The following story is from Section 5.1 of my new Discovery Institute Press book “In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design, 2nd edition.” For a more scientific version of this story, see my 2013 BIO-Complexity article, “Entropy and Evolution,” which is now Chapter 4. The new Chapter 1 is an article published by Human Events in December 2013.
In the current debate between Darwinism and intelligent design, the strongest argument made by Darwinists is this: in every other field of science, naturalism has been spectacularly successful, why should evolutionary biology be so different? Even most scientists who doubt the Darwinist explanation for evolution are confident that science will eventually come up with a more plausible explanation. That’s the way science works, if one theory fails, we look for another one; why should evolution be so different? Many people believe that intelligent design advocates just don’t understand how science works, and are motivated entirely by religious beliefs.
Well, perhaps the following discussion will help critics of intelligent design to understand why evolution is different.
Here is a set of pictures of a neighborhood in Moore, Oklahoma. The first was taken before the May 20, 2013 tornado hit, and the second was taken right after the tornado.
Fortunately, another tornado hit Moore a few days later, and turned all this rubble back into houses and cars, as seen in the third picture below.
If I asked you why you don’t believe my story about the second tornado, you might say this tornado seems to violate the more general statements of the second law of thermodynamics, such as “In an isolated system, the direction of spontaneous change is from order to disorder.” To this I could reply, Moore is not an isolated system, tornados receive their energy from the sun, so the decrease in entropy in Moore caused by the second tornado is easily compensated by increases outside this open system. Or I might argue that it is too hard to quantify the decrease in entropy caused by the second tornado, or I could say I simply don’t accept the more general statements of the second law, the second law of thermodynamics should only be applied to thermodynamics.
Nevertheless, suppose I further said, I have a scientific theory that explains how certain rare types of tornados, under just the right conditions, really can turn rubble into houses and cars. You doubt my theory? You haven’t even heard it yet!
Now I have three more pictures for you, and two more stories. The first picture shows a certain Earth-like planet in a certain solar system, as it looked about 4 billion years ago. The second shows a large city at the same location about 10,000 years ago. At its prime, this city had tall buildings full of intelligent beings, computers, TV sets and cell phones inside. It had libraries full of science texts and novels, and jet airplanes taking off and landing at its airport.
Scientists explain how civilization developed on this once-barren planet as follows: about 4 billion years ago a collection of atoms formed by pure chance that was able to duplicate itself, and these complex collections of atoms were able to preserve their complex structures and pass them along to their descendants, generation after generation. Over a long period of time, the accumulation of genetic accidents resulted in more and more elaborate collections of atoms, and eventually something called “intelligence” allowed some of these collections of atoms to design buildings and computers and TV sets, and write encyclopedias and science texts.
Sadly, a few years after the second picture was taken, this planet was hit by a massive solar flare from its sun, and all the intelligent beings died, their bodies decayed, and their cells decomposed into simple organic and inorganic compounds. Most of the buildings collapsed immediately into rubble, those that didn’t, crumbled eventually. Most of the computers and TV sets inside were smashed into scrap metal, even those that weren’t, gradually turned into piles of rust. Most of the books in the libraries burned up, the rest rotted over time, and you can see see the final result many years later in the third picture below.
Now it is the first story that is much more difficult to believe. The development of civilization on this planet, and the tornado that turned rubble into houses and cars, each seems to violate the more general statements of the second law, in a spectacular way. Various reasons why the development of civilization does not violate the second law have been given, but all of them can equally well be used to argue that the second tornado did not violate it either. That is, all except one: there is a theory as to how civilizations can develop on barren planets which is widely-accepted in the scientific world, while there is no widely-believed theory as to how tornados could turn rubble into houses and cars.
Well, maybe science will eventually come up with a plausible naturalistic explanation for evolution. But my question to those who treat evolution as just another scientific problem is this: do you really still believe that anyone who doubts that science can explain the development of life and of human intelligence in terms of a few unintelligent forces of physics alone simply does not understand how science works? Can you now at least understand why some of us feel that evolution is a fundamentally different and much more difficult problem than others solved by science, and requires a fundamentally different type of explanation?
Granville Sewell:
No, the strongest argument is that modern evolutionary theory fits the evidence far, far better than intelligent design.
Many of them don’t. Have you been reading UD lately?
Granville:
I certainly wouldn’t say that, because it’s wrong. As we’ve been telling you for years, Granville, entropy and disorder are not the same thing.
Here’s some remedial reading for you:
Disorder—A Cracked Crutch for Supporting Entropy Discussions
ETA: An excerpt:
Granville Sewell: Can you now at least understand why some of us feel that evolution is a fundamentally different and much more difficult problem than others solved by science, and requires a fundamentally different type of explanation?
Evolution is a fundamentally different type of explanation. That’s why Darwin is considered a scientist of the first order.
Arguments based on thermodynamics are just probabilistic generalizations of chemical and physical laws. The tornado analogy is a good way to counter the open system argument. But they are both just so stories. To really explain anything about the origin of life you have to look at specific chemical models. At the moment there is no plausible explanation for the chemical origin or evolution of life. The numbers don’t add up. An unknown intelligence is a much better explanation. Using the same logic by which one infers the existence of an unknown mass altering the orbits of objects in space based on known characteristics of gravity, it is logical to infer an unknown intelligence responsible for the origin and evolution of life based on the known characteristics of intelligence (ie. the ability to generate codes and cybernetic systems).
Granville Sewell:
Eric Anderson:
I guess Granville is a mythical creature, huh, Eric?
keith s @5,
Granville is not saying what you are pretending that he said. Why the deceptive debating techniques? It’s a sign of weakness and fear.
Mapou,
I quoted him directly.
What do you think he was saying, and why?
keith s @7,
Man, go fly a kite or mow the lawn or something. You’re boring.
Andy C. McIntosh, professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at the University of Leeds, holds that non-material information is what is constraining the cell to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium. Moreover, Dr. McIntosh holds that regarding information as independent of energy and matter ‘resolves the thermodynamic issues and invokes the correct paradigm for understanding the vital area of thermodynamic/organisational interactions’.
Here is a recent video by Dr. Giem, that gets the main points of Dr. McIntosh’s paper over very well for the lay person:
Dr. McIntosh’s contention that ‘non-material information’ must be constraining life to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium is now backedd up empirically. Classical Information in the cell has now been physically measured and is shown to correlate to the thermodynamics of the cell:
As should be needless to say, the physical demonstration that ‘information has a thermodynamic content’ is extremely bad news for neo-Darwinism, (and naturalistic OOL scenarios for that matter), since Neo-Darwinism holds that information is not physically real but is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis.
Here are two related quotes:
Also of interest, when measuring the information content of a ‘simple cell’ from the themodynamic perspective, the ‘information problem’ explodes into gargantuan porportions:
For calculations, of the information content of a ‘simple cell’ from the thermodynamic perspective, please see the following site:
Having one hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica worth of information sitting out of thermodynamic equilibrium would certainly strongly suggest “something is entering (the open system) which makes it not extremely improbable” (Sewell).
Also of interest, it is apparent that the human body trounces the ‘simple cell’ in terms of being out of Thermodynamic Equilibrium. The human body consist of something close to one trillion-billion protein molecules:
And although the effects of entropy on the human body are readily apparent as we grow older,,,
And although the effects of entropy are readily apparent on our material bodies as we grow older, it is also readily apparent that the trillion-billion proteins of the human body is being constrained from the effects of entropy by something that is ‘unnatural’. Talbott puts the question as to why the human body does not immediately disintergrate into thermodynamic equilibrium like this:
“What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer?”
I hold, as Andy C. McIntosh, professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at the University of Leeds, holds, that it is non-material information that is what is constraining the cell (and the human body) to be so far out of thermodynamic equilibrium and is what is the ‘power holding off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer’.
To back that claim up, we now have empirical evidence that information “is entering which makes it not extremely improbable” (Sewell) for the human body to be out of thermodynamic equilibrium:
With the finding of quantum entanglement in every DNA and protein moleculae, now every time a DNA molecule is constructed, or a protein is folded, an appeal must be made to a non-local, beyond space and time, cause so as to coherently explain the non-local quantum entanglement within the DNA and protein molecules.
Of particular note, proteins are not finding there final folded form by a random, i.e. thermodynamic, process, but are finding their final folded form by a ‘quantum computation/entanglement’ process:
Yet it is exactly this type of ‘traveling salesman problem’ that quantum computers excel at:
And it is now empirically confirmed that proteins are finding their final form by a quantum process:
Of important note: Quantum Entanglement/Information simply refuses to be reduced to a materialistic explanation:
Thus, Dr. Sewell is found to be correct in his contention:
Of supplemental note: the maximum source for entropy (randomness) in the universe is now known to be black holes,,,
Needless to say, the implications of this ‘eternity of death and destruction’ should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of the ‘spiritually minded’ persuasion!
In light of this dilemma, it is interesting to point out a subtle nuance on the Shroud of Turin. Namely that Gravity/Entropy was overcome in the resurrection event of Christ:
Verses and Music:
Mapou,
It’s plain as day. Granville thinks that the development of civilization on earth violates the second law:
He clearly believes that both the rise of civilization and the house-constructing tornado are violations of the second law.
This thread makes the great point with the pictures of the tornado town. AMEN.
In fact biology is more complicated in its essence then bricks and driveways.
Order from disorder is very unlikely in any minor way but in the explanation for life and universe its a unworthy claim to get order from disorder.
Put a fork in it. This is done.
Its evolution that is the target for intellectual accuracy in science.
Keith,
It seems pretty obvious on any honest reading what Granville is saying, and it’s not contrary to Eric’s Myth #1.
He is not saying that he thinks the rise of life and civilization on Earth is a violation of the 2nd Law. He’s saying that the spontaneous arising of life and civilization in his story would seem to be a violation of the generalized 2nd law if it came about apart from intelligent guidance and purely as the result of natural forces in the same way that the unguided natural forces of a tornado turning rubble into houses and cars would seem to be a violation of the generalized law. However, Granville doesn’t think that tornadoes have actually turned rubble into cars and houses, nor does he think that purely natural unguided forces are actually responsible for life arising, so he doesn’t think that the generalized 2nd law has actually been violated.
Furthermore, in the section you quoted where he says:
“This Planet” != “Earth”
Rather…
“This Planet” == “Fictional Earth-like Planet”
His statement is not particularly difficult to understand if you actually read it.
From Granville Sewell’s response to Sal Cordova:
Sal’s explains why Creationists and ID Proponents should NOT use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument
LOL.
Why are so many IDers shocked to find second law crackpots in their midst? It’s not exactly a secret.
And then there’s this:
Keith,
what part of what HeKS wrote do you not understand?
Box,
I understand what HeKS wrote. He hasn’t rebutted my claim.
Granville believes that the second law was violated here on Earth, just as you do.
Now my question for you:
What part of the bolded sentences in #15 and #17 don’t you understand?
Keith,
#15 and #17 provide further indication to what was already obvious: HeKS is perfectly right.
And yet the entire backdrop of Granville’s ENV article clearly shows that the statement you’ve bolded should be understand like this:
Oddly enough Keith, most people write with the expectation that they will be read in good faith and with the expectation that a punchy final sentence will be read in the context of the entire article that preceded it rather than as an isolated sentence hanging out in space free of any context at all.
I don’t believe for a minute that Granville Sewell posted this 2013 article. He wouldn’t want to embarrass himself again. May be some one at UD posted it.
It’s an excellent article. Granville Sewell keeps things as simple as possible, but the intellectual featherweights from the “skeptical” zone still succeed in misunderstanding.
keiths:
We’re not surprised in the least. The regular influx of new ID deniers (crackpots), and the continual presence of long time ID deniers (crackpots such as yourself) constantly remind us of the crackpots in our midst.
Perhaps we could all see the true meaning of your posts once they are passed through a 2LOT filter.
But I’m guessing you wouldn’t even know where to begin.
keiths, just another in a long line of 2LOT crackpots.
Jim Smith @4 –
Ah, useful. When Uranus’ orbit was found to be perturbed, the predictions were used to find Neptune. So will ID take the same path and use a similar logic to discover this unknown intelligence?
Lemme get this straight. Granville Sewell, copying generation after generation of creationists, says that evolution violates SLOT. Sewell says: violation violation violation violation violation VIOLATION VIOLATION. Many other creationists before him said the same thing.
Uncommon Descent commenters say: violation violation violation violation violation VIOLATION VIOLATION. For example, not mentioned above were the recent comments by “Box” at KF’s thread, which KF closed in a panic:
Box says, to paraphrase: only an atheist would say SLOT wasn’t violated! No IDologue disagreed with Box when he wrote this, though some evolutionists did. Again: Uncommon Descent commenters say violation violation violation violation violation VIOLATION VIOLATION.
Here’s another example: “physicist” Rob Sheldon, so often cited as an authority at UD, saying life violates 2LOT:
Uh, excuse me Sheldon, physicists DO NOT SAY THAT LIFE VIOLATES 2LOT, not “behind a closed and locked door” nor anywhere else; and they do not explain life violating 2LOT because they know it doesn’t. Nor does evolution.
But Eric Anderson scolds us:
Oh. So sorry! Here when UDites said violation violation, citing Sewell as their authority, I interpreted it to mean violation. How rude of me! I was “leading others astray by insinuating as much.”
Now, literally two posts after Eric Anderson scolded us for ever saying that IDcreationists think that 2LOT is violated, we have Granville Sewell writing:
Where is Barry Arrington when you need him to start banning people for violating the Law of Non-Contradiction? If Arrington were consistent in his habit of banning people for disagreeing with the LNC, you would all be out on your ass.
Oops! Keith S points out the contradiction! Not allowed to do that. So HeKS tries to rewrite Sewell and put words in his mouth:
Note the ridiculous grammar– HeKS wants Sewell to write in subjunctive tense, “if it were that way”, but too bad for HeKS, Sewell wrote in past perfect, “what has happened on our planet”, leading to HeKS’ grammatically twisted bastard sentence.
Oh no, if you think Sewell said that, you don’t understand anything he’s writing. Sewell said “violation” over and over, and he says you can only have a decrease in entropy if “something comes in from outside”, meaning God’s finger from another universe. But Sewell clearly said, and believes, violation, as do countless other creationists.
Now an UDite shows up to rebut Keith S:
That’s exactly the problem. The problem is that we DO understand what HeKS wrote so we know he’s full of it. The problem with us is that we DO understand what IDcreationists are writing, and it’s so $%^&ing horrifying I wanna go to Tijuana and get a motel room lobotomy to wipe from my brain my understanding of what you creationists write.
Note that the person who wrote the above comment was, of all people, Box, whom I just quoted above saying that SLOT was violated. Now Box has forgotten what he just believed and, stupidly aping HeKS, he now thinks he thinks that SLOT is not violated, and no doubt he also thinks that no one ever, ever thought the thing he just wrote at UD a couple days ago.
Diogenes, it really isn’t all that complicated.
First Granville Sewell argues that a tornado turning rubble into houses and cars would constitute a violation of the 2nd law. IOW it cannot be done, the 2nd law prohibits such an event.
Next he argues that – given materialism – the development of a civilization on a barren planet must be considered a similar violation of the second law.
At this point a sizable group of objectors start screaming over and over that the 2nd law cannot be violated. Over the years they keep repeating it:
What they do not realize is that it is not a counterargument at all to the argument offered by Sewell. It is exactly why tornado’s don’t turn rubble into cars and houses and why civilizations aren’t developed on barren planets given materialism.
//
–
About my own position wrt “violation”, which is of course totally irrelevant to Granville Sewell’s position, I refer to this post.
Box: Granville Sewell argues that a tornado turning rubble into houses and cars would constitute a violation of the 2nd law.
Well, he’s wrong. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is based on the probability of possible microstates. You can argue that the rubble from a tornado is due to the probability of possible macrostates. But, even though both are based on the probability of states, they are *not* the same thing.
Zach,
can you acknowledge that the following is a true statement:
Box: a tornado that turns rubble into cars and houses seems to violate the more general statements of the second law of thermodynamics, such as “In an isolated system, the direction of spontaneous change is from order to disorder.”
It’s false. Again,
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is based on the probability of possible microstates, including thermal vibrations. You can argue that the rubble from a tornado is due to the probability of possible macrostates. But, even though both are based on the probability of states, they are *not* the same thing.
You might try to calculate the number of states. Let’s use a simple example, a deck of cards. Shuffle the cards. How many possible macrostates do the cards represent? Now calculate the difference in available microstates when warming a mole of liquid water by 1 C°.
Zach,
Unresponsive. The question is:
can you argue that the change from rubble into cars and houses is in accord with probability?
Of course you cannot – that is to say, if one accepts the statistical nature of the second law, one cannot.
Box: can you argue that the change from rubble into cars and houses is in accord with probability?
That wasn’t your question, which was “a tornado that turns rubble into cars and houses seems to violate the more general statements of the second law of thermodynamics, such as ‘In an isolated system, the direction of spontaneous change is from order to disorder.'” No, it does not seem to violate “the more general statements of the second law of thermodynamics”. It doesn’t violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics whatsoever.
Box: can you argue that the change from rubble into cars and houses is in accord with probability?
To answer your truncated question, a tornado turning rubble into houses is not in accord with probability. There are far more available macrostates of the constituents of rubble that are not houses, than would constitute houses.
Now, try to answer our question.
You might try to calculate the number of states. Let’s use a simple example, a deck of playing cards. Shuffle the cards. How many possible macrostates do the cards represent? Now calculate the difference in available microstates when warming a mole of liquid water by 1 C°. If you don’t know, that’s fine. We’ll provide the answer.
