Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The illusion of organizing energy

Categories
Biophysics
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
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
niwrad,
If your “compensation argument” is that “organization can spontaneously increase here if disorder increases there” is nonsense.
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. ETA: And as I reminded KF:
If you accept the second law, you cannot consistently deny the compensation argument.
keith s
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
Zachriel
Cars are made of many atoms, crystals are made of many atoms. To both the 2nd law applies. As cars don’t self-organize from atoms, crystals don’t self-organize, indeed because the 2nd law prescribes the inverse, degradation.
The 2nd law prescribes degradation if there isn't a law that prescribes patterns. The case of crystals is of this sort: physical/chemical laws prescribe formation of crystals under specific circumstances. The case of cars/organisms is fully different because there aren't physical/chemical laws prescribing their formation.niwrad
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
niwrad: Cars are made of many atoms, organisms are made of many atoms. To both the 2nd law applies. As cars don’t self-organize from atoms, the same organisms don’t self-organize, indeed because the 2nd law prescribes the inverse, degradation. Cars are made of many atoms, crystals are made of many atoms. To both the 2nd law applies. As cars don’t self-organize from atoms, crystals don’t self-organize, indeed because the 2nd law prescribes the inverse, degradation.Zachriel
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
DNA_Jock,
DNA_Jock: But Box, as Hangonasec has patiently explained to you, “No second law” is analogous to “No wind”.
In fact I'm the one who did the patient explaining by offering the 'no-wind-analogy'.
DNA_Jock: As a sailor, I can sail upwind. No wind, and I cannot sail anywhere.
I said it first. You are just repeating me. Did you notice that I was quoting myself in #201? :)
DNA_Jock: What you characterize as “clever paradoxical statements” are in fact TRUE, even if they seem ‘paradoxical’ to you.
They are true statements and quite clever, but they don't diminish the DOMINANT TRUTH which everyone will understand: “wind coming from the north poses an obstacle for things wanting to go north”.Box
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
Hangonasec #198
You need to think at the molecular scale. Physics is not scale invariant. Cars are not molecules...
The 2nd law applies to all systems with many atoms. Cars are made of many atoms, organisms are made of many atoms. To both the 2nd law applies. As cars don't self-organize from atoms, the same organisms don't self-organize, indeed because the 2nd law prescribes the inverse, degradation.niwrad
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
But Box, as Hangonasec has patiently explained to you, "No second law" is analogous to "No wind". As a sailor, I can sail upwind. No wind, and I cannot sail anywhere. What you characterize as "clever paradoxical statements" are in fact TRUE, even if they seem 'paradoxical' to you.DNA_Jock
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT
niwrad: “organization can spontaneously increase here if disorder increases there” is nonsense. Order can increase, but is not required to do so.Zachriel
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Hangonasec: Without the second Law, you would not even be able to move.
There you have one of those clever paradoxical statements about the 2nd law. Luckily I covered this already:
Box #165: But it can be said that absent any wind sailing is not possible. Or one could say that northern wind “provides energy” for sailboats to go north. And of course many other clever paradoxical statements can be construed. However anyone will understand that “wind coming from the north poses an obstacle for things wanting to go north”.
Box
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
keith
If you deny the compensation argument, you are denying the second law itself.
If your "compensation argument" is that "organization can spontaneously increase here if disorder increases there" is nonsense.niwrad
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
Box: the second law cannot be overcome, but “entropic force” can be overcome. The force of gravity can be overcome with some other force. It requires work to raise an object, but it can be kept there with no additional work by putting it on a shelf. With a helicopter, though, it requires constant work to keep the helicopter aloft. Similarly, the 'entropic force' can be overcome with some other force. It requires work to lower the entropy, but it can be kept there almost indefinitely with no additional work by putting it on a 'shelf', such as in a stable crystal. With an organism, though, it requires constant work to keep the organism 'aloft'.Zachriel
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
niwrad @164
Hangonasec #161 to see the 2nd Law as purely a destructive, disorganising principle is to completely misunderstand it. niwrad: If you leave a system in the wild (ex. a car) what will be its destiny? It will increase its organization? or it will decrease its organization? It will decrease its organization. The 2nd law is that. So, it is an organizing or a disorganising principle? I answer the latter. Do you answer the former? well, put your car in the wild…(I prefer to have my car in maintenance).
A somewhat disappointing response to my @161! You really don't get it, and there's me thinking I'd explained it and all! You need to think at the molecular scale. Physics is not scale invariant. Cars are not molecules, and we don't tend to use their rusting to generate energy. Invoking the rusting of cars in an oxygen-and moisture-rich environment (a thermodynamically favourable reaction), and extending that to ALL applications of the Second Law (ie, all situations where response to force results in the shedding of free energy), leaves me rather speechless! Without the second Law, you would not even be able to move. Proteins would spontaneously unfold, DNA strands would part, you and your car would float off into space, and soon be nothing but quarks ... it is an organising principle, as well as a destructive one. It keeps matter condensed, because the low-energy (and often superficially ordered) state is more 'probable'.Hangonasec
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
KF
H, nope, the electrostatic force absent the organised string of highly specifically sequenced AAs would not result in a stable functional protein.
Who said anything about protein? Formation of the peptide bond is thermodynamically unfavourable in plausible conditions, and there is no clear source of prebiotic repeatable sequential information (in Crick's actual sense of the term). I do not favour OoL scenarios that are thermodynamically unfavourable, hence I reject 'proteins-first' OoL scenarios. You need to reserve that argument for someone else - someone who actually proposes it. One reaction that isn't thermodynamically unfavourable is the polymerisation of nucleoside triphosphates such as ATP, which I find pretty interesting, though I agree that doesn't make Life. It does make RNA though, which is a heck of a coincidence. Now, I'm betting someone has a sheaf of links ready to roll to tell me how impossible RNA World is. :)
[...]warm little pond [...] The blindness to such is one of the most revealing aspects of this whole exchange. KF
The monotonous insistence that there is only one OoL scenario, and it must involve protein and 'soup', is also revealing. OoL chemists are well aware of the second Law, and its immediate demands, not upon 'organisation' per se, but upon chemistry.Hangonasec
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
KF, Allow me to repeat myself: If you deny the compensation argument, you are denying the second law itself. Not a smart move. If you accept the second law, you cannot consistently deny the compensation argument.keith s
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
Keith: The second law is a physical law, not a force. Forces can be overcome, but physical laws cannot.
Okay so the "law of gravitation" cannot be overcome, but "gravitational force" can be overcome. No problem here. Finally we are making some progress. Similarly the second law cannot be overcome, but "entropic force" can be overcome. Which leads to the following rephrasing of my statement:
Must the 2nd law entropic force be “balanced” or “overcome” for OOL to be viable? Of course. Just as with gravitation and flying a “sufficient force working in the opposite direction” is necessary to explain the organizational order we see.
Box
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
KS, any researcher who is appealing to diffusion or the equivalent and linked basic chem kinetics to do the sort of organising work required to compose a metabolic, code using, von Neumann replicator using cell or any significant stage to that is going against the underlying statistical issues that undergird 2LOT. Those issues do not go away by ruling convenient system boundaries and then pretending that energy flows can compensate for requisites of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information. KF PS: I draw to the attention of participants and onlookers the closing remarks in effect of Orgel and Shapiro on OOL by spontaneous chemistry etc, which puts the matter in sharp focus by bringing RNA world and the metabolism first school to mutual ruin: [[Shapiro:] RNA's building blocks, nucleotides contain a sugar, a phosphate and one of four nitrogen-containing bases as sub-subunits. Thus, each RNA nucleotide contains 9 or 10 carbon atoms, numerous nitrogen and oxygen atoms and the phosphate group, all connected in a precise three-dimensional pattern . . . . [[S]ome writers have presumed that all of life's building could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites and other extraterrestrial bodies. This is not the case. A careful examination of the results of the analysis of several meteorites led the scientists who conducted the work to a different conclusion: inanimate nature has a bias toward the formation of molecules made of fewer rather than greater numbers of carbon atoms, and thus shows no partiality in favor of creating the building blocks of our kind of life . . . . To rescue the RNA-first concept from this otherwise lethal defect, its advocates have created a discipline called prebiotic synthesis. They have attempted to show that RNA and its components can be prepared in their laboratories in a sequence of carefully controlled reactions, normally carried out in water at temperatures observed on Earth . . . . Unfortunately, neither chemists nor laboratories were present on the early Earth to produce RNA . . . [[Orgel:] If complex cycles analogous to metabolic cycles could have operated on the primitive Earth, before the appearance of enzymes or other informational polymers, many of the obstacles to the construction of a plausible scenario for the origin of life would disappear . . . . It must be recognized that assessment of the feasibility of any particular proposed prebiotic cycle must depend on arguments about chemical plausibility, rather than on a decision about logical possibility . . . few would believe that any assembly of minerals on the primitive Earth is likely to have promoted these syntheses in significant yield . . . . Why should one believe that an ensemble of minerals that are capable of catalyzing each of the many steps of [[for instance] the reverse citric acid cycle was present anywhere on the primitive Earth [[8], or that the cycle mysteriously organized itself topographically on a metal sulfide surface [[6]? . . . Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own . . . . The prebiotic syntheses that have been investigated experimentally almost always lead to the formation of complex mixtures. Proposed polymer replication schemes are unlikely to succeed except with reasonably pure input monomers. No solution of the origin-of-life problem will be possible until the gap between the two kinds of chemistry is closed. Simplification of product mixtures through the self-organization of organic reaction sequences, whether cyclic or not, would help enormously, as would the discovery of very simple replicating polymers. However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly” hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help.kairosfocus
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
KF #187, As I already explained, if you deny the compensation argument, you are denying the second law itself. Not a smart move.keith s
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
Box #184, The second law is a physical law, not a force. Forces can be overcome, but physical laws cannot.keith s
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
DNA-J you have resorted to namecalling and evasions of the core issues. That speaks volumes. If you doubt the reali6ty of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information at this stage, I suggest you read this and first ponder the reality of a 6500 C3 fishing reel and its main gear. Then move on to other cases in point. If you will not acknowledge things like that, then your resort to nonsense rhetoric and shool-yard level name-calling is revealing of a fundamentally unserious and unscientific mentality. That is telling, sadly telling. KFkairosfocus
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
niwrad, The second law forbids only uncompensated local decreases in entropy. Can you name a single OOL researcher who is proposing such decreases?keith s
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
niwrad: I was speaking of in-the-wild spontaneous “decreases in entropy” and you reply with human interventions. The manufacture of the car results in an *increase* in overall entropy. The local decrease in entropy, primarily through the manufacture of the material components of the car, are artificial, so not sure why you are asking about "in-the-wild". niwrad: *All* naturalistic-OOL evolutionist proponents do propose hypotheses of spontaneous organization that violate the second law because nature spontaneously goes towards disorganization. Repeating your claim is not an argument. There's nothing in the 2nd law of thermodynamics that prevents local decreases in thermodynamic entropy. It happens all the time in non-organic nature! Which has more thermodynamic entropy; a human brain or a like mass of diamonds?Zachriel
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
Kf, I am familiar with the equations, thank you. I was asking in order to see if you were willing to use them to calculate the thermal equivalent (expressed in terms of melting water) of the information content of the human genome. It's a simple application of Landauer, but you seem unwilling or unable to actually do the calculation. It's a FIASCO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2eUopy9sd8DNA_Jock
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
KS, cf 185 above i/l/o 169 above, on why compensation arguments are -- in sharp short words -- pat answer cop outs. KFkairosfocus
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
Keith
Is the second law a problem for OOL? No one is proposing OOL hypotheses that violate the second law.
No one? *All* naturalistic-OOL evolutionist proponents do propose hypotheses of spontaneous organization that violate the second law because nature spontaneously goes towards disorganization.niwrad
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
D, did you look at my always linked app a and the onward discussion in Chs 7 - 9 of TMLO? There are more than enough first level calcs there. Besides, the pivotal issue is that there is a clear informational foundation behind entropy and linked phenomena, linked to statistics of microstates. From that we move to the pivotal issue as s is additive. That issue is to account for organisation and its linked information. The mere influx of raw energy is not sufficient to address this, in fact -- and that is where all this came in -- it will increase the number of ways energy and mass can be arranged at micro level, leading to increased entropy due to relative weights of clusters of microstates. That is already evident from Clausius' first context for deducing the 2nd law as we look at dQ moving between "closed" entities A and B due to temp differences. A warmed, lightning hit pond or the like or a deep sea volcano vent etc are energy importing. Energy flux (even with inflows and outflows) needs to be coupled to organised frameworks for it to generate useful constructive work . . . work that is required for the sort of organisation that is relevant to cell based life systems, and you cannot get away with hoping that diffusion etc will do the work for free because of the issue of weights of clusters of microstates. Hence this thought exercise. And in particular, when relevant frameworks are FSCO/I rich, hoping that they can be accounted for on the equivalent of diffusion etc is again confronted by the needle in haystack search challenge in relevant config spaces. Just 500 bits worth of organisation swamps out the atomic and temporal resources of our sol system. 10^57 atoms, 10^17 s and 10^14 configs per second (a fast chem rxn rate) for the config space of 500 bits, will sample as one straw to a cubical haystack comparably thick as our galactic disk, which patently will fail at searches for narrow clusters of organised states. Which is exactly what FSCO/I is about. Go up to 1,000 bits, the atomic-temporal resources of the observed cosmos and the straw to stack ratio requires a cubical stack that would be so large that our observed cosmos would be a small blob by comparison. Think here, proteins, D/RNA sequences, the protein synthesis system. Well beyond 125 bytes of organised complexity. Functionally specific, complex, organised nano-molecular technologies. Oh that warm pond is an open system does not begin to address the challenge. It's a pat answer cop out by those who should know a lot better. KF PS: Recall, work is forced, ordered motion. To get constructive work, the forced motion and what is moved have to be organised relevant to forming appropriate functionallly specific patterns, as we are familiar with from say building a house.kairosfocus
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Keith: Absolutely not. The second law, and the law of gravity, cannot be overcome. They’re laws, after all. Think about it.
I have thought about it: Suppose there are two forces: A and B; and an object: C. A 'wants' C to go down. B wants C to go up. A is a stronger force than B - in this context. Question: what will happen? If one force 'wins' what happened to the other force? Is it "violated", "balanced", "overcome". "over-powered" or something else? Let me know which term is acceptable for you, because things are getting boring.Box
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
Me:
Tell me where are your “decreases in entropy” making car’s organization increases.
Zachriel:
Both the manufacture of the car, and its eventually rusting away, result in an *increase* in overall thermodynamic entropy.
Non-answer. I was speaking of in-the-wild spontaneous “decreases in entropy” and you reply with human interventions.niwrad
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
Both Eric and KF have expressed skepticism regarding the compensation argument, so this comment from 2013 is worth reposting:
CS3, The compensation argument is just a restatement of the entropy equation for open systems, which in turn is a direct consequence of the second law. When Granville argues against the compensation argument, he is unknowingly arguing against the second law. If you want to join him in his folly, be my guest. It’s quite funny, actually. Granville sets out to show that evolution violates the second law, but he ends up inadvertently contradicting the second law himself! Besides incorrectly disputing the compensation argument, Granville also mangles his statement of it:
Anyone who has made such an argument is familiar with the standard reply: the Earth is not an isolated system, it receives energy from the sun, and entropy can decrease in a non-isolated system, as long as it is “compensated” somehow by a comparable or greater increase outside the system.
That is wrong, of course. The compensation argument, being a restatement of the entropy equation for open systems, requires a net export of entropy across the boundary of the system. An arbitrary increase in entropy in some arbitrary location outside the system won’t suffice. The entropy equation for an open system merely says that if the entropy of an open system decreases by a certain amount, then the net entropy exported from the system exceeds the entropy produced within the system itself by the same amount. That’s it. Granville is unhappy that it doesn’t do more than this. His frustration is palpable:
One can still argue that it only seems extremely improbable, but really isn’t, that under the right conditions, the influx of stellar energy into a planet could cause atoms to rearrange themselves into computers and laser printers and the Internet. But one would think that at least this would be considered an open question, and those who argue that it really is extremely improbable, and thus contrary to the basic principle underlying the second law of thermodynamics, would be given a measure of respect, and taken seriously by their colleagues, but we aren’t.
He is effectively saying that the compensation argument allows for entropy reductions on Earth, and evolution is an example of an entropy reduction; but he thinks evolution is improbable, so the compensation argument must be invalid. A total non-sequitur. Granville wants the second law to rule out evolution, but all it does is rule out violations of the second law. His skepticism about sunlight producing computers over the long haul is just your standard ID skepticism about evolution. The second law has nothing to do with it, because the second law is not violated by it.
keith s
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Box,
Must the second law be “balanced” or “overcome” for OOL to be viable? Of course.
Absolutely not. The second law, and the law of gravity, cannot be overcome. They're laws, after all. Think about it.keith s
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Keith: Is the second law a problem for OOL? No one is proposing OOL hypotheses that violate the second law.
Indeed no one. Why mention it at all? Must the second law be “balanced” or “overcome” for OOL to be viable? Of course. Just as with gravitation and flying a "sufficient force working in the opposite direction" is necessary to explain the organizational order we see.Box
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
niwrad: Tell me where are your “decreases in entropy” making car’s organization increases. Both the manufacture of the car, and its eventually rusting away, result in an *increase* in overall thermodynamic entropy.Zachriel
March 13, 2015
March
03
Mar
13
13
2015
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 10

Leave a Reply