Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Thoughts on the Second Law

Categories
Evolution
rhetoric
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A couple of days ago Dr. Granville Sewell posted a video (essentially a summary of his 2013 Biocomplexity paper).  Unfortunately, he left comments off (as usual), which prevents any discussion, so I wanted to start a thread in case anyone wants to discuss this issue.

Let me say a couple of things and then throw it open for comments.

1. I typically do not argue for design (or against the blind, undirected materialist creation story) by referencing the Second Law.  I think there is too much misunderstanding surrounding the Second Law, and most discussions about the Second Law tend to generate more heat (pun intended) than light.  Dr. Sewell’s experience demonstrates, I think, that it is an uphill battle to argue from the Second Law.

2. However, I agree with Dr. Sewell that many advocates of materialistic evolution have tried to support their case by arguing that the Earth is an open system, so I think his efforts to debunk that nonsense are worthwhile, and I applaud him for the effort.  Personally, I am astounded that he has had to spend so much time on the issue, as the idea of life arising and evolution proceeding due to Earth being an open system is so completely off the mark and preposterous as to not even be worthy of much discussion.  Yet it raises its head from time to time.  Indeed, just two days ago on a thread here at UD, AVS made essentially this same argument.  Thus, despite having to wade into such preposterous territory, I appreciate Dr. Sewell valiantly pressing forward.

3. Further, whatever weaknesses the discussion of the Second Law may have, I believe Dr. Sewell makes a compelling case that the Second Law has been, and often is, understood in the field as relating to more than just thermal entropy.  He cites a number of examples and textbook cases of the Second Law being applied to a broader category of phenomena than just thermal flow, categories that could be applicable to designed objects.  This question about the range of applicability of the Second Law appears to be a large part of the battle.

Specifically, whenever someone suggests that evolution should be scrutinized in light of the Second Law, the discussion gets shut down because “Hey, the Second Law only applies to heat/energy, not information or construction of functional mechanical systems, etc.”  Yet, ironically, some of those same objectors will then refer to the “Earth is an open system, receiving heat and energy from the Sun” as an answer to the conundrum – thereby essentially invoking the Second Law to refute something to which they said the Second Law did not apply.

—–

I’m interested in others’ thoughts.

Can the Second Law be appropriately applied to broader categories, to more than just thermal entropy?  Can it be applied to information, to functional mechanical structures?

Is there an incoherence in saying the Second Law does not apply to OOL or evolution, but in the same breath invoking the “Earth is an open system” refrain?

What did others think of Dr. Sewell’s paper, and are there some avenues here that could be used productively to think about these issues?

Comments
supplemental notes:
Theories of the Universe: Quantum Mechanics vs. General Relativity Excerpt: The first attempt at unifying relativity and quantum mechanics took place when special relativity was merged with electromagnetism. This created the theory of quantum electrodynamics, or QED. It is an example of what has come to be known as relativistic quantum field theory, or just quantum field theory. QED is considered by most physicists to be the most precise theory of natural phenomena ever developed. In the 1960s and '70s, the success of QED prompted other physicists to try an analogous approach to unifying the weak, the strong, and the gravitational forces. Out of these discoveries came another set of theories that merged the strong and weak forces called quantum chromodynamics, or QCD, and quantum electroweak theory, or simply the electroweak theory, which you've already been introduced to. If you examine the forces and particles that have been combined in the theories we just covered, you'll notice that the obvious force missing is that of gravity. http://www.infoplease.com/cig/theories-universe/quantum-mechanics-vs-general-relativity.html Two very different eternities revealed by physics https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/nyt-columnist-asks-is-intelligent-design-theory-a-form-of-parallel-universes-theory/#comment-490689
bornagain77
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
A few more thoughts on the second law. I was very surprised to learn that entropy has a deep association with gravity:
Evolution is a Fact, Just Like Gravity is a Fact! UhOh! – January 2010 Excerpt: The results of this paper suggest gravity arises as an entropic force, once space and time themselves have emerged. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-is-a-fact-just-like-gravity-is-a-fact-uhoh/ Shining Light on Dark Energy – October 21, 2012 Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,, Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy. ,,, http://crev.info/2012/10/shining-light-on-dark-energy/
In fact, it has been found that Black Holes are the largest contributors to the entropy of the universe:
Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe
I was also impressed to learn how destructive black holes are in their 'generation' of entropy:
"Einstein's equation predicts that, as the astronaut reaches the singularity (of the black-hole), the tidal forces grow infinitely strong, and their chaotic oscillations become infinitely rapid. The astronaut dies and the atoms which his body is made become infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed-and then, at the moment when everything becomes infinite (the tidal strengths, the oscillation frequencies, the distortions, and the mixing), spacetime ceases to exist." Kip S. Thorne - "Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy" pg. 476 Roger Penrose – How Special Was The Big Bang? “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.”
And when I learned that entropy is 'loosely associated with randomness/chaos',,,
Entropy - Order and Disorder Excerpt: Entropy has often been loosely associated with the amount of order, disorder, and/or chaos in a thermodynamic system. The traditional qualitative description of entropy is that it refers to changes in the status quo of the system and is a measure of "molecular disorder" and the amount of wasted energy in a dynamical energy transformation from one state or form to another. In this direction, several recent authors have derived exact entropy formulas to account for and measure disorder and order in atomic and molecular assemblies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#Order_and_disorder
,,,and with learning, as mentioned previously, that Black Holes are the greatest contributors of randomness/chaos in the universe, and realizing that Darwinists think that randomness created life, I then, half in jest, offered a Darwinist a one way trip to a Black Hole so as to perform scientific experiments to prove, once and for all, that Randomness can create life.
Space-Time of a Black hole http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0VOn9r4dq8
His resolve to pursue the truth to death if need be was a bit less firm than Gilbert Newton Lewis's resolve was:
GILBERT NEWTON LEWIS: AMERICAN CHEMIST (1875-1946) Excerpt: “I have attempted to give you a glimpse…of what there may be of soul in chemistry. But it may have been in vain. Perchance the chemist is already damned and the guardian the blackest. But if the chemist has lost his soul, he will not have lost his courage and as he descends into the inferno, sees the rows of glowing furnaces and sniffs the homey fumes of brimstone, he will call out-: ‘Asmodeus, hand me a test-tube.’” Gilbert Newton Lewis Creed – One Last Breath http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnkuBUAwfe0
But all kidding aside, this lesson I learned from black holes, about how deeply chaos/randomness and entropy are connected to death and destruction, is that the last place life would ever come from is from these entropic generators called black holes. In fact, far from being a creator of life, entropy is the primary reason why our temporal bodies grow old and die,,
Genetic Entropy - Down Not Up – Dr. John Sanford – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_edD5HOx6Q0 Notes from Dr. John Sanford’s preceding video: *3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations Reproductive cells are ‘designed’ so that, early on in development, they are ‘set aside’ and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,, *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation.
This following video brings the point personally home to each of us about the very destructive effects of entropy on our bodies:
Aging Process – 80 years in 40 seconds – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A91Fwf_sMhk
Verse and music:
Romans 8:20-21 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. Phillips, Craig & Dean – When The Stars Burn Down – Worship Video with lyrics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPuxnQ_vZqY
bornagain77
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
Dear Niwrad A correct statement of the Second Law does NOT state that systems "always go toward their more probable states". It merely states that some states are more probable than others. Thus a highly organized system CAN arise spontaneously, by chance, from a disorganized one. If you disagree, please state the second law youre using, in terms a layman can understand.chris haynes
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
Greetings. Eric, you typed:
Specifically, whenever someone suggests that evolution should be scrutinized in light of the Second Law, the discussion gets shut down because “Hey, the Second Law only applies to heat/energy, not information or construction of functional mechanical systems, etc.” Yet, ironically, some of those same objectors will then refer to the “Earth is an open system, receiving heat and energy from the Sun” as an answer to the conundrum – thereby essentially invoking the Second Law to refute something to which they said the Second Law did not apply.
Perhaps you did not see what transpired when Upright Biped asked a question about how information systems could arise in living systems.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fisking-a-biochemists-non-scientific-critique-of-id/ From okfanriffic, comment 17
Research into life’s origins is not pseudoscience that is all i want you to understand. It might help if you realised “information” is a subjective term. Crystals (any ordered structure) contain “information” believe what you like but please don’t obstruct our research.
okfanriffic comment 71
so vjtorley has invented a law of conservation of information. information is subjective. any chemical process can be viewed as a transfer of information. so what?
From AVS, comment 90:
…I’ve already said it is wise to avoid a conversation with you guys about “information” at all costs because you guys twist and bend the word to mean whatever you want. Exactly what ‘information’ is is way to subjective, and that is exactly why you guys cling to arguments about it so much.
As to my thoughts, I'll not add much to what ciphertext and CuriousCat typed. Here they are: 1) For functional mechanical structures, they will be affected by the 2nd Law as they are made of matter. 2) Given that information needs a material substrate, the information can be affected by the second law of thermodynamics as the material substrate follows the law. 3) I might be mistaken, (as I have not touched this concept for a while now), what is more interesting is how energy is utilized. In thermal entropy sense, a basic is that work needs to be done for heat transfer in the negative gradient. How is the work provided? This is the case for machinery. Another issue in machinery is how is the energy directed for it to perform its task? I do not know much about biological systems, but from the little I remember, there has to be a way keep temperature balance: Homeostasis. Without homeostasis, the material substrate which contains biological information will be destroyed quicker than usual. With all what I have written, I can see why talking about open systems is a distraction, given that functional mechanical structures and information storage materials will definitely be affected by the second law. What is more important is how these systems arose in the first place, especially in biological systems which preservation through generations is necessary. The open system argument is problematic if it does not account for some form of homeostasis so as to preserve the material substrates necessary for life, and also if it does not account for the rise of the system Upright Biped has always been talking about.seventrees
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
chris haynes #11
There certainly appears to be a connection between information and living things, and there may be an entropy concept involved. But whatever it is, we dont yet understand it.
The 2nd law in statistical mechanics states that systems always go toward their more probable states (when intelligence is not involved). Organized states are highly improbable. Ergo systems go toward disorganization. Biological systems are highly organized, so cannot arise spontaneously by chance, as evolution claims. That's simple.niwrad
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
Dear Curious Cat I disagree that the Second Law, properly stated, tells you that something can not happen. Take the statement: "The entropy of an isolated system cannot decrease." That statement is untrue. The second law is not about absolutes. It is about probabilities.chris haynes
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT
Two more thoughts 1) A complete statement of the second law is "Stable States exist". But Dr Sewell's statement of the second law is made with differentials, gradients, fluxes, stuff like that. Why does he need the mathematical hocus pocus? 2) Matter with the lowest entropy is a pure crystal, rather like a pure tone of sound. The information content is slight. Living things are anything but pure crystals, being more like music. There certainly appears to be a connection between information and living things, and there may be an entropy concept involved. But whatever it is, we dont yet understand it.chris haynes
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
As far as I'm concerned the second law of thermodynamics is the perfect example of Popperian scientific theory. It only tells us what can NOT happen, or gives an upper boundary for the possibility of the occurance of an event. It does not give us a limit about the realizable (or actual) possibility. From an engineering point of view (since I am a chemical enginner), for instance, if you want to separate two components from each other transfering only a limited amount of energy and work to a separator, second law only shows you whether this whole operation under the given conditions is NOT possible. The important point is that the reverse is not usually true: that the 2nd law shows that entropy of the universe increases during the operation does not guarantee that it is practically possible to achieve the aimed separation. A known engineering mechanism should exist for that seperation to be possible under these conditions. That's one of the reasons why efficieny of many processes is far from 100%, much more than theoretical limits of energy should be transferred to the system. So back to the topic about evolution vs. ID, in my opinion second law (in the classical sense) can only say that life cannot start and evolve without an external energy source, such as the sun. However, a similar argument can be proposed also for skyscrapers or cars (or anything man made), that an external energy supply (such as sun!) is required. So, saying that life (and unguided evolution) does not violate 2nd law does not say much, since cars, planes, etc. do not violate the 2nd law either, due to the continuous energy supply of the sun and the winds, etc. I read Dr. Sewell's paper (and I remember having a read an older one quite some time ago), and have found the basic premise interesting (and intuitive), but my mathematics is not advanced enough to evaluate his study.CuriousCat
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
I'm at a loss to understand how the Second Law wouldn't affect information and mechanics. Certainly, computer and electrical engineers must account for "heat" buildup and dissipation when considering the design and construction of microprocessors. I suspect that mechanical engineers, too, must take into account the Second Law when designing and developing purely mechanical devices such as components of the internal combustion engine (e.g. crankshafts, pistons, rings, etc...). I don't think you can escape having to "deal with" the Second Law. Even if you aren't specifically discussing thermal entropy, you must at the very least make allowances for the affect thermal entropy has upon your given area of study. A great many persons can safely "ignore" thermal entropy because an engineer has taken it upon themselves to design a computing or mechanical device that is "buffered" (for lack of better terminology) against the effects of thermal entropy. Most computers are designed to operate within certain temperature thresholds as are most cars. When I'm writing computer code, I don't have to consider what effect thermal entropy will have upon my code. Generally speaking, my code doesn't put the CPU and GPU of my computer outside of their designed parameters for reliable operation. The same is true when I drive my car. However, I do recognize that others (namely physicists and engineers) who contributed to designing those computing and mechanical devices did take into account thermal entropy so that I did not have to.ciphertext
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
I should add one more important point, at least in terms of the debating tactic of the "open system." The "Earth is an open system and, therefore, evolution is possible/likely" idea is completely void of substance and is but a rhetorical game. If someone is having trouble mentally getting over the hump between a closed and open system, we can easily get past it by just redefining the system we are talking about. Earth is an open system? Fine. Then let's talk about the Earth-Sun system. Now it is a closed system. Please explain to me how life could arise in the confines of the closed Earth-Sun system. Or the Solar System is our closed system. Now please explain how life could arise in the confines of this closed Solar System. The point being that we can draw a circle around any particular geographical area and call it our system -- whether the whole Earth, the Earth-Sun, the whole solar system, the galaxy, or even the entire universe, or (moving the other direction in size) a continent, a particular spit of land, a specific thermal vent, etc. The entire distinction between open/closed systems in the context of discussing the formation of life on the Earth is nothing but a rhetorical game and is completely without substance. Every particular locale can be considered part of an open system or closed system, depending on how we want to define it. And, of course, more importantly, whether a system is defined as open or closed tells us precisely nothing about how something like the origin of life, for example, could take place.Eric Anderson
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
Querius/fossil: Regarding the "compensation" argument, namely, that a decrease in entropy in one locale is "compensated" by an increase in entropy in another locale is (i) largely a red herring and is essentially nonsense, except in those limited cases in which there is a direct causal connection between those two locales; and (ii) meaningless, at least to the extent we are talking about things like functional systems and information. I think Sewell does a decent job of addressing this "compensation" business in his article/video.Eric Anderson
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
That the second law exists is evidence for design. Just sayin'...Joe
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
Even though I am not a scientist I would like to put my two cents worth in anyway. As a mathematician Dr. Sewell knows very well how things can be interchanged such as trigonometry being substituted in solving problems in integral calculus. To me it is the concepts of thermodynamics that form a framework in understanding processes in other areas just like statistics can be applied in a variety of useful ways. So, from what I can see he is well within common usage to use one thing to explain another. I also like his interpretation of thermodynamics as a statistical problem involving probability which basically eliminates the closed vs. open system even though I am sure there is some truth in the idea that there is a balance in the cosmos. As you have said arguments based on "the idea of life arising and evolution proceeding due to Earth being an open system is so completely off the mark and preposterous as to not even be worthy of much discussion." It is so because they ignore probability which throws a giant monkey wrench into their way of thinking and argument concerning what blind, unguided, random mutations can do.fossil
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
Great points, Chris. While there are analogies between information and physics, extrapolation based on analogy is pretty risky. Obviously information (and design) exists and is notable in absence, but it's also entirely dependent on context, environment, and utility. In cryptography, information can be disguised as white noise, or rather very close to it. Also, it can be argued that most non-mathematical information is an abstraction of reality. That's why most true-false questions are false at some level. I agree that Dr. Sewell made a good case against blindly (mis)applying the 2nd Law. When I visualized his argument regarding an open system, I had the funny thought of driving a car, when the engine suddenly freezes, the tires all pop and the doors fall off as an indication of a beneficial mutation on a planet a million light years distant. Ok, unlikely. So instead the 2nd Law would instantly raise the temperature of the entire galaxy by an infinitesimal amount, even a million light years away? Also unlikely. -QQuerius
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Eric, I fully agree with Sewell. See: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/the-hole-of-the-slot/ So my answers to your two questions are two "yes". The 2nd law applies to all systems with many elements. Biological systems have many elements so they cannot escape the consequences of this law, meant in its statistical sense.niwrad
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
I agree with Chris. What units of measure do you proposed be used in your attempt to expand the 2nd law metric?franklin
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Here are my views 1) The connection between information entropy and thermal entropy is an analogy. The formulas appear similar, but the underlying physics are different, somewhat like the connection between viscous flow through a porous medium and electrical conductivity. 2) This is borne out by the units of entropy. For thermal entropy, the units are Btus per degree of temperature. Btus and degrees don't have much to do with information. 3) We dont have a good understanding of what information, or information entropy is. The analogy only carries you so far. Come back in 100 years, and we can talk. 4.) One area where the ananlogy breaks down is the pure state. In information entropy, this is information without any corruption. As one moves away from the pure state the information degrades very rapidly. By contrast in thermal entropy, the entorpy is the difference between the total energy and the available work. As one moves away from the pure state, the available work diminishes slowlychris haynes
April 1, 2014
April
04
Apr
1
01
2014
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply