ANYTHING can happen in an open system—or a closed universe

_{Granville Sewell

March 18, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

[youtube 259r-iDckjQ]

Under the influence of four fundamental, unintelligent, forces of physics alone, atoms spontaneously rearrange themselves into science texts, spaceships, high speed computers and the internet on a planet. Try to imagine something which would more obviously violate the second law of thermodynamics. You can’t? No problem, according to Isaac Asimov, Richard Darkins, Daniel Styer and many others, there is no conflict with the second law because our planet is an open system, it receives energy from the sun, and anything can happen in an open system, no matter how improbable, without violating this law, as long as something is happening outside our open system which, if reversed, would be even more improbable. (If you don’t believe the argument is this silly, read this .) If we were to watch a tornado running backward, as in this embedded video, turning rubble into houses and cars, exactly the same argument could be made to say that this would not violate the second law: tornados receive their energy from the sun, so any decrease in entropy a backward-running tornado could cause is easily compensated by increases outside our open system. So they really are arguing, as I wrote 10 years ago, that anything can happen in an open system, without violating the second law, even though the very equations of entropy change upon which this counter-intuitive “compensation” argument is based do not support this, they actually support the common sense interpretation, as shown here.)

OK, well suppose the laws of physics in our universe were themselves fined tuned for life, to an incredible degree of precision. Our universe is closed, if there is anything outside, it could never, by definition of “universe”, affect what happens here; at least now you cannot appeal to something happening “out there” to explain the appearance of design here, can you? You can?? Well, is there anything that could happen, on our Earth, or in our universe, that would falsify the conclusions of opponents of design like Asimov and Dawkins? If so, please tell me what it would take.

And I thought the reason intelligent design was not science is that it was “unfalsifiable.”

Comments

Eric, Thanks for your thoughtful and very polite reply. My opinion is, though, that our disagreement actually goes deeper than simply terminology. The airplane never violates the law of gravity because there is always a downward force acting on it equal to its mass times the gravitational constant. When it is in level flight, there are equal and opposite forces acting on it due to the flow of air over its surfaces, so it remains in the air. This is all within the scope of natural law. However, when the aeronautical engineer produces the astronomically improbable arrangement of materials into a craft that can and does fly through the air, there is no natural law that explains how the Second Law could have been superseded to bring that craft into being. Human creativity and intelligence did it, but there is no known explanation within natural law that can account for human creativity. Thus, I contend that the Second Law actually was violated, contrary to the situation when the plane is in the air, when gravity continues to act on it according to the theory. As I think about it, however, I can imagine a materialist saying something like, "Well, we just don't know enough about how the brain operates yet to be able to explain creativity. But eventually we will." So I guess your approach could also have merit. My response to the materialist would be that his position is based on the faith that materialism is true, so until there is some actual evidence that there is an explanation for human creativity that falls entirely within natural law, it is a conclusion of faith, not science, that the Second Law is not violated by the abundance of the artifacts of human intelligence.Bruce David_{March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

Thanks, Bruce David. I understand what you're saying. The open system idea is so absurd that it should be embarrassing to anyone who uses it. Definitely in agreement there. I'm simply pointing to a discussion/debating point, namely that saying intelligent activities "violate" the 2nd Law is not helpful to the discussion or to people's understanding in the normal discourse. There are lots of ways to state the 2nd Law in a way that doesn't make you then have to argue that you know of something that violates it. I don't think the 2nd Law is violated any more than the Law of Gravity. Does the created thing continue to be subject to the 2nd Law? Sure. Is the intelligent activity able to bring other resources and information to bear to temporarily counteract what would normally happen under the 2nd Law? Sure. Doesn't mean it is violated. Just that there are other principles at work as well. Just like the airplane and gravity. Anyway, it sounds like the substance is essentially the same, so I'm happy to agree to disagree on the terminology. Thanks for your thoughts,Eric Anderson_{March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

Hi Eric, The Second Law of Thermodynamics, as I understand it, comes in two flavors. The first is the mathematical formulation that governs the diffusion of heat (or other things that diffuse) in substances, particularly fluids. The second is a non-mathematical generalization (because the mathematics is too hard) that "the disorder in a system always increases unless there is order being imported into the system from outside." It is this second version that people are using when they point out, for example, that machinery always spontaneously wears out, rusts, and/or breaks down, but never the opposite. Or, as in Dr. Sewell's example, a tornado can destroy a building but can never take a pile of building materials and construct a building out of them. But the technological, artistic, and literary achievements of civilization are a massive increase in the order on planet earth, compared to the earth as it was 4.5 billion years ago, as is the profusion of living things on the planet. So how could this be? This is a universally acknowledged problem, and the standard solution is that energy from the sun is the compensating order that has been imported across the boundary between the earth and the rest of the universe. However, as Dr. Sewell's analysis shows, this explanation is completely inadequate, since sunlight, while containing massive amounts of energy does not contain anything remotely like the order contained in skyscrapers, computers, and Beethoven symphonies. Put another way, that computers, skyscrapers, and Beethoven symphonies should arise spontaneously on earth is so improbable as to be virtually impossible under the operation of the normal laws of physics as applied to the early earth over the course of 4.5 billion years. The input of massive amounts of energy from the sun does nothing to mitigate those prohibitive probabilities. The clear implication is that human intelligence, which is the source of human technology, art, and literature, has in fact violated the Second Law. And as I said, above, this leads to one of two conclusions, either the Second Law actually isn't a universal law of nature after all in that human activity "violates" it, or there is some aspect of human beings that lies outside of nature (the material universe) and therefore is outside of the area of application of the Second Law. But yet, of course, that aspect (creative intelligence) is nonetheless capable of interacting with the material world to produce these highly improbable phenomena. So to answer your question, the aeronautical engineer can claim that the existence of his airplane does in fact violate the Second Law, even though the airplane itself will never violate the law of gravity.Bruce David_{March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT}

Bruce David (and Dr. Sewell): I'm a little confused. Maybe this is just a terminology issue, but I think it is important to understand the terms. Initially, I thought Dr. Sewell was saying that the idea of RM+NS creating macroscale functional machines would be a "violation" of the 2nd Law. But then it sounded like you (Bruce David) were saying that designers, in the act of designing, are able to "violate" the 2nd Law. The first one makes sense to me, at least definitionally. To be sure, our materialist friends will dispute the argument and we could have a long debate about whether material processes can ever move in the direction of building macroscale functional machines, but at least the basis of the discussion makes sense. The second one doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It would be like an aeronautic engineer claiming that his newly-designed airplane "violates" the law of gravity. That sort of terminology is (i) questionable in substance, and (ii) confusing. So we would end up spending all our time on this strange use of the word "violate," rather than the underlying substance. ---- Dr. Sewell, I presume you're using the "violation of the 2nd Law" in the first sense, not the latter?Eric Anderson_{March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

Granville, You are obfuscating between two different definitions of "law". Man made laws can be violated. Laws in Physics are descriptions of reality. They cannot be violated. That is, if we discovered they could be violated, they wouldn't be laws.lastyearon_{March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Robb, Well, using the usual formula S_t = integral (Q_t/U) = integral (c*rho*U_t/U) (formula 3 in my AML paper) to define the rate of change of thermal entropy, you would say that the thermal entropy change on the sun is approximately 0, because the temperature (U) is pretty much contant everywhere. But this definition of entropy change is not really useful when there are (thermonuclear!) sources in the body, so I'm really not sure if the thermal entropy increases that "compensate" evolution are occuring on the sun, as Asimov said, or in the cosmic background, as Styer says. And of course it is completely irrelevant to the main point.Granville Sewell_{March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

Hi all, I'd like to expand a little on something I said in comment #8:
It implies that intelligence, including our own, is not a feature of the material universe (“in the world but not of it”).
The reason I say this is that it is commonly accepted that the physical universe, acting according to natural law (the four forces, etc.) obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics, in its commonly understood generalization that entropy, or disorder, always increases in a closed system, and as Dr. Sewell points out, never increases faster in an open system than the order that is being imported across its boundary. Now it is a requirement of the materialist world view that the actions of intelligence can be completely explained by physical human brains acting according to natural law (again, the four forces). However, as Dr. Sewell's analysis demonstrates, human intelligence routinely violates the Second Law. This means that either 1) the Second Law is invalid in this particular situation, that somehow our brains, even though a part of the natural world, are an exception to the Second Law, or 2) our intelligence has a non-material component, that our creativity is in fact a "supernatural" phenomenon, which implies, yes, that we are in fact non-material beings in our essence. Since the Second Law has been universally and repeatedly verified for physical systems, this is strong evidence for the existence of the soul, along with NDEs, OBEs, past life regression, etc. I think that this is why materialists resist (or more commonly, simply ignore) Dr. Sewell's reasoning---they subconsciously realize that to accept it means that they have to accept either that the Second Law isn't a always true for the material world or that there are aspects of human beings which cannot be explained in material terms at all, both of which would be highly distasteful to a materialist, particularly the latter.Bruce David_{March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

So I take it Chris Haynes would not be one of those who watches a backward video of a tornado turning rubble into houses and cars and says, there’s no conflict with the second law because tornados get their energy from the sun, and the decrease in entropy seen on this video is easily compensated by increases on the sun.
Whatever else we disagree on, I hope we can agree that the entropy of the sun is not increasing, notwithstanding Asimov's erroneous statement.R0bb_{March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

Eric, Believe me, I understand what you are saying. "Evolution violates the second law" is always sure to incite a riot. Even many ID proponents, who like Dembski's specified complexity idea and don't realize it is essentially equivalent to what I am saying, give me the cold shoulder. I usually try to say, it violates the underlying principle behind the second law, that is slightly less provocative. Probably a better solution is to simply say, "the second law only applies to unintelligent causes." I have been saying essentially the same things for 10 years now, and it has been distressing to me how few ID proponents are willing to touch this topic, at least until recently---I seem to be making a little progress now. As the quote from "Basic Physics" in my video essentially says, if a tornado really did turn rubble into houses and cars, this would not violate any other law of science; and if four unintelligent forces of physics really did rearrange the basic particles of physics into humans, airplanes and books, I'm pretty sure that would not violate any other widely recognized law either. So I've never understood how you can argue for ID without ever even mentioning the second law. I guess this argument has been so associated with "creationists" like Gish, that ID folks are afraid of the association. But you can be wrong about some things, and right about others.Granville Sewell_{March 20, 2012
March
03
Mar
20
20
2012
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT}

Hi Eric,
I think we’re saying the same thing substantively. It’s just that in discussions and debates it sounds strange to the listener to hear someone say that they are violating the 2nd Law. Might as well state that we are violating the law of gravity.
I realize that to say that something, anything, violates the Second Law is an anathema to most people who have had a normal scientific education. And I have had the experience on these threads of explaining Dr. Sewell's point in what I thought was very clearly reasoned prose to people like Elizabeth Liddle, who is intelligent, a scientist, and generally does give her fellow commenters a respectful hearing, only to get the terse response, "Nothing violates the Second Law." However, Dr. Sewell's point, as I understand it, is that both life and human activity in fact do violate the Second Law, and in the case of humans it is clearly our creative intelligence that does this. And if ID is correct, then it is only intelligence that does this. Personally, I think it is a point worth making, even if it falls on deaf ears most of the time. And also, I think that precisely because it contradicts one of the most respected principles of science, and because of the implications for the nature of intelligence and thus the nature of human beings, that it has massive implications for science, philosophy, spirituality, and religion, and therefore, again, needs to be brought to light.Bruce David_{March 19, 2012
March
03
Mar
19
19
2012
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT}

Granville,
I don’t know why such a simple idea is so hard to understand, for so many people.
My own take on it is that people who have had any kind of scientific education have had it drummed into their heads for so long that "nothing violates the Second Law", so they assume that there must be something wrong with your argument. It's another example of what I see as a fairly (but not completely) universal failing of us humans that we will generally ignore or try to explain away any facts that don't fit our paradigms long after the point when it should have been clear that it is the paradigms themselves that are in need of revision.Bruce David_{March 19, 2012
March
03
Mar
19
19
2012
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

