Posted on 05/04/2005 10:48:30 AM PDT by betty boop
Autocatakinetics, Evolution, and the Law of Maximum Entropy Production
By Rod Swenson
An Excerpt:
Ecological science addresses the relations of living things to their environments, and the study of human ecology the particular case of humans. There is an opposing tradition built into the foundations of modern science of separating living things, and, in particular, humans from their environments. Beginning with Descartes’ dualistic world view, this tradition found its way into biology by way of Kant, and evolutionary theory through Darwin, and manifests itself in two main postulates of incommensurability, the incommensurability between psychology and physics (the “first postulate of incommensurability”), and between biology and physics (the “second postulate of incommensurability”).
The idea of the incommensurability between living things and their environments gained what seemed strong scientific backing with Boltzmann’s view of the second law of thermodynamics as a law of disorder according to which the transformation of disorder to order was said to be infinitely improbable. If this were true, and until very recently it has been taken to be so, then the whole of life and its evolution becomes one improbable event after another. The laws of physics, on this view, predict a world that should be becoming more disordered, while terrestrial evolution is characterized by active order production. The world, on this view, seemed to consist of two incommensurable, or opposing “rivers,” the river of physics which flowed down to disorder, and the river of biology, psychology, and culture, which “flowed up,” working, it seemed, to produce as much order as possible.
As a consequence of Boltzmann’s view of the second law, evolutionary theorists, right up to present times, have held onto the belief that “organic evolution was a negation of physical evolution,” and that biology and culture work somehow to “defy” the laws of physics (Dennett, 1995). With its definition of evolution as an exclusively biological process, Darwinism separates both biology and culture from their universal, or ecological, contexts, and advertises the Cartesian postulates of incommensurability at its core, postulates that are inimical to the idea of ecological science. An ecological science, by definition, assumes contextualization or embeddedness, and as its first line of business wants to know what the nature of it is. This requires a universal, or general theory of evolution which can uncover and explicate the relationship of the two otherwise incommensurable rivers, and put the active ordering of biological, and cultural systems, of terrestrial evolution as a time-asymmetric process, back into the world.
The law of maximum entropy production, when coupled with the balance equation of the second law, and the general facts of autocatakinetics [see below], provides the nomological basis for such a theory, and shows why, rather than living in a world where order production is infinitely improbable, we live in and are products of a world, in effect, that can be expected to produce as much order as it can. It shows how the two otherwise incommensurable rivers, physics on the one hand, and biology, psychology, and culture on the other, are part of the same universal process and how the fecundity principle, and the intentional dynamics it entails, are special cases of an active, end-directed world opportunistically filling dynamical dimensions of space-time as a consequence of universal law. The epistemic dimension, the urgency towards existence in Leibniz’s terms, characterizing the intentional dynamics of living things and expressed in the fecundity principle, and the process of evolution writ large as a single planetary process, is thus not only commensurable with first, or universal, principles, but a direct manifestation of them.
The view presented here thus provides a principled basis for putting living things, including humans, back in the world, and recognizing living things and their environments as single irreducible systems. It provides the basis for contextualizing the deep and difficult questions concerning the place of humans as both productions and producers of an active and dynamic process of terrestrial evolution, which as a consequence of the present globalization of culture is changing the face of the planet at a rate which seems to be without precedent over geological time. Of course, answers to questions such as these always lead to more questions, but such is the nature of the epistemic process we call life.
Excellent point, Ronzo. They have a constant energy source, as we do here on Earth; but life must be more than the presence of an energy source, or Mercury and Venus would presumably be teeming with life....
"If energy is all that is needed, then shouldn't Mercury and Venus be tropical paradises? Afterall, they both get a LOT MORE engergy from Mr. Sun than we do..."
Actually, that's a great point, because it gets to what I have been trying to express, that while Darwinian evolution certainly is a driving force, there is also a directedness to evolution, it seems channeled in very specific directions.
It looks like you need carbon, nitrogen and water at the right temperatures to get the thing going. If you are sitting on a rock, the reaction rate for recomposing aluminum oxide is just too slow for anything resembling life to get going. So the earth is a truly remarkable jewel with the right conditions for evolutionary processes to occur, almost as if someone planned it to happen that way. So, I think there is plenty of room to be both metaphysical AND a true scientist at the same time.
Here's what bothers me, if there is no soul, no super intelligence, then why should I know I'm me? I mean, I think robots can be designed to be aware of their surroundings, but I don't think they are self aware.
And here is the kicker, if I am intelligent and self aware, and I conjecture the rest of you I'm chatting with are the same, then how can I as a scientist not be open o the conjecture that no higher forms of intellect and awareness exist, ones which might exist at the cosmic level?
As a few of us have noted, it would seem the second law REQUITES evolution. If it does so at our level, does the same not apply to galaxies?
As a few of us have noted, it would seem the second law REQUIRES evolution. If it does so at our level, does the same not apply to galaxies?
(stinking typos)
Ahhhh, this collection of complex organic compounds now understands. Thank you for the link.
Life would literally explode; and for many millions of years there would be relatively little competition, almost no predation, given that the little buggers would be swimmign in food. But once they started to clear out their environment... that is when evolution would really kick in.
Well, that would certainly explain the Cambrian explosion...to a certain extent...
As for the DNA without a cell...I'm wondering how the two, DNA and cell, got together. That's what I mean when asking what good is DNA without the cell, as their can be no evolution without it, just an earth filled with lot's of DNA molecules. It is difficult to concieve cells and DNA developing apart from one another, since they seem to have somewhat of a symbiotic relationship.
And in fact, in the sense that crystalline mineral deposits probably exist on Mercury and Venus, there's a certain amount of self-organization and entropy reduction there too - just not the sort we're interested in.
No doubt there is entropy reduction on Mercury & Venus! I doubt there's anyplace in the universe where you can escape it completely!
What you and Swenson and betty say makes sense (if I understand you correctly): biologicial life is the reuslt of entropy reduction; the 2nd Law holds true even at creation.
But the big difference between self-organizing systems such as crystals and biological life is that crystals--from what I understand--occur as a reduction in entropy, and any further reductions (less heat) doesn't hurt the crystal, as far as I know.
However, in biological systems, there seems to be a constant "struggle" to stay away from low entropy, as that means death. Plants convert the low-entropy energy provided by the sun to a higher form of entropy so that they don't die. But, reproduction aside, they will-- eventually--die anyway--return to a lower state. Seems like a waste of time to me!
We eat the plants along with the animals that eat the plants, so that we can maintain a higher level of entropy than our surroundings. But we too will eventually succumb to the laws of physics, and return to a low-entropy state.
So in order for 'life' to come about, it had to be the result of a reduction in entropy from that of it's immediate surroundings. Also, if I understand correctly, there has to be some sort of temperature flux at the time of "creation" since a constant, unfluxuating temperature doesn't create/change anything, you just have equilibrium.
After life comes about, there is a transition in the immediate surroundings (ecosystem?) so that life is now "surrounded" by a lower level of entropy than itself, which is where we are at today. However--thanks to plants--that lower level of entropy is used to generate a higher level of entropy (carbohydrates) through photosynthesis.
But a problem remains: if life came about as a result of a reduction in entropy, why now do life forms depend on low-entropy to sustain themselves? How did that transitition happen?
I think you have cause and effect backwards there - it's probably more accurate to say that biological life causes a local reduction in entropy. If that local reduction wasn't possible, life wouldn't be possible, but with a little energy the car can indeed go uphill.
But the big difference between self-organizing systems such as crystals and biological life is that crystals--from what I understand--occur as a reduction in entropy, and any further reductions (less heat) doesn't hurt the crystal, as far as I know.
Well, it assumes a form that's stable enough for our purposes. In the end, entropy always wins - if nothing else, the heat death of the universe will do it in.
However, in biological systems, there seems to be a constant "struggle" to stay away from low entropy, as that means death. Plants convert the low-entropy energy provided by the sun to a higher form of entropy so that they don't die.
Sure. The plant's chemical arrangement - and yours - is a lot less stable than the rock's, and requires a somewhat constant intake of energy in order to keep from falling apart. The rock's situation is somewhat less precarious, but then again, your life is probably more interesting than the rock's.
But, reproduction aside, they will-- eventually--die anyway--return to a lower state. Seems like a waste of time to me!
The rock, too. We won't be around to see it, but eventually everything does. Entropy always wins in the end, hence the famous restatement of the laws of thermodynamics: 1) You can't win. 2) You can't break even. 3) You can't quit the game.
So in order for 'life' to come about, it had to be the result of a reduction in entropy from that of it's immediate surroundings.,/I>
Again, the reduction in entropy is the result of life, not the other way around.
After life comes about, there is a transition in the immediate surroundings (ecosystem?) so that life is now "surrounded" by a lower level of entropy than itself, which is where we are at today.
I'm not sure I follow. You are a local reduction in entropy, in a sense. You take in energy, which allows you to continue to sit on top of the hill, but eventually you break down and roll downhill, and assume a state of higher entropy than you have now. Death takes us all, even the rocks ;)
Again, the reduction in entropy is the result of life, not the other way around.Oops! Got it backwards.
Anyway, I found this useful essay on the 'net that seems to explain things a bit better for me:
Excerpt: ( http://www.draaisma.net/rudi/entropy.html
Biological life in itself represents a very low entropy level by virtue of its high order (energy density). Hence, there must be a larger increase of entropy elsewhere, by which biological life produces a net increase of entropy. So it does and in several ways:1) All life forms need an energy supply to maintain the individual at its low-entropy level and mainly this is done by consuming food. In the stomach the food is broken down to a chaotic soup and the process causes the major part of the (bio)chemical energy to be converted to heat at ambient temperature - the highest level of entropy on Earth (the Earth is the 'environment' and biological life is the 'system'). Excrements and corpses decay likewise to become distributed in the ecological systems (your body contains material that once was in a dinosaur), causing the maximum increase of entropy. As the original energy came from the low entropy source of the fusion reactor in the center of the Sun, we can see that the existence of biological life causes a much larger increase of entropy, than what would result from its absence ( the Earth's global temperature would be higher). For this reason, biological life had a probability to arise spontaneously. If it would not cause a net increase of entropy, there would have been no probability for life to arise spontaneously(!)
2) Various life forms develop an activity that contributes to a further increase of entropy. Activities of animals have chaotic effects on vegetation, that otherwise would decay slower. Most of all, humans cause a tremendous increase of entropy by burning fuels and converting natural resources to garbage and waste heat. With this in mind, we can take a closer look at Human Activities. What is energy-technology all about? There is only one basic answer to this question and that is: "TO INCREASE THE ENTROPY FROM A SOURCE, TO THAT OF THE ENVIRONMENT UNDER CONTROLLED CONDITIONS".
The 'controlled conditions' imply that they do not occur spontaneously - we force them about - the aim of our technology. It also means that we have to deliver work for that, which reduces the overall efficiency. As a result, the total entropy of system and environment will increase, as all energy involved finally will decay to heat at ambient temperature.
Note, that the smaller the entropy difference between the source and the environment is, the more work has to be delivered to achieve 'controlled conditions'. This means that high-entropy sources have an accordingly lower efficiency in our technology (the core message of this essay).
From this definition follows, that the energy content of a source has no meaning at all; there can be as much energy as ever but, if the source entropy is only a little lower than that of the environment, not much of that energy can be recovered. Below a critical level and depending on the kind of source, more work must be delivered than what can be taken out (negative efficiency). Energy from such sources can only be taken out for use, if we can decrease its entropy enough (=work on it) before using it. For this reason the first question in all energy issues must be to ask for the initial entropy-level of the source of consideration, i.c. as Nature provides it .. THIS IS SELDOM OR NOT DONE !
Source: The Alternative Site, visit www.draaisma.net/rudi/ for more original content like this. Copy and Reprint permission granted with this footer included.
As a few of us have noted, it would seem the second law REQUIRES evolution. If it does so at our level, does the same not apply to galaxies?
The important point: life does not "violate" the second law, but the second law is a prerequisite for the creation of life!
It seems that the second law is easier to see at the galatic level! It, combined with gravity, causes all these wonderful galaxies, stars, planets, etc.
So now I can summarize thus:
Sunlight is at a very low entropy level; we, as life forms, represent a locally low entropy level (but still higher than the sun). Our enivornment (ecosystem) is at a higher level of entropy than we are, and must be according to the 2nd Law.
Systems at a high level of entropy cannot go back in time to a lower state. It's simply impossible.
Before life formed, there was simply a low-entropy environment without life. Since entropy moves unidirectionally from low to high, this environment was slowly moving towards higher entropy.
Somehow, life came about to "speed up" entropy, which was doing just fine without us. ;^)
Since we are a result of the earth's environment (or some part of it) moving from low to high entropy, then it seems as if the earth's environment was, at one time, at a lower state of entropy than we--as life forms--are at now; or at least at a lower state than the first lifeforms. A system with a given level of entropy cannot create something with a level of entropy lower than it's level, it can only go higher. The first life-forms were created at a higher state of entropy than their environmental local conditions.
But, as lifeforms, we are utlimately dependent on the continuance of lower forms of entropy being avialable, mainly that given through sunlight.
So we are originally the result of our local environment seeking a high level of entropy. But now we see that our non-organic, local environment has certainly accomplished this--it is now at a higher level of entropy than we are. Therefore, for the ball to keep rolling, we must utlimately decay into the higher level of entropy of our current non-organic environment.
However, silly creatures that we are, we are completely dependent upon sources of entropy that are at a lower level relative to us! Like Mr. Sun--good thing he's still around. Even though sunlight/humans/environment all exist at the same point in space-time, we are all at different entropy levels relative to each other, from low to high.
But our being dependent upon these lower forms of entropy does not violate the 2nd Law, since we are just helping out. In fact we are "speeding up" entropy relative to our local environment, but in terms of the universe, we aren't even a blip on the cosmological entropy increase radar, as the universe is headed in that direction anyway...
Strange as it seems, life must look "backwards" towards energy states lower than it in order to stay at an entropy level which is lower than that of the surrounding environment. The environment created us in such a way that even though it continued to decay from being below us--entropy wise, to being above us, we stay at some sort of equilibrium by allowing lower entropy states to "pass through" us (in the form of food) to a higher state. No doubt we contributed to the decay of our own creating environment.
So while we are alive, we are a kind of contradiction to the 2nd Law, since we are now at a lower state of entropy than our inorganic environment; we didn't decay along with it! It's the old "go along to get along" principle at work. So, in a way, we are living contradictions to the 2nd Law, relative to our non-organic environment, though ultimately it catches up to us, and we become "one" with our planet.
Since matter likes to "clump" together as entropy increases (thanks to gravity, nuclear forces, etc.) we were possibly the result of a self-organizing system consisting of amino acids and other stuff. Highly unlikely given what we know about these things, but then anything is possible...(organizing is one thing, reproduction is quite another...)
It might also be said that our "evolution" is inversely proportional to an increase in entropy, as life must find new and exciting ways to deal with the lack of lower entropy forms in it's own environment. Yet as long as Mr. Sun is still with us, we probably don't have to go up the evolutionary ladder at this time. As a matter of fact, we are at a happy state of equilibrium as lifeforms, living somewhere in between the sun and the grave.
Well, does that make any sense?
Why? Snowflakes don't have a "self", and yet they organize as a result of the inherent properties of water.
I think it's important not to mistake the limits of the language as somehow limiting the thing itself - by "self-organizing", I simply mean a system that pulls itself up by its bootstraps, with no external force driving it. The self-organization of snowflakes or quartz crystals neither implies nor requires agency, intelligent or otherwise.
I would like to emphasize for Lurkers that the summary concerns physical entropy which is an "incommensurable" to the article's discussion of the fecundity principle which also includes the "unphysical" aspects.
And, of course, physical causation can be violated by willfulness "beyond" all dimensions of space/time.
But, er, we have a disagreement on the definition of "self organizing complexity".
In everything I have read on the subject, self-organizing complexity occurs in closed systems - moreover, autonomous systems. Concerning evolution, Rocha's work is most informative:
So that's the story. The intricate shape of a single arm is determined by the ever-changing conditions experienced by the crystal as it falls. Because each arm experiences the same conditions, however, the arms tend to look alike. The end result is a large-scale, complex, six-fold symmetric snow crystal. And since snow crystals all follow slightly different paths through the clouds, individual crystals all tend to all look different.
If it were shown that complexity in living systems is the result only of self-organizing complexity, then the Designer's role in ID would be limited to the inception algorithm and initial conditions - not punctuated here and there to give rise to functional molecular machinery, species, etc.
The above [reversal of the 2nd Law] is true in a timeline, arrow of time, cosmology with a single temporal dimension and doesn't fully consider general relativity even in 4 dimension cosmology. Physical causation can be violated when additional time dimensions and/or general relativity is considered.
Obviously I wasn't taking general relativity into consideration! Since entropy literally involves the entire physical universe, relativity must have a seat at the table...
Interesting note: the highest states of entropy in the universe are black holes, which were "discovered" thanks to general relativity.
It seems like I can't say diddly around here without a presumption that I am promoting Intelligent Design!
But you are promoting ID. Okay, maybe not in that particular post right there, but still ;)
The tidy/untidy room is a good metaphor for physical entropy. Thank you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.