However you also state that a tornado turning rubble into houses “doesn’t violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics whatsoever.” IOW you are in denial about the essentially statistical-probabilistic nature of the second law – in effect wasting everybody’s time.
I fail to see the point of your question about cards and warming moles of water.
Here is a similar exercise: Take a heavy hammer, hit an Abu Garcia® Cardinal® fishing reel a few times, until it breaks into about 100 loose parts and pieces. Place them in a shoe-box and shake well. What’s the difference between the entropy of the reel and of the broken fragments in the box?
Box: However you also state that a tornado turning rubble into houses “doesn’t violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics whatsoever.”
That’s right, because the 2nd law of thermodynamics concerns microstates
Box: IOW you are in denial about the essentially statistical-probabilistic nature of the second law – in effect wasting everybody’s time.
As we just stated the 2nd law of thermodynamics in terms of the probability of available microstates, that’s obviously not the case.
Box: I fail to see the point of your question about cards and warming moles of water.
There are 8*10^67 available arrangements of the macrostates of playing cards. A mole of liquid water has 10^(2*10^24) available microstates.
Statistical entropy dwarfs human conceptions of ‘order’. Any change in available microstates due to shuffling a deck of cards is due to the slight breaking of the molecular bonds in the paper when they are bent, not the minuscule number of macrostates
Z: liquid water {at 0°C}
// on micro- and macrostates and how this relates to Sewell’s claim that tornado’s are not able to turn rubble into cars and houses //
Box: From University Physics by Young and Freedman
As they call information about individual coins a “microscopic state”, it’s clearly an analogy.
“Take a heavy hammer, hit an Abu Garcia® Cardinal® fishing reel a few times, until it breaks into about 100 loose parts and pieces. Place them in a shoe-box and shake well.”
Well, if the fishing reel is an analogy for a molecular machine, following shaking it could spontaneously self-assemble.
Not only that, but the entropy of the assembly and its surroundings will be more favorable than the the entropy of the disordered parts and their surroundings.
Things just aren’t like houses and cars and tornado at the microscopic level. We don’t see neighborhoods spontaneously self assemble following disruption.
That was my point. Functional and structural analogies between nano- and macro-“machines” have practically nothing to to do with entropy and the 2LOT.
That was my point.
I know, but someone had to say it. Those who refused to answer either are ignorant of the point you’re making, or wish it wasn’t true.
Piotr:
Here is a similar exercise: Take a heavy hammer, hit an Abu Garcia® Cardinal® fishing reel a few times, until it breaks into about 100 loose parts and pieces. Place them in a shoe-box and shake well. What’s the difference between the entropy of the reel and of the broken fragments in the box?
My question for KF is whether both have the same FSCO/I?
“My question for KF is whether both have the same FSCO/I?”
Doesn’t it depend whether the post-hoc specification is for a pre-assembled reel, or a diy craftman’s reel? 🙂
It should be a simple yes or no answer: is SLOT violated or not?
It seems Box is trying to have his cake and eat it too: saying or implying that humans and gods can violate SLOT, but also that they’re not really violating SLOT because it doesn’t apply to them.
One wonders, then, how could one prove that SLOT doesn’t apply to humans or gods, by what evidence could you prove that, unless you could point to evidence of a violation?
From his comment that he linked to as “clarifying” things:
OK, sounds like Box is saying “intelligence” (= humans or gods) violate SLOT.
Again, it’s a simple yes or no question. Yes or no? Either SLOT is violated or it’s not.
OK, Niwrad is saying this, but how can you prove that “intelligence” “injects” “organization” into a system unless you detect a violation of SLOT? What’s your evidence for this claim? Can an animal “intelligence” “inject” “organization”, whatever these words mean? Can an amoeba? Can a bacteria? A virus? How do we test these claims, besides detecting violations of SLOT?
Back to Box:
Again, Box appears to say SLOT is violated; thus he disagrees with Niwrad.
Great, how could you prove this claim experimentally, besides detecting a violation of SLOT?
“Dominion”!? How could you prove these claims, besides detecting a violation of SLOT caused by humans or gods?
OK, now I get the logic. It’s the logic of a tax protester who says, without any evidence: I’m obeying the law, but the law doesn’t apply to me.
But what’s your proof that the law doesn’t apply to you?
How can you prove experimentally that “intelligence is not boutnd by the 2nd law”, besides detecting violations of SLOT?
This is exactly the logic of the tax protester, e.g. creationist Kent Hovind, who’s in federal prison. He said that he didn’t break any tax laws– it was just that tax laws don’t apply to him, because everything he owns really belongs to God.
Creationist Ken Ham tried a similar trick. Ham told the gov’t of Kentucky that he would obey all no-discrimination regulations because he wanted tax rebates. BUT what he DIDN’T tell them was that he’d decided no-discrimination laws don’t apply to Christians. So, he couldn’t really break the regulations because, as he didn’t inform them, the regulations don’t apply to him.
Gotcha. Standard “Creationist On the Witness Stand” level of honesty. And you wonder why judges always rule against creationists in the schools. This level of honesty worked out real well for federal prisoner Hovind.
So I’ll repeat: it really looks like you IDologues contradict yourselves about whether you do, or don’t, believe that SLOT is violated.
My, my, Diogenes, your panties sure seem totally twisted. Why are you so upset?
You’re sure you’re right. Us IDiots are wrong. Seems like the invective is unwarranted.
Why so Serious?? 🙂
Folks,
I notice my name came up.
First, hit an Abu Cardinal spinning reel with a hammer 100 times so it breaks up, and you will likely place its parts into a condition where they are out of spec relative to relevant function as a fishing reel. I shudder to think what would happen to the bale arm, gear housing and gears . . . which are precision components. The atoms are still there, just out of spec for components . . . inadvertently showing the relevance of functional specificity and complex organisation.
Second if broken up reel parts are in a bag (let’s for argument assume they were not distorted or broken — a better case would be disassembled parts), there is no tightly specified configuration. Shaking up the parts may indeed explore the clumped at random configs, but the result will be as is predictable by common sense . . . utterly implausible to achieve relevant FSCO/I based configuration.
The lack of specificity about configuration of the parts would lead to this aspect having no FSCO/I.
This would be correct.
Lack of function also points in the same direction for this aspect.
Of course the parts — assuming not damaged — will individually be functionally specific and will typically be quite complex. Easily beyond 1,000 bits of functionaly specific complexity in many cases.
That would make these parts identifiably designed per FSCO/I.
Again, correctly.
The attempted caricature collapses because the objectors seem not to have troubled to understand what they objected to, including the per aspect causal factor explanatory filter.
And, lack of respect for a fine bit of Swedish workmanship is showing, too.
I would have a hard time trusting someone who would even contemplate taking a hammer to such a reel with anything valuable. Sort of like being careless with pointing a gun.
As to links with 2LOT.
I have repeatedly highlighted that this law for over 100 years has been tightly and inextricably tied to underlying statistics at micro level. Those statistics show why even 1,000 bits of FSCO/I will be utterly unlikely to be found via blind, needle in haystack search on the gamut of atomic and temporal resources in the observed cosmos. But, intelligently directed configuration can readily create such . . . consider comments as text strings, in this thread.
Where of course required energy converters and effectors to carry out the constructive work will exhaust degraded, waste energy (and often, materials), leading to genuine, relevant compensation as e.g. waste heat is exhausted at ambient temperature. So, RELEVANT compensation is consistent with 2LOT.
What is spectacularly not so, is the notion of diffusion etc spontaneously doing work, with no energy flow transactions that create an energy-entropy audit trail and some vague compensation claimed elsewhere.
One wonders if such have seriously thought through the energy flows picture.
KF
KF, you have once again threadjacked by blathering your arglebargle about FIASCO, a quantity you won’t define and can’t compute, thus we have no idea if or how it relates to entropy, which we can define, measure and compute.
I interpret your words as meaning that evolution of increased complexity does NOT violate SLOT, because you invoke the compensation argument: local decreases in entropy are compensated by “waste heat” radiated out of the system.
If this is true, please tell Granville Sewell he is wrong and that compensation is a valid argument.
Also tell “physicist” Rob Sheldon, Box, etc. that they are wrong and that life and evolution do not violate SLOT.
I understand you add a major caveat to the conclusion that evolution died not violate SLOT: the claim (common among creationists) that local decreases in entropy are ONLY possible in the presence of some kind of machinery which itself must be made by iintelligence. Have I got that right?
If I have got that right, won’t you admit this caveat, which I call CLOT (the Creationist Law of Thermodynamics) is not the same as SLOT? And that CLOT comes only from the creationist literature and appears nowhere in the scientific literature?
SLOT is well-defined mathematically and depends ONLY on entropy, heat and temperature, and on NOTHING else. While CLOT cannot be defined mathematically because “machinery” and “intelligence” are undefined. CLOT is usually supported by thought experiments: “I imagine a man assembling a fishing reel, the reel has lower entropy, therefore all decreases in entropy require a man-like intelligent being.” Many thought scenarios are thus imagined, but none involve measurements of heat or energy, unlike with SLOT. The thought scenarios are then alleged to prove CLOT because no other scenarios can be imagined.
Then the creationist asserts that the photosynthetic apparatus in plants is a machine analogous to a fishing reel, thus if living things produce lower entropy, an “intelligence” must ultimately be responsible anyway.
Have I got that right? Will you admit CLOT is not the same as SLOT, which has NO undefined terms? Will you admit that CLOT involves undefined terms that are not present at all in SLOT? Will you admit CLOT originated in the creationist literature, not the scientific literature?
And will you please tell Granville Sewell he is wrong about compensation, and your fellow IDers like Rob Sheldon that they are wrong about life violating SLOT?
The short answer is “NO”.
My general understanding of the statistical 2nd law is that it turns systems into rubble and not the other way around – snowstorms aside. So the 2nd law prohibits the coming into existence of systems and organization from ‘rubble’. Computers don’t “self-organize” from scrap metal because of the fact that of all the possible arrangements atoms could take, only a negligent percentage constitute a functional computer.
Okay, but there are in fact systems and organized things. How is this possible given the 2nd law? There must be an organizing principle that steers things in the opposite direction as intended by the 2nd law. This organizing principle must be – per logic – unbound by the 2nd law. IOW the 2nd law has no dominion over it. How do I prove this? The mere existence of organization proves it / implies its existence.
Box,
The words “organisation”, “rubble”, “order” or “disorder” do not occur in any formulation of SLOT. The word “system” does, but it has the usual physical meaning of “any set of interacting components”. Entropy does not equal “disorder”. It’s CLOT, not SLOT, which prohibits the emergence of “organisation” from “rubble”. I wonder how many times it must be repeated to have an effect.
Box: My general understanding of the statistical 2nd law is that it turns systems into rubble and not the other way around –
No. It’s an analogy using macroscopic objects.
Box: So the 2nd law prohibits the coming into existence of systems and organization from ‘rubble’.
Again, no. A snowflake comes from the ‘rubble’ of amorphous liquid water.
Box: Computers don’t “self-organize” from scrap metal because of the fact that of all the possible arrangements atoms could take, only a negligent percentage constitute a functional computer.
Okay. But that’s not the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which concerns microstates not macrostates.
Box: Okay, but there are in fact systems and organized things. How is this possible given the 2nd law?
Because the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn’t preclude organization. And because the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply to macroscopic arrangements.
Box: This organizing principle must be – per logic – unbound by the 2nd law.
Anything which organizes is bound by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You can’t arrange things without doing work.
Piotr,
As long as natural forces (such as tornados) turn a spaceship, or a TV set, or a computer into piles of rubble but not vice-versa my general understanding of the 2nd law won’t change.
Zach,
there is an obvious relation between the two:
(…) of all the possible arrangements atoms could take (microstates), only a negligent percentage constitute a functional computer (macrostate).
Box: (…) of all the possible arrangements atoms could take (microstates), only a negligent percentage constitute a functional computer (macrostate).
But that doesn’t mean the manufacturing of a computer is “unbound” by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Whether producing the individual components, which may involve chemical changes to materials, or assembling the components, every step of the manufacturing process is consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Diogenes, you are kidding. KF
Z: every step of the manufacturing process is consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Just to be clear, this means you can’t look at something and determine whether it is designed by considering whether it is consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Everything is consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics; computers, comedians, candles, Jovian moons, chihuahuas, children, chopsticks. Everything.
True.
But the designer and the design – the mental blueprint of a computer – is out of reach for the 2nd law. The origin of any specified and functional system stems from a realm beyond the grasp of the 2nd law. And at the very moment that organization is inputted – when parts are formed and arranged in a specified and functional order far from equilibrium (micro and macro)- “something” takes place in our material world that is opposite to the intentions of the 2nd law.
@Box #57
I get the sense that’s what’s causing the biggest problem here is the way the idea is being expressed rather than the idea itself. What if your statement were rephrased something like this?:
When parts are formed and arranged in a specified and functional order far from equilibrium (micro and macro)- “something” takes place in our material world that is opposite to what would be expected under the 2nd law were it not for the presence of some relevant mechanism, device or agent capable of using energy to make the particular macrostate a probable outcome.
I’m no expert on the subject, but I think this is what you mean to say. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
That’s a philosophical viewpoint, but the nature of the mind is an open scientific question. The mind may be entirely within the material realm. To deny that (scientific) possibility is to commit the same type of error as materialism’s rejection of supernatural causation.
Zachriel, it appears you still do not get the point. Yes, everything that has indeed occurred is truly consistent with 2LOT. But not everything that is conceivable is consistent with 2LOT. Are you seriously still not aware that the argument is about requirements — properly defined compensation — for the generation of certain systems to keep the process in line with 2LOT?
You even refer to the fact that a manufacturing process is required for the generation of ‘patterns’ we refer to as computers. However if you came on this forum and told us that computers self organize for the same reasons that tornadoes self-order, based on even a cursory understanding of statistical thermodynamics someone would have to disappoint you and explain that even though 2LOT doesn’t absolutely forbid such an occurrence it does tell us that ‘explanation’ practically violates everything that we learn from a statistical understanding of 2LOT. Thus, your hypothesis practically violates 2LOT. Agreed or not? If the hypothesis of the mere transfer of energy causing a computer to self-organize does not violate 2LOT, is there any conceivable hypothesis according to you that would not be consistent with and thus violate 2LOT?
Furthermore, from where do you get the statement that 2LOT does not concern itself with macrostates? Is that your final statement on the issue or would you care to clarify?
Are you aware of the definition of entropy as “the measure of the mutiplicity of a given macropartition.” Are you aware that a macropartition can be viewed, for purposes of calcualation, as a “macrostate of a combined system of two interacting” model solids. (www.physics.rutgers.edu/~gersh/351/Lecture 5.ppt, pg.2)
First off, I’m fine with your well-phrased addition. Thank you. However my interest (problem) lies elsewhere.
What I meant to say (#57) is that something extraordinary happens at the moment that information is injected into a system – at the moment an idea is materialized. Extraordinary in the sense of being opposite to what would be expected under the 2nd law. IOW not everything is subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There is a process of formation going which is not under the dominion of the 2nd law – like the code of DNA is not under the dominion of chemistry. The moment of creation; when two worlds meet.
Now my struggle is with the tension between “consistent with the 2nd law” and “not under the dominion of the 2nd law”. Can both be true at the same time?
Box: But the designer and the design – the mental blueprint of a computer – is out of reach for the 2nd law.
That’s assuming something that has hardly been demonstrated, and would violate everything that is known about thermodynamics. But let’s assume there is an immaterial mind. This mind at some point get instantiated in the brain. It turns out that the brain is an energy hog. It takes a lot of calories to turn all those neurons on and off. Then it takes more calories to transmit those signals to muscles, and still more calories to make those muscles move. And that’s just to put pen to paper to draw the plan. Then it takes even more calories to wield the hammer and saw.
Box: And at the very moment that organization is inputted – when parts are formed and arranged in a specified and functional order far from equilibrium (micro and macro)- “something” takes place in our material world that is opposite to the intentions of the 2nd law.
There’s nothing in the 2nd law of thermodynamics about “intention”. Nothing you do, no matter how clever you think you are, violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
niwrad: The 2nd law doesn’t prohibit at all that an organization source (the above intelligence) injects organization into a system.
That is false. “Injecting organization” means moving things around. And that takes thermodynamic work.
CJYman: not everything that is conceivable is consistent with 2LOT.
Of course.
CJYman: if you came on this forum and told us that computers self organize for the same reasons that tornadoes self-order, based on even a cursory understanding of statistical thermodynamics someone would have to disappoint you and explain that even though 2LOT doesn’t absolutely forbid such an occurrence it does tell us that ‘explanation’ practically violates everything that we learn from a statistical understanding of 2LOT.
Either the occurrence is consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics or it is not. Lumber doesn’t assemble into houses during a tornado for reasons other than the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
CJYman: If the hypothesis of the mere transfer of energy causing a computer to self-organize does not violate 2LOT, is there any conceivable hypothesis according to you that would not be consistent with and thus violate 2LOT?
Something not consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics would be a perpetual motion machine.
CJYman: Furthermore, from where do you get the statement that 2LOT does not concern itself with macrostates?
Thermodynamics clearly concerns macrostates, or it would have no relevance to engineering. A heat engine is the canonical example. We did state it unclearly.
The explanation from ‘probability’ concerns microstates. We can treat multiple either macroobjects or macropartitions in terms of microstates, but when you do, you will find that the combinatorics of the microstates overwhelm the combinatorics of the macroobjects. For instance, if we look at how heat can be distributed between just two macroobjects, you will count a huge number of available microstates. While we may divide a system into any number of macropartitions, it is still the available microstates that determines entropy.
Box: something extraordinary happens at the moment that information is injected into a system
“Injecting information” requires energy.
FIASCO – lol. I love it!