Re: Lizard engines and rat engines

Hi Gill,

in article dbq0bj$1p3g$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, g at gillawton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote on 7/21/05 10:31 PM:

> "Guy Hoelzer" <hoelzer@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:davmfp$1ee5$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> In a way, I think that Biology has taken the lead on this perspective and
>> that the (other) physical sciences are in the process of embracing the
>> utility and validity of the teleological stance. In my view, this is
>> being
>> developed out of thermodynamics, which is certainly about the attribution
>> of
>> final cause. The revolution in the paradigm here requires a restatement
>> of
>> the second law, although there are also many proponents of articulating a
>> fourth law. The difference is subtle in my estimation, but also profound.
>> Rather than having a second law that merely limits the scope of potential
>> outcome of a dynamic process to those that do not decrease the entropy of
>> a
>> closed system (IMHO this is code for the universe as a whole), many
>> physicists are coming to appreciate a law that favors the emergence of
>> systems that increase the RATE of entropy gain in closed systems through
>> self-organization. This conjecture (to avoid over-assertion) about
>> thermodynamics mimics the notion that natural selection favors changes in
>> biological populations that increase fitness, and has enormous
>> implications
>> for all the sciences. It also implies a sort of natural teleology,
>> because
>> it suggests that dynamic systems ultimately exist for the purpose of
>> increasing the rate of universal entropy gain.
>>
> Lots of people who claim to understand thermodynamics seem to have a view of
> it that defies the conservation of energy and mass in the universe. A
> conception of entropy as a loss of energy and/or mass runs contrary to all
> the empirical evidence in any of the sciences.
>
> Some would view entropy as a loss of order.

I realize that entropy has been defined in numerous ways over the years,
some of which are inconsistent with one another. I do indeed like the
notion of entropy as the degree of disorder. A "loss of order" would be an
increase in entropy.

> But such a view would contravene conservation of energy and mass.

How so?

I disagree (pending your explanation). Order/disorder is about the
configuration of mass and energy, not about its conservation. I take the
first law as a given.

> All entroy means -- if it does not contradict conservation of mass and
> energy -- is that any particular constellation of them is impermanent.

That is far from any definition of entropy I have ever read, although it is
true of anything with a temperature above absolute zero.

> The
> manifestation of "disorder" or "loss of order" is comparable to the
> manifestation of what is a weed. Just as a weed can be viewed as something
> that is in a place where it is not wanted, entropy can be viewed as a
> departure from a wanted constellation.
>
> For example: To view a reciprocating engine as an orderly thing is to say
> that someone wants it to do a certain thing efficiently. Entropy occurs in
> the form of loss of mechanical benefit from fuel combustion, just as a weed
> takes some nutrients a farmer might want to go into his crop. To view the
> loss of some of the energy of an engine in the
> form of heat does not mean any matter or energy are lost (as some people
> seem to take entropy to mean). It simply means the maker or user of an
> engine does not get 100 % of his way, nor 100 % of the time.

Thank you for this interesting discussion. I don't disagree with your point
about physics. I just disagree that this is all there is to entropy. Your
limited view of entropy seems at odds with most physicists, with the
possible exception of Boltzmann and those specializing on statistical
mechanics. In fact, while I am a great admirer of Bolzmann, I think that
the statistical approach to thermodynamics lost touch with some essential
physics of thermodynamics. Perhaps this is why you think this is all there
is to entropy, while I attribute more to it.

> Some people seem to ascribe some metaphysical properties to the fact that we
> humans do not get things 100 % our way, 100 % of the time, mechanically, and
> depict entropy as a tendency of things to fall into disorder unless energy
> is exerted to keep them "in order."
>
> If one puts a thousand black marbles and a thousand white marbles into a jar
> and repeatedly shakes them, it is possible for them to align in such a way
> as to spell a word, such as "order," when viewed from one side of the jar
> (or even from multiple sides). If the next good shaking puts them in a
> configuration whereby they are equally distributed throughout the jar, that
> is no more than one more configuration. And if, shaken again, the marbles
> form the word "help" on one side of the jar, that is still another.

Note that you had to do work, breakdown gradients (macromolecules), and
generate heat to achieve these highly unlikely but possible outcomes.

> The universe (so far as any can tell) contains mass and energy; and they
> continually are changing from one to the other. The only way one
> configuration is order, and another disorder, is meaningful only with
> respect to who likes them a certain way, and dislikes them another.

Order/disorder has nothing to do with like/dislike. IMHO it is a
distraction to focus on perceiver biases in this arena for the same reasons
I think it is a mistake to do so with information theory.

> Often we read allusions to causes and effects that are comparable to
> someone's noting that a roulette wheel comes up with the sequence
> 28-3-14-31-0-3 and says, "Okay, now what was it about 28 that caused 3 to
> follow; and what was it about 3 that caused 14 to follow... (etc.)"

I agree, and I try to be aware of this logical error in any context. I
don't think that I am falling into this trap here.

> Some things DO express 1:1 relationships, some 1:1000, some 1: a number
> which could not be written on this page.
>
> Two of the most frequently misunderstood things in the world -- it seems to
> this grasshopper -- are the notion of
> entropy and the notion of cause and effect.

I agree.

> And it is bad enough that some
> people do not comprehend them in science; but when they carry the
> misunderstandings over into metaphysics, that is when things begin to get
> really wacky.

Right. I don't recognize the existence of anything metaphysical.

Guy


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The "weight" of information
    ... thoughts) that is not encoded in matter or energy. ... | erased is a net increase in entropy for the ... Ideal sand, no change in entropy. ... or heat into mass. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The "weight" of information
    ... you towards that subject of quantum computing. ... You might also think a little about entropy. ... understanding is that in classical mechanics at least energy ... think that the equating of mass with information would be a problem. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Lizard engines and rat engines
    ... > that the physical sciences are in the process of embracing the ... > systems that increase the RATE of entropy gain in closed systems through ... it that defies the conservation of energy and mass in the universe. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: The wirehead problem
    ... maximising entropy is an illuminating perspective. ... in order to degrade their potential energy. ... There is no "impetus towards growth and reproduction". ... They are very good at surviving. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: The wirehead problem
    ... Entropy increase is just a measure of the spread of energy. ... surviving in the face of energy flow - it's a structure that makes energy ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)