Why science can’t study the supernatural – A physicist’s view

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 7, 2012

Mind, Physics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

boo — Oh please, let us guess just this once: You were going to say ... Boo! Right?

Why can’t the paranormal and spiritual realms be subject to scientific analysis? The materialist says “Because they don’t exist.” and therefore all signals are spurious and a waste of resources.

The intelligent design theorist says “coherence is not just a sign of extra dimensions, but a sign of front-loaded purpose”. Therefore the paranormal might not be “spooky action-at-a-distance” but a design feature of simultaneous causation. If A is correlated to B, it may be that A doesn’t cause B, or B cause A, but previous design C causes both A and B such that they are correlated.

Lipstick and breast cancer are correlated, but neither causes the other.

But if we look at the meta-studies, if we ask, what is the benefit of studying the paranormal versus ignoring it? We find the curious phenomenon that the Enlightenment advanced precisely where it ignored the paranormal. Thus it would seem that studying the paranormal wasn’t merely a distraction, but a degradation of science.

Stanley Jaki argues in “The Savior of Science” and several of his other books, that bad metaphysics, such as looking for paranormal effects, waylaid the nascent scientific progress of the Greeks, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Caliphate and even the Jewish Kabbala. Only the severe discipline of the Enlightenment materialism could negotiate the shoals of bad metaphysics.

I’ve come to a similar answer, though phrased a little differently. Inasmuch as the paranormal and spiritism are “personal”, possessing the characteristics of contingent personality, then it is dangerous to study them as a machine. This is like BF Skinner studying humans as if they were a computer program.

Economists can tell you the danger of doing this. Not only does this give the wrong answer, but it even gives the wrong questions. What makes people people, and what makes the divine divine is precisely the personal, and therefore science does a disservice to theology when it reduces the personal to machinery. But worse, it invites the ghost into the machine.

More precisely, the Bible condemns even the exploration of the occult, because of its parasitic relationship to persons.

We all understand computer viruses. And thanks to global warmists, we are beginning to understand the power of positive feedback and what money does to our science models. But we have yet to understand what psychology does to common sense, or what evolutionary biology does to our sanity.

Inasmuch as the paranormal is personal, it is forbidden for the same reason that the occult is forbidden–it infects our mind.

Thoughts? – UD News

Comments

Stanley Jaki argues in “The Savior of Science” and several of his other books, that bad metaphysics, such as looking for paranormal effects, waylaid the nascent scientific progress of the Greeks, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Caliphate and even the Jewish Kabbala. Only the severe discipline of the Enlightenment materialism could negotiate the shoals of bad metaphysics.
I gather that this principle does not rule out the possibility of using science to confirm a medical miracle or, for that matter, any kind of miracle that could not reasonably be classified as "paranormal." Miracles do, after all, surpass paranormal events because there can be little doubt as to their source (think Lourdes). To provide another example, if Moses came back to part the waters of the Red Sea, would you have have any problem with a resident meterologist on the scene affirming that the event did not likely occur as a result of natural causes?StephenB_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

ES: to define that all that exists is the universe, is indeed to beg big questions. your understanding of the second law and its foundations are simply incorrect, and indeed, the point of times arrow, once we look at the statistical underpinnings, is indeed relevant to accessible microstates. In that context, the issue of resources and special zones becomes extremely relevant to the problem in hand. So, the brushoff attempt fails. But of course, that is not very politically correct to say in today's climate. Let me put it this way: when we blindly add energy to a system, we are generally adding to the number of ways mass and energy can be arranged at micro levels, resulting in a rise of entropy. That is the root of the expression on increment ds, that it exceeds d'q/T. In turn, T is a metric of the average random energy per micro-level degree of freedom in a body. Merely dumping mass and/or energy into the primitive earth's atmosphere is nowhere near a reasonable explanation for the origin of life based on organised systems of information rich macromolecules, codes, algorithms, or even von Neumann self replicators joined to metabolic entities with encapsulation and controlled in/out flows. And you know that or should know that. The ONLY empirically warranted source for FSCO/I is design based on knowledgeable intelligence. If you object, kindly provide a case, especially an empirically well supported explanation of the spontaneous origin of cell based life. KFkairosfocus_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT}

@KF#8.1.1.1.4
I cannot resist — there is in fact a serious phil debate implied and question begged in asserting that the observed cosmos is an isolated system.
Totally irrelevant for the issue at hand. "Observed cosmos" is not a feature of the SLoT, or the objections here. Moreover, the observed cosmos is uncontroversially an OPEN system - there is much beyond our powers of observation in the universe that we know exists by indirect means, and those regions of the universe are thermodynamically connected. There's no debate, and it's not relevant to the point at hand anyway. In thermodynamics, the extent of the universe is defined by the thermodynamics -- the universe is all of that which is thermodynamically connecte. If you said "wait, there's more", then anything more is just covered under the definition of this universe.
I remember all the way back to my good old Sears-Salinger on that one. The isolated system is a model ideal, that sets the base for addressing entropy in more realistic systems opened to energy, info and mass flows.
Unless you suppose that this universe is not a closed system -- not what we can observe of it, but everything that is thermodynamically connected -- then it's not just an ideal. And that's a trick "unless", just to save you some time; if it's not a closed system, then whatever it takes to enclose THAT is the "container" for our closed system. Even in an infinite universe, whichever way you want to take it, so long as there is no thermodynamic exchange with anything external to it, you have an actual, isolated system.
The fundamental point, is that once we open up to flows, we ADD degrees of freedom as a rule, so entropy tends to rise. For instance, here is my App 1 the always linked note, on Clausius’ first example for deducing the entropy principle, carried forward to address heat engines. Basic lesson, onward, is that for energy to increase complex, functional organisation — not merely order, we are looking at properly arranged coupling, and highly informational structures for that to happen.
No, the Second Law doesn't care a whit about complex, functional organization, for or against. Thermodynamic entropy is a measure of energy available to do work. That's it. Full stop. You can have lots of energy available to do work (low entropy), with low functional complexity, and you can have lots of energy available to do work with high functional complexity. Complexity and function are not energy potential. Your paragraph here indicates a thorough confusion on the basics of thermodynamic entropy.
In short, that the earth is open to energy inflows from the sun does not by itself credibly, plausibly and properly explain the origin of highly organised life forms based on sophisticated C-chemistry, coded functional information, algorithms and implementing machinery.
Energy has to come from somewhere. If low entropy situations are going to arise, you will need energy made available to do work. That's what "low entropy" means. So with the enormous influx of energy from the sun we receive every second, we have a overflowing supply of inbound energy which can be (and is) converted into low entropy configurations. See my example of photosynthesis I brought up with Joe. The solar energy itself doesn't manage the organization or any biological structuring itself. It *powers* it, provides the energy capital that enables other processes that produce biological structures to work. Creationists and other confused parties routinely object to these low entropy contexts, citing them as a violation of the Second Law. It's not a violation of the Second Law, and it betrays a very basic confusion about physics and thermodynamics to suggest that it does. One can complain all one wants about doubts about selection or genetic recombination or whatever structure-building process you want. But the energy supply to enable LOTS of low(er) entropy structures in biology is not any problem at all. The entire system overall must always rise in entropy, but local pockets, like we see in earth's biosphere of lowered entropy, are not problematic in the least.eigenstate_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

@champignon,
You’re partially correct in that the second law is usually stated in a way that applies only to isolated systems, but it can also be stated in terms of open systems. The underlying principle remains the same.
The principle applies everywhere -- energy is conserved, and for any static context, inside of an open environment or no -- entropy can only stay the same or increase. That principle doesn't apply when the thermodynamics are open, the principle being the one-way ratchet of entropy for that system. If you have a system like the earth, dramatic transfers from outside (like the sun) will nullify any "ratcheting up" for entropy for the earth, as a necessity. The thermodynamics of energy distribution, conversion an waste are the same, everywhere. The tendency toward equilibrium and the irreversibility apply in all contexts. But entropy can, and does, go down in local, open contexts.eigenstate_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

You mean I swallow up ID arguments and leave no trace of their existence? Why, thanks, Joe :)Elizabeth Liddle_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT}

@8.1.1.3.4 Joe, that's totally unwarranted. Why on earth would you say that? It's a sad reflection on posters at this forum that this behaviour has gone unrebuked. For shame!Bydand_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

F/N 2: What Sewell had to say: __________ >> . . . 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 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. The discovery that life on Earth developed through evolutionary "steps," coupled with the observation that mutations and natural selection -- like other natural forces -- can cause (minor) change, is widely accepted in the scientific world as proof that natural selection -- alone among all natural forces -- can create order out of disorder, and even design human brains, with human consciousness. Only the layman seems to see the problem with this logic. In a recent Mathematical Intelligencer article ["A Mathematician's View of Evolution," The Mathematical Intelligencer 22, number 4, 5-7, 2000] I asserted that the idea that the four fundamental forces of physics alone could rearrange the fundamental particles of Nature into spaceships, nuclear power plants, and computers, connected to laser printers, CRTs, keyboards and the Internet, appears to violate the second law of thermodynamics in a spectacular way.1 . . . . What happens in a[n isolated] system depends on the initial conditions; what happens in an open system depends on the boundary conditions as well. As I wrote in "Can ANYTHING Happen in an Open System?", "order can increase in an open system, not because the laws of probability are suspended when the door is open, but simply because order may walk in through the door.... If we found evidence that DNA, auto parts, computer chips, and books entered through the Earth's atmosphere at some time in the past, then perhaps the appearance of humans, cars, computers, and encyclopedias on a previously barren planet could be explained without postulating a violation of the second law here . . . But if all we see entering is radiation and meteorite fragments, it seems clear that what is entering through the boundary cannot explain the increase in order observed here." Evolution is a movie running backward, that is what makes it special. THE EVOLUTIONIST, therefore, cannot avoid the question of probability by saying that anything can happen in an open system, he is finally forced to argue that it only seems extremely improbable, but really isn't, that atoms would rearrange themselves into spaceships and computers and TV sets . . . >> ___________ Now, let us back off the appeals to authority, pro and con and simply deal with the matter on the merits. Notice, particularly Sewell's ALONE above. That is the focal issue, and it needs to be cogently answered on solid empirical evidence. As Einstein reportedly said when the Nazi state called out panels of physicists to denounce his "Jewish" physics, i.e relativity theory, if I were wrong just one would have done. KFkairosfocus_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
09:06 AM
9
09
06
AM
PDT}

F/N: Excerpting Bradley: __________ >> 9] Recently, Bradley has done further work on this, using Cytochrome C, which is a 110-monomer protein. He reports, for this case (noting along the way that Shannon information is of course really a metric of information-carrying capacity and using Brillouin information as a measure of complex specified information, i.e IB = ICSI below), that: Cytochrome c (protein) -- chain of 110 amino acids of 20 types If each amino acid has pi = .05, then average information “i” per amino acid is given by log2 (20) = 4.32 The total Shannon information is given by I = N * i = 110 * 4.32 = 475, with total number of unique sequences “W0” that are possible is W0 = 2^I = 2^475 = 10^143 Amino acids in cytochrome c are not equiprobable (pi ? 0.05) as assumed above. If one takes the actual probabilities of occurrence of the amino acids in cytochrome c, one may calculate the average information per residue (or link in our 110 link polymer chain) to be 4.139 using i = - ? pi log2 pi [TKI NB: which is related of course to the Boltzmann expression for S] Total Shannon information is given by I = N * i = 4.139 x 110 = 455. The total number of unique sequences “W0” that are possible for the set of amino acids in cytochrome c is given by W0 = 2^455 = 1.85 x 10^137 . . . . Some amino acid residues (sites along chain) allow several different amino acids to be used interchangeably in cytochrome-c without loss of function, reducing i from 4.19 to 2.82 and I (i x 110) from 475 to 310 (Yockey) M = 2^310 = 2.1 x 10^93 = W1 Wo / W1 = 1.85 x 10^137 / 2.1 x 10^93 = 8.8 x 10^44 Recalculating for a 39 amino acid racemic prebiotic soup [as Glycine is achiral] he then deduces (appar., following Yockey): W1 is calculated to be 4.26 x 10^62 Wo/W1 = 1.85 x 10^137 / 4.26 x 10^62 = 4.35 x 10^74 ICSI = log2 (4.35 x 10^74) = 248 bits He then compares results from two experimental studies: Two recent experimental studies on other proteins have found the same incredibly low probabilities for accidental formation of a functional protein that Yockey found 1 in 10^75 (Strait and Dewey, 1996) and 1 in 10^65 (Bowie, Reidhaar-Olson, Lim and Sauer, 1990). --> Of course, to make a functioning life form we need dozens of proteins and other similar information-rich molecules all in close proximity and forming an integrated system, in turn requiring a protective enclosing membrane. --> The probabilities of this happening by the relevant chance conditions and natural regularities alone, in aggregate are effectively negligibly different from zero in the gamut of the observed cosmos. --> But of course, we know that agents, sometimes using chance and natural regularities as part of what they do, routinely produce FSCI-rich systems. [Indeed, that is just what the Nanobots and Micro-jets thought experiment shows by a conceivable though not yet technically feasible example.] >> ___________ KFkairosfocus_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Living organisms arising from non-living matter via unplanned, unguided, blind processes would violate the second law.Joe_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

Bruce, Energy and entropy are not subjective quantities. They're measurable, and I can assure you that no one has found a single macroscopic violation of the second law by any system, living or not (microscopic violations have been seen, but only over short time scales -- the second law is a statistical law). It isn't for a lack of effort. People have tried (and are still trying) to do it. If you could violate the second law, you could create a perpetual motion machine and solve the world's energy problems forever. I guarantee a Nobel to anyone who can show that life (or any other macroscopic phenomenon) violates the second law.champignon_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Ch: It so happens that I can claim some degree of competence to look at the matter. And, having looked, here is my finding: Sewell -- pace detractors -- is fundamentally correct. The mere opening up of a system to energy and mass inflows does not properly explain the origin of complex, specifically functional organisation, much less life. those narrow zones T in a large space of possibilities W, will get you every time, if you are trying to find them on blind chance and mechanical necessity. (Besides, if you want to play at paper chase games, Sewell is a bit of a strawman target, the right name to call here is a certain Walter Bradley, polymer expert. As in, the B in the TBO of the very first technical ID book, TMLO. He is still around, and has some interesting things to say.) And in particular, the key reason for the problem, searching a large space of potential configs in a domain with a quite limited scope of search resources, is quite easily accessible to a mathematician, or a chemist, or an engineer, or even a good statistician, and these days philosophers too, it is not just physicists. Yes, I have no doubt that many physicists have signed on to the line that the open system answers to the problem, but it does not. Let's start with Clausius, from the App 1 my always linked: ____________ >> Let us reflect on a few remarks on the link from thermodynamics to information: 1] TMLO: In 1984, this well-received work provided the breakthrough critical review on the origin of life that led to the modern design school of thought in science. The three online chapters, as just linked, should be carefully read to understand why design thinkers think that the origin of FSCI in biology is a significant and unmet challenge to neo-darwinian thought. (Cf also Klyce's relatively serious and balanced assessment, from a panspermia advocate. Sewell's remarks here are also worth reading. So is Sarfati's discussion of Dawkins' Mt Improbable.) 2] But open systems can increase their order: This is the "standard" dismissal argument on thermodynamics, but it is both fallacious and often resorted to by those who should know better. My own note on why this argument should be abandoned is: a] Clausius is the founder of the 2nd law, and the first standard example of an isolated system -- one that allows neither energy nor matter to flow in or out -- is instructive, given the "closed" subsystems [i.e. allowing energy to pass in or out] in it. Pardon the substitute for a real diagram, for now: Isol System: | | (A, at Thot) --> d'Q, heat --> (B, at T cold) | | b] Now, we introduce entropy change dS >/= d'Q/T . . . "Eqn" A.1 c] So, dSa >/= -d'Q/Th, and dSb >/= +d'Q/Tc, where Th > Tc d] That is, for system, dStot >/= dSa + dSb >/= 0, as Th > Tc . . . "Eqn" A.2 e] But, observe: the subsystems A and B are open to energy inflows and outflows, and the entropy of B RISES DUE TO THE IMPORTATION OF RAW ENERGY. f] The key point is that when raw energy enters a body, it tends to make its entropy rise . . . . [Skip over a marbles in a box model discussion, on what that means] . . . So, plainly, for the injection of energy to instead do predictably and consistently do something useful, it needs to be coupled to an energy conversion device. g] When such energy conversion devices, as in the cell, exhibit FSCI, the question of their origin becomes material, and in that context, their spontaneous origin is strictly logically possible but -- from the above -- negligibly different from zero probability on the gamut of the observed cosmos. (And, kindly note: the cell is an energy importer with an internal energy converter. That is, the appropriate entity in the model is B and onward B' below. Presumably as well, the prebiotic soup would have been energy importing, and so materialistic chemical evolutionary scenarios therefore have the challenge to credibly account for the origin of the FSCI-rich energy converting mechanisms in the cell relative to Monod's "chance + necessity" [cf also Plato's remarks] only.) h] Now, as just mentioned, certain bodies have in them energy conversion devices: they COUPLE input energy to subsystems that harvest some of the energy to do work, exhausting sufficient waste energy to a heat sink that the overall entropy of the system is increased. Illustratively, for heat engines -- and (in light of exchanges with email correspondents circa March 2008) let us note: a good slice of classical thermodynamics arose in the context of studying, idealising and generalising from steam engines [which exhibit organised, functional complexity, i.e FSCI; they are of course artifacts of intelligent design and also exhibit step-by-step problem-solving processes (even including "do-always" looping!)]: | | (A, heat source: Th): d'Qi --> (B', heat engine, Te): --> d'W [work done on say D] + d'Qo --> (C, sink at Tc) | | i] A's entropy: dSa >/= - d'Qi/Th j] C's entropy: dSc >/= + d'Qo/Tc k] The rise in entropy in B, C and in the object on which the work is done, D, say, compensates for that lost from A. The second law -- unsurprisingly, given the studies on steam engines that lie at its roots -- holds for heat engines. l] However for B since it now couples energy into work and exhausts waste heat, does not necessarily undergo a rise in entropy having imported d'Qi. [The problem is to explain the origin of the heat engine -- or more generally, energy converter -- that does this, if it exhibits FSCI.] m] There is also a material difference between the sort of heat engine [an instance of the energy conversion device mentioned] that forms spontaneously as in a hurricane [directly driven by boundary conditions in a convective system on the planetary scale, i.e. an example of order], and the sort of complex, organised, algorithm-implementing energy conversion device found in living cells [the DNA-RNA-Ribosome-Enzyme system, which exhibits massive FSCI]. n] In short, the decisive problem is the [im]plausibility of the ORIGIN of such a FSCI-based energy converter through causal mechanisms traceable only to chance conditions and undirected [non-purposive] natural forces. This problem yields a conundrum for chem evo scenarios, such that inference to agency as the probable cause of such FSCI -- on the direct import of the many cases where we do directly know the causal story of FSCI -- becomes the better explanation. As TBO say, in bridging from a survey of the basic thermodynamics of living systems in CH 7, to that more focussed discussion in ch's 8 - 9: 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? 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 . . . [Bold emphasis added. Cf summary in the peer-reviewed journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, "Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life," in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 40 (June 1988): 72-83, pardon the poor quality of the scan. NB:as the journal's online issues will show, this is not necessarily a "friendly audience."] . . . >> _____________ I trust this should be clear enough on the basic challenge. Merely opening up a system to energy and mass inflows is actually liable to further disorganise it. Indeed, that is part of why cells have protective membranes with controlled access ports, all under internal control. What is to be explained is the origin of the complex, functionally specific organisation of the living cell, and there is an excellent reason why there is no viable model that can see the light of day, backed up by adequate empirical warrant, for spontaneous origin of life in some chemical soup or other. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

You are so dense that you are a walking black hole. That is something one shouldn't be proud of yet you are quite happy with it. Strange...Joe_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

Hi eigenstate, I generally agree with your comment, but I have to take issue with this:
...the Second Law ITSELF does not apply to open systems.
You're partially correct in that the second law is usually stated in a way that applies only to isolated systems, but it can also be stated in terms of open systems. The underlying principle remains the same.champignon_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Well, if the 2LoT wasn't violated, I guess it must have eaten, right? Is there any ID research going on into its dietary habits?Elizabeth Liddle_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

ES: I cannot resist -- there is in fact a serious phil debate implied and question begged in asserting that the observed cosmos is an isolated system. I remember all the way back to my good old Sears-Salinger on that one. The isolated system is a model ideal, that sets the base for addressing entropy in more realistic systems opened to energy, info and mass flows. The fundamental point, is that once we open up to flows, we ADD degrees of freedom as a rule, so entropy tends to rise. For instance, here is my App 1 the always linked note, on Clausius' first example for deducing the entropy principle, carried forward to address heat engines. Basic lesson, onward, is that for energy to increase complex, functional organisation -- not merely order, we are looking at properly arranged coupling, and highly informational structures for that to happen. In short, that the earth is open to energy inflows from the sun does not by itself credibly, plausibly and properly explain the origin of highly organised life forms based on sophisticated C-chemistry, coded functional information, algorithms and implementing machinery. This is yet another case of a priori materialists ducking and dodging a serious issue. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

It's even worse than that. Sewell is operating outside of his area of expertise, against thousands of physicists operating inside theirs. Bruce, the argument from authority only works if authority is on your side.champignon_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

The earth is part of the universe and therefor part of a closed system. And energy from the sun does not explain photosynthesis, nor does it explain biology.Joe_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

Zephyr, I may not even own a pair of shoes down here in Alabama, but it would seem to me that ad hominem arguments are more a characteristic of your "literalist bible thumper" than the "hard nosed scientist" you would like to think you are. For that matter, hard nosed scientists would have done a Google search on the name before they wrote libelous comments, I mean, he might just turn out to be your son's physics teacher's advisor or somebody "really important". Since you may not know how to Google, I'll give you the link directly: http://rbsp.info/rbs/RbS I hope that helps. I don't suppose you would ever read Stanley Jaki, who would inform your vague Wikipedia-knowledge about the Enlightenment, since he had PhDs in physics and the history and philosophy of science. In fact, even if you despise Jaki, you might acquaint yourself with HPS since it would disabuse you of your 20th century bias about what the Enlightenment was. And finally, I note that you introduce terms that I never mentioned, and then set fire to them, as proxies for things I never said. I hope it makes you feel better. This is what happens when we talk to ourselves, and otherwise engage in recursive behavior. Some people would say it is an early sign of schizophrenia when we hear voices talking back. This is precisely the sanity that is lost when we treat things as persons, and persons as things. And yes, I do believe that they are hearing voices. And no, these cannot be explained by "scientific" phenomena such as brain chemical imbalances. That's because voices are persons, and not things. Which is why we need a protocol, an ethic, a set of manners for dealing with such persons. Which is why the Bible gives us instructions on the occult. Oh, and Zephyr, the voices you are responding to do not wish you well.Robert Sheldon_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

@Joe, The universe is an isolated system, but the earth isn't the universe. It receives enormous amounts of energy from the sun. And photosynthesis is an everyday process happening around you that harnesses the sun's energy to grow and sustain plants. Those plants store energy received from the sun, which is available for work, and can, in turn sustain grazing animals or other organisms that can convert that stored energy in the plant into energy available for their use. Biology is sun-powered.eigenstate_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

And the earth isn’t an isolated system, and is inundated with new inbound energy from the sun every second.
The universe is an isolated system and the energy from the sun has never been observed to construct anything biological.Joe_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT}

So essentially, ID amounts to the proposition that the 2nd Law had to be violated (by an intelligent agent that didn’t need to eat) for life to exist.
Except ID doesn't say anything about the designer, which means we don't know if it ate or not. So what is "interesting" is your strawman...Joe_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

In fact, it occurs to me that "supernatural" or "miracle" could be defined as "something that violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics". So essentially, ID amounts to the proposition that the 2nd Law had to be violated (by an intelligent agent that didn't need to eat) for life to exist. Interesting.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT}

I am doing this right now as I write this. We do it any time we figure out how to repair something, or speak a meaningful sentence longer than 20 characters or so. What does that say about us human beings?
Please excuse my ignorance but I wonder how you do it? How can you do anything, anything at all without using even the slightest amount of energy? If you do, you are right, you are breaking the law! The next thing we should do sould be to harness that 'power', the ability to go against the 2nd law of entropy. That would give access to unlimited sources of energy. Wouldn't that be an interesting research project for ID scientists?Cabal_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT}

Actually I will add one thing: Bruce, intelligence simply doesn't violate the second law, for the simple reason that we need to eat in order to be able to think. The reason Maxwell's hypothetical Demon was able to was because it was a Demon and didn't need to eat.Elizabeth Liddle_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT}

Eigentstate has addressed the substance of your post, but I'd just like to comment on this:
Granville Sewell is no dummy. He writes textbooks on the solution of differential equations by numerical analysis, and widely used computer programs to solve them by numerical methods.
I'm sure Granville Sewell is no dummy. However, appealing to expertise in support of a conclusion that is refuted by many people with equivalent expertise is clearly fallacious. If one smart person says one thing and many smart people say the opposite, why believe the one smart person?Elizabeth Liddle_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT}

I should add that the very term 'supernatural', like 'occult', is a loaded word. What do we mean by it? It is not so simple and the lines between the natural and the supernatural (assuming the latter is real) are often blurred and overlap, or they could do so easily enough. Is telepathy (assuming it is real) natural or supernatural, what of psychokinesis (assuming there is something to it)? Is it supernatural only if we don't have a mechanism to explain 'em? And if mechanism/s are discovered, does it then become natural (as Dawkins would have it)? To the romantic and mystical poets like Blake and Wordsworth there were no sharp divisions between the natural and the supernatural. Perhaps they were closer to the truth than the so-called hard-nosed scientists who scoff at the former as daydreamers.zephyr_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

As this confused piece is written by a physicist, I respond with a very famous remark from a very famous physicist, "not even wrong". 'The enlightenment advanced by ignoring the occult' blabla, it makes me wince. You assume what you need to prove. What 'enlightenment' is that again? The industrial revolution and later the technological revolution predicated on the former? I assume that's what Sheldon is getting at? Uh no, plenty of the prominent figures of modern astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology and medicine had more than a passing interest in the paranormal/occult and related. Same can be said for many of the fathers of psychology, anthropology, sociology (whatever their failings and flaws, being human you know). Never mind that many of the 'advances' in science and society during the industrial revolution and the so-called Enlightenment are dubious. That's a whole other thing. That kind of thing fills whole encyclopedias. There is such poor metaphysics in Sheldon's piece, comes across as something written by a literalist bible thumper in Kallawhacky Alabama, who is not even familiar with the nuances of the bible (Old and New Testament) and has probably never even read it properly in a semi-decent translation (that's a whole other problem). The bible says a number of things about the occult, often contradictory. These kind of things have been debated and argued about for centuries (longer) and are still argued about, by scholars and theologians who have given their life to such study. Also what do we mean by the occult? This is not so simple, there is a lot of disagreement here.. How broad is the brush, how narrow. One man's occult is another man's light of day.. Sheldon assumes the occult means discarnate spirits and communication with them, he assumes what he needs to prove. Who says? Sure that is a mainstream traditional belief, it's not by any means the only one. Sheldon is clearly not familiar, not even in vague outline, with the modern scientific research in parapsychology (since the 1880s) which goes way beyond that, and often calls into question such simplistic narratives. Many parapsychologists who take psi seriously are often skeptical of the notion of discarnate spirits or the belief in communication with them (as am I, I don't think that's what is necessarily going on). This is where psychology/sociology comes into play, the depths and powers of the unconscious and dare I say it, the collective unconscious. Alfred Russel Wallace for one took the paranormal very seriously, it was a major factor in his breach with Darwin. Ho hum. Sheldon cuts his nose off to spite his face and he does so out of a confusion born of a very weak theology. What's that about religion driving science again? Oh wait it depends on the religion, of course.zephyr_{February 8, 2012
February
02
Feb
8
08
2012
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT}

@Bruce David,
1. The equations which constitute the Second Law apply to open systems as well as closed ones. (This is fortunate, because the only closed system is the entire universe! (my note))
I am not sure if this is phrased in a lawyerly fashion ("equations which constitute the Second Law...") or not, but the Second Law ITSELF does not apply to open systems. Entropy increases, necessarily, and does not increase, for ISOLATED (closed) systems.
2. For an open system, they imply that the amount of order in such a system cannot increase beyond the amount of order that is imported across its boundary.
The Second Law is a principle of thermodynamics: energy. "Order" is not used in this context in the way a cleaned-up bedroom has more "order" than a messy room, but rather "order" refers to the amount of energy in the system available to do work. In an open system, all bets are off, and the Second Law doesn't apply, as the energy inflows and outflows are dynamic.
3. The amount of order that comes from sunlight (by far the major source of order crossing the boundary of the system composed of the earth and its atmosphere) in a given period of time does not even remotely equal the amount of order produced during that time by living systems and human activity.
You're right the amount of energy from the sun introduced to the earth system does not even come close the amount of entropy decrease achieved by biological life on earth, but it goes the other way. The energy taken in by the earth from the absolutely dwarfs the available energy gains made by biological life. The biosphere doesn't harness even a tiny fraction of what's available. The earth receives about 1.8 x 1017 Joules/s of energy (see here, for example).
4. Thus, it is ludicrous to suggest that sunlight can account for the far from equilibrium conditions that exist on earth.
Oy. That is way, way confused. The earth receives orders of magnitudes more energy every second from the sun than it can use, than can be converted into energy available for work (negative entropy). Not even close.
The following are my own conclusions based on Sewell’s argument: We human beings do violate the Second Law every day, repeatedly. So also do non-human living organisms in their metabolic, growth, and reproductive and other activity. And since it is the conclusion of ID that the best explanation for the order (CFSI) that is found in living things is the result of design by intelligent agents, an implication of ID is that the only phenomenon known to be capable of violating the Second Law is intelligence.
The Second Law doesn't forbid decreases in entropy (gains in the amount of energy available for work). The Second Law just holds that the TOTAL entropy for an isolated system can only increase. The TOTAL energy available for work when you inventory the entire isolated system goes down. So if the available energy for work increases in one local part of a system, it's not a violation of the Second Law. The Second Law just states that the if X amount of energy is made available for work in one part of the system, some amount MORE THAN X will be unavailable for work in other parts of the system. And the earth isn't an isolated system, and is inundated with new inbound energy from the sun every second. I'm sure many IDers here understand the glaring mistakes at work in your argument here, and maybe will be more convincing if they speak up than an ID critic for you. This is not a controversial or ambiguous issue.eigenstate_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

Your response to Granville Sewell's argument merely demonstrates that you don't understand it. Granville Sewell is no dummy. He writes textbooks on the solution of differential equations by numerical analysis, and widely used computer programs to solve them by numerical methods. If you're going to claim that he doesn't understand the Second Law, you'd better make damn sure you thoroughly understand his reasoning. His argument can be summarized as follows: 1. The equations which constitute the Second Law apply to open systems as well as closed ones. (This is fortunate, because the only closed system is the entire universe! (my note)) 2. For an open system, they imply that the amount of order in such a system cannot increase beyond the amount of order that is imported across its boundary. 3. The amount of order that comes from sunlight (by far the major source of order crossing the boundary of the system composed of the earth and its atmosphere) in a given period of time does not even remotely equal the amount of order produced during that time by living systems and human activity. 4. Thus, it is ludicrous to suggest that sunlight can account for the far from equilibrium conditions that exist on earth. The following are my own conclusions based on Sewell's argument: We human beings do violate the Second Law every day, repeatedly. So also do non-human living organisms in their metabolic, growth, and reproductive and other activity. And since it is the conclusion of ID that the best explanation for the order (CFSI) that is found in living things is the result of design by intelligent agents, an implication of ID is that the only phenomenon known to be capable of violating the Second Law is intelligence. If this means that the Second Law is not a law after all, then so be it. Personally, I think that it would be more productive simply to note that there are exceptions to its range of application.Bruce David_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT}

"It could certainly confirm whether a particular person can reliably do paranormalish things, like predict the future, move objects without touching them, read minds."
It doesn't even need to go that far. If consciousness is indeed "supernatural", that is, something other than an epiphenomenon caused by brains, then we could one day conceivably acquire evidence of this if we can simultaneously monitor quantum events within billions of neurons, and see that something at the quantum level is "acting in parallel" contra statistical randomness. If this turns out to be true, then miracles are indeed happening every time we decide to move a finger.mike1962_{February 7, 2012
February
02
Feb
7
07
2012
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply