The Second Law: In Force Everywhere But Nowhere?

_{Barry Arrington

July 13, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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, yes. Relative statistical weight of clusters of accessible microstates is viewed -- and often termed -- as thermodynamic probability, and high entropy corresponds to high probability when something is not otherwise constraining the system from going there. That is the message of Boltzmann's famous S = k ln W expression. W being a count of numbers of ways energy and mass can be arranged at micro levels consistent with the overall macroscopic state, and k being in effect a constant that converts from logs of a count to an energy related measure, using Joules per Kelvin in SI units . . . 1.38 * 10^-23 J/K . A log of ways metric is obviously rather close to a log or probability metric, i.e. an info metric. That is the line of thoughts developed elsewhere, though the formulation used is based on Gibbs' more general work, S = - k* sum of pi ln pi, which very directly corresponds to the Shannon entropy metric which is average info per symbol. In this case, the entropy is in effect measuring average missing info to specify microstate (specific energy and mass distribution) under a given macrostate, which is often presented in terms of being "degree of freedom." Freedom to vary under a condition rather patently corresponds to degree of uncertainty. High entropy corresponds to high uncertainty about specific microstate, and a tightly constrained state will be of low entropy. Cf. my longstanding discussion in my always linked through my handle sect a here, and app 1 here. KFkairosfocus_{July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

Speaking of Thaxton et al.
There is another way to view entropy. The entropy of a system is a measure of the probability of a given arrangement of mass and energy within it. A statistical thermodynamic approach can be used to further quantify the system entropy. High entropy corresponds to high probability (p. 116)
Mung_{July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

Will thermodynamic entropy ever be described in log base 2 Shannon units instead of natural log based Joules/Kelvin?
It's already been done. Thus my comment @35.Mung_{July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

KF asked: Have you ever read old books that talk in terms of Normals not Moles, for example? Electron volts, Angstroms, older radiation units such as Curies and Rads, etc? KF
HA! Anything beyond SI units causes panic for me. Even Thaxton was using (gasp) ergs! Electron volts is still used, it will probably always be used when dealing with electrons or subatomic particles... When taking aerospace engineering classes, so much of the Aerospace culture was steeped in English units -- feet, lbs, foot pounds, farenheit, etc. I gagged having to deal with all the conversions. Some non-SI persistence is likely. In the USA, temperature will be continue to be measured in Farenheit. As far as aviation, feet will probably be continued for describing altitude, not meters! Speed will continue to be measured in Knots! HA! Will thermodynamic entropy ever be described in log base 2 Shannon units instead of natural log based Joules/Kelvin? :-)scordova_{July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

I've posted a follow up discussion on a related topic. I've been ambivalent to the LCI (Law Conservation of Information) based on some of the ideas I've restated this new thread. It is an issue I raised with Bill Dembski on the old ISCID forum almost 10 years ago. The examples I put forward have still been a matter of irresolution in the ID community. Even supposing the LCI is true, the examples of increasing Rube Gold complexity in a thermodynamically closed system illustrate the difficulty (if not intractability) of applying LCI in practice for certain situations. https://uncommondescent.com/computer-science/rube-goldberg-complexity-increase-in-thermodynamically-closed-systems/ I occasionally offer caution in using certain ID arguments which go beyond simple. When I teach ID, I emphasize KISS (Keep it Simple Soldier), thermodynamics and LCI and information theory are very advanced topics -- tread with caution. As I said, I prefer basic probability and Humpty Dumpty illustrations. They get the point across forcefully.scordova_{July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
10:02 AM
10
10
02
AM
PDT}

SalC: you have stated one convention -- as it is the one I prefer. There is another that tends to be used by engineers that uses closed much as we mean by isolated. Remember there is even another convention for work such that the equation for the 1st law changes its sign. 30 years ago, the older terminology was still common in text books etc. TMLO reflects that older convention -- those folks would have likely studied in the 1960's when the SI system even was not firmly established. Have you ever read old books that talk in terms of Normals not Moles, for example? Electron volts, Angstroms, older radiation units such as Curies and Rads, etc? KFkairosfocus_{July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT}

Piotr:
Incidentally, there’s no way to circumvent thermodynamics even if an intelligence takes part in the process. Intelligent beings are not exempted from the laws of physics. Intelligence can’t simply “decrease entropy” just like that without paying the thermodynamic bill.
Read #44.Eric Anderson_{July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

