Energy and Entropy LO28584

From: AM de Lange (
Date: 05/22/02

Replying to LO28544 --

Dear Organlearners,

Dan Chay <> writes:

>Thank you, At for this post on energy and entropy.
>I hunger for these because I have not quite internalized
>what I have been learning along these lines, to my
>satisfaction. I feel close intuitively, but sometimes
>when I try to explain to Heidi or others, I trip.

Greetings dear Dan,

I understand how you feel. I have studied thousands of books and papers on
entropy. Without them I would have come far less. Does this mean that I
have copied their work and thus was following the path of rote learning?
No. I had to weigh the bits of information, put them in the correct
relationships, trying to depict what would not go against my own tacit
knowing. To trip is part of that authentic learning. The same is trying to
explain what one knows self to others.

>In reading your post, it was another small break-through
>to not think of entropy as theory, but as a quantity, a
>calculated-measurements merely a step more complex
>than measurements alone.

Small break-through? I do not think so. It will have repercussions in your
thinking which may well be described as a grand "Steigerung" (emergence
upon emergence in a seemingly endless manner).

>I wonder, how many different kinds of energy can we measure?
>** Pneumatical energy:
>P(pressure, intensive) x V (volume, extensive)

The list which you have compiled is already impressive. I am satisfied
that your otherness ("quality-variety") with respect to energy is on par.
But have you made sure that so is the other six 7Es too? For example, do
you picture mentally P x /_\V work as a ordered flow ("becoming-being") of
pneumatical energy? In other words, are you fully aware of the liveness in

Allow me to take you and other fellow learners on another excursion. I
will now type information trying to reflect my own knowing. By this I do
not mean that it has to become your knowing too. I merely want to give to
you my articulated thoughts so that you can use them to explore your own

In the paradigm of a reversible universe having slow, small, balanced
changes we get the expression
/_\F(sy) = W(su/sy)
Here /_\F is the change /_\ in free energy F of the system SY. W(su/sy) is
the work measured in the surroundings. W can even be several kinds of work
added together. For each kind of work two kinds of measurements have to be
made, one on the intensive parameter and the other one on the extensive
parameter. These two measurement values then have to be multilied to get
the work. It is a "two-measurement-one-calculation" procedure as you have

The "equal to" sign "=" in the expression
/_\F(sy) = W(su/sy)
implies that any change in the free energy /_\F of the system can
be known EXACTLY by "double measuring and calculating" work
in the surroundings. In other words, in the paradigm of a reversible
universe having slow, small, balanced changes the system SY has
no secrets to its surroundings SU.

However, in the paradigm of a irreversible universe having fast,
large, unbalanced changes it is far different. Here the expression
/_\F(sy) < W(su/sy)
applies. The sign "<" means "smaller than". The surroundings SU
(in which even the observer is) cannot keep track of exactly what
goes on the system SY.

For example, if the surroundings SU does +6kilojoule of electrical
work on the system SY, the systems free energy F will increase
with less than 6kJ, say 5kJ so that
+5kJ (/_\F) < +6kJ (W)
The + sign for /_\F(sy) means its free energy INCREASES whereas
the + sign for W means work flows IN-TO the system. Let see what
-7kJ (/_\F) < -6kJ (W)
says. The - 6kJ says that for 6kJ of work W to flow OUT-FROM
the system, the free energy /_\F of the system decreases with -7kJ.

What a naughty, secretive, inefficient system do we not have for doing
something with that 1kJ of energy making up the difference between /_\F
and W.

What upright, honest and precise scholar will ever do his/her Systems
Thinking in the paradigm of a irreversible universe having fast, large,
unbalanced changes when every system in it has naughty, secretive and
inefficient dealings? Will not only the clever, crooked and scheming
wizard go for such a paradigm?

Yet the expression
/_\F(sy) < W(su/sy)
tells us that every system SY of the universe has a "hidden organisation",
"tacit dimension", "implicate order" or "everlasting black box" which
other systems in its surroundings SU will never know through measurements
with calculations. We cannot even say whether the free energy F(sy) is a
property of the system which can exist independently of other properties.
In fact, we created F out of the total energy E of the system and its
total entropy S as if the latter two exist independently. But it may be
that F(sy) is the holistic outcome of a myriad of other interacting
properties of which we have no clue of and might never get a clue of
because of the system's "hidden organisation". It may even very well be
that F(sy) is the holistic outcome of the 7Es (seven essentialities of
creativity) operating in the system!

Einstein said rightfully that
/_\F(sy) < W(su/sy)
cannot be allowed in physics since the life of death of physics as he
knows it rests upon
/_\F(sy) = W(su/sy)
But Einstein also said that we ought to use our imagination where
measurements and calculations cannot bring us anymore. So if our
imagination opens a new world to us, why cry after the old which
we leave behind.

Is this not the world we live in? We look at systems and see how they
behave, seldom prepared for their surprising behaviour, but always ready
to audit them to the hilt. We pry them open like a machine to have a look
at every bolt (measurement) and nut (calculation) with which we want to
kepp it together, but when we want to reassemble the parts, a box of bolts
and nuts remains which we could not fit. Worse of all, the machine we did
fit together does not work like the system which we tried to took apart.

Some of you fellow learners may perhaps have said to yourself "This At de
Lange has too much surprising and weird ideas to be comfortable with him."
There is a definite reason for my thinking. I have stopped thinking in the
paradigm of in the paradigm of a reversible universe having slow, small,
balanced changes so that every system SY in it has no secrets to its
surroundings SU. I am over my head thinking in the in the paradigm of an
irreversible universe having fast, large, unbalanced changes so that every
system SY in it has a "hidden organisation" which the surroundings SU
cannot audit up to the hilt. It may seem to be naughty, secretive and
inefficient to auditors relying so much on their "equal too" sign "=". But
perhaps the shoe fits the other foot because few expected the demise of a
corporation like Enron or the collapse of the two WTC towers.

How can we think of free energy F? Those chemists used to the
/_\F(sy) < W(su/sy)
think of free energy F as that energy with which a system can do
work W. Technically it is correct, but when thinking of free energy
F outside the walk of chemistry, it does not bring us far. When
thinking of free energy F as a property of any system, physical or
spiritual or both, we need to think differently about it. I have tried
several possibilities. The one which gave me the best mileage is the

The system SY has a total energy E. The system is also organised, some of
it hidden. The total entropy S expresses this total organisation, clear
and hidden. Some of the total energy E is locked up in maintaining this
organisation of the system. The remainder of the total energy E is the
system's free energy F. With that free energy F the system can do work, do
further organisation and even emerge into a new order. Whatever becomes of
the system depends on how much free energy F it has available. This is the
necessary condition. The sufficiency condition is that not even one of the
system's 7Es must be impaired.

The most interesting case for
/_\F(sy) < W(su/sy)
is when we do not try to audit the system in terms of work which
involve "double measurement and calculation". This expression
then becomes
/_\F(sy) < 0
For the chemist it is the bottom line for a spontaneous chemical
reaction. They have found that only chemical reactions during
which the free energy lowers (that is what the "< 0" means), will
happen all on their own. A chemical reaction for which
/_\F(sy) > 0
will never happen on its own. But this does not mean that the
reaction will never happen. Say for such a reaction
/_\F(sy) = + 6kJ > 0
When the surroundings SU does anything more than +6kJ of
work on the system, say +7kJ, then again we have
+6 kJ (/_\F) < +7kJ (W)
This is, for example, what happens when your car's alternator
does when it recharges the battery. It does electrical work on
the battery so that the non-sponteneous recharging reaction can

Likewise of any other physical or spiritual system, the condition
for spontaneous behaviour is
/_\F(sy) < 0
It has to have free energy F which it can use up on its own while
performing that spontaneous behaviour. Without sufficient free
energy F it cannot behave spontaneously. To get still behaviour
out of it, but now non-spontaneous, work has to be done by the
surroundings on the system. Herin lies the dilemma and eventually
catastrophe of our modern day organisations. They have learned
how to get non-spontaneous behaviours by doing "hard work".
For this they need sources of free energy.

Sadly, organisations are oblivious to the fact that some sources of free
energy can be replenished while others cannot. Physical sources like
nuclear and fossil fuel cannot be replenished. Others sources like
sunlight energy or wind energy can replenished. Think of money in a bank
account. Think of drawing money faster than depositing it. Sooner or later
that account will have to be closed. In the physical world this can be
described as the "die-off" point. If you fellow learners want to study the
horror of horrors, go to the website < > Are you preparing
yourselves for a physical world in which this die-off will come as sure as
the sun set each evening?

Are you preparing yourselves for a spiritual world in which this
die-off will come as sure as the sun set each evening? Huh? Now
At you are jumping out of our sight! Dear fellow learner, by
confusing information which exists outside us with knowledge
which lives within us, we are heading to a spiritual catastrophe.
In my little life I have experienced in our little country how vastly
organisations have become transformed from inner-knowledge
driven to outer-information driven organisations. They have given
up the
/_\F(sy) < 0
of spontaneous authentic learning to conform to the
/_\F(sy) > 0
of non-spontaneous rote learning. That is why people in organisations,
whether a university, a church, a business or a club have to work
harder and harder to keep things from not falling apart into a die-off.
What has become of working smarter?

How will we become smarter? I think that there is at least one thing
which we should do. Find out what is the difference between the
paradigm of a irreversible universe having fast, large, unbalanced
changes and the paradigm of a reversible universe having slow,
small, balanced changes. I have used certain words to describe
these two paradigms. If you can now sit down and imagine by
yourself what these words amounts to, then you will have become
smarter. If you need me to do it for you, then you will just have to
work harder until die-off catches up with you. As for me, my
teaching is to draw you into the "hidden organisation" of
/_\F(sy) < W(su/sy)
not by rote learning, but by authentic learning.

I will know success when in your authentic learning you make use of
/_\F(sy) < 0
rather than
/_\F(sy) < W(su/sy)
where W(su/sy) is all my hard work through many years on this list.
I will know that you will not be caught up by the physical and
spiritual die-offs because you will have created for yourself another
world -- the authentic world in which love behaves supreme.

Have you ever thought that God may have created this universe
UN, physical and spiritual to evolve spontaneously, i.e
/_\F(un) < 0
rather than
/_\F(un) < W(God/un)
If it is the case, then God may want to interfere as little as possible
with the universe by doing "hard work" on it. God may rather
"work smart" with it and expect from us to do the same. For example,
God promises to heed to something as a little as a prayer. But as
James once wrote, we have not because we do not pray and we
get not because we pray wrong. Can we pray to God to assist us
in what boils down to heading straight into a die-off? I think not
because God loves us too much.

When a person prays for a car so as to do his/her daily tasks, i think
that this person is part of the flock heading to the physical die-off. But
when that person prays for two healthy legs to walk to another person in
need of care, i think it is worthy for God to heed to that prayer. But
this is just how i think. I also think you will have to create your own
thinking self, but you may do it unlike me. I love you too much to tell
you how you must think.

In our local newspaper there had been considerable debates and reports on
what is called the New Reformation in Christain theology. Some theological
professors say that the Old Reformation has been driven by medieval logic
whereas the New Reformation is driven by postmodern logic. For example,
one professor said he does not believe that Jesus died on the cross to
save humans from eternal death. It is just not logical that a God of love
can allow such a cruel thing to happen. Another professor said he believes
that once his body dies, his spirit also dies. Thus the the Christian life
has only sense while a person is living. Such claims make ordinary
believers angry, fearing to question self the Bible.

When a parent jumps into a river to save his/her child from drowning and
in the process drowns self, is this not an act of love? How can it be
illogical? Should I become stone deaf like a Beethoven, does it mean that
my spirit is dead? Should all my sense organs stop functioning when my
body dies, the means for any human to communicate with my spirit have
disappeared. But does this lack of communication means my spirit must be
dead? Does the lack of any brain activity points to a dead spirit?

There is no surer death than that of equilibrium when for the system
/_\F(body) = 0
Even when my body dies, it is not yet in the state of equilibrium with
/_\F(body) = 0
because it decays further according to
/_\F(body) < 0
Only when a small heap of dust remains
/_\F(body) = 0 (equilibirum)
provided this dust is stored in a tight bottle so that plants cannot take
further nutrients from it ;-)

Spiritual death is the same. We have to watch out for
/_\F(spirit) = 0 (equilibrium)
by learning what
/_\F(spirit) < 0
/_\F(spirit) > 0
as well as
/_\F(spirit) < W(communication)
means. It is quite possible to have a body living spontaneously
according to
/_\F(body) < 0
while the spirit is not living spontaneously according to
/_\F(spirit) < 0
I see it daily in people who have allowed others to take their
imagination away from them. They live in the flat landscape of
free energy which is by mathematical definition
/_\F(spirit) = 0

Perhaps God is one big imagination, but then this imagined God
keeps my spirit spontaneous with
/_\F(spirit) < 0
Thus i think that i am not heading towards the spiritual die-off with
/_\F(spirit) = 0
I definitely need not to be driven by external information to overcome
/_\F(spirit) > 0

>What others? How about forms of energy that I could
>relate to my business-oriented friends?

That i imagine would be diffcult. Most business orientated people think
only about making profits. But i do have a few friends in the business
world who think beyond profits. You might tell them the following which is
merely how it is for me.

When i shape my creativity with its 7Es, a different form of spiritual
energy is involved when i shape my knowledge with its four levels
(experiential, tacit, formal and sapient). When i shape my character
another form of spiritual energy is involved. When i shape my faith yet
another form of spiritual energy is involved. But when i shape my love a
form of spiritual energy is involved which is far superior to all the

>How would we measure organizational and/or spiritual
>energies, I wonder? As a sum of different kinds of
>energies? And free energy, too?

Dear Dan, i think that it is exactly here where we run into the walls
of the various laws of complexity like LRC (Law of Requisite
Complexity), LPC (Law of Pliability of Complexity) and LVC (Law
of Veracity of Complexity). Allow me to explain it to you in terms
of measuring and calculating an entropy change /_\S. We learned
fist in thermodynamics to do it, using the formula
/_\S = heat-flow/temperature.
So we must measure two quantities and then in one calculation
divided the one by the other. Do you not get the feeling that this
"double-measurement-one-calculation" determination is the LVC
standing in front of you? I think you got through this wall here ;-)

But how do we determine entropy production in a living tree? It is here
where the LVC becomes clearer. We will have to do tens of thousands of
"double-measurement-one-calculation"s and add them up to get one single
value for the change in total entropy. By that time we might be in the

Yet there is such a complex instrument as the IRVC (Infra-Red Video
Camera). It measures pixel for pixel over the entire screen the frequency
of the infrared radiation given off. The higher the temperature, the
higher the frequency. It then converts the infrared radiation at each
pixel into temperature and then represents each interval of temperature by
a colour ranging from, say black for cold to white for hot . It can also
make use a colour scheme to do so. So when we look through the IRVC we see
how much heat is produced in each part of the tree. Believe, me when
looking in the night at a tree with ripening food, its is like looking at
a Xmas tree!

We cannot see infrared-radiation with our own eyes. But i suspect strongly
that fruit flies, like mosquitos, can. When you bring the IRVC closer to a
fruit, you will see (because they are also alive and thus producing
entropy) fruitflies like tiny specks of star dust hovering around the
fruit or dropping onto it. Unfortunately, our war making armies would not
allow us to look through such a IRVC. And their soldiers have other things
on mind than to gaze in amazement at the wonder of life.

To actually get a picture of the entropy production going on the scene,
the computer in the ICVR has to programmed differently. It will have to
calculate (making some assumptions) the molecular heat liberated with a
certain frequency of infrared heat radiated. It will then have to divide
it with the temperature which it also has to calculate. This it will have
to do pixel for pixel and then represent the outcome with a colour code.
Can you see the LVC standing infront of you? I strongly suspect that the
fruit tree will still look very much like a Xmas tree.

To do it for the mind will take even more different complex measurements
into consideration. In my own 1982-83 experiment I took at least six
different inferences of logic as different units of measurement. I used
them in "Steigerung" questions as my measuring instruments. The values so
obtained i calculated manually because in those days i did not have a
computer as support system. Then i presented them manually on graphs. Did
i also get a Xmas tree? Can you see the LVC standing infront of you?

No, i got chromatograms of the minds of students in action ;-) Can you see
the LVC standing in fornt of you?

Chromatography is one of the curious outcomes of LEP (Law of Entropy
Production) in the physical world. The chromatograph is, for example, the
very instrument used to catch out a sports person cheating with steroids.
Mental chromatography helped me to become wise to rote learning cheating
upon authentic learning.

With care and best wishes


At de Lange <> 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 <> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <>

"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.