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.
Entropy isn't easy to describe. You need to go through a beginning thermodynamics book mostly. However, that's never stopped me from posting, so here's a short description.
In any heat engine (automobile, for example) one does work by absorbing energy at one temperature (the combustion in the cylinder) and discharging heat at another (the exhaust, the cooling mainfold.) Some of this energy is converted to work (pushing the piston) but the rest is "waste" (from the point of the automobile.
The first law of thermodynamics basically says that the engine won't work if no energy is put into it (it's out of gas, for example.)
The second law says that all of the energy in the gas cannot be extracted to do work. Some of the energy must be wasted. Entropy is a variable that gives a quantitative measure of how much energy will be available or wasted.
Mathematically, one gets the equation: Free Energy (two types, named for Gibbs and Helmholtz; this is what's available for usefule work) equals the total energy input (enthalpy to use the technical term) minus the temperature times the entropy or: G=H-T*S. Entropy is a variable that has the same ontological status as heat or temperature.
You might surf the net looking for a popular explanation of the "Carnot cycle."
Shannon's theory is indeed all about the activity of successfully communicating. The result of a successful communication is measured as a reduction in Shannon entropy (uncertainty) in the receiver. That a reduction happened is evidence that communication was successful, i.e. there was activity.
Like Shannon entropy, physical entropy (thermodynamics) is a measure of the state of the system. The formula for Shannon entropy is almost identical, by the way.
But unlike Shannon's mathematical theory of communication, the physical entropy is not measured before and after to show an increase/decrease in physical entropy. If it were, then it would be speaking to the activity or process like Shannon's theory does.
At bottom, I suspect entropy per se (whether physical or Shannon) is something of a side issue to both of us - we are much more interested in the increase/decrease of it, the causation or process.
The "state of the system" is always changing. I think that what you and I seek is the unifying principle that integrates change in the dynamic, unified system that we call the Universe. Our suspicion is that this principle may be geometric, or logical (thus epistemological) at its base. It may be carried/mediated by fields within and beyond 4D space-time. We suppose there are yet other dimensions of the Universe that mankind is only now becoming accustomed to think about (as evidenced by string theory in all its forms): a 5th "timelike" dimension, at the very least, which accommodates the observations that have been made about non-local (temporally and spatially) causation, and superposition (simultaneity of events in 4D space and time that cannot be accounted for within the ordinary measurement systems/categories of 4D space-time).
cornelis suggested in an earlier post that my goal may be the eventual validation of a theory of a "world soul." Good grief! Is the Logos -- the fundamental logic or geometry that laid (and lays) down the foundation of All that exists -- God's spoken Word of the Beginning (i.e., the constituting event of the "Big Bang"), Who "was God and Who was with God" -- a "world soul?" This is not my understanding at all. And I strongly doubt it is yours either, Alamo-Girl.
In short, I am no pantheist. There is no homogeneous "world soul." All souls are unique. They may be joined to Christ, and thus become members of a wider community of souls. But since God created all souls free, they may not in principle be "commandeered" to serve in any community or collective.
Spent the day today down on Cape Cod. A furious Northeaster has been blowing down there the past two days. Today, we clocked wind gusts at +70 mph. Plus it rained, heavily (several inches, and still raining). The breakers on the beach are unbelievable -- big-time surging tides. Very unseasonable meteorological activity for this time of year, in these parts. Expected to last through Tuesday....
The joys of living in New England! :^)
Well them be my thoughts of the evening. Happy Mother's Day to all Mothers!
Good night, dear Alamo-Girl, and to All!
cornelis suggested in an earlier post that my goal may be the eventual validation of a theory of a "world soul."
Hey, not so fast, before you go nighty-night. I merely asked. You had some affection for ToE. So now it becomes is ToE = Logos?
I'm sorry to hear of all the nasty weather you are having. We got a call in the middle of the night from my daughter's renters deep in the Hill Country of Texas. The house had been hit by a tornado but noone was hurt and the damage was mostly to the roof. Praise God!!!
And I certainly agree with you in not equating Logos with a world soul. That would be equating God with a presumed property of one of His various creations (if there were such a thing as a world soul).
When we speak of a universal vacuum field, the fecundity principle, the metaxy, the will to live, the evolution of one and when we quote passages from Romans 8 such as "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." - it might be leaving correspondents with the impression that we are promoting the idea of a 'collective consciousness'. We are indeed looking at the whole (both space/time and "all that there is") - but we are not personifying it.
And truly I suspect there are many (particularly in the Eastern religions) who do not know the Logos, Jesus Christ, and have arrived at the conclusion of 'collective consciousness' by observing many of the nonphysicals which also interest us. If one didn't know about Jesus, that is a rational theory. But it is not the Truth - it is incomplete, much like we assert that the theory of evolution is incomplete.
But if a person is open to the concept of a 'collective consciousness' than we at least have a language to help expand the discussion. Ditto for "theories of everything". A first step is having a cosmology, even a bizarre one. If the correspondent has thought about either collective consciousness, cosmology or theories of everything, we have a language to work from.
As they say, Rome was not built in a day ...
Thanks, Doc!
Thanks so much for this information, 2ndreconmarine! Fine post!
Gibbs free energy relates to systems at a constant pressure.
Helmotz free energy relates to systems at a constant volume.
Note that volume can change when systems at constant pressure change; this leads to work being done on or by the system. Pressure times volume has the units of energy (or work). The model is a piston moving through a cylinder; it can compress air or be pushed by steam or burning gasoline.
Systems at constant volume can do no outside work.
"Okay - I'll be the first to admit that I don't have a clue what this is talking about. Anybody out there to summarize in layman's terms?"
The article is attempting to disprove evolution by dragging out the old "it violates thermodynamics" argument, all tarted up in a lot of pseudoscientific glossolalia.
Evolution doesn't violate thermodynamics, of course, because living things on Earth gain their order at the cost of expending lots of energy, and the Sun is constantly pumping energy into the system.
Thanks Doc for clearing that up!
Jeepers, Trimegistus, where does the article say that?
In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell;
And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven. - Col 1:13-20
Amen! Thank you, dear Alamo-Girl, for the benediction -- a most fitting selection for this thread.
Dear the FIRMbss: Could you kindly explain how a guinea pig with a pancake on its head is consistent with/could possibly explain let alone give an answer to the gist of mlc9852's question?
I love humor just as much as the next guy. But it seems to me that, in order for something to be "funny," it must have some correlation/resemblance to actual existence as human beings normally experience it, for good or ill.
Guinea pigs with pancakes on their heads cannot -- it seems to me -- be admitted as "authoritative" evidence of anything other than the seemingly persistent human desire to take a "whack" at the constituted nature or order of universal reality. That being the case, it would seem unwise to consider such "nonsense" as a reliable indicator or witness in matters concerning the real world of common human experience.
Therefore, I reluctantly conclude that you do not have a good-faith, good-will interest in this argument at all. Your sole intent/purpose here was to make mlc9852 look like a jerk.
But I'll stand with mlc9852 here: If mlc9852 is a jerk, then so am I.
Given your example, I surmise that the prospects for rational human discourse have sunken disastrously in recent times.
You remind me of the guy -- what's his name? -- on The Simpsons, whose ready response to absolutely anything and everything that could possibly or actually does happen is: "HA-HA!!!"
In short, I find you unresponsive to the question in debate. FWIW.
You prove my point. Thanks a lot.
Life is a autocatakinetic system...and then you die
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.