Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The illusion of organizing energy

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The 2nd law of statistical thermodynamics states that in a closed system any natural transformation goes towards the more probable states. The states of organization are those more improbable, then transformations spontaneously go towards non-organization, so to speak. Since evolution would be spontaneous organization, evolution disagrees with the 2nd law.

The tendency expressed in the 2nd law rules all physical phenomena and is clearly evident in our everyday life, where e.g. systems that were ok yesterday, today are ko, while systems that are ko, do not self repair and remain ko until an intelligent intervention. In short, things break down and do not self-repair, to greater reason they do not self-organize. All that can be related to the trend of the 2nd law.

Before this evidence an usual objection is that Earth is not a closed system because it receives radiant energy from the Sun, so the 2nd law doesn’t apply. Such energy — evolutionists say — would provide the organizing power for evolution. Here we will see in very simple terms as this is nothing but a naive illusion.

In my previous post I noted how, according to general systems theory, organization shows always two different aspects: power and control. Energy is related to the power that the system needs to work and control is related to all what pertains to the “intelligence” of the system, what governs both energy/matter and information in the system. Notice that control has even to organize the energy itself powering the system. If energy really had the organizing capability evolutionists believe, one would ask why systems theory does such distinction in the first place. (In philosophical terms, in a sense, the above distinction is related to the distinction between action and knowledge. Action without knowledge is only agitation and disorder. We will see below how power/energy without control is even destructive.)

All know what energy is. The capability to do a work. Mechanical work/energy is defined as a force producing a shift. A moving object has kinetic energy, due to its speed. Thermal energy is due to the disordered motions of the molecules making up matter. Electric energy is a flow of electrons. Chemical energy is sort of potential energy able to power chemical reactions. Radiant energy is carried by light and other electromagnetic radiation.

Energy can power the systems, but never can create the organized system in the first place. In short, energy is the fuel, not the engine. Example, in photosynthesis, used by plants to convert light energy into chemical energy, the light energy presupposes a photosynthesis system just in place. The light energy doesn’t create the photosynthesis system, like the photons don’t create the photovoltaic cell that outputs electric current.

In all definitions of “energy” there is nothing that could lead us to think that energy is able to transform improbable states into probable states. Consequently, energy cannot change the situation of the 2nd law: energy cannot create organization, which always implies highly improbable states. Indeed the opposite: per se uncontrolled energy is destructive. Example: an abandoned building is slowly but inexorably destroyed by the natural forces of the environment during some centuries. If we increases the energy by considering a flood, it can be destroyed in some days. With more energy, a tornado can destroy it in minutes. Finally with the energy of a bomb we can destroy the building in few seconds. More the energy, more the speed of destruction.

If we consider the physical principle of mass–energy equivalence we reach the same conclusion as above. Mass per se has nothing to do with real organization. Mass and matter are simply the initial support/substance on which an higher principle — intelligence/essence — must operate to obtain a final organized system.

In general we can say that what energy can do is to speed the processes/transformations. But since the transformations go towards the more probable states, uncontrolled energy, far from helping evolution, it could even worsen its problems, because accelerates the trend towards non-organization. The moral is that to invoke uncontrolled energy to revert the trend of the 2nd law is counterproductive for evolutionists.

An objection that evolutionists could rise is: energy can power and greatly speed the chemical reactions, so they can produce life. In these objection there are two problems.
(1) Usually chemical reactions go towards equilibrium, the more probable state, so they don’t overturn at all the 2nd law.
(2) In this context the alleged naturalistic origin of life stated by evolutionism is a non-sequitur. In the hierarchy of biological organization chemical reactions are at the lowest level. Between this level and the final organization of organisms there are countless layers of complexity, related to increasingly higher kinds of abstractness and formalism, which are unattainable by mere chemistry.

Another similar evolutionist objection is that in 1953 Miller and Urey conducted an experiment where some organic compounds such as amino acids were formed by providing thermal and electric energy to a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water. Again no new organization here. The compounds obtained are exactly the probable transformations that the system was able to produce, under the same circumstances. In fact if one repeats the Miller/Urey experiment he gets again the same results. This shows that nothing improbable happens, rather something of very probable, almost certain. No violation of the 2nd law. Obviously also here there is an abyss between the Miller/Urey amino acids and the organization of life, also if we consider a single unicellular organism.

To sum up, the 2nd law in the context of statistical thermodynamics, provides a fundamental reason why naturalistic origin of life is impossible. To resort to energy doesn’t solve the problem, because energy is not a source of organization, rather the inverse: uncontrolled energy can cause destruction (= non-organization). Only intelligence is source of organization, and as such can explain the arise of life, the more organized thing in the cosmos.

Comments
Box @229: Excellent suggestion. I like your list. The biggest problem with the 2nd Law argument (perhaps not the only one) is that it generates so many illogical red-herring counterclaims by materialists, that it is nearly impossible to cut through the nonsense and focus on the real issues.Eric Anderson
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: Z, Crystals form when there are circumstances that limit tendency to disorder sufficiently for electrostatic forces etc to allow nucleation and growth. This is irrelevant to formation of highly contingent, aperiodic and information-rich functionally specific complex organisation dependent on interaction of correct correctly arranged and coupled parts. But relevant to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is the topic of the thread. There is nothing in the 2nd law of thermodynamics that prevents ordering or even organization, however, you define the term.Zachriel
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
niwrad: If you trust in these “entropy decreases” to explain spontaneous organization in nature you are hopeless. Entropy decreases don't explain spontaneous organization, but the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't preclude it. Box: 1. The 2nd law is restricted to heat dispersion. No. It refers to available microstates, which includes thermal fluctuations. Box: 2. The 2nd law cannot be violated because it is a law. No. It's a law because there are no known violations. Box: 3. The 2nd law allows for local entropy decrease Yes. That is correct. Box: 4. The 2nd law makes organization possible It doesn't preclude organization, and without energy gradients, organization would not be possible. Box: 5. Organization is not quantifiable nor testable. Can you provide such a quantification for discussion? Box: 6. Compensation argument. That's implicit in the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The overall entropy of a system must increase, so if it decreases locally, then it must increase elsewhere.Zachriel
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
KF,
Dismissiveness about FSCO/I duly noted, unjustified contempt and outright rudeness duly noted. I hope you don’t treat your wife and students like you have behaved above. You crossed a serious line Piotr and were you in my living room when you did so, there would be consequences for such ill-bred misbehaviour.
This is ridiculous, KF. Practically all the regulars here are more than dismissive of well-established concepts of mainstream biology. I suppose it's fine and dandy if your side does it, so why take offence if I dare to be dismissive about one of your sacred cows? "FSCO/I" is not a person, and dismissiveness towards it is not a personal attack. I can't apologise to a concept. It's up to you to justify your twisted interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics (LOT2, for short). It should be done formally, with maths, not with vague analogies and mental shortcuts. It's rather difficult to keep one's cool if such twisting is done systematically and incorrigibly, in thread after thread. No, KF, LOT2 is not about chaos versus organisation (except in the popular imagination). It does nor prohibit the spontaneous rise of complexity if the work needed for that is diverted from natural flows of energy and the net entropy of the system and its environment increases. It doesn't place any universal limit on the level of complexity that can be reached. If you believe otherwise, show your proof.Piotr
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
kairosfocus #233
I now basically refuse to play the escalating technical depth game and insist on addressing fundamentals. Thaxton et al is a good onward reference. Niw, get a copy of Harry S Robertson Statistical Thermophysics, Prentice.
"To insist on addressing fundamentals", good suggestions kairosfocus. In fact "escalating technical depths" makes sense only when the fundamentals are verified perfectly ok. The problems of evolutionism are that its "fundamentals" are rotten from all points of view. Again thank you for your support.niwrad
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
Niw & Box: The basic point in thermodynamics is easy enough to spot, but the obfuscation games push us into high voltage territory real fast, starting with marching ranks of partial differential eqns and linked variables, parameters and constructs. That is why I normally emphasise Thermod underlying factors then switch over to information and organisation to achieve function. I recall an early exchange -- not at UD -- with an objector where I ended up trying a tutorial only to hit serious barriers with Gibbs free energy and enthalpy etc. I now basically refuse to play the escalating technical depth game and insist on addressing fundamentals. Thaxton et al is a good onward reference. Niw, get a copy of Harry S Robertson Statistical Thermophysics, Prentice. Orgel is accessible on Amazon if you don't live in boondocks where US Postal service routinely loses books or has undue delays etc. I now have to try for getting to a Freight forwarder and accepting the handling charges for a lot of things. I need to tell the Govt that MSR 1110 is meaningless out there to the US postal service. KFkairosfocus
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
H, Have you noticed that while I refer to Darwin's pond "soup" as typical, I also refer to comets, deep sea vents, and occasionally moons of gas giants, etc? Please. (For more details, before further mischaracterising, kindly note that there is a background note linked from every comment I have ever made at UD, which discusses OOL inter alia.) And above, Orgel and Shapiro brought RNA World/broader genes first AND metabolism/ proteins etc first scenarios to mutual ruin. The thermodynamics driving the chem simply is not right and the gap between generic chemicals and correctly sequenced chains to fold proteins or carry correct codes with correct regulatory info and associated execution machinery simply has not been cogently addressed. OOL is in deep trouble and is only sustaimed by the prior insistence on origins scenarios consistent with evolutionary materialism dressed up in a lab coat. KS Again, nope. On the contrary, the inextricably linked micro analysis shows that the 2LOT and linked Gibbs free energy thinking etc are rooted in what is reasonable i/l/o relative statistical weights of microstate clusters. That is why for instance unweaving of diffusion by spontaneous micro-processes is so remotely unlikely and outweighed by the dominant pattern of mixing that it becomes empirically vanishingly implausible. Likewise, going back to LK Nash's 1,000 coin array, if a line of coins is tossed, we overwhelmingly expect near 50-50 in no particular functionally specific or simply describable patterns. The Binomial distribution is overwhelmed by the bulk cluster as described. (Echoes of Kolmogorov complexity are intended.) If instead we saw the ASCII code for the first 143 characters for this post, we would properly and with empirical certainty infer design. Islands of function are too remotely isolated among the 1.07*10^301 possibilities to be credibly spontaneously found by even using up the atoms of the observed cosmos and the timeline since the usually given date for the big bang initiation. As in 10^111 tries if viewed as one straw would be as that to a cubical haystack of possibilities that dwarfs the observed cosmos. Next to no credible search. Too much haystack to find isolated needles. So, on the logic that directly grounds 2LOT, which is what I have consistently highlighted, FSCO/I is utterly unlikely to be found by spontaneous processes. Open system compensation is only relevant to the same means as we commonly see responsible for text in English or buildings organised from components or fishing reels formed by following exploded view assembly diagrams. Namely, that counterflow in area X issuing in constructive work and an outcome exhibiting FSCO/I is due to generalised shaft work coupled to an intelligently directed assembly process that uses energy conversion devices with energy inflows and waste -- degraded -- energy outflows, typically heat exhausted to some sink or other. Cf discussion and diagrams here early in the UD ID foundations series. And, the FSCO/I in the assembly instructions and/or the energy converter involved in the X-constructor does not credibly come about by blind chance and mechanical necessity, on the same grounds. Empirically,on our observation, such information comes from an intelligent agent and is an empirically reliable sign of such. Z, 199: See the just above. DNA_Jock: Ditto. Z, Crystals form when there are circumstances that limit tendency to disorder sufficiently for electrostatic forces etc to allow nucleation and growth. This is irrelevant to formation of highly contingent, aperiodic and information-rich functionally specific complex organisation dependent on interaction of correct correctly arranged and coupled parts. Box 211: Citing GS:
Of course the whole idea of compensation, whether by distant or nearby events, makes no sense logically: an extremely improbable event is not rendered less improbable simply by the occurrence of ‘‘compensating’’ events elsewhere. According to this reasoning, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal—and the door is open. (Or the thermal entropy in the next room is increasing, though I am not sure how fast it has to increase to compensate computer construction!)
Prezactly. But ideological commitment to a priori evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers blinds until the obvious becomes ever so hard to see much less acknowledge. Niw, 213:
Laws that prescribe patterns are not considerable as “exceptions” to the 2nd law because in its statistical sense it states tendency towards probable states, and those patterns are, in those scenarios, the more probable.
Well put. P, 214: I am sorry but my comments above are NOT based on folk misconceptions but the underlying microscopic processes that ground the law. I find your cavalier dismissiveness to be snide, ill-informed and frankly disrespectful. I suggest you take time out to rethink your tone and assumptions about those you are dealing with here. Let me get back to substance, linked to what is excerpted at 169 above. Under given constraints, the overwhelming direction of spontaneous micro changes is towards statistically dominant clusters. And given the relative paucity of atomic and temporal resources in the observed cosmos (or worse our practical subcosmos, the sol system) we cannot but extract a tiny sample of the space of relevant possibilities. So, if done through blind chance and mechanical necessity, whether as a dust or a connected random walk with drift or whatever sampling of the relevant phase space, the probability and statistics tell us the overwhelmingly dominant outcome: the bulk, stack hay not needles scattered within. There is a logic backed up by experience behind that old folk image of searching for needles in haystacks. Yes, the evo mat OOL hopes demand spontaneous generation of life in ponds, or whatever, but the observational evidence, analysis and growing knowledge base of what is involved in cell based life are ever more rendering such maximally implausible. And no, energy and mass inflow to earth do not change this in general, unless such is accompanied by information flows and organisation that would make the picture drastically different. As has been noted, life could have been seeded here (though the same issues obtain cross cosmos). A molecular nanotech lab could have done it. Who ran the lab would be an interesting onward question. The same cause behind an observed cosmos sitting at a narrow operating point of physics and cosmological parameters that enables C-chemistry cell based life would also be a very viable candidate. (BTW, this issue of fine tuning makes multiverse scenarios maximally implausible -- the target zone we are sitting in is far too narrow for it to be plausible that this outcome was hit upon by what my countrymen call "buck-ups.") Doubtless, more ideas and scenarios may be suggested. But the evidence in hand warrants openness to design based explanations and even makes it not only rational to explore but to defend such. Which is a good slice of why I take the specific stance I do. KS:
A plea to the second-law “truthers” in this thread: Would it kill you to crack open a reputable thermodynamics textbook or two?
This is an outrageous insult. Especially given the explicit summary and excerpts from Harry S Robertson's Statistical Thermophysics, Prentics, that are in the excerpts in 169 above. First, 9-11 truthers so called are conspiracy theorists, with whom I disagree for much the same sorts of reasons as above: the weight of empirical evidence does not point that way. Second, I have taken time to provide evidence and reasoning, even clipping extensively in ways that someone familiar with thermodynamics will find directly echo standard thermodynamics reasoning and presentations. Third, in fact I happen to have a reasonable collection of relevant works, and in fact my discussion of the Clausius first example of bodies A and B inside an isolated system which have dq flowing A to B builds on the very first serious presentation I dealt with in Sears ans Salinger Addison Wesley, way back in undergrad physics. The analysis as can be seen in 169 above -- you have no excuse -- shows what happens when dq flows and how we get to the overall increase in system entropy. And BTW it is the same Sears-Sal that very subtly but astutely raised the point, that the question of the universe being an isolated system is a debated, philosophically loaded point. SHAME ON YOU! KS, you owe an apology for arrogance and contempt in the face of evidence already in hand to the contrary. But, I won't hold my breath waiting. Instead, I will simply take it under notice that you have obviously not taken a serious moment to read seriously and with a modicum of respect for fairness. I suggest that you take time to get a copy of Harry Robertson, and read then ponder on the informational perspective in thermodynamics. L K Nash's little book would do you good too. (I wish I had been sensible enough as an undergrad to go over and look at the chemists on stat thermo-d, I still hate Mandl in the Manchester Physics series.) Piotr: Dismissiveness about FSCO/I duly noted, unjustified contempt and outright rudeness duly noted. I hope you don't treat your wife and students like you have behaved above. You crossed a serious line Piotr and were you in my living room when you did so, there would be consequences for such ill-bred misbehaviour. Tone. Let's turn to substance. What part of the following -- cf here in my IOSE for onward links and highlights etc -- from J S Wicken do you fail to understand:
‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms [[i.e. “simple” force laws acting on objects starting from arbitrary and common- place initial conditions] and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an [[originally . . . ] external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ [[“The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): p. 353, of pp. 349-65. (Emphases and notes added. Nb: “originally” is added to highlight that for self-replicating systems, the blue print can be built-in.)]
. . . and what part of the following from Orgel do you fail to understand (especially, bearing in mind the pointer to Kolmogorov-Chaitin) . . . and FYI, just to address the what books objection, Orgel's book is sitting across from me as I give this citation:
. . . In brief, living organisms [--> functionally specific! Note, Dembski in response to Eigen in NFL] are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [HT, Mung, fr. immed following, p. 190 & 196 now backed up by my own copy:] These vague idea can be made more precise by introducing the idea of information. Roughly speaking, the information content of a structure is the minimum number of instructions needed to specify the structure. [--> this is of course equivalent to the string of yes/no questions required to specify the relevant "wiring diagram" for the set of functional states, T, in the much larger space of possible clumped or scattered configurations, W, as Dembski would go on to define in NFL in 2002, also cf here, here and here (with here on self-moved agents as designing causes).] One can see intuitively that many instructions are needed to specify a complex structure. [--> so if the q's to be answered are Y/N, the chain length is an information measure that indicates complexity in bits . . . ] On the other hand a simple repeating structure can be specified in rather few instructions. [--> do once and repeat over and over in a loop . . . ] Complex but random structures, by definition, need hardly be specified at all . . . . Paley was right to emphasize the need for special explanations of the existence of objects with high information content, for they cannot be formed in nonevolutionary, inorganic processes. [The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189, p. 190, p. 196. Of course, that immediately highlights OOL, where the required self-replicating entity is part of what has to be explained (cf. Paley here), a notorious conundrum for advocates of evolutionary materialism; one, that has led to mutual ruin documented by Shapiro and Orgel between metabolism first and genes first schools of thought, cf here. Behe would go on to point out that irreducibly complex structures are not credibly formed by incremental evolutionary processes and Menuge et al would bring up serious issues for the suggested exaptation alternative, cf. his challenges C1 - 5 in the just linked. Finally, Dembski highlights that CSI comes in deeply isolated islands T in much larger configuration spaces W, for biological systems functional islands. That puts up serious questions for origin of dozens of body plans reasonably requiring some 10 - 100+ mn bases of fresh genetic information to account for cell types, tissues, organs and multiple coherently integrated systems. Wicken's remarks a few years later as already were cited now take on fuller force in light of the further points from Orgel at pp. 190 and 196 . . . ]
Pardon, your attitude is showing. Fix it. But, the two clips and highlights above should suffice to show that functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, FSCO/I for short is a well founded descriptive summary, that it is something that can be observed based on Wicken wiring diagram functional specificity, and that it can be quantified based on a structured sequence of y/n q's, in bits. Those who still refuse to acknowledge such do not show sophisticated understanding but instead purblind willful obtuseness at best, stubborn closed minded ideology at worst. And, Piotr, those are your options if you continue with your dismissive attitude. Enough for one morning. Cho man, do betta dan dat! KFkairosfocus
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
Niwrad, Thank you for considering my suggestion. I'm certainly looking forward to the upcoming series :) For me the 2nd law is a kind of 'bonus argument': From time to time I put forward the argument that upward causation cannot explain life (unity), because parts lack overview. Molecules don't self-organize into man because they lack the overview - and therefor the capability - to do so. Moreover parts lack motivation, information and so forth - all indispensable attributes to get the job done. IOW there is no sufficient upward cause for life, hence life is due to downward causation. The second law is a bonus - it adds to my simple argument. Not only do parts lack all these things - overview, motivation and so forth -, not only are parts an insufficient cause, but on top of that there is a law - the 2nd law - that steers the parts into the opposite direction of organization (unity). As if things were not already hard enough for the unmotivated blind mindless parts .... For me the 2nd law is the deathblow to the infinitesimal possibility that parts/molecules self-organize into man.Box
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
Box #229
Allow me to suggest a possible approach -since the obfuscation level goes through the roof each time this topic is brought up-: a series of posts that deals with the various objections separately.
I fully agree with you. Your approach is the best. Thanks for your suggestions! You are right that in this field the degree of obfuscation is maximum. We have seen it indeed in these 200+ comments. I started with a single simple concept, with a minimum of terminology, which all people could understand, and soon the discussion is exploded causing a smoke curtain where all is confused. And they deny systems go towards degradation...! Obviously the ID arguments contra ecolutionism are countless, however the one based on the 2nd law is potentially easier to understand than many others. This is one of the reasons it is important. Again thank you for your support.niwrad
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT
Niwrad: Since this topic is very important, likely I will write other posts about (now this thread is in UD second page…). Stay tuned.
Very good to hear! It's a very important topic. Allow me to suggest a possible approach -since the obfuscation level goes through the roof each time this topic is brought up-: a series of posts that deals with the various objections separately. Objections such as: 1. The 2nd law is restricted to heat dispersion. (Zachriel). 2. The 2nd law cannot be violated because it is a law. (Keith) 3. The 2nd law allows for local entropy decrease, so what is the problem anyway? (Keith, Zachriel and others) 4. The 2nd law makes organization possible or "you don't understand the 2nd law". (DNA-Jock) 5. Organization is not quantifiable nor testable. (Piotr) 6. Compensation argument. and a few others I forgot.Box
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
#226 niwrad, Thank you for your contribution to the growing collection of popular misconceptions about the Second Law:
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Nature doesn't make improbable* things. -- Niwrad
Footnote: *Improbable things = the stuff that nature doesn't make, according to UD regulars. I shall second Keith S's advice.Piotr
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
02:57 AM
2
02
57
AM
PDT
keith #222
Imagine a puddle of water in front of your house in Minnesota in January. The sun goes down, the temperature drops, and the water freezes. Its entropy has decreased.
If you trust in these "entropy decreases" to explain spontaneous organization in nature you are hopeless. There is an abyss between organization and these phenomena. These thermic phenomena are not improbable (they spontaneously happen routinely). Differently, you must consider the 2nd law in probabilistic sense to grasp its trend contra self-organization. P.S. Since this topic is very important, likely I will write other posts about (now this thread is in UD second page...). Stay tuned.niwrad
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT
Piotr #224
Just don’t pretend that your “functionally specific complex organisation and associated information” technobabble has anything to do with the second law of thermodynamics.
kairosfocus is perfectly right, his "technobabble" has a lot to do with the 2nd law, because "technobabble" is improbable and that law says that nature doesn't make improbable things. Organisms are "technobabble" and their arise cannot be spontaneous, indeed because of the 2nd law.niwrad
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT
KF,
Until there is a willingness to face such basic facts and analysis, all we can do is point to the problem.
Actually, you could present a counterargument -- if you had one. But you don't.keith s
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
#223, You are entitled to your own ideas about "organisation" (it's another question if your intuitive insights can be formalised and quantified, so that they can be tested). Just don't pretend that your "functionally specific complex organisation and associated information" technobabble has anything to do with the second law of thermodynamics.Piotr
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
Folks, I think there is a problem for objectors with understanding that there are micro underpinnings to the macro level summary results. To try to sever them is futile, and it is those underpinnings that show that spontaneous origin of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information is maximally implausible. And such organisation is simply not comparable to freezing and formation of crystals, etc. Until there is a willingness to face such basic facts and analysis, all we can do is point to the problem. KFkairosfocus
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
Box:
Keith can you provide an example of such local entropy decrease – preferably one that doesn’t involve machines or organisms?
Sure. Imagine a puddle of water in front of your house in Minnesota in January. The sun goes down, the temperature drops, and the water freezes. Its entropy has decreased.keith s
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
Keith can you provide an example of such local entropy decrease - preferably one that doesn't involve machines or organisms?Box
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
Box: Organization There's nothing in the 2nd law of thermodynamics about 'organization'. If you're talking about some other 2nd law, then you need to state it clearly and provide the empirical support.Zachriel
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
A plea to the second-law "truthers" in this thread: Would it kill you to crack open a reputable thermodynamics textbook or two?keith s
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
Box #211, I already addressed that in my response to niwrad:
No, the compensation argument is that entropy can decrease locally provided that there is an equal or greater net export of entropy to the surroundings. The two are causally connected; it isn’t that a local decrease in entropy is compensated for by a simultaneous increase of entropy on the other side of the universe.
keith s
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
Zachriel: Order is a bad metaphor.
Organization Zachriel. Not crystals. Not just simple order. Organization.Box
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
niwrad: Laws that prescribe patterns are not considerable as “exceptions” to the 2nd law because in its statistical sense it states tendency towards probable states, and those patterns are, in those scenarios, the more probable. Crystals are considered less probable states. That's because they have far fewer available microstates. What is being minimized during crystal formation is the free energy. The overall entropy of the total system increases as the crystal releases heat. Order is a bad metaphor. A warm crystal might form from a cold liquid and not lose heat to the environment. It would seem perhaps that the warm crystal is more ordered than the cold liquid, but that's because you still have to account for the thermal fluctuations when calculating the number of microstates. Organization is a far worse metaphor.Zachriel
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
Zachriel
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is about thermodynamic disorder, not ‘organization’.
Nope. It is about trend to probable, since organization is improbable it is adverse to organization.niwrad
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT
The 2nd law prescribes degradation if there isn’t a law that prescribes patterns.
Which formulation of the 2nd LOT says so? One could make a whole book of naive folk-scientific misconceptions about the 2nd law and entropy.Piotr
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Zachriel
Nope. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that the overall entropy increases. There’s nothing in there about except when.
Laws that prescribe patterns are not considerable as "exceptions" to the 2nd law because in its statistical sense it states tendency towards probable states, and those patterns are, in those scenarios, the more probable.niwrad
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
niwrad: This “compensation argument” in no way resolves your problem that spontaneous organization is contra the 2nd law. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is about thermodynamic disorder, not 'organization'. Box: an extremely improbable event is not rendered less improbable simply by the occurrence of ‘‘compensating’’ events elsewhere. Not simply because, but nonetheless, a decrease in entropy in one place has to be compensated for by an increase in entropy elsewhere.Zachriel
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
Granville Sewell explains Keith's compensation argument:
Of course the whole idea of compensation, whether by distant or nearby events, makes no sense logically: an extremely improbable event is not rendered less improbable simply by the occurrence of ‘‘compensating’’ events elsewhere. According to this reasoning, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal—and the door is open. (Or the thermal entropy in the next room is increasing, though I am not sure how fast it has to increase to compensate computer construction!)
Box
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
01:50 PM
1
01
50
PM
PDT
keith
No, the compensation argument is that entropy can decrease locally provided that there is an equal or greater net export of entropy to the surroundings.
This "compensation argument" in no way resolves your problem that spontaneous organization is contra the 2nd law.niwrad
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
niwrad: The 2nd law prescribes degradation if there isn’t a law that prescribes patterns. Nope. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that the overall entropy increases. There's nothing in there about except when.Zachriel
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 10

Leave a Reply