant
But upon further specification, we do not arrive as for F
to the expression
/_\F(sy) - W(sy|su) < 0
but to the expression
/_\S(sy) + /_\S(su) = /_\S(un) > 0
However, when I begin with my experiences and tacit
knowledge on entropy, the first thing which I manage to
articulate is
/_\S(sy) + /_\S(su) = /_\S(un) > 0
and not
S(sy) + S(su) = S(un) <> constant
It may seem to be trivial to you, but for me it is most important.
When you work through the primer on entropy, you will notice
how I stressed the first articulation of the discovery of the Law
of Entropy Production as
/_\S(sy) + /_\S(su) = /_\S(un) > 0
and not
S(sy) + S(su) = S(un) <> constant
It is from this first articulation
/_\S(sy) + /_\S(su) = /_\S(un) > 0
and perhaps thinking of their tacit knowledge on free energy as
F(sy) + F(su) = F(un) <> constant
that thinkers like Maxwell arrived at the second articulation
S(sy) + S(su) = S(un) <> constant
Why is the order from the first articulation
/_\S(sy) + /_\S(su) = /_\S(un) > 0
to the second articulation
S(sy) + S(su) = S(un) <> constant
so important to me? Because then I have to think of my
first articulation as the "becoming" /_\S rather than the
"being" S. On the other hand, when I theoretically use
S(sy) + S(su) = S(un) <> constant
as first articulation to derive as second articulation
/_\S(sy) + /_\S(su) = /_\S(un) > 0
then I have to think of my first articulation as the "being" S.
Well, is the ordering of these two expressions really that trivial?
Up to my MSc in physics and for twelve months (end of 1968)
after it I thought myself it was trivial. To begin with the "entropy
of the system" (symbolised by S(sy) ) as "being" and then
arrive at the "change in entropy of the system" (symbolised by
/_\S(sy) ) is simple. Already in high school pupils are trained that
to find the change in any quantity x they need two ordered values
x(1) and x(2) of that quantity and then substract the first from
the last value, i.e
/_\x = x(2) - x(1)
Hence to find /_\S(sy) we make use of the
expression
/_\S(sy) = S(sy, later time) - S (sy, earlier time)
It is just here where the bus got completely off the road for me in 1968
and crashed into landscape of reality. There were no entropy values of the
form S(soil, instant of time) for me to work with. Steve said entropy
means nothing to him. Now read me carefully. In 1968 I discovered that
there were no entropy values for soils. I needed them as foundation for my
tacit knowledge gained by a year's study on the literature of soils, but
they simply did no exist. As a result I soon came deeply under the
impression that to think of entropy as "being" is as infertile as one can
get. For six months I struggeled with this very feeling of infertility,
just as Steve, John and others. I was very close to admitting that my
intuition led me astray.
But in the winter of 1969 I was very fortunate, after having worked
through many libraries for a clue, to stumble on the book by
Ilya Prigogine on irreversible thermodynamics. In it he did a
wonderful thing. Rather than beginning with the "being" S(sy) and
then deriving
/_\S(sy) = S(sy, later time) - S (sy, earlier time)
(which even an intelligent high school pupil also can do or most
other pupils by rote learning) he began with the "becoming"
/_\S(sy) and then derived through immense mental focus
/_\S(sy) = /_\(r)S(sy) + /_\(i)S(su)
In other words, he got into the very innards of the symbol /_\ for
change and said that for him it consists of two parts, the
REVERSIBLE change /_\(r) and the IRREVERSIBLE change
/_\(i). He then proceeded to derive his equation for "entropy
production".
Let me recapitulate it, supressing (Occam's razor) the
qualification "sy". Traditional science begins with "entropy" S
as "being" and then arrives at
/_\S = S(later time) - S (earlier time)
whereas Progogine begins with "change in entropy" /_\S and
then arrives at
/_\S = /_\(rev)S + /_\(irr)S
where /_\(irr)S is the "entropy production" (change in entropy per
unit change in time). There is no way how traditional science
(except with Prigogine's insight as hindsight) could have started
from the "being" S and directly could have arrived at "entropy
production" /_\(irr)S.
I am deeply aware of the fact that whereas I stress that for my own
understanding I have to begin with "entropy production" as a "becoming"
and only then proceed to "entropy" as a "being", Steve, John and others
will keep on reading me from beginning with "entropy" as being, trying to
understand "entropy production" as "becoming" and eventually admitting
failure to understand what I am saying. I tell them not to do it because I
also did it and it led me to infertility. Yet they do it. And because they
do it they find no meaning in what I perceive as the "tree of emergences"
where
roots = entropy production
trunk = creating (creativity)
branches = learning
leaves = believing
flowers = loving
I did not myself immediately perceived this "tree of emergences"
after having moved backed from "entropy" the being to "entropy
production" the becoming. It took me almost twenty years of
intense questioning to let the evolution of this tree happen within
me. Perhaps they want sudden insight. I cannot tell them that
they can have sudden insight -- it will be a lie if there ever was
one.
I can only tell them that the complexer the thing on which we desire
insight, the longer the time needed for that insight to emerge.
So how did I manage to do it in twenty years? Because I am such an
intelligent human -- a guru to look up to? No. I have studied thousands of
books and papers, scanned millions of pages, trying to understand reality
through the thoughts of others. I flooded myself with the perception of as
many humans through as many ages as possible. I flooded myself with
complexity because I did not fear it anymore! Why? That is another story,
one which I will tell only when the time is right.
Let me get back to Rudolf Clausius who first formulated the Law of Entropy
Production. He created the name "entropy" to mean "en"=in, "trepo"=turn
because he understood this strange quantity as "dynamic becoming" rather
than a "static being". It is only after him that Maxwell and others
succeeded to connect this strange "dynamic becoming" (a process) to the
"static being" (a mental construct) with one of the most extraodinary
creative accomplishments of the human mind ever -- the Carnot cycle. It
lead to the birth of classical thermodynamics.
Let me explain once again what happened. The first ever ordered outcome of
"entropy production" (Clausius' concept of entropy as a "becoming") was
Maxwell's concept of entropy (as a "being) -- that quantity of state which
we call "entropy" and which Maxwell interpreted as chaos. In other words,
Maxwell succeeded in transforming the "becoming" (which Clausius called
entropy) into the "being" which it necessarily has to result into,
calling the result also "entropy". It often happens in natural langauges
that we use the same word for a verb and a noun. In my own mother tongue
Afrikaans it is a rule which the makers of dictionaries and grammer hate
because they cannot keep up with it. But when it happens in a scientific
discipline, is it not fatal?
What then happened was typical of human behaviour. Maxwell, then Boltzmann
and finally Schroedinger became the gurus on entropy. They saw entropy as
"being" rather as "becoming" such as Clausius originally did. Clausius
simply disappeared from the picture (Occam's razor?). It took almost half
a century before Prigogine could set the record straight -- see his
wonderful book "From being to becoming". But then, beware, do not ever
touch this book if you have no feeling towards mathematics.
I am not surprised by the fact that nobody (except me) have ever tried to
explain to people what lies behind the mathematical formulae in this most
remarkable book. (Note, I am not saying that nobody tries to extend his
work by using mathematics also. There are many fine students trying to do
this.) Why not? Because what Prigogine has to say, is how "entropy
production" is responsible for evolution in the physical world, a world
studied by the physical sciences in which mathematics plays an integral
role.
What I am talking about is something far more encompassing, namely that
"entropy production" MAY BE responsible for all evolution in all reality,
physical and spiritual. For me it is very real as Steve was able to
observe (one of the few to do so). But I will not go into that now. For
some of you fellow learners like Winfried and Leo it is indeed something
plausible. But for the rest (the far majoirty) it is plain rubbish --
something for which we need Occam's razor. However, the fact is that since
I am a teacher, I believe that I am oblidged to prepare the minds of some
of you to act constructively when somebody finally announces that he/she
has found a way to demonstrate empirically that a Law (resembling the Law
of Entropy Production) also happens in the spiritual world.
When Newton announced the first law for the physical world based on
empirical evidence, nobody (except perhaps Leibniz) was prepared to act
upon it. As a result of it we have the kind of world in which we live
today. Some claim it was a great benefit to humankind while some claim the
opposite. However, the far majority of humankind live in worst possible
conditions not even aware of a preson like Isaac Newton. If it happens a
second time when somebody announces the first law for the spiritual world,
what will become of humankind is its has not been prepared for the
consequences?
>But I haven't answered your questions yet. I personally enjoy
>the thinking process, the sequence of confusion and ahas. My
>company has noticed that I started to approach strategical issues
>differently. I get the chance to structure my work around entropy
>production. Although I won't take that word in my mouth, the
>concepts help me to design interventions and ways to
>communicate - having a look at the rate of entropy production
>(confusion and ordering, bifurcations and digestion) and the
>essentialities and their interconnectedness (Onsager relations).
Is it not strange Winfried that in order for you to succeed as manager,
you must not take that word ("entropy production') in your mouth. When you
as manager know of some things which you will not speak of, people will
trust you in a peculiar way. In other words, when you have secrets because
you are a manager, people will trust your management. But for me as a
teacher I have to declare openly that I have no secrets -- should you
question me I have to tell you what I know or do not know. For me as a
teacher it becomes a heavy responsibility to decide when I have to tell
you about things which I know and which you have not asked me about. The
one easy way out is not to tell anything which ordinary people do not
already know. The other easy way out is to tell them something
extraodinary for which they have not been prepared. Science have been
doing this for three centuries now.
>>What would happen if we merely used Occam's razor to
>>get rid of "entropy" in our discussions of human creativity
>>and organizational life together?
>
>What would happen? May be just a waste of time and effort.
>Let me explain:
(Winfried, I could not help to burst in happy laughter when you wrote
"wasting time" and "wasting effort". In terms of "deep creativity" wasting
time means "producing entropy with little effect" while wasting effort
means "using up free energy" to produce such senseless entropy.)
Yes "wasting time and effort" is true in the short run. It will seem as
life goes on just as before. But in the long run it is completely another
story. The seemingly most insignificant event can after a very long course
of time cause an avalanche of events. We "postmodern" humans tap each
other on the shoulders when telling about the "butterfly effect" in
complexity theory. But what did st James actually do when he spoke about
the tongue in his epistle, comparing it to a small fire which can set a
forest ablaze? Are we really so smart as we think?
Let me tell you as I see it. Every change which each of us cause in
reality, how small it might seem to be, is like throwing a pebble into
reality as a lake of water. That change causes waves which rippel outwards
until they have covered the entire lake and even coming back to the origin
as a result of reflection. So, cutting out with Occam's razor that which
has been said on this list on "entropy" will merely hide the origin of
ripples in thought which will go on for a very long time. This is how the
concept "energy" (see above) became such a household word.
I cannot help to "feel" the wonderful depth in this present dialogue on
"entropy" compared to the previous dialogues on it. It reminds me of what
happens in Athens almost two and a half millenia go. People speaking out
their spirits in as clear manner as possible without having to fear to do
so. It makes me very happy when somebody like Steve says clearly that
"entropy", "content/form" and "essentialities" have no meaning for him
because when he uses Occam's razor on them, he finds the world stays the
same for him. It makes me just as happy when you reply to him that for you
these concepts have brought a depth of understanding valuable to you and
others close to you who depend on your understanding.
It reminds me of Leibniz three and a half millenia ago and the concept of
a "monad" which he created as a result of his experiences. The rest of the
thinking world considered him to be crazy to even think of such an
irrelevant thing as a monad. When Jan Smuts. the father of holism, create
the concepts of a "whole " and "holism" and finally published them in
1926, some thinking people did not consider he was crazy. In fact,
Einstein himself thought soon after wards that it might perhaps be the
most significant creation of this century. Perhaps Einstein was a little
hasty in his praise, considering that this happened long before WWII.
However, this is not what I want to draw your attention to. What I want to
draw your attention to is that Jan Smuts did study Leibniz and honestly
admitted that he does not understand the monad -- "I cannot know it" was
his rather strange admission. Perhaps his wonderful grip on the English
language failed him. His mothertongue, just as mine, is Afrikaans. In
Afrikaans we will simply say "ek ken dit nie" (German -- Ich weiss es
nicht). I myself experience many times how I fail to have that touch of a
master on the English language.
In other words, here we have two people, speaking on the same thing, using
different terminologies, separated by three centuries, the second one
honestly admitting "I cannot know it". Now, I will tell a lie when I say
with respect to Leibniz's monads and Smuts' wholes or even Arthur
Koestler's holons should I say "I cannot know it". Why? Because I have
read them all after I have gained insight on entropy production. I will
also tell a lie when I say that before 1968 I would have understood none
of them. I simply had not, to use Pasteurs, words, the mental preparation
to understand them and to discover that they all were talking about the
same thing, but from "different fields" as Smuts would have said.
What do we have now? People from all over the world speaking HONESTLY in
close successions of time (the very nature of a dialogue) on the same
thing, some saying "I cannot know it", others saying "I know it". Some
call it "entropy production" and other calls it "entropy". Others pull out
seemingly different cards to play the game which I call the "evolution of
knowledge". It all happens on this list which our host Rick maintains so
dilligently. Now if this does not describe the emergence of authentic
learning, then I better resign my job at the university and rather begin
operating a till at a supermarket.
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>