Re: entropy and bio-evo
- From: Guy Hoelzer <hoelzer@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 23:39:46 -0400 (EDT)
Hi Gill,
I'm sorry for taking so long to reply. I was out of town.
in article dbvc50$n1h$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, g at gillawton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote on 7/23/05 11:23 PM:
> Guy,
>
> You started something, my friend.
>
> 1. You showed me (between the lines) that you have a very high IQ;
> 2. You showed me you actually have the ability to listen (read with
> comprehension, or whatever...) ideas that originate from someone
> other than yourself (how REFRESHING);
> 3. You showed me you have the ability to process what is said to
> you, rather than simply accepting or rejecting your current positions
> on things;
> 4. You showed me you have the ability to critique your own ideas
> and challenge them; and,
> 5. In short, you showed me you have an OPEN MIND !
>
> WOW ! FINALLY ! Someone who can exchange original ideas.
> Was beginning to think it would never happen.
Wow. I'm blushing. Thanks for the kudos.
> Okay. Here's my deal: Your ideas interest me, because they come from
> someone who does not live in an intellectual vacuum. All I ask of you
> is that you allow my ideas to interest you, while I allow yours to interest
> me. You have shown me (although that was not necessarily your intent
> at the time, that you actually have the ability and the willingness to
> consider ideas other than your own, as well as share your own.
> FANTASTIC ! That is why I put this subject in a new thread.
>
> Here goes.
>
> Entropy has been defined by some as "the energy not available to a
> thermodynamic system." What has that to do with a bio-evolutionary
> system. Everything it has to do with EVERY system. After all, the
> entirety of energy and mass includes every system know to human
> intelligence. I think we are on the same page with that. But before we
> can get to the nitty on it, we need to get on the same page with some of
> the troublesome details.
I don't like that definition of entropy much, but I do think we are in
agreement that all systems are fundamentally thermodynamic ones.
> You and I both know there is more to the universe than veritable
> miniature billiard ball-kinds of things bouncing in predictable
> directions at predictable speeds. There are some forces the natures of
> which are only guessed at by physicists. Ever since A. Einstein there
> has been some acknowledgement and acceptance of the fact that there
> is MORE going on in thermodynamics than just energy CAUSED BY
> molecular movements, rotations, vibrations and electromagnetism.
> Energy is not merely CAUSED BY mass. It IS mass. And mass IS
> energy.
OK.
> You and I have agreed on the first law of thermodynamics. Although
> we cannot prove it on a universal scale, we agree that there has been
> no exception found to it by any human, ever. Energy and matter can
> not be created, nor destroyed. They can, however, be converted from
> the one state to the other.
Indeed.
> You indicated that my notions about entropy are not those of any
> physicist you know of, but unlike most nit wits, you did not dismiss
> what I said about them without expressing a willingness to listen to
> further explanation. That is an indication that you have the ability to
> process more than most. You seemed to wonder about my assertion
> that "order is in the eye of the beholder." Great. No one else has even
> grasped that this might be built on an orderly logic scheme.
>
> Here's how that scheme stacks up (for me): there is an assumption among
> some physicists and engineers that the amount of entropy in any system
> is proportionate to the "degree of molecular disorder, " or "chaos." That
> (in my mind) is equivalent to the making of several false assumptions --
> the following being but a representative sampling:
>
> 1. The reason there are flies is because cows have tails for swatting
> them;
> 2. The reason there is day is because there is night;
> 3. The reason birds fly is because horses are too heavy to fly;
> 4. The reason there is sulfur in the periodic table of elements is
> because
> there is not enough carbon to fill the universe.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I am not saying engineers' calculations do not work
> with respect to some such thing as why the brake liners on 18-wheelers
> do not create friction after they reach a given temperature. What I am
> saying is that something an engineer cannot build something to do is
> something an engineer cannot build something to do. What a system
> cannot control completely is not the result of "chaos." It is the result of
> the fact that no system exists in the universe unto itself alone, and all
> things in the universe have to share the universe with all the REST of the
> story.
I think I am with you and that I agree.
BTW, you are probably aware that the term "chaos" has a technical meaning
that involves order, albeit order that is not superficially apparent.
> There is no such THING as chaos, in my philosophy. There is only
> energy/mass, interacting with energy/mass.
OK. Chaos is a description of outcomes or behavior of some dynamical
systems rather than an agent of effect.
> And one configuration (or
> constellation) at any given moment acts upon and is acted upon by all
> the rest of the system. As an entirety, the universe is a system that is
> no more chaotic than a pendulum. Equilibrium is constantly attained
> for the entirety, while asymmetric disequilibrium exists only in the
> sense of one sub-system's being contemplated as "special."
I appreciate the notion that you can have disequilibria in subspaces while
there is a virtual equilibrium at a larger scale. Are you suggesting that
the degree of entropy at the scale of the whole universe is not changing?
> Just as A. Einstein pointed out with respect to time and space and mass
> and energy, there is no frame of reference that is "special." But that is
> true ONLY if one is not talking about the ENTIRETY. At any given
> instant the amount of mass and energy in the universe equal what they
> equal at any other moment. Energy is MOTION (also known as "change").
>
> Unless "chaos" is defined as being motion and change, then there is no
> such thing as chaos. This is not saying any more than saying that the
> system known as the universe is NOT FROZEN in time and space, but
> has motion and change going on. This is not saying any more than that,
> at any given instant the overall constellation of mass and energy in the
> universe is balanced in the context of its entirety, but in motion as to
> the context of any subdivision of it.
I get the picture. I have toyed with the idea myself that the universe as a
whole may be at least roughly in equilibrium with regard to entropy as the
dynamical viscosity resulting from spatial configuration gives rise to the
emergence of coherent systems dissipating gradients (structure) while also
perturbing other systems (acting as agents of effect).
> This in no way refutes the calculations of engineers. What it refutes
> is the concept of "order versus disorder."
Hmm. You will have to work hard to convince me of this.
> What is viewed by an engineer, in the design, building and operation of
> an internal combustion engine as inefficiency by way of loss of energy
> as heat, is no more "disorder" than is ANY configuration of mass or
> energy IN THE CONTEXT OF the change/motion that goes on in
> all sub-sections (thus sub-systems) in the universe at any given instant.
I think I disagree here. It seems to me that the structure of a
macromolecule would be identifiable as an ordered state from any
perspective. When it is burned as fuel the macromolecule is broken apart
and its constituents are freed to move independently. How is this not an
increase in disorder?
> Lots of individuals think in terms of "order" and "disorder." To a
> terrorist who blows himself up in a subway (tube), he may have put
> things more "in" order than "out" of order. Hence this is the meaning
> which attaches to the statement that "order" is in the eye of the beholder.
The terrorist may think that the structural change he/she initiated was
good, and the new structure may indeed be more orderly than the previous
one. Indeed, the U.S. Responded to 911 with the Patriot Act, which
increased the degree of order in our society by reducing personal liberty
(independence). However, I would not equate that with the claim that the
events of 911 were negentropic.
> The universe is CONSTANTLY reconfiguring itself.
Indeed.
> To do otherwise
> would be for it to cease to have any substance (mass) or motion/change.
> This is because mass cannot BE, and also not BE in motion with
> respect to all other mass. (Even within a single baseball, no two
> molecules are in the same place at the same time, nor traveling along
> the same vector as any other.)
>
> Unless the false conception of "chaos" or "disorder" is eliminated from
> the concept of thermodynamics, the nature of this model cannot be
> admitted into the mind.
Again, chaos and disorder are distinct concepts for me, and I am not
prepared to eliminate the notion of disorder from my conception of
thermodynamics yet. I hope I can consider your paradigm as an alternative
without first "eliminating" my paradigm.
> Once mass and motion are seen as in a state of
> constant motion/change, ANY constellation (or configuration) of which
> is equally as orderly as any other, then this model of the universe becomes
> adaptable. The notions of "chaos" or "disorder" and "total randomness"
> are comparable to the notion of divine intercession.
>
> If there IS divine intercession, that intercession is not miraculous but
> in sync, just as human intervention in the flight of a pitched ball, by
> striking it with a bat, does not interrupt the order of things. It merely
> acts as a sub-part OF the total change/motion of the entirety which is
> neither created nor destroyed.
>
> If you are able to see this, you will recognize that is "works."
I'm not yet convinced. Your view seems to lack an explanation for the
constructive behaviors we see in the universe. The constructions of and by
living things are examples. To the extent that I understand your view at
this point, it seems to allow for anything with equal likelihood, whereas
work is often targeted at construction. How does your view accommodate this
observation?
> Many will reject it on no other basis than the ego basis that they cannot
> wrap their mind around it, together with the assumption that what they
> do not grasp is not valid.
At this point I would not say that your view is invalid, but it seems
incomplete.
> In a nutshell, it is merely an extension of the assumption that the total
> amount of mass/energy in the universe is conserved. (The word
> "conserved" in this context IS recognized and accepted by physicists
> generally, who understand it to mean the same thing as the expression
> "cannot be created nor destroyed."
Regards,
Guy
.
- Prev by Date: Re: What about the Neo-Lamarkism idea ?
- Next by Date: Re: Issues: A Question Of Integrity (was: Issues)
- Previous by thread: ScienceWeek's New Message Board
- Next by thread: Re: entropy and bio-evo
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