From http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/nsc_111/thermo2.html
Open systems Open systems can exchange both matter and energy with an outside system. They are portions of larger systems and in intimate contact with the larger system. Your body is an open system. Closed systems Closed systems exchange energy but not matter with an outside system. Though they are typically portions of larger systems, they are not in complete contact. The Earth is essentially a closed system; it obtains lots of energy from the Sun but the exchange of matter with the outside is almost zero. Isolated systems Isolated systems can exchange neither energy nor matter with an outside system. While they may be portions of larger systems, they do not communicate with the outside in any way. The physical universe is an isolated system; a closed thermos bottle is essentially an isolated system (though its insulation is not perfect).
So the Earth is a closed system (approximately). The real question is whether it is at equilibrium, and the answer is "NO", not the least of the reasons is we have intelligent agents living on the Earth that can take the closed system energy flow and convert it into construction of new intelligently designed structures like cities and airplanes. Again, it is questionable that materialist argue for open systems in the first place, since a system being closed doesn't not in and of itself preclude change! Is it possible for such a closed system not at equilibrium to increase the amount of physical design even without a conscious intelligence? I'd say "yes" if is front loaded (a form of ID). I gave an example of intelligently designed front-loaded evolution in a thermodynamically closed system here: Paradox in Calculating CSI numbers for 2000 coins. The analogy is extensible to robots making more integratively complex robots than themselves (this can be done, just try it with software to see why!). Is it possible for a non-front loaded (not intelligently designed) closed system to spontaneously increase the amount of complex physical design? I'd say "NO" for reasons similar to the OOL problem.scordova_{July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Piotr @50: Seriously? You know exactly what Sewell is saying. "In the absence of X" is a common type of phrasing in the English language. Let's address the real issues instead of nitpicking someone's phrase -- a phrase which anyone who isn't trying to be a hyperskeptic would easily understand.Eric Anderson_{July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Mung wrote: Salvador:
When the term closed system is used in discussion of OOL, it means closed and near equilibrium.
That’s just silly. Eric, you’re too kind.
What I wrote was in reference to the section in Thaxton, Bradley, Olsen's book Mystery of Life's Origin starting at page 118. That book is the founding book along with Denton's book, for the modern ID movement. You're wrong, Mung.scordova_{July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

'coincidently' TED just loaded this video yesterday: David Chalmers: How do you explain consciousness? - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhRhtFFhNzQ "There are no coincidences in God's world." Anonymousbornagain77_{July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

Piotr, I when you say that,,,
Intelligent beings are not exempted from the laws of physics.
I suppose what you REALLY want to say is that 'intelligence' is an emergent property of a material basis. But you are sorely vexed to prove that intelligence, and consciousness in particular, (even with a brain that is shown to have more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth), can arise from a material basis. You simply have no evidence that it is possible for material to give rise to self awareness (i.e. consciousness). It is called the 'hard problem' of consciousness.
The Hard Problem (Of Consciousness) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRG1fA_DQ9s 'But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can't even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don't even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.' David Barash - Materialist/Atheist Darwinian Psychologist David Chalmers on Consciousness - (Philosophical zombies and the hard problem of consciousness) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK1Yo6VbRoo
But the Theist is not vexed in such a way as the materialist is in giving an explanation for the 'hard problem', because the Theist presupposes consciousness to be primary and matter to be derivative:
“No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Max Planck (1858–1947), the originator of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931
And Planck has been empirically vindicated in spades by advances in quantum mechanics. Due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit Colossians 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Of related interest in this discussion of entropy, and 'resurrection' from death, it is very interesting to note that Special Relativity and General Relativity have two very different ‘qualities of entropy' associated with them. In particular, Black Holes are found to be ‘timeless’ singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order, such as the extreme (1 in 10^10^123) order we see at the creation event of the Big Bang.
Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe Roger Penrose – How Special Was The Big Bang? “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.” “Einstein’s equation predicts that, as the astronaut reaches the singularity (of the black-hole), the tidal forces grow infinitely strong, and their chaotic oscillations become infinitely rapid. The astronaut dies and the atoms which his body is made become infinitely and chaotically distorted and mixed-and then, at the moment when everything becomes infinite (the tidal strengths, the oscillation frequencies, the distortions, and the mixing), spacetime ceases to exist.” Kip S. Thorne – “Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy” pg. 476
Needless to say, the implications of this ‘eternity of destruction’ should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of the ‘spiritually minded’ persuasion! In light of this dilemma that the two very different 'entropies' present to us spiritually minded people, and the fact that Gravity is, in so far as we can tell, completely incompatible with Quantum Mechanics,,,
A Capella Science – Bohemian Gravity! – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rjbtsX7twc
,,,in light of this dilemma, it is interesting to point out a subtle nuance on the Shroud of Turin. Namely that Gravity was overcome in the resurrection event of Christ:
Particle Radiation from the Body – July 2012 – M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images. https://docs.google.com/document/d/19tGkwrdg6cu5mH-RmlKxHv5KPMOL49qEU8MLGL6ojHU/edit A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? by Chuck Missler Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. - pre khouse THE EVENT HORIZON (Space-Time Singularity) OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN. – Isabel Piczek – Particle Physicist Excerpt: We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox. http://shroud3d.com/findings/isabel-piczek-image-formation
Moreover, as would be expected if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics-Special Relativity (QED) were truly unified in the resurrection of Christ from death, the image on the shroud is found to be formed by a quantum process. The image was not formed by a ‘classical’ process:
The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008 Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril. http://cab.unime.it/journals/index.php/AAPP/article/view/C1A0802004/271 “It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique. It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed. The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was “lifted cleanly” from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state.” Kevin Moran – optical engineer Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011 Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists. However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax. Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic. “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html
I consider the preceding ‘quantum’ nuance on the Shroud of Turin to be a subtle, but powerful, evidence substantiating Christ’s primary claim as to being our Savior from sin, death, and hell:
John 8:23-24 But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am he, you will indeed die in your sins. Matthew 10:28 “Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
bornagain77_{July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

BA77 Nope, you can't outsmart thermodynamics. The formulation "to convert information into energy" is misleading if it makes you think that energy is somehow "created" out of nothing by non-material information. The experimenters used the measurement process itself to transport energy, and to gain an excess of free energy in comparison with the conventional limitations of the second law, but since information is not "bodiless" or cost-free, the total system violated no known laws. Here is a quotation from the original article by Masaki Sano and his team (Nature Physics 6, 2010, p. 990):
As the energy converted from information is compensated for by the demon's energy cost to manipulate information [2-4], the second law of thermodynamics is not violated when the total system including both the particle and demon is considered. In our system, the demon consists of macroscopic devices such as computers; the microscopic device gains energy at the expense of the energy consumption of a macroscopic device.
Piotr_{July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

Piotr: Have you ever seen something refined from the dust of the earth, then made into components then assembled into an FSCO/I rich entity? Observe, again, the vat thought exercise above. And no-one anywhere said or implied that in our world work is got thermodynamically "free." Heat engines and energy conversion devices invariably carefully couple an energy source to a conversion system and by one means or other exhaust wastes. In the course of the wider process a heat reservoir will be involved -- start with good old Sol at 5700K -- and at the other end heat will be dissipated to a sink, typically ambient environment at about 300 K. Even, a windmill is like that. The inflow wind comes in the end from atmospheric convection cells, and those from solar radiation from sol. The Betz limit is set by a need to exhaust fluid to keep turning, 59.3% of air flow kinetic energy. Steam turbines get around that by using condensation, but that is an obvious thermal process. If you have ever bathed in the hot spot created by a power plant's heat exhaust to a water body, you know where that is going. Heat engines, patently, lie behind Boeing's assembly lines and the heat flows net add to cosmic entropy where also Boeing's factories are open systems but heat flows as such don't explain the 747, there is organised design based work involved. The basic problem is again showed by the vat challenge, to get FSCO/I for free from molecular motion is faced by the scale of config spaces and the isolation of zones of function. Notice the obvious difference between what molecular motion and planned work can do. As for the idea of scattered molecular etc parts formerly part of a living organism coming back to form one again, the hypothetical raised by Sewell is contrasting Time's arrow with the story commonly presented on OOL and OO body plans by alleged spontaneous processes. Just as with the computer, the life form from a single celled one on up is FSCO/I rich. We need to get to a metabolic automaton with gating integrating a self replication facility. Both aspects of a living organism are overflowing with the same sort of FSCO/I as in a computer. Including, coded strings, execution machines and algorithms. So, with a rhetorical flourish, Sewell presents the challenge of reversing time's arrow in two paralleled cases, in intentionally repetitive phrasing. Phrasing backed by an outline of the underlying statistical reasoning that grounds the second law. Now too, there is another, philosophical side to your remark. Unless you know ahead of time that something like a creation of a cosmos and organisation of planets populated by life by any means is impossible by intelligence, you have no proper right to assert:
there’s no way to circumvent thermodynamics even if an intelligence takes part in the process. Intelligent beings are not exempted from the laws of physics. Intelligence can’t simply “decrease entropy” just like that without paying the thermodynamic bill.
FYI, the Maxwell Demon model shows how intelligence aware of actual state at micro level could in principle extract work thermodynamically free. The usual way around it, is to look for separate processes that go with info acquisition and expression, leading to coupled compensating processes that lead to higher net entropy. But that is based on an entity that is so constrained. If an entity -- say, a creative mind of a different order -- is not so constrained then a different result would obtain. If such a mind is ontologically possible then that is a candidate to explain the origin of a contingent, entropy-bound cosmos. Where, a serious philosophical possibility is that our cosmos is the product of a mind, a necessary being beyond it -- much as that fundy Bible thumping nutter . . . NOT . . . Plato inferred to, 2350 Years ago in The Laws Bk X. Based on the organisation of the cosmos, as we may see from the exchange between the Athenian Stranger and Clenias:
Ath. Then, by Heaven, we have discovered the source of this vain opinion of all those physical investigators; and I would have you examine their arguments with the utmost care, for their impiety is a very serious matter; they not only make a bad and mistaken use of argument, but they lead away the minds of others: that is my opinion of them. Cle. You are right; but I should like to know how this happens. Ath. I fear that the argument may seem singular. Cle. Do not hesitate, Stranger; I see that you are afraid of such a discussion carrying you beyond the limits of legislation. But if there be no other way of showing our agreement in the belief that there are Gods, of whom the law is said now to approve, let us take this way, my good sir. Ath. Then I suppose that I must repeat the singular argument of those who manufacture the soul according to their own impious notions; they affirm that which is the first cause of the generation and destruction of all things, to be not first, but last, and that which is last to be first, and hence they have fallen into error about the true nature of the Gods. Cle. Still I do not understand you. Ath. Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [[ = psuche], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? Cle. Certainly. Ath. Then thought and attention and mind and art and law will be prior to that which is hard and soft and heavy and light; and the great and primitive works and actions will be works of art; they will be the first, and after them will come nature and works of nature, which however is a wrong term for men to apply to them; these will follow, and will be under the government of art and mind. Cle. But why is the word "nature" wrong? Ath. Because those who use the term mean to say that nature is the first creative power; but if the soul turn out to be the primeval element, and not fire or air, then in the truest sense and beyond other things the soul may be said to exist by nature; and this would be true if you proved that the soul is older than the body, but not otherwise. [[ . . . .] Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. [[ . . . .] Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [[ . . . . ] Cle. You mean to say that the essence which is defined as the self-moved is the same with that which has the name soul? Ath. Yes; and if this is true, do we still maintain that there is anything wanting in the proof that the soul is the first origin and moving power of all that is, or has become, or will be, and their contraries, when she has been clearly shown to be the source of change and motion in all things? Cle. Certainly not; the soul as being the source of motion, has been most satisfactorily shown to be the oldest of all things. Ath. And is not that motion which is produced in another, by reason of another, but never has any self-moving power at all, being in truth the change of an inanimate body, to be reckoned second, or by any lower number which you may prefer? Cle. Exactly. Ath. Then we are right, and speak the most perfect and absolute truth, when we say that the soul is prior to the body, and that the body is second and comes afterwards, and is born to obey the soul, which is the ruler? [[ . . . . ] Ath. If, my friend, we say that the whole path and movement of heaven, and of all that is therein, is by nature akin to the movement and revolution and calculation of mind, and proceeds by kindred laws, then, as is plain, we must say that the best soul takes care of the world and guides it along the good path. [[Plato here explicitly sets up an inference to design (by a good soul) from the intelligible order of the cosmos.]
We ought not to beg big metaphysical questions in our physics, That is one reason why I learned to deeply respect my old Sears thermodynamics text, as it carefully pointed out that it is disputable that the observed cosmos is an isolated system. KFkairosfocus_{July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
03:58 AM
3
03
58
AM
PDT}

Piotr you state
No, intelligence doesn’t reverse death and subsequent decay, as far as I’m aware.,,, Intelligent beings are not exempted from the laws of physics.
Funny that every time you write a single sentence of functional information on this blog you are 'intelligently' doing something that the laws of physics are grossly incapable of doing, i.e. creating information. But more to the point that is being discussed, it is shown that,,,
Maxwell's demon demonstration (knowledge of a particle's position) turns information into energy - November 2010 Excerpt: Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a "spiral-staircase-like" potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-maxwell-demon-energy.html Demonic device converts information to energy - 2010 Excerpt: "This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content," says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. "This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale," says Jarzynski. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=demonic-device-converts-inform “It is CSI (Complex Specified Information) that enables Maxwell’s demon to outsmart a thermodynamic system tending toward thermal equilibrium” William Dembki Intelligent Design, pg. 159
bornagain77_{July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT}

KF:
he points out that death and subsequent decay are thermodynamically expected, and it would take intelligence to reverse this in light of the balance of possibilities.
No, intelligence doesn't reverse death and subsequent decay, as far as I'm aware. So why does Sewell say "in the absence of intelligence" when it would be more accurate to say "even with the help of intelligence"? I suppose he wants to insinuate that death and subsequent decay could be reversed if an intelligence were involved, i.e. that the resurrection of a living organism from "simple organic and inorganic compounds" is technically possible for an intelligent agent. Does Sewell suggest how this could be done? Incidentally, there's no way to circumvent thermodynamics even if an intelligence takes part in the process. Intelligent beings are not exempted from the laws of physics. Intelligence can't simply "decrease entropy" just like that without paying the thermodynamic bill.Piotr_{July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PDT}

Piotr: he points out that death and subsequent decay are thermodynamically expected, and it would take intelligence to reverse this in light of the balance of possibilities. Observe his context, again -- which in your case is a serious challenge, on recent track record of equivocation-based side tracking:
. . . The second law is all about probability, it uses probability at the microscopic level to predict macroscopic change: the reason carbon distributes itself more and more uniformly in an insulated solid [--> i.e. diffuses] is, that is what the laws of probability predict when diffusion alone is operative. The reason natural forces may turn a spaceship, or a TV set, or a computer into a pile of rubble but not vice-versa is also probability: of all the possible arrangements atoms could take, only a very small percentage could fly to the moon and back, or receive pictures and sound from the other side of the Earth, or add, subtract, multiply and divide real numbers with high accuracy. The second law of thermodynamics is the reason that computers will degenerate into scrap metal over time, and, in the absence of intelligence, the reverse process will not occur; and it is also the reason that animals, when they die, decay into simple organic and inorganic compounds, and, in the absence of intelligence, the reverse process will not occur.
KFkairosfocus_{July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT}

PPS: The B/W balls example is of course directly related to the spontaneous formation of test strings as this is a 1 bit per ball case. If you will, let us relieve a constraint and pass over to a string of 20 coins, in B/W for H/T. Then we can look at odds to get to text. The FSCO/I threshold comes in at 500 - 1,000 such coins, to be conservative. We can set out a config space for 500 coins, simply line up from BBBBB . . . to WWWWW . . . If we do so, we will see there are now looking at 3.27*10^150 possibilities. If we were to give each of the 10^57 atoms of our solar system a tray of 500 such coins, and to toss and examine somehow every 10^-14 s [about as fast as chem rxns get and certainly generous for organic rxns], then toss for 10^17 s, we would explore a small fraction only of the space of possibilities. One, comparable to picking at random a 1 straw size sample of a cubical haystack 1,000 LY across. Such a sparse, blind sample would be maximally unlikely to pick up rare clusters of special sites -- needles if you will. Or to make this more vivid, superimpose on our galactic neighbourhood, and then pick. By overwhelming odds, the straw sized sample will reliably pick up straw and nothing else. Too much stack and too few needles. That is an excellent reason why FSCO/I is so hard to find spontaneously by blind search. And if you think in terms of oh, we have a lucky search somehow, the search for search space is based on that searches are samples of subsets of a space. So, we see the S4S search being from a space of scale the power set of the 3.27*10^150 possibilities above. That is, 2^ [3.27*10^150]. A blind search in such a space for a good enough search is far far worse than a blind search in the original space. So if you imagine that spontaneously we happen to be in a cosmos so configured that the physics has life written in by happenstance, you are looking at a lone fly onteh wall section swatted by a bullet problem. No matter if elsewhere there are carpeted sections of wall with flied solidly piled up, the local isolation is enough, as Leslie pointed out. That is, as the parameters of our physics give us reason to believe we are at a deeply isolated operating point that enables a life friendly cosmos, we need to find a reasonable explanation for that. So far the only good one -- unpalatable though it obviously is for an establishment orthodoxy wedded to a priori materialism -- is design.kairosfocus_{July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT}

KF (@48), quoting Sewell:
and it is also the reason that animals, when they die, decay into simple organic and inorganic compounds, and, in the absence of intelligence, the reverse process will not occur.
Does he mean that in the presence of intelligence decaying corpses turn back into living animals?Piotr_{July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
01:09 AM
1
01
09
AM
PDT}

PS: Note what Thaxton et al noted in the 1984 TMLO ch 7 before going on to Ch's 8 - 9 which brought the spontaneous formation of proteins and D/RNA into serious question on thermodynamics concerns:
While the maintenance of living systems is easily rationalized in terms of thermodynamics, the origin of such living systems is quite another matter. Though the earth is open to energy flow from the sun, the means of converting this energy into the necessary work to build up living systems from simple precursors remains at present unspecified (see equation 7-17). The “evolution” from biomonomers of to fully functioning cells is the issue. Can one make the incredible jump in energy and organization from raw material and raw energy, apart from some means of directing the energy flow through the system? [--> notice, therefore a system opened up to energy flows] In Chapters 8 and 9 we will consider this question, limiting our discussion to two small but crucial steps in the proposed evolutionary scheme namely, the formation of protein and DNA from their precursors. It is widely agreed that both protein and DNA are essential for living systems and indispensable components of every living cell today.11 Yet they are only produced by living cells. Both types of molecules are much more energy and information rich than the biomonomers from which they form. Can one reasonably predict their occurrence given the necessary biomonomers and an energy source? Has this been verified experimentally? These questions will be considered . . .
Their answers were that the reasonable concentration of such to form would be far below one per planet.kairosfocus_{July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT}

GD (attn SalC): In regards to your 43 above [and SalC I note 8 & 10 above], kindly cf. 20 above. Also cf. this note of almost exactly a year ago based on my longstanding note linked through my handle. Let me clip a key comment by Sewell, which is quite apt but liable to be distorted or misunderstood given the grip the open system argument seems to have on thinking about the matter:
. . . The second law is all about probability, it uses probability at the microscopic level to predict macroscopic change: the reason carbon distributes itself more and more uniformly in an insulated solid [--> i.e. diffuses] is, that is what the laws of probability predict when diffusion alone is operative. The reason natural forces may turn a spaceship, or a TV set, or a computer into a pile of rubble but not vice-versa is also probability: of all the possible arrangements atoms could take, only a very small percentage could fly to the moon and back, or receive pictures and sound from the other side of the Earth, or add, subtract, multiply and divide real numbers with high accuracy. The second law of thermodynamics is the reason that computers will degenerate into scrap metal over time, and, in the absence of intelligence, the reverse process will not occur; and it is also the reason that animals, when they die, decay into simple organic and inorganic compounds, and, in the absence of intelligence, the reverse process will not occur.
We know from direct observation that design is possible, that organised work creating complex, functionally specific and otherwise utterly implausible objects is possible, and that the only empirically observed source of FSCO/I is design. Where, the search space challenge I recently summarised here [note the info-graphic] shows why that is credibly so. Given what Venter et al have been doing, and given the demonstration that molecular nanotech engineering is possible, it is quite plain that at minimum, if an advanced molecular nanotech lab were available, it could engineer OOL and origin of body plans. Thermodynamics does not block that from having happened, no more than it blocks Venter et al from doing what they have been doing. What is really at stake then is not the capability of designers, but whether we are reasonably entitled to infer from the manifestation of FSCO/I to design as most reasonable explanation of the origin of life and body plans. Arrayed against this has been a 150 year old theory of evolution, and suggestions, speculations and models since the 1920's that build on Darwin's little note on possibilities for a warm little pond. Cell based life is chock full of FSCO/I and body plans are likewise chock full of even more. Just on genome length to make the relevant molecular bricks, we are looking at 100 - 1,000 kbits of genetic info for first life based on cells, and at 10 - 100+ mn bits each for major body plans. And the various mechanisms boil down to blind chance and mechanical necessity processes being held to incrementally account for the emergence of life and body plans through spontaneous processes. That is or directly implies a claim that FSCO/I can and does emerge by blind chance and mechanical necessity. But as my second linked above -- note the info-graphic -- points out, there is a major search space challenge to all such claims. One, backed up by the bald fact of observation, that the ONLY source of FSCO/I we have actually -- and routinely [think, posts in this thread] -- seen is design. When we look at the search space picture, we see that this is in fact close to the configuration/phase space type picture used in formulating the statistical undergirding of thermodynamics, and in particular the second law. The reason that there is a strong tendency for entropy to increase is that on examining clusters of accessible microstates consistent with given large scale conditions, there is an overwhelming statistical weight of states that move us towards higher disorganisation, etc. So, if for instance in a toy example of a string of black and white marbles, 10 each on two sides of a partition: || BBBBBBBBBB | WWWWWWWWWW || . . . we were to now allow interactions such that the balls spontaneously can jump sides -- that's an energy barrier to be surmounted -- and rearrange the patterns, we would easily see that there is one way to be 10B + 10 W, but there is a much larger cluster of ways . . . peak . . . to be 5B5W on both sides, or near to that 4B6W,or 6B4W . . . near-peak . . . on the sides; based on numbers of ways to arrange 10 things, 5 each identical etc. The natural state of such a system is to tend towards the clusters with higher numbers of possibilities, as could be seen from considering spending about the same time in each of the possible states and circulating at random. This lends some insight into the notion of increasing disorder etc. So, now when we consider that for FSCO/I to form, particular components in particular orientations must be arranged in a particular nondes-arcs pattern and must be so arranged as to work to fulfill a specific function, we can see why such clusters of states will be rare in the space of possibilities in even a warm little pond. A cubic metre of water would have 10^18 1-micron cells, and the number of ways say 1 mn parts of that size could be distributed throughout is astonishingly large. For such parts to clump and arrange themselves into say a flyable micro-jet by blind forces of molecular agitation -- I deliberately chose a scale that Brownian motion becomes relevant at -- would be far beyond astronomically remote. In short, s_dispersed >> s_clumped >> s_functional Shining sunlight on such a pond, or lighting a fire under it, or blowing breezes on it, or shaking it or the like would make but little difference to the basic search problem. Nor would decanting in say the parts of a micro-submarine etc. What would make a drastic difference would be to send in an army of nanobots with search and organisation programming. Such would find the parts, and arrange them in order then assemble to build the micro jet, much as is done at macro-scale by Boeing etc. That is, intelligent design. But, but, but, cell based life reproduces and so can undergo Darwinian Evolution! First and foremost, not at origin of life the required von Neumann self replicating facility is a big part of what is to be explained. Which, is code based, FSCO/I rich and irreducibly complex. Yes, when such is coupled to a gated, encapsulated, metabolising automaton, it demonstrably can self-replicate, but that rather begs the first question, how we get there in the face of the spontaneous generation challenge in the face of the configurational possibilities for scattered and clumped states. Recall, a flyable microjet is an OBSERVABLE different state at macro-level, the issue is to get to it. A suggestion often made is that there is a simple first replicator that then somehow incrementally tacks on the relevant bits and pieces and functions until we get to cell based life. Too often, presented as practically certain fact. Problem is, first, never observed, mere speculation backed up by lab coat clad evolutionary materialism. Second, as anyone who has build things of any complexity will tell you, complex function depends on specific arrangement of well matched parts. Given the space of possibilities, that is not to be presumed upon, and it is therefore maximally implausible that such an smooth incremental pathway exists. Those who propose such need to demonstrate it, if they wish to be taken seriously. We did not and cannot observe first life forming, so we need to be prudent and explain on known, observed, seen to be adequate causal factors. Secondly, between the rarity of functional incremental improvements, the issue of isolation of island of function in the space of configs, the credible need to cross intervening zones of non-function, the pop genetics of fixing mutations etc etc, the burden of accumulating deleterious changes etc, there is no good reason to hold as practically certain fact that blind chance and mechanical necessity can and did account for body plan level biodiversity beyond. All, connected to the underlying statistical reasoning as outlined. What then accounts for the confidence and firm position that science has given assurance that spontaneous OOL and OO body plans has happened? Locking out the only actually observed source of FSCO/I, derided as not scientific, an unwanted religious intrusion, god of gaps reasoning, etc etc. That is ideological imposition, not cogent inductive reasoning. And, thermodynamic considerations closely tied to what the principles of the second law have to say about the spontaneous formation of FSCO/I through blind chance and mechanical necessity are closely connected. KFkairosfocus_{July 15, 2014
July
07
Jul
15
15
2014
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT}

Sal @42:
The only thing their “open” system is closed to is the possibility of design.
Well said, and priceless. I may steal that one. :)Eric Anderson_{July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT}

Gordon Davisson @43:
And that means that if your argument against evolution depends on claiming that the second law forbids such a decrease… you need to get a new argument.
Quite true. Fortunately none of us are making such an argument. :) In addition, although there might be some kook out there who is making such an argument, but I am not aware of any prominent ID proponent making such an argument. What I do think sometimes happens is that some evolution critics make arguments with less-than-clear precision of terminology, which then allows their opponent to knock down a straw man. There are some sound and rational arguments, or at least doubt-inducing questions, about how alleged evolutionary mechanisms could produce the systems we see, given thermodynamic considerations. Unfortunately, these questions are often deflected with a broad-brush dismissal by people who think the issues are simply related to energy transfer into or out of some arbitrarily-defined "open system."Eric Anderson_{July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT}

Eric,
I understand what you’re saying about the translation aspect. But I’m not sure I would say that thermodynamics are irrelevant.
I accept your correction. The 2nd Law is irrelevant (has no determining role) in the establishment of specific effects from the translation of genetic information.Upright BiPed_{July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

UB @41:
Any system that translates the arrangement of an informational medium into a physical effect must as a matter of physical necessity – in order to function – preserve the natural discontinuity between the arrangement of that medium and its post translation effect. This means that the output of translation is not derived from the input via inexorable law; it is only derivable from the organization of the organic systems that translate information.
Exactly. Indeed, law-like processes are anathema to the creation of information-rich systems. Such natural processes on their own cannot, by definition, produce such systems.
The systems that create life and evolution do not violate the 2nd Law; the 2nd Law is irrelevant to those systems.
I understand what you're saying about the translation aspect. But I'm not sure I would say that thermodynamics are irrelevant. Thermodynamics always hold everywhere and do what they do, including driving toward equilibrium. As a result, systems have to be engineered in a way to temporarily maintain a far-from-equilibrium state. It is kind of like gravity -- when we build an airplane that can lift thousands of feet off of the surface of the Earth, it is not that gravity has become irrelevant, rather that we have used engineering principles and aerodynamics to temporarily counterbalance the effect of gravity. Gravity is still very much operable. Indeed, it is taken into account in the engineering of the airplane. In a similar way, any designed system needs to take into account thermodynamics. A far-from-equilibrium system is still beholden to thermodynamics, but if properly engineered the system can maintain that far-from-equilibrium state for a long time. There are many far-from-equilibrium systems in living organisms, including the information processing systems you mentioned. Thermodynamics, for the most part, are working against such systems. So it is only through carefully coordinated and specified systems and engineering principles that the ordinary effects of thermodynamics are temporarily countered or held at bay in order to create and maintain life. I haven't fully parsed arguments like those put forward by Sewell, but from what I gather, the above is really the point he is trying to make, even if expressed in a way that might confuse some people. Unfortunately, many critics misunderstand the point entirely and then make silly statements about "Earth is an open system" and so forth that don't even address the issues in question. You are right, of course, that living systems don't violate the 2nd law. Nothing does. But they do have to contend with it and, often, have to implement ingenious ways to temporarily counteract its otherwise inexorable march toward lifeless equilibrium.Eric Anderson_{July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

Let me try to go back to Barry Arrington's original question, and answer it as directly as possible: * The second law of thermodynamics applies (as far as we know) to every real physical system. * The isolated-system formulation of the second law does not apply directly to any real physical system. The parts in bold make all the difference. Let me take them in reverse order: Applying the isolated-system formulation indirectly: Even though there are no truly isolated systems, we can consider what would happen if a real process/system/etc were to be embedded in an isolated system, and work out what the consequences would be. For example, suppose someone claims to have invented a gadget that transfers heat from a warmer object to a cooler object, and has no other effects (no waste heat, no batteries running down, etc). If we were to take this system, attach it to two large rocks (or other heat resevoirs) at appropriate temperatures, and isolate those (the gadget and the two rocks), we can calculate that the entropy of that isolated system would decrease. Thus, the existance of such a gadget would imply that violations of this formulation of the second law are possible -- even if it isn't directly violating it right at the moment -- and hence that the second law is wrong. Now, we know (or at least have really good evidence that) the second law isn't wrong, so such a gadget is impossible and may be said to indirectly violate this formulation of the second law. Other formulations of the second law: There are many different formulations of the second law, with widely varying applicability. Here are a few examples: * The entropy of an isolated system cannot decrease. * The Helmholtz free energy (defined as a system's internal energy minus its temperature times its entropy) of a system at constant temperature that only interacts with its surroundings by exchanging heat (at that constant temp) cannot increase. (Note that it's entirely normal for such a system's entropy to decrease.) * The Gibbs free energy (defined as its Helmholtz free energy plus its pressure times its volume) of a system at constant temperature and pressure that only interacts with its surroundings by exchanging heat (at that constant temp) and/or expanding/contracting cannot increase. (Note that it's entirely normal for such a system's entropy to decrease and/or its Helmholtz free energy to decrease.) ...hmm, not particularly relevant to Earth or evolution, are they? There's another, far more general, formulation that'll allow us to apply it much more directly: * In (almost) any system, the entropy change will be greater than or equal to its entropy flux. Essentially, if you think of entropy as a "thing" like water (it isn't, but it mostly acts like one), you can state the second law as: "entropy can be produced, and can move around, but cannot be destroyed". The only way a system's entropy can decrease is if there's more entropy leaving it than entering (and in that case, the decrease is limited to the difference between efflux and influx). Note that this doesn't say that a system's entropy will increase if there's more entropy leaving than entering, just that the second law doesn't forbid it. In order to know if it'll actually decrease, you'd have to know how fast it's being produced inside the system; and the second law doesn't say anything about that. Ok, so let's try applying this to the Earth: As I calculated in this previous comment (see near the end), the entropy flux from Sunlight reaching Earth is about 3.83e13 J/K per second, and the entropy flux of the thermal radiation leaving Earth is at least 3.7e14 J/K per second. A number of people have pointed out that adding energy to a system (e.g. the sunlight reaching Earth) actually increases the system's entropy. This is correct. But you also have to take into account the energy leaving the system decreases its entropy, and in the case of Earth there's at least 10 times as much leaving as entering. Again, this doesn't mean that the Earth's entropy will actually decrease, or that the decrease (if any) will involve evolution, or that evolution is possible. It just means that the second law doesn't forbid entropy decreases on Earth. And that means that if your argument against evolution depends on claiming that the second law forbids such a decrease... you need to get a new argument.Gordon Davisson_{July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT}

My point is that “open system” seems to be a very amorphous concept.
It is correct to say the universe on the whole is closed system, but the last resort is to say it is not yet at final equilibrium (aka it is still changing and evolving in some places), so in that sense certain pockets can be modeled as "open". Once a system is truly closed and changeless, then it has stopped evolving and if there is no life in the system, there never will be. This has been universally acknowledged even by materialists. Their last hope is some sort of "open" system (aka, one that can still change), or open number of multiverses. The only thing their "open" system is closed to is the possibility of design.scordova_{July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT}

Hi Eric, There is a fundamental issue that our critics habitually overlook; the complexity of life is the direct result of translated information. Any system that translates the arrangement of an informational medium into a physical effect must as a matter of physical necessity - in order to function - preserve the natural discontinuity between the arrangement of that medium and its post translation effect. This means that the output of translation is not derived from the input via inexorable law; it is only derivable from the organization of the organic systems that translate information. In other words, the very thing (i.e. the translation of information) that organizes the living cell, and allows heritable evolution, requires a local independence from inexorable law. This includes the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The systems that create life and evolution do not violate the 2nd Law; the 2nd Law is irrelevant to those systems.Upright BiPed_{July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

Salvador, there is no difference between the entropy argument and the information argument and the probability argument.
Your assertion is confused. What entropy are you talking about? What probability are you talking about? Until you specify these parameters, your statement is only valid for special cases and not true in general. hint: Thermodynamic entropy can be expressed as a Shannon entropy, but that doesn't mean all possible Shannon entropies can be expressed as thermodynamic entropies, a good example is the Shannon entropy associated with the information content of DNA -- it has NOTHING to do with thermodynamic entropy. You're totally misunderstanding the relation of Shannon entropy and thermodynamic entropy, and thus this statement, except for special cases is meaningless.
Salvador, there is no difference between the entropy argument and the information argument and the probability argument.
What probability argument are you talking about, probability of OOL, something being alive or finding a given thermodynamic energy microstate. They are not the same thing, and without specifying what you mean, your statement is meaningless at best and wrong at worst.scordova_{July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT}

Eric, Thanks for your comments. I suspected that the whole thing was a rhetorical game. As the OP, I hope, demonstrates, there is no limiting principle to the assertion. And when there is no limiting principle, watch out for mischief. Sal, Thanks for your comments as well, but you’ve misunderstood the point of the OP. I am not qualified to address the “entropy is/is not an obstacle to blind watchmaker evolution” question, and the OP does not take a position on the issue. My point is that “open system” seems to be a very amorphous concept.Barry Arrington_{July 14, 2014
July
07
Jul
14
14
2014
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply