Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

In the Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design, 2nd edition

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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.

Moore before first tornado
Moore before first tornado

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.

Moore after first tornado
Moore after first 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.

Moore before first tornado
Moore after second tornado

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.

Planet soon after it formed
Earth-like planet soon after it formed
Planet at height of its civilization
Planet at height of its civilization

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.

Planet today
Planet today

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?

Comments
FIASCO - lol. I love it!Mung
March 22, 2015
March
03
Mar
22
22
2015
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
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.Zachriel
March 20, 2015
March
03
Mar
20
20
2015
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
HeKS: 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.
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
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
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)CJYman
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
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.
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.rhampton7
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
@Box #57
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.
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.HeKS
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
Zach #54: But that doesn’t mean the manufacturing of a computer is “unbound” by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Every step of the manufacturing process is consistent with 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.
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.
Niwrad: The 2nd law doesn’t prohibit at all that an organization source (the above intelligence) injects organization into a system. Exactly like gravity doesn’t prohibit the force of your arm lifts an object from the ground.
Box
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
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.Zachriel
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
Diogenes, you are kidding. KFkairosfocus
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
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.Zachriel
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
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,
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.
Zach: Okay. But that’s not the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which concerns microstates not macrostates.
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
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
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.Zachriel
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
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.Piotr
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Diogenes: It should be a simple yes or no answer: is SLOT violated or not?
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
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
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?Diogenes
March 19, 2015
March
03
Mar
19
19
2015
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
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?? :)AnimatedDust
March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
So I'll repeat: it really looks like you IDologues contradict yourselves about whether you do, or don't, believe that SLOT is violated.Diogenes
March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
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:
Thank you for this clear answer. So intelligence steers things in the opposite direction as intended by the 2nd law.
OK, sounds like Box is saying "intelligence" (= humans or gods) violate SLOT.
This brings us to the question if this constitutes a “violation” of the 2nd law.
Again, it's a simple yes or no question. Yes or no? Either SLOT is violated or it's not.
Niwrad: I wouldn’t say properly that 2nd law is “violated”. The 2nd law doesn’t prohibit at all that an organization source (the above intelligence) injects organization into a system. Exactly like gravity doesn’t prohibit the force of your arm lifts an object from the ground.
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:
In line with your explanation (see quote in #38) one could say that the 2nd law “orders” things to go to the right, but that ‘organizing intelligence’ refuses to obey and steers things to the left. Looking at it like this seems to imply that the 2nd law is indeed violated.
Again, Box appears to say SLOT is violated; thus he disagrees with Niwrad.
On the other hand as you [Niwrad] point out “the 2nd doesn’t prohibit at all that an organization source (the above intelligence) injects organization into a system”.
Great, how could you prove this claim experimentally, besides detecting a violation of SLOT?
IOW the 2nd law has no dominion over intelligence.
"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?
Looking at it like this implies that, since intelligence is not bound by the 2nd law, it also cannot violate it.
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.Diogenes
March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
"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? :)REC
March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
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?velikovskys
March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
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.REC
March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
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.
That was my point. Functional and structural analogies between nano- and macro-"machines" have practically nothing to to do with entropy and the 2LOT.Piotr
March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
"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.REC
March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
Box: From University Physics by Young and Freedman As they call information about individual coins a "microscopic state", it's clearly an analogy.
A description of the microscopic state of the system includes information about each individual coin...
Zachriel
March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
// 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 //
CS3: From University Physics by Young and Freedman (one of the most widely used calculus-based general physics textbooks), in a section entitled “Microscopic Interpretation of Entropy” in the chapter “The Second Law of Thermodynamics”:
Entropy is a measure of the disorder of the system as a whole. To see how to calculate entropy microscopically, we first have to introduce the idea of macroscopic and microscopic states. Suppose you toss N identical coins on the floor, and half of them show heads and half show tails. This is a description of the large-scale or macroscopic state of the system of N coins. A description of the microscopic state of the system includes information about each individual coin: Coin 1 was heads, coin 2 was tails, coin 3 was tails, and so on. There can be many microscopic states that correspond to the same macroscopic description. For instance, with N=4 coins there are six possible states in which half are heads and half are tails. The number of microscopic states grows rapidly with increasing N; for N=100 there are 2^100 = 1.27×10^30 microscopic states, of which 1.01×10^29 are half heads and half tails. The least probable outcomes of the coin toss are the states that are either all heads or all tails. It is certainly possible that you could throw 100 heads in a row, but don’t bet on it: the possibility of doing this is only 1 in 1.27×10^30. The most probable outcome of tossing N coins is that half are heads and half are tails. The reason is that this macroscopic state has the greatest number of corresponding microscopic states. To make the connection to the concept of entropy, note that N coins that are all heads constitutes a completely ordered macroscopic state: the description “all heads” completely specifies the state of each one of the N coins. The same is true if the coins are all tails. But the macroscopic description “half heads, half tails” by itself tells you very little about the state (heads or tails) of each individual coin. We say that the system is disordered because we know so little about its microscopic state. Compared to the state “all heads” or “all tails”, the state “half heads, half tails” has a much greater number of possible microstates, much greater disorder, and hence much greater entropy (which is a quantitative measure of disorder). Now instead of N coins, consider a mole of an ideal gas containing Avogadro’s number of molecules. The macroscopic state of this gas is given by its pressure p, volume V, and temperature T; a description of the microscopic state involves stating the position and velocity for each molecule in the gas. At a given pressure, volume, and temperature the gas may be in any one of an astronomically large number of microscopic states, depending on the positions and velocities of its 6.02×10^23 molecules. If the gas undergoes a free expansion into a greater volume, the range of possible positions increases, as does the number of possible microscopic states. The system becomes more disordered, and the entropy increases. We can draw the following general conclusion: For any system the most probable macroscopic state is the one with the greatest number of corresponding microscopic states, which is also the macroscopic state with the greatest disorder and the greatest entropy.
Sewell’s statement follows directly from this: in an isolated system, the reason natural forces (such as tornados) “may turn a spaceship, or a TV set, or a computer into a pile of rubble but not vice-versa is also probability: of all the possible arrangements atoms could take, only a very small percentage could fly to the moon and back, or receive pictures and sound from the other side of the Earth, or add, subtract, multiply and divide real numbers with high accuracy.”
Box
March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
Z: liquid water {at 0°C}Zachriel
March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
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 macrostatesZachriel
March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
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?Piotr
March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Zach: 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.
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.Box
March 18, 2015
March
03
Mar
18
18
2015
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply