Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Confusion about 2LoT in regard to heat and information

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A number of people conflate heat entropy with information entropy and then willy-nilly substitute one for the other. This is what the NeoDarwinists do when they point to the sun and say it makes the earth an open system to explain the evident way life violates information entropy. The sun is irrevelevant in this siutation as it is adding heat, not information. While heat and information entropy are closely related (they both behave according to 2LoT which was originally formulated for heat alone) they are not the same thing and cannot be exchanged.

Heat diffuses in a closed system until maximum entropy is reached where the heat is uniform (everything is the same temperature). Likewise a dye will diffuse through a glass of water until its distribution is uniform (everything is the same color). Dye and heat are not the same thing and you can heat or chill that uniformly colored glass of water all you want and it won’t undistribute the dye. That’s because heat entropy and dye entropy are not the same thing.

The layman’s expression relating to this is you can’t unbake a cake. The reason why you can’t unbake it is it would violate 2LoT. However, that’s not quite right because a sufficiently advanced intelligence can unbake a cake. Intelligence can accomplish things that nature cannot and that includes violating 2LoT in relation to information entropy.

It’s intuitively obvious to me that 2LoT governed heat and information entropy aren’t the same thing. Sewell expresses this in a more rigorous manner in A Second Look at the Second Law.

DaveScot’s Evo-Creo 2LoT Corollary: As Intelligent Design arguments become more organized, NeoDarwinian arguments must become less organized. The end result is that ID becomes a completely coherent explanation of the facts while the NeoDarwinian narrative decays into a vast state of disarray.

It’s all a simple matter of physics you see. 😎

Comments

All you intelligent people who can overcome the 2nd law must have very low utility bills, since no doubt you have designed your very own perpetual motion machines that generate your energy for you.
Why give ID a bad name by employing such bogus physics arguments? Any physics undergraduate can defuse this nonsense. Name me one famous physicist who subscribes to these ideas and I shall hold my peace forever.

Der Hans

This is about information theory which is a field of mathematics. Physicists are not the go-to experts for this. Mathematicians are. Not surprisingly both Granville Sewell and William Dembski are mathematicians. You can hold your peace in moderation land for a while. -ds hanseconomist
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
I am not sure that this is good. Has a tree more information than a seed and dirt and water? I do not know the answer. I think that maybe it is the distribution of information that is important. I look at life programs (avida and tierra) and they look to make information (or maybe not. I do not know). But they make it in smooth distribution. Life is not smooth. Kidneys are not mixed with liver, lungs are not mixed with heart. Some parts are complex, some parts are not complex. Can life programs do this? I do not think they can.worldsoyster
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT

"The “force” of the 2nd Law (thank you, Valerie) has been universally observed to be successfully overcome *only* by systems of superiour forces designed and employed by intelligence."

But, the entropy is not overcome, it is just moved to a different form. For example, if you straighten your desk up, you are putting work in. This work creates heat (muscles get warm!) and warms up your environment. In the entire system (with you in it) the total entropy has increased. There is no way around this. And it's not hair-splitting or nit-picking. It is a law of nature that can never be overcome.

Heat entropy, yes. Information entropy, no. Say you're typing a letter. It takes the same amount of energy to type a sequence of 1000 keys regardless of the information content of the sequence. Information entropy and heat entropy are not interchangeable but they both obey the same 2LoT. The difference is that intelligent agency can violate the law that requires information entropy to increase in a closed system. This is the hallmark of intelligence - the ability to select between equally improbable events in the present in order to obtain a specified result in the future. -ds danb
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Red Reader, if by the "force" of the 2nd Law you mean increasing entropy, surely you're aware that localized decreases in entropy occur all the time without intelligent intervention.secondclass
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
May I just say what I said on the other thread? "There is none so blind as he who will not see." Valerie, physicist, your arguments really amount to nothing more than hair-splitting. The "force" of the 2nd Law (thank you, Valerie) has been universally observed to be successfully overcome *only* by systems of superiour forces designed and employed by intelligence. Such observation is the nature of cold, hard science. Hair-splitting simply won't do.Red Reader
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT

It is true that neither information nor entropy are transfered by heat -in fact, neither information nor entropy are "transferred" at all within a system, ecxept in a metaphorical way; there is no wave or particle responsible for the transfer of entropy. Entropy is a quantity measured within a given system and varies according to the systems changes of state- and it's those changes that require transfer of energy.
Entropy, in both its thermodynamic aspect and its mathematical aspect of information entropy, follows the second law. Take the sun-earth system: It's not only a thermally heterogenous system, but a highly ordered one, with most matter occupying a hot,huperdense spot enough to trigger nuclear fusion. This order is slowly diffused and lost as the sun radiates light (and radiowaves, and particles, neutrinos etc) and the entropy of the system increases as it heads towards a homogenous state. As the state of the system slowly changes, information entropy can decrease at points; no law is violated because it increases by a larger factor in the whole system and order is lost.

Dave:
No, intelligence cannot unbake a cake: not in the way the example is used to demonstrate the second law.
We can try to unbake it- hey, we even do that by eating it! However, no matter how sofisticated our method will be: a)We will always spend more energy than the one used to bake the cake, and b)we will never end up with the same quantity and quality of ingredients used to make it.
That is what the 2nd Law says- and it's the same whether we put it inside the Unbaker Mk I, the dog eats it, or we leave it on top of some mountain. The difference is only in quantity. Intelligence does not violate the 2nd Law: Nothing does.

And after all, the main issue remains: If intelligence violated the 2nd Law, so would life itself (its entire existence, not just its evolution), so would the formation of stars and planets. Do we really want to argue whether the Universe is held in place by magic?

You are also guilty of equating informtion entropy with heat entropy. They are not the same nor are they interchangeable. The same principles apply to both just like gravity applies to apples and oranges. Apples and oranges are not interchangeable. Sewell goes through this very nicely. -ds

Phed
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT

Dave, the 2nd Law makes no exceptions for intelligence. What you're saying is that the 2nd Law is wrong.

You're thinking of classic 2LoT which is heat entropy. Maxwell's Demon is the classic thought experiment showing how heat entropy can't be overcome with information as the information takes as much useful energy to acquire as can be obtained by sorting more and less energetic particles. It's information entropy we're talking about here. Information and energy are not interchangeable quantities. 2LoT can be applied information.
Shannon's definition of entropy is closely related to thermodynamic entropy as defined by physicists and many chemists. Boltzmann and Gibbs did considerable work on statistical thermodynamics, which became the inspiration for adopting the word entropy in information theory. There are relationships between thermodynamic and informational entropy. In fact, in the view of Jaynes (1957), thermodynamics should be seen as an application of Shannon's information theory: the thermodynamic entropy is interpreted as being an estimate of the amount of further Shannon information (needed to define the detailed microscopic state of the system) that remains uncommunicated by a description solely in terms of the macroscopic variables of classical thermodynamics. (See article: MaxEnt thermodynamics). Similarly, Maxwell's demon reverses thermodynamic entropy with information; but if it is itself bound by the laws of thermodynamics, getting rid of that information exactly balances out the thermodynamic gain the demon would otherwise achieve.
secondclass
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Davescot Although there are probably clearer examples than baking cakes, I think you, me and valerie agree on the following: "However, an intelligent agent can conceivably unbake it (given some energy of course) because intelligence doesn’t use the energy in a blind manner." What I don't understand is why you think total entropy won't have increased. I.e. what is your justification for: "Intelligence can overcome 2LoT"physicist
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT

Davescot,

I am still asking you for a clear definition of what you call information entropy. I just gave you the standard stat mech definition but perhaps you mean something completely different. Certainly, the definition I gave is equivalent to the thermodynamic definition of entropy, as any stat mech book will explain.

My other question is whether you think any laws of physics are violated by the hypothesis that solely RM+NS is responsible for evolution.

If so, which laws are they? If not, then there is no need to invoke physics in the ID argument at all.

If you make me supply a link to basic information to you one more time it'll be the last time. Capisce? -ds physicist
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
"Life doesn’t even require the sun. There are bacteria that get all their energy gradient from heat deep in the earth which is generated largely by radioactive decay and was never due to the sun." The fact that their energy doesn't come from the sun doesn't mean that they're violating the 2nd law. They still get their energy from an external source. Without that energy, the 2nd law prevents them from maintaining their low entropy state, and they die. If they were able to live without an external source of energy, *then* they would be violating the 2nd law, and we could rightly call them living perpetual motion machines.valerie
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT

DaveScot wrote:
"The reason why you can’t unbake [a cake] is it would violate 2LoT. However, that’s not quite right because a sufficiently advanced intelligence can unbake a cake. Intelligence can accomplish things that nature cannot and that includes violating 2LoT in relation to information entropy."

The 2nd law does not prohibit the unbaking of a cake. It says that if you unbake a cake, you have to pay the price in increased entropy in the surroundings. No intelligence, no matter how advanced, can unbake a cake without paying this price, unless it is a supernatural agent which is capable of violating natural law.

For more on this, see discussions of Maxwell's Demon on Wikipedia and elsewhere.

Yes Valerie, it does prohibit the unbaking of a cake. I guarantee you can watch a cake almost forever and by itself it will never fall apart into neatly segregated measured amounts of flour, baking soda, water, sugar, and whatever else went into it. It *is* remotely possible it will unbake itself but the improbability is practically indistinguishable from impossible. This is 2LoT at work. You can pour all the blind energy (work) into it you want and it won't unbake itself. However, an intelligent agent can conceivably unbake it (given some energy of course) because intelligence doesn't use the energy in a blind manner. Intelligence can overcome 2LoT. This is what makes intelligence a unique property in the universe. Intelligence can change the natural outcome of events. It can overcome almost impossible odds easily and routinely. It boggles my mind that this concept seems beyond the grasp of many otherwise fairly bright people. Maybe Davison is right and there's something genetic that blocks people from hearing Einstein's "music of the spheres". -ds

valerie
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT

Davescot

Let me just add that the motivation for statistical mechanics is to be able to understand macroscopic phenomena and quantities in terms of an underlying, microscopic theory.

The entropy in statistical mechanics can be defined as -k\Sum_i \rho_i log \rho_i (for states i and probabilities \rho_i) in say the canonical ensemble.

Is this the definition you're calling information entropy? Because this really *is* the same quantity as the macroscopic entropy you're calling heat (of course, really TdS is the heat transferred in some given process).

For a system that's not closed, the entropy *can* decrease. I'm not sure what the controversy is. People in ID are aiming to argue that RM+NS couldn't have produced the design we observe. Fair enough, but the second law of thermodynamics isn't going to help the argument!

The classic definition of entropy is a heat gradient where a measurable amount of work can be performed across the gradient. 2LoT states that heat will diffuse throughout a closed system until there are no more gradients and no work can be performed - the definition of maximum entropy. It was later found that this applies to more than just heat. Matter can also be observed diffusing according to these principles - like solids sublimating into a vacuum. Even more recently we find information behaves according to these principles. However, you cannot exchange heat for information like they are the same thing. This appears to be what you are trying to do. Tell me how the information coded on a magnetic tape is in any way equivalent to or related to the heat gradients on the same tape - how making the tape a degree hotter or colder by exposing it to infrared radiation will change the information encoded on it. If you can do that then I'll buy your story that photons from the sun changing heat gradients on the earth can increase information coded in the DNA molecule. Life doesn't even require the sun. There are bacteria that get all their energy gradient from heat deep in the earth which is generated largely by radioactive decay and was never due to the sun. -ds

physicist
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT

Information and energy are not synonyms.

It's hard to believe some ostensibly well educated people honestly equate them. -ds Gandalf
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT

The sun does not add heat to the Earth, it adds energy (information) in the form of photons. Much of this energy is absorbed by matter and then immediately degrades into heat. However, photons that are absorbed by photosynthetic pigments are stored as excited electrons. This stored energy is then used in the construction of the molecules of life. Only when these molecules are broken and degraded is the photon energy released as heat.

I'm guilty of taking it for granted that people in a discussion such as this know that the energy in photons is measured by degrees Kelvin. And of course degrees Kelvin is a measure of temperature and temperature is synonymous with heat. Next time you decide to be argumentative I suggest you do a better job of it. -ds MikeG
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
Dear Davescot, I'll just post the same kind of comment as in the other 2nd law thread... I’d be very interested to hear your precise statements of the second law, and how they distinguish `information entropy’ and `heat entropy’. You might be using the words in a completely different way from me.physicist
March 6, 2006
March
03
Mar
6
06
2006
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply