Re: energy vs. work

Dear fisers

dear james:

in you posting yesterday you said:
> > I certainly agree that nonequilibrium thermodynamic systems (hurricanes,
> > Benard cells, B-Z reaction, etc.) have a kind of semi-goal-directed
> > behavior that transcends simple mechanical interaction. Since I view
> > "mechanism" as a linear relation between cause and effect, for me this
> > is so more or less by definition. Wherever you have a nonlinear relation
> > between cause and effect, i.e., a "disproportionate response," you have
> > a transcendence of pure mechanism.
> > But all the systems mentioned above are still describable purely in
> > terms of energy minimization (given the constraints), are they not?
> > Whereas living systems transcend not only mechanism, but also---and this
> > is crucial---energy minimization.

 yes, I agree with the point of energy minimization. But let me put it in a more general way: we are talking about open systems. Their basic characteristic is its metabolism which is the cycle of input of energy and material E-m (in a certain quality q1) internal transformation and output (in quality q2) being q1 > q2 FOR the considered system. The internal transformation is processed by the structure of the system, or in other words, in an cooperative activity between the elements which compose the structure of the system. What happens "inside"? The incoming E-m is used in two basic ways: a) to overcome structural inertia and b) to produce system specific work.

The first produces what we call entropy. Thats the part of the whole energy the system needs to "put the whole structure" in conditions to realize work. This is the part which is dissipated.

The second part (whats left) is used to "reproduce the movement" for what the whole system is "designed" for. In other words: to make the system function. Function in the sense of its organizational locgic, or what we also call its structural Information. So, I agree in the sense that work is energy used in a goal specific manner. But I don't mean that the goal is a conscient one.

So, in evolution systems which are able to transform a greater part of the input E-m into work, are obviously in better conditions to subsist.

 Where in formation comes into the game?

The E-m input is submitted to external changes. These changes are received by the system structure as signs (differences in q1) and the system needs to adapt somehow, or could fail. This process of adaptation requires processing of the incoming signs and the existing structural information has to be actualized. But this actualization is also at the same time production of Entropy!!! The system needs to produce entropy to be able to survive external changes!!!

That why many authors relate entropy to disorder and information, because entropy effectively causes disorder in the existing structure (overcoming the structural inertia). to enable it to adaptation. So I see a very dialectic and contradictory relationship between entropy and work.

What really differents life from non life (even if I am not very clear about where is the precise line os separation) is in my opinion the WAY how the internal processing of signs to information is working. There I would say in a very simplified way that

- on purely phys.chem level signs are processed in a reactive way

- on organic level signs are processed in a reflective way

- on societal (conscience) level signs are processed in a self-reflective way

Of course in a next attempt I would like to discuss in more details what we understand by reactive, reflective and self-reflective. But very briefly: this are 3 qualitative steps of signs processing and of course generation of information

best regards

Norbert
Received on Wed May 22 19:13:55 2002