Bruce David: I agree that creativity is a very important aspect of who we are and it is indeed exciting. ----- Rather than talking about "violating" the 2nd Law, doesn't it make more sense to talk about the fact that we can do things that normally would not occur naturally, given what we understand about the 2nd Law? For example, if I design and build an airplane, I haven't "violated" the law of gravity. What I have done is use other principles, such as aerodynamics, lift, thrust, and so forth, working together with the normal force of gravity. The natural laws and related effects don't exist in a vaccuum; they are always interacting, affecting, sometimes with less effect than another force. If I create a car, the resulting creation is still subject to the 2nd Law, and indeed, the very process of creating doesn't violate the 2nd Law. Rather, I have applied information, energy, and work in just the right way to build the creation, all the while not violating any fundamental natural laws. I think we're saying the same thing substantively. It's just that in discussions and debates it sounds strange to the listener to hear someone say that they are violating the 2nd Law. Might as well state that we are violating the law of gravity.Eric Anderson_{March 19, 2012
March
03
Mar
19
19
2012
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

A couple of commenters have correctly noticed the similarities between the second law argument and "specified complexity." In my Discovery Institute Press book, I wrote "the underlying principle behind the second law is that natural forces do not do macroscopically describable things which are extremely improbable from the microscopic point of view." Then I noted that "The reader familiar with Wm. Dembski's 'specified complexity' concept will recognize the similarities to the argument here: natural forces do not do things which are 'specified' (macroscopically describable) and 'complex' (extremely improbable)." My only contribution to the debate was to point out that even if a system is open, natural forces still do not do macroscopically describable things which are extremely improbable from the microscopic point of view---if a system is open, you just have to take into account what is crossing the boundary when deciding what is extremely improbable and what is not. I don't know why such a simple idea is so hard to understand, for so many people.Granville Sewell_{March 19, 2012
March
03
Mar
19
19
2012
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT}

Correction: I meant to write, "and assuming that ID's claim that the design of living things is the result of intelligence is true" in the first sentence of the third paragraph, above.Bruce David_{March 19, 2012
March
03
Mar
19
19
2012
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

Granville, You're one of my heroes. I really love the way you have clarified the relationship between life and human creativity on the one hand, and the Second Law on the other. To everyone: I have made the following comment before on at least one other thread, but I don't know if it registered or not. So here it is again: Given Dr. Sewell's analysis, and assuming that ID's claim that the design of living things is the result of intelligence, the implication is that there is one and only one phenomenon that is capable of violating the Second Law, and that is intelligence. It implies that intelligence, including our own, is not a feature of the material universe ("in the world but not of it"). I believe that it is correct to say that every time we create complex specified information, we have violated the Second Law. And notice that we humans do this routinely, so routinely in fact that we typically don't even notice. We don't have to be Leonardo da Vinci or Beethoven or even Bill Gates to do this. All that is required is to speak or write a meaningful sentence of more than around 20 characters, or repair something, or straighten up around the house. I am violating the Second Law right now as I write this. To me this is a reflection of the fact (I regard it as fact, anyway) that we are made "in His image and likeness", one of the characteristics of which is creativity. It is creativity, or inventiveness, that has the capacity to violate this law, and you and I and all humans share this capability. Personally, I find this to be thrilling.Bruce David_{March 19, 2012
March
03
Mar
19
19
2012
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

EA: I am seeing a thing with news sites where they are now having a top panel that cycles through maybe 5 top stories with pics and a lead-in header or a few words, and usually have some buttons to say which of the top 5 is in view just now. Dunno if WP can do this? KFkairosfocus_{March 19, 2012
March
03
Mar
19
19
2012
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Barry, I don't know why you felt it necessary to appeal to the multiverse to defend your 13 straight royal flushes, in "The Multiverse is a Poker Player's Best Friend" I linked above. According to the Styer article (see also my above link), the decrease (from a very probable hand) in entropy in the universe associated with 13 straight royal flushes would be less than k_b*log(4.5*10^83) = 2.65*10^{-21} joules/degree Kelvin, and if you dealt them in 60 seconds, that would be a decrease of only about 4.4*10^{-23} joules/degree Kelvin/second, which is practically nothing compared to the decrease due to evolution (302 joules/degree/second), which is already so easily compensated by increases on the sun. Eric, You wonder why I spend so much energy refuting an argument that is so obviously absurd? Because it is still widely taught. I submitted an article responding to the Styer and Bunn articles, published in 2008 and 2009 in the American Journal of Physics, similar to my above-linked ENV post, and submitted it to that journal. It was rejected in a couple of hours, with the comment (almost in these exact words) that it was so well established that evolution does not violate the second law that they will consider articles explaining why, but will not consider contrary opinions.Granville Sewell_{March 19, 2012
March
03
Mar
19
19
2012
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

We had a good discussion going on another thread from March 4 (scarcely 2 weeks old), but it has been buried numberous pages into the archive by now. The "open system" argument, as support for the idea of natural forces being able to create complex specified information, is one of the most ridiculous arguments one could possibly make; so much so, that I am surprised Dr. Sewell has needed to devote so much energy (pun intended) to refute it. Thus, I suspect thoughtful critics of his work may be pointing to another nuance. I still have on my to-do list to go through Gordon Davisson's critique of Dr. Sewell's approach on the prior thread. --- BTW, another appeal to the UD hosts if anyone is listening: Is there any way to put the numerous news stories and such that rarely get more than 2 or 3 comments (often none) into a separate sidebar or something? It is frustrating to wade through pages of posts just to find something that is only a week or two old. The difficulty of finding old posts also contributes to the fact that we often don't get a chance to properly flesh out useful discussions on key topics related to ID before the thread gets buried and dies an untimely death.Eric Anderson_{March 18, 2012
March
03
Mar
18
18
2012
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Hello Granville- FYI-> Refuting Granville page 1 of the comments I tried to tell them they weren't understanding you but it didn't work- perhaps you could take a look...Joe_{March 18, 2012
March
03
Mar
18
18
2012
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

So I take it Chris Haynes would not be one of those who watches a backward video of a tornado turning rubble into houses and cars and says, there's no conflict with the second law because tornados get their energy from the sun, and the decrease in entropy seen on this video is easily compensated by increases on the sun. That argument seems to be more and more abandoned, as its absurdity becomes evident. He would take the new approach and say, what we are seeing on this video is too difficult to quantify, and too ill-defined, so it isn't clear if tornados turning rubble into houses and cars violates the second law. The only thing the two types of critics I keep hearing from agree on is that I am an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Some things are obvious even if they are difficult to quantify.Granville Sewell_{March 18, 2012
March
03
Mar
18
18
2012
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Organization=control needs information. Entropy is the inverse of organization, and then is lack of information. To increase the organization of a system we need to inject information inside it. This way we decrease its entropy. Without this injection the 2nd law tells us the system's entropy increases. Who claims that the sun provides information (then organization) to systems by mean of its energy confuses the two basic paradigms of systems theory, power and control. Solar energy provides power. It doesn't provide control. Hence it cannot increase organization. When Dr. Sewell says that the sun doesn't send us computers, cars, phones, he uses an intuitive illustration of such concept.niwrad_{March 18, 2012
March
03
Mar
18
18
2012
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

I do wish that Dr Sewell knew what he is talking about, but having read his paper on entropy, he has yet to convince. He doesnt clearly define what entropy is. Instead he puts forth a hocus pocus of integrals, and complicated differentials. His appraoch, deliberate or not, reminds one of the Skokal Affair. Entropy is a fairly simple concept. As it is understood today, it can be defined without mathematics: Entropy is a property of a system equal to the lost work adjusted for (divided by) the temperature of the reservoir used to determine the lost work". The term entropy in information is regretable. It only came from the similarity of the Bolzman equation and certain formulas in information. This si much like the similar eqautions for thermal conductivity and the flow of viscous fluids through porous soils, otherwise unrelated phenomona. Informational rpobabailty, conservation and entropy are today poorly understood concepts, much like the second law in Carnot's day. Yet it appears to be one of the most important fields in science. Given the hostility of the establishmnet, it is up to ID advocates and Creationists to develop it. Sewall's gibbersih doe not further this effort.chris haynes_{March 18, 2012
March
03
Mar
18
18
2012
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply