Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Can ANYTHING Happen in an Open System?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a previous UD post I commented on an article by mathematician Granville Sewell, “A Mathematician’s View of Evolution.” Since then Granville and I have corresponded and he forwarded a follow-up piece entitled, “Can Anything Happen in an Open System?

The essence of the thesis is as follows:

If an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it NOT extremely improbable.

Here are some excerpts:

Critics of my Opinion piece, “A Mathematician’s View of Evolution,” have focused primarily on my first point, which deals with the question of whether or not major evolutionary improvements can be built up through many minor improvements. It is clear to me that they cannot, but this question is the traditional front on which most battles over Darwinism have been fought since 1859, and I did not imagine that my arguments would constitute the last word on this topic. I consider that the main point in my article was the second one.

…which is that the increase in order observed on Earth (and here alone, as far as we know) violates the laws of probability and the second law of thermodynamics in a spectacular fashion.

Evolutionists have always dismissed this argument by saying that the second law of thermodynamics only dictates that order cannot increase in an isolated (closed) system, and the Earth is not a closed system–in particular, it receives energy from the Sun. The second law allows order to increase locally, provided the local increase is offset by an equal or greater decrease in the rest of the universe. This always seems to be the end of the argument: order can increase (entropy can decrease) in an open system, therefore, ANYTHING can happen in an open system, even the rearrangement of atoms into computers, without violating the second law.

It requires only a modicum of common sense to see that it is extremely improbable that atoms should rearrange themselves into mammalian brains, computers, cars, and airplanes, even if the Earth does receive energy from the Sun. We will see that the idea that anything can happen in an open system is based on a misunderstanding of the second law; that order can increase in an open system, not because the laws of probability are suspended when the door is open, but simply because order may walk in through the door.

See also his article, “A Second Look at the Second Law.”

Comments
I know I don't participate in this forum much, but had to add my two cents. Lurker Wrote: "That’s the way I always understood it. Something with more order, more complexity, more potential must enter into the open system so that it can cause the open system to reverse it’s natural course of increasing entropy. What was that ’something’ that caused this some 4 billion years ago?" Not exactly. A local decrease in entropy need only be accompanied by an increase in the entropy of the overall system. As extant biological systems demonstrate, energy input in the form of radiant energy, energy in the form of gradients, and/or energy contained in chemical bonds is sufficient to drive the local decreases in entropy that occur in biological systems. niwrad wrote: "Also an open system needs an intelligent source of information to increase its organization. Because an input of energy can locally decrease entropy (neghentropy) but cannot create Complex Specified Information. Sand castles are usually destroyed by entropy but nobody ever saw a sand castle constructed by neghentropy!" No... no intelligent source of energy is required to decrease entropy in an open system, again, the sun is a perfect example of this. The formation of stars and planets, etc. is likely due to solely to the unintelligent forces of gravity, etc. Sand castles are destroyed as a function of entropy, but the statement that you've never seen a sandcastle formed by negentropy isn't exactly true either. When you see a sand castle constructed, what you see is a systemic increase in entropy (a person burning 'fuel' to build the castle), and the local decrease in entropy (the sandcastle). Though it is true that this particular example only results from the input of intelligence. I have no problem with this, just talking about SLoT in general. DharmaBum wrote: "The wrong issue is being discussed here. The earth is not merely an open system, but a far-from-equilibrium system. The sun creates quite a thermal gradient, and there are various examples of dissipative structures “self-organizing” under such circumstances. Even without the sun, the gradients at hydrothermal and geothermal vents would be of great interest." The importance of the sun is agreed upon and noted above. However, the issue of thermal energy is somewhat irrelevant. While it certainly is true that the thermal energy of the sun is important for life, it permits liquid water, etc., the really important factor for life seems to be the light energy, not the IR energy. After all... at least to my knowledge, there is no 'thermoautotrophic' class of cellular nutrition. In any case, the difference between heat energy and light energy is important. Heat energy is far to destructive to be used by living organisms. Light energy is one of the mechanisms of primary autotrophic metabolism, important to all categories of life, and what is really under consideration... that and chemoautotrophic metabolism. In any case, the mechanisms that harness these forms of energy and result in the local entropy decreasing, dis-equilibrim maintaining entities we call cells, certainly deserve a more detailed explanation than we currently have with respect to origins.mattison0922
October 19, 2006
October
10
Oct
19
19
2006
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT
Sewell is still wrong. Take as an example a system which is a volume of space containing hydrogen atoms. Some of the atoms collapse towards each other and form a star, which eventually goes supernova. In the process of exploding, it cooks up a lot of more complicated elements. The shock wave of the explosion causes the remaining hydrogen to collapse into a star and the more complex elements cooked up in the nova form a planet around the star. As this system progresses through time, the average temperature of the whole system falls, even though some local parts of the system become temporarily quite hot and/or complex. In order to overbalance the books in favor of lower entropy, those local hotspots of complexity have to be set against an even larger amount of photons, neutrinos, etc. that are streaming out into the darkness. By Sewell's argument, it should not be possible to turn a thin scattering of hydrogen atoms into the iron that makes up this planet. Forget about life for a minute. If the argument can't explain iron from hydrogen, it can't explain much about the real world. Even in a perfect gas that is slowly cooling from a gazillion degrees down to absolute zero over billions of years, there will be random fluctuations in which small local regions are hotter than average, and small local regions are colder than average. Sewell could calculate the distribution of such fluctuations and then attempt to see whether or not the fluctuation we live on fits that distribution or not.David vun Kannon
October 19, 2006
October
10
Oct
19
19
2006
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT
People on UD actually discussed far-from-equilibrium systems a while back, specifically the work of Ilya Prigogine.Patrick
October 19, 2006
October
10
Oct
19
19
2006
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
The wrong issue is being discussed here. The earth is not merely an open system, but a far-from-equilibrium system. The sun creates quite a thermal gradient, and there are various examples of dissipative structures "self-organizing" under such circumstances. Even without the sun, the gradients at hydrothermal and geothermal vents would be of great interest.DharmaBum
October 19, 2006
October
10
Oct
19
19
2006
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
Richard Dawkins is at it again. "God is a delusion", said one renowned ethologist and evolutionary biologist during a lecture at the Lied Center Monday night. "Lied Center" now that is an appropriate venue! http://www.kansan.com/stories/2006/oct/17/speaker/?newsidnet.com.au
October 19, 2006
October
10
Oct
19
19
2006
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
I am confused about entropy. Does entropy mean that chemical reactions need energy from outside of their system? For example mixing baking soda and vinegar does something different if there is no sun? Seems like the evos are trying to claim that random chemical processes created all of life from one tiny little assembly of amino acids and that those amino acids randomly self assembled due to natural chemical processes. That just seems like stretching your mind a little too far. In terms of entropy, even the obvious hand of the designer needs to suspend it? No? How do people build things if we can't get around entropy? I'm just confused. I am trying to get educated but this one is hard for me to understand. Thanks, DougDoug
October 19, 2006
October
10
Oct
19
19
2006
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
jmcd writes "Order can obviously increase dramatically in an open system. We can see that most clearly in the formation of stars, solar systems, and galaxies." I see it differently. Firstly the universe is not an open system. Secondly life is not about increased "order". life is about specified purposeful information. The formation of galaxies and stars does not represent an increase in information.idnet.com.au
October 19, 2006
October
10
Oct
19
19
2006
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
Sewell is perfectly correct. The anti-evo argument from thermodynamics is really a knockdown argument. Also an open system needs an intelligent source of information to increase its organization. Because an input of energy can locally decrease entropy (neghentropy) but cannot create Complex Specified Information. Sand castles are usually destroyed by entropy but nobody ever saw a sand castle constructed by neghentropy!niwrad
October 19, 2006
October
10
Oct
19
19
2006
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
Order can obviously increase dramatically in an open system. We can see that most clearly in the formation of stars, solar systems, and galaxies. On pre-biotic Earth the chemical mixtures would have been many with some being quite complex. I would agree though that the jump to modern life seems to be an improbable leap, but given that we know so little about how life can be formed I cannot rule out natural causation as a possibility.jmcd
October 19, 2006
October
10
Oct
19
19
2006
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT
What was that ’something’ that caused this some 4 billion years ago?
A massive influx of information from a telic entity. Seems reasonable to me, at least. Scott
October 19, 2006
October
10
Oct
19
19
2006
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
Do we not have a bit of a problem arguing that "it requires only a modicum of common sense"? A point that has apparently eluded some of the best minds for over a century? No, not all, but I doubt millions of people worldwide have missed a "simple" knockdown argument...littlejon
October 19, 2006
October
10
Oct
19
19
2006
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
...not because the laws of probability are suspended when the door is open, but simply because order may walk in through the door That's the way I always understood it. Something with more order, more complexity, more potential must enter into the open system so that it can cause the open system to reverse it's natural course of increasing entropy. What was that 'something' that caused this some 4 billion years ago?Lurker
October 19, 2006
October
10
Oct
19
19
2006
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply