Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Second Law: In Force Everywhere But Nowhere?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I hope our materialist friends will help us with this one.

As I understand their argument, entropy is not an obstacle to blind watchmaker evolution, because entropy applies absolutely only in a “closed system,” and the earth is not a closed system because it receives electromagnetic radiation from space.

Fair enough. But it seems to me that under that definition of “closed system” only the universe as a whole is a closed system, because every particular place in the universe receives energy of some kind from some other place. And if that is so, it seems the materialists have painted themselves into a corner in which they must, to remain logically consistent, assert that entropy applies everywhere but no place in particular, which is absurd.

Now this seems like an obvious objection, and if it were valid the “closed system/open system” argument would have never gained any traction to begin with. So I hope someone will clue me in as to what I am missing.

Comments
Mung: If someone is determined to reject a conclusion, he will always find some premise to object to. The issue is, that that implies other commitments or conclusions that may be much more assailable. Sufficient has long since been said to ground an informational view of thermodynamics, and to show why it then becomes quite intelligible as to why generating relevant FSCO/I rich systems such as for OOL, is maximally implausible on the relevant considerations. KFkairosfocus
August 3, 2014
August
08
Aug
3
03
2014
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
Salvador:
I criticize OOL, but I not because of the 2nd law. I prefer to argue rote probability just like 500 fair coins heads. It’s clearer and unassailable.
What's the difference?
The second law of thermodynamics is all about probability. - Granville Sewell
Mung
August 2, 2014
August
08
Aug
2
02
2014
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT
Salvador:
The 2nd law of Thermodynamics is not a obstacle to mindless OOL any more than 2nd law of motion by Newton. This was stated by a recognized pioneer of Intelligent Design, Walter Bradley...
: The Mystery of Life's Origin : Reassessing Current Theories : Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen : Lewis and Stanley : 1984 : Chapter 7 : Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life ...a mechanism of coupling the energy flow to the organizing work is unknown for prebiological systems.
Mung
August 1, 2014
August
08
Aug
1
01
2014
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
Salvador:
The 2nd law of Thermodynamics is not a obstacle to mindless OOL…
: Biological Information : New Perspectives : 1.3.2. : Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems : Andy C. McIntosh ...it is the thesis of this paper that the message/information itself is sitting on biochemical molecular bonds which are in a significantly raised free energy state. Understanding the thermodynamics of this machinery shows that it is thermodynamically impossible both to form such machinery (abiogenesis) without intelligence, and that the laws of thermodynamics prohibit any formation of new machinery which is not there already or latently coded for in the DNA (evolutionary development). - p. 183 At the molecular level, the principles of thermodynamics do not permit the formation of new machinery from that which is already set up or coded for in a particular function performed by the cells of living organisms. There is in fact an 'uphill' gradient in the formation of any of the molecular bonds in the nucleotides and most of the proteins, since they want to pull apart. Consequently there is no natural chemical pathway to form these, rather there is a move away from their formation to equilibrium. - p. 186
Mung
August 1, 2014
August
08
Aug
1
01
2014
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
: Biological Information : New Perspectives : 1.3.1. : Entropy, Evolution and Open Systems : Granville Sewell The second law of thermodynamics is all about probability; it uses probability at the microscopic level to predict macroscopic change. [4] - p. 173 fn 4. In Classical and Modern Physics, Kenneth Ford writes: "There are a variety of ways in which the second law of thermodynamics can be stated., and we have encountered two of them so far: (1) For an isolated system, the direction of spontaneous change is from an arrangement of lesser probability to an arrangement of greater probability. (2) ..."Mung
August 1, 2014
August
08
Aug
1
01
2014
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT
kf:
Mung: I have been busy elsewhere.
That's quite all right sir! As you can probably tell, I have more than enough material to go over to keep me busy. :)Mung
July 31, 2014
July
07
Jul
31
31
2014
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
PPPS: There is of course an al6ternative, the FSCO/I can come about, quite plausibly, by directed, designed, organised configuring work, much as we build a building or manufacture a PC etc. Venter et al, already have pointed ways in which molecular nanotech processes can be brought to bear on the manufacturing challenge.kairosfocus
July 31, 2014
July
07
Jul
31
31
2014
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
PPS: On Darwin's pond, note a molecular scale of up to 10^-9 m is reasonable. A 1 mm cube is [10^6]^3 = 10^18 such, the size of a grain of sand. We have LARGE numbers, and in a liquid, a molecular shuffling process that is random, as reflected in Brownian motion. Chemical interactions are complex, with activation energies, configs, handedness and whatnot. Now, let's set up an ensemble of 1 m^3 Darwin's warm pond vats with any cluster of relevant -- but racemic, monomers in any reasonable concentrations. Add sunlight, O2 concs that are reasonable, UV, lightning, vibrations, winter and summer etc. The distribution of states will be a cross section of the accessible phase space. Use the 10^80 atoms and 10^17 s of the available cosmos that we observe, with all the C, O, N, H etc you want based on cosmological abundance. Why, even, make a sub group look like earths all you want. The result is predictable, there will be nothing relevant to life, by overwhelming impact of the config space to the available materials, regardless of openness and inflows and outflows. The FSCO/I -- islands of function -- config space challenge is that strong.kairosfocus
July 31, 2014
July
07
Jul
31
31
2014
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
PS: While there are disputes, the principle of equiprobability of accessible states in a system of contingent possibilities has always been a useful first approximation, one justified by enormous success. One may then modify based on further info, but should always respect what captures a key aspect of reality as simple as why we hold that tossing a common presumed fair die gives 1/6 probability for any given face. It's all a matter of finding a plausible, reasonable, empirically adequate model. And in physics as well as economics, a model that captures a pivotal aspect, though not everything, has a lot to teach us. (Right now, on the day job so to speak, modified Solow production functions have much to say to long term tech-driven growth waves, i.e. I'se got Kondratieff AND long term product life cycle diffusion of innovation on the mind. Which is of course a stochastic process with a memory, a constrained hill climb with survival of the fittest . . . and with micro and macro level design everywhere.)kairosfocus
July 31, 2014
July
07
Jul
31
31
2014
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT
Mung: I have been busy elsewhere. While the considerations involved can be dressed up with the usual apparatus and walks across/trajectories in a phase space or population of possibilities are important [as are issues on whether probabilities are stable, or whether processes depend on memory of past states or forget them . . . in wending across a sea of non-function to find an isolated shore of function, there is no basis for cumulative paths, hill climbing presumes already being on an island of function . . . ], the matter in the end is essentially simple. We observe at lab scale, and can characterise system state satisfactorily for various purposes at that level. Consistent with that, there is a large number of what Brillouin more accurately termed ultramicroscopic possibilities, the microstates. The greater the degree of freedom at that level, the less constrained the state, and the greater the number of ways to get into or be in it. Hence, time's arrow. Entropy, first identified at macro-level, turns out to be characterisable in terms of the gap between macro and specific micro state, in info terms. And, there are two key ways to get there: probability calcs and summations with log probabilities duly weighted, and going through what a bit is. That is as a bit answers to state in a Y/N contingency, the string length [on average] to specify microstate starting from macrostate is effectively the same result. Relevance to ID is, that life is observable and functionally highly constrained relative to a pond full of molecular precursors. To the point where spontaneous transition from Darwin's pond to living form without programmed, complex configuring work, is effectively utterly implausible on the scope of the observed cosmos. And confident assertions that boil down to anything can happen when you can inject energy and matter into a system and allow it to exhaust energy and matter, frankly are a dodge. If you add energy and molecules to a pond, you add exponentially to the string length to specify its microstate, which bumps up the odds of moving to bulk, dominating clusters of states, which will be non-functional relative to the desired gated, encapsulated, metabolising automaton with coded von Neumann self replicating facility. The only empirically, analytically plausible source for FSCO/I is design, period. That's why, open, closed or isolated system, it is a reliable sign of design. But then, at this stage one is not expecting to persuade those who are willing to throw away first principles of reasoning to hold on to their ideology. By that act, they have removed themselves from the table of rational, evidence and logic informed discourse. One hopes some out there will wake up and realise what they have done. KFkairosfocus
July 31, 2014
July
07
Jul
31
31
2014
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT
I think I love statistical thermodynamics:
As stated in Section 1.1, the aim of statistical thermodynamics is to calculate thermodynamic quantities of macroscopic systems composed of a very large number of microscopic particles. We have started with an isolated system, characterized by a fixed energy E, volume V, and number of particles N (or N if there are c-components). Such a system is of no interest to us. Any measurement or any observation would necessarily violate the condition of isolation of the system. Nevertheless, such a system, or the corresponding ensemble, is the cornerstone of statistical thermodynamics. The reason is perhaps paradoxical: we do not know anything about the distribution of the states of such a system. Therefore, the best guess we can make is that all the states of such a system are equally probable. This was one of our postulates. - Statistical Thermodynamics: With Applications to the Life Sciences
That last sounds suspiciously like the Principle of Insufficient Reason http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PrincipleofInsufficientReason.html Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci: http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2005/10/principle-of-insufficient-reason.html A Rehabilitation of the Principle of Insufficient ReasonMung
July 30, 2014
July
07
Jul
30
30
2014
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
A new scientific theory has been born during the last few years, the theory of information, This theory is based on probability considerations. Once stated in a precise way, it can be used for many fundamental scientific discussions. It enables one to solve the problem of Maxwell's demon and to show a very direct connection between information and entropy. The thermodynamical entropy measures the lack of information about a certain physical system. - Leon Brillouin, 1956 It's ok Salvador, you're only 60 decades behind.Mung
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT
Piotr @ 17:
Eric Anderson: Did anyone say that the origin of life or its evolution was explained by the second law of thermodynamics? Who said so? Where?
