Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Physics

CSI and Maxwell’s Demon

“It is CSI that enables Maxwell’s demon to outsmart a thermodynamic system tending toward thermal equilibrium” (Intelligent Design, pag. 159) HT: niwrad For those wanting to understand Maxwell’s demon, here is a great video! [youtube tqgvqeLybik] How does this apply to No Free Lunch? In my essay “simplified illustration of no free lunch“, I describe how a Darwinist could get a free lunch if the Darwinian mechanism could create necessary information out of thin air. Instead of the free energy that Maxwell’s demon could supposedly make, I invited a Darwinist to show he could get free information with his Darwinian demon, and thus a free lunch worth $100 from me. Of course, he failed. 🙂 The problem for Darwinism, like Read More ›

Landmark 1929 Physics Paper: On the Decrease of Entropy in a Thermodynamic System by the Intervention of Intelligent Beings

In the Forgotten Creationist/ID book endorsed by Nobel Prize Winner in Physics, there was mention of a landmark physics paper by Leo Szilard. The paper dealt with a long standing problem of Maxwell’s demon. The paper was not immediately about the problem of design, but it sparked later questions by Robert Gange and others about whether a mindless biotic soup can somehow have sufficient insight about itself so it can build the computerized self-replicators that characterize life. First, Gange describes the problem of Maxwell’s demon, and why Leo Szilard’s solution was important: Maxwell’s Mysterious “Demon” The organizational intricacies of protein reflect information on a scale that a Supreme Intelligence can produce, but that nature cannot. To see why this is Read More ›

Specified Entropy — a suggested convention for discussion of ID concepts

In terms of textbook thermodynamics, a functioning Lamborghini has more thermal entropy than that same Lamborghini with its engine and other vital parts removed. But intuitively we view such a destruction of a functioning Lamborghini as an increase in entropy and not a decrease of entropy. Something about this example seems downright wrong… To fix this enigma, and to make the notion of entropy line up to our intuitions, I’m suggesting that the notion of “specified entropy” be used to describe the increase in disorganization. I derive this coined phrase from Bill Dembski’s notions of specified information. In the case of the Lamborghini getting its vital parts removed, the specified entropy goes up by exactly the amount that the specified Read More ›

Forgotten Creationist/ID Book endorsed by Nobel Prize Winner in Physics

There is a forgotten creationist book by engineer and physicist Robert Gange, PhD: Origins and Destiny that was published in 1986. It is available for free online, but for how long, I do not know. It was pioneering, and anticipated arguments that would be found in ID for the next 27 years, and likely beyond. Gange worked in the field of cyrophysics, so it is no surprise he writes with incredible insight regarding thermodynamics. His book is the only book written by a creationist that I agree with on the subject of thermodynamics, and he uses the so-called “New Generalized 2nd Law” to make his case. [the Kelvin-Plank version of the 2nd Law is a special case of the “New Read More ›

The famous Feynman Lectures on Physics hosted free for all by Caltech (and taking a peek at entropy . . . )

Christmas is early this year. Here are the famous Feynman Lectures on Physics (Vol II is forthcoming) hosted for free by Caltech. A useful point of reference for one and all. Just for fun, note here on on entropy, irreversibility and the rise of disorder: Where does irreversibility come from? It does not come from Newton’s laws . . . . We already know . . .  that the entropy is always increasing. If we have a hot thing and a cold thing, the heat goes from hot to cold. So the law of entropy is one such law . . . . Suppose we have a box with a barrier in the middle. On one side is neon (“black” Read More ›

Is the end nigh for science?

Or is it possible that physicists have made as many breakthroughs as possible within current assumptions, and another Einstein is needed? Another Max Planck? Read More ›

Darwinists and evolutionists saving face on basic science questions

Recall the series of threads that was sparked by this comment by a Darwinist: if you have 500 flips of a fair coin that all come up heads, given your qualification (“fair coin”), that is outcome is perfectly consistent with fair coins, a 22 sigma event is consistent with fair coins which was another example of SSDD where I asked a Darwinist if a space shuttle is an example of intelligent design, and he said, “No!”. Barry highlighted some other comments in the wake of their fiascos: Jerad’s DDS causes him to succumb to miller’s mendacity and Jerad and Neil Ricker Double Down. In their determination to disagree with IDists on every point, even basic questions, they end up saying Read More ›