Well let's see.
Some people even go a step further, not only answering the question of "How do living organisms avoid decay?" but claiming that the Second Law can explain life. In his book The Second Law, Atkins (1984) writes:
"In Chapter 8 we see also how the Second Law accounts for the emergence of the intricately ordered forms characteristic of life."
Furthermore, in a more recent book, Atkins (2007) says:
The Second Law is one of the all-time great laws of science, for it illuminates why anything, from the cooling of hot matter to the formulation of a thought, happen at all.
and later in the book, he adds:
The Second Law is of central importance...because it provides a foundation for understanding why any change occurs...the acts of literary, artistic, and musical creativity that enhance our culture.
Finally, in both of the above mentioned books, Atkins writes on the Second Law:
"...no other scientific law has contributed more to the liberation of the human spirit than the Second Law of thermodynamics."
All these quotations are very impressively stated, but are totally irrelevant to the Second Law. The Second Law does not provide an explanation for any change, not for the simple expansion of a gas, and certainly not for any change associated with life. - Arieh Ben-Naim. Entropy and the Second Law. p 230
Mung
July 29, 2014
July
07
Jul
29
29
2014
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
Recently came across this book by Manfred Eigen: From Strange Simplicity to Complex Familiarity: A Treatise on Matter, Information, Life and Thought
This book presents a vivid argument for the almost lost idea of a unity of all natural sciences. It starts with the "strange" physics of matter, including particle physics, atomic physics and quantum mechanics, cosmology, relativity and their consequences (Chapter I), and it continues by describing the properties of material systems that are best understood by statistical and phase-space concepts (Chapter II). These lead to entropy and to the classical picture of quantitative information, initially devoid of value and meaning (Chapter III). Finally, "information space" and dynamics within it are introduced as a basis for semantics (Chapter IV), leading to an exploration of life and thought as new problems in physics (Chapter V).
Some quotes from the Prolegomenon: "The focal point of this first volume is the concept of information, which is meant to include both the quantitative and the qualitative (or semantic) aspects of information, thereby providing a link between physics and biology." "The problem I wish to address is a different one: it is that of the design of the unimaginably complex blueprints of the living state that have now been continuously in existence for some 4000 million years. How did this information originate, and how could it eventually bring about structures as complex as the human brain? This question is a special version of an unsolved mathematical problem: how can problems of exponential complexity be solved within polynomial time?" "In this book we are going to see what properties are required in order to endow these systems with information-generating behaviour." "The existene of life, then, is dependent on the existence of conditions for self-organization of information-gathering systems." "...the internal feedback mechanism of selection must include some relationship that brings the idea of purpose onto the physical level of dynamics. The magic word that does this is "information", used here in the sense both of absolute quantity, representing "entropic complexity", and of semantic quality, representing "specified complexity". The latter turns out to be uniquely linked to reproduction. If it is to offer any advantage, specified information must be capable of (1) conservation, (2)proliferation, (3)variation and (4) selection. The common factor that links all these four requirements is error-prone replication. Information - more precisely, semantic information - represents a particular choice from among a tremendous variety of alternative structures with finite lifetime." Design. Specified Complexity. What's next, Irreducible Complexity?Mung
July 28, 2014
July
07
Jul
28
28
2014
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
How do thermodynamically open systems arise within a system that is thermodynamically closed or isolated.Mung
July 28, 2014
July
07
Jul
28
28
2014
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
Salvador:
The Earth is an open system, but we wouldn’t want the entropy of the Earth to escape and go to zero, we’d want the sun giving us entropy as we dump entropy out into cold space.
This makes no sense to me. Are you using the word entropy when you mean heat or energy, or something else?Mung
July 28, 2014
July
07
Jul
28
28
2014
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Salvador:
The 2nd law of Thermodynamics is not a obstacle to mindless OOL
Then what is? What could be?Mung
July 27, 2014
July
07
Jul
27
27
2014
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT
Salvador:
The 2nd law of Thermodynamics is not a obstacle to mindless OOL…
Yet:
Like every other material system, living organisms are subject to the laws of physics and chemistry, and in particular to the laws of thermodynamics. - Information and the Origin of Life. p. 131
D. you don’t know what you’re talking aboutMung
July 27, 2014
July
07
Jul
27
27
2014
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT
Salvador:
The 2nd law of Thermodynamics is not a obstacle to mindless OOL…
Yet:
According to the laws of physical chemistry, a mixture of chemical substances - even when it contains the most complex proteins or nucleic acids - will ultimately follow the second law of thermodynamics and revert to the most probable state of chemical equilibrium ... - Ludwig von Bertalanffy (quoted in Information and the Origin of Life. p. 109
D. you don’t know what you’re talking aboutMung
July 27, 2014
July
07
Jul
27
27
2014
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
Salvador:
The 2nd law of Thermodynamics is not a obstacle to mindless OOL…
Biological Information: New Perspectives 1.3.2 Information and Thermodynamics in Living Systems 1.3.2.2 Biological information storage and retrieval - thermodynamic issues
There are major thermodynamic hurdles in arguing that the emergence of DNA could come about by a - random gathering of the sugar phosphates and nucleotides. - p. 184
Mung
July 27, 2014
July
07
Jul
27
27
2014
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
More recommended reading for Salvador: Statistical Thermodynamics With Applications to the Life Sciences Salvador:
The 2nd law of Thermodynamics is not a obstacle to mindless OOL...
Please reconsider.Mung
July 27, 2014
July
07
Jul
27
27
2014
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
Salvador:
So spell it out. What probability are you talking about: A. probability of an object being alive B. probability of an finding an object in a particular energy microstate C. probability of something else D. you don’t know what probability you’re talking about If your answer is “C”, then specify probability you are talking about.
Salvador, allow me to rephrase your post a couple times: S2:
So spell it out. What entropy are you talking about: A. entropy of an object being alive B. entropy of an finding an object in a particular energy microstate C. entropy of something else D. you don’t know what entropy you’re talking about If your answer is “C”, then specify entropy you are talking about.
S3:
So spell it out. What information are you talking about: A. information of an object being alive B. information of an finding an object in a particular energy microstate C. information of something else D. you don’t know what information you’re talking about If your answer is “C”, then specify information you are talking about.
Once again, I invite you to quote me. What was it that I said that got you all bent out of shape? And why?Mung
July 27, 2014
July
07
Jul
27
27
2014
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
Salvador:
Why are you avoiding answering a simple question?
Because I am trying to teach you something. *gasp* Try asking questions that only require a "yes or no" answer.Mung
July 27, 2014
July
07
Jul
27
27
2014
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
kf:
Once zones of interest, even if numerous, are rare in the config spaces of relevant scale, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity are hopeless empirical approaches.
Hi kf, If you have Yockey's Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life check out Chapter 2, Section 4.1., especially his observations about expr 4.1 and expr 4.7. I'm in particular interested in whether you see any connexion between the Shannon-McMillan-Breiman Theorem and your observations in @133.Mung
July 27, 2014
July
07
Jul
27
27
2014
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT
kairosfocus:
I have already outlined to you that the entropy metric for an entity reducible to a config space is a case of the entropy being a measure of the chain of un-answered y/n questions to specify microstate given lab-observable macrostate and state characterising variables. This gives us a result in effect as a measure of missing info or equivalently degrees of microscopic freedom.
: Information Theory : Robert B. Ash : Dover Reprint, 1990 : 1.3. Three interpretations of the uncertainty function An inspection of the form of the uncertainty function reveals...a weighted average of the numbers...where the weights are the probabilities of the various values of X. - p. 12 The essential content of the "noiseless coding theorem," to be proved in Chapter 2, is that the average number of "yes or no" questions needed to specify the value of X can never be less than the uncertainty of X. - p. 13 Thus we may state the second interpretation of the uncertainty measure: H(X) = the minimum average number of "yes or no" questions required to determine the result of one observation of X. - p. 14Mung
July 27, 2014
July
07
Jul
27
27
2014
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
SalC: Actually, the demand for probability calculations and numbers is significantly misplaced. Instead, we should go back to the underlying phase space thinking, which we can simplify to configuration spaces. WLOG, take 500 ordinary H/T coins. The space of possible configs is 2^500 ~ 3.27*10^150. For 1,000, that would be 1.07 * 10^301. For the former, give each of the 10^57 atoms of our solar system a tray of 500 coins, and allow a toss and inspect every 10^-14s, a rate linked to the fastest chemical interactions. At that rate, across a reasonable solar system lifespan, 10^17 s, we see that we can sample the equivalent of 1 straw to a cubical haystack 1,000 LY on the side. Even were such a stack superposed on our galactic neighbourhood, with all the thousands of stars implied, a sample of that scope with all but certainty would pick the overwhelming bulk, straw. Too much haystack, too few needles, too little search opportunity. For 1,000 bits, the resources of the cosmos would be utterly overwhelmed and the haystack equivalent would utterly dwarf the 90 bn LY wide observed cosmos. Now, this is WLOG, as any nodes and arcs functional pattern can be reduced to a set of coded strings, cf. AutoCAD etc. A search of a config space can be reduced to a picking rrom the power set, which brings in why lucky searches are in an even bigger space. Once zones of interest, even if numerous, are rare in the config spaces of relevant scale, blind chance and/or mechanical necessity are hopeless empirical approaches. It is only by judicious management of searches in well behaved beighbourhoods of optima -- islands of function -- that evolutionary algorithms make progress. I have already outlined to you that the entropy metric for an entity reducible to a config space is a case of the entropy being a measure of the chain of un-answered y/n questions to specify microstate given lab-observable macrostate and state characterising variables. This gives us a result in effect as a measure of missing info or equivalently degrees of microscopic freedom. In a Darwin's pond or the like, molecular clusters face a config space challenge, and to arrive at a gated, encapsulated metabolic entity with code based von Neumann self replicator facility is a worse needle in haystack search than those listed. The logic behind 2LOT is highly relevant to both OOL and origin of body plans by blind mechanisms. And so also is information theory by the logic just given. Where, chaining Y/N Q's and specifying bit chains thereby was materially similar to part of the way Shannon reasoned about information. This does not directly yield a probability metric, but it is related. So, I have for years highlighted config spaces, search challenge and the link to info in light of the very obvious point that when a complex functionally specific entity requires a relatively small and isolated cluster of configs to work, that is an island of function. Also, as you will easily see from the Clausius formulation, when d'q is transferred from A to B because of temp difference, B's entropy rises precisely as the number of ways of arranging mass and energy at micro level has risen. Thence, we observe that a Darwin pond would be energy importing. Without coupling of energy to mechanisms that do shaft work, the most credible result is more disorder through increased randomness. Yes, hurricanes etc are spontaneously forming heat engines, but we are discussing FSCO/I rich entities more akin to a fanjet engine than a cyclone. The living cell points to design based on FSCO/I and 2LOT linked issues are implicit and inextricably involved in why. I therefore invite us to return focus to the main point. KFkairosfocus
July 26, 2014
July
07
Jul
26
26
2014
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
So spell it out. What probability are you talking about: A. probability of an object being alive B. probability of an finding an object in a particular energy microstate C. probability of something else D. you don’t know what probability you’re talking about If your answer is “C”, then specify probability you are talking about. Why are you avoiding answering a simple question? A,B,C or D?scordova
July 25, 2014
July
07
Jul
25
25
2014
10:35 PM
10
10
35
PM
PDT
Salvador, have you been reading my posts in this thread? Are you ignoring the posts by kairosfocus?Mung
July 25, 2014
July
07
Jul
25
25
2014
10:16 PM
10
10
16
PM
PDT
Salvador:
If you say “thermodynamic probability”, you better define what you think that means, because it should mean the probability of some “thing” being true, and what is that “thing”.
See my post @ 124.Mung
July 25, 2014
July
07
Jul
25
25
2014
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT
Salvador:
I think no one is understanding how to represent what you said.
Oh, so now it was all just a misunderstanding. ok, I'm willing to forgive and forget. After all, it's the Catholic thing to do. Salvador:
So what probability are you talking about when you wrote this:
Have you been reading my posts in this thread? I followed up my initial statement with numerous additional posts. I would have thought there was no room for misunderstanding. Would you like me to list them all for you? Salvador:
You’re only being asked to clarify your own statements, because as your statement stands, it’s meaningless and irrelevant to the probability of life.
Sal, even the casual reader can see that you weren't asking me to clarify anything. Let's not pretend, shall we? We're both adults. If what I said was irrelevant, why didn't you make that claim/argument initially? And why the hypocrisy? I have repeatedly asked you to clarify comments you've made, and your response is to delete my posts. Salvador:
If you’re talking about the probability of thermodynamic energy microstate, that is irrelevant to the probability of life.
The attentive reader will notice the self-contradiction. Salvador @8:
The 2nd law of Thermodynamics is not a obstacle to mindless OOL.
By which you must mean that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is irrelevant to the Origin of Life. Now which of us needs to "clarify" our position?Mung
July 25, 2014
July
07
Jul
25
25
2014
10:09 PM
10
10
09
PM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply