Posted on 12/28/2005 3:01:53 PM PST by johnnyb_61820
... 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.
Anyone who has made such an argument is familiar with the standard reply: the Earth is an open system, it receives energy from the sun, and order can increase in an open system, as long as it is "compensated" somehow by a comparable or greater decrease outside the system. S. Angrist and L. Hepler, for example, in "Order and Chaos", write, "In a certain sense the development of civilization may appear contradictory to the second law.... Even though society can effect local reductions in entropy, the general and universal trend of entropy increase easily swamps the anomalous but important efforts of civilized man. Each localized, man-made or machine-made entropy decrease is accompanied by a greater increase in entropy of the surroundings, thereby maintaining the required increase in total entropy."
According to this reasoning, then, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal -- and the door is open. In Appendix D of my new book, The Numerical Solution of Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations, second edition, I take a closer look at the equation for entropy change, which applies not only to thermal entropy but also to the entropy associated with anything else that diffuses, and show that it does not simply say that order cannot increase in a closed system. It also says that in an open system, order cannot increase faster than it is imported through the boundary. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Ping
If I leave a pan of brine out in the sun it organizes itself into salt crystals a lot more complex than brine was.
As you say. The analogy I find useful is eddies in a stream. Anomolous results can occur in a limited space for a limited time. But like an eddy, they will soon vanish into the main current leading toward the ocean, or heat death.
To think that such eddies can result in all the higher orders of life is to argue that eddies can build on one another, perhaps a million stages of growth, until they produce a lasting result. No, undirected nature doesn't work that way.
If you spent a year flipping coins, you might possibly get a run of 100 heads in a row, although it's extremely unlikely. More likely a run of 15 or 20 would be the best you could do. Evolution is the equivalent of billions of heads in a row.
I have a PhD in Physics, and Strategerist is way off base in his claim that Sewell misunderstands the Second Law. I notice that St does not respond to calls to put up or shut up regarding that assertion.
Those elements are not 'ordering' themselves, they are retreating to a state of equilibrium. Just a water droplet becoming an 'ordered' snowflake. It is adhering to its native form - per the ambient temperature - it is not achieving a higher level of complexity.
Probability is a b*tch when you have infinity to hit the odds.
You are wrong and I have the qualifications to say so -- what are your qualifications to make this statement?
You posted: "Please explain this via your interpretation of the 2nd Law and entropy."
Non-sequiter.
There is a systematic influnce at work in this: the differing densities of the liquids, and a gravitational field. Re-do the experiment in endless free-fall and comment on your findings. Due at close of class today."
Reply:
I am gratified that you know that substances have different densities. What do you think happens in a zero-gravitational field? Do you guess there will be no separation of the liquids and no appearance of order?
However, how do you square your answer with the 2nd Law? There is nothing in the 2nd law about densities, is there?
I majored in physics for a while and did a fair amount of math. The article summarizes current extrapolation from the original laws of thermodynamics very nicely.
Someone else claimed that without Darwin we would have no modern science. Preposterous. I'm not aware that Darwinism has added anything to the advancement of science, other than limited understanding of intraspecies evolution. But from a practical point of view, Mendel contributed a good deal more.
Not nearly as embarassing as evolutionists who compare a so called theory of evolution with the law of gravity.
Go back out and play, and remember to wash your hands before dinner.
But you don't have infinity. You have, probably between 10 and 20 billion years for the universe, a few billion years for the earth, and a much smaller period of time for the higher life forms.
The available space and time is far smaller than the astronomical string of coincidences.
Of course! Astronomical probability => 1
A third possibility being non interventionist IE: we are living and growing in a universe in which the rules were established at t=0
Not sure whether this is actually a third possibility though. It is more a subset of random actions. Very interesting explanation, however!
Agreed. Darwin was a great observer of biological entities on his trip in the Beagle, and made some interesting hypotheses, but you are right -- Mendel was much more important to biological science than Darwin.
I'm learning here. How did the laws of physics come into being?
Science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke formulated three laws: Number 3 states:
To this we can add:Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
At one time thunder was thought to be created by the gods; now we know better.Any sufficiently obscure or unexplained natural phenomenon will probably be explained by "God did it!" until science catches up.
Hello! very mature reply! Great analysis. Smacks of being highly evolved!
Again, your argument is circular. Of course, I don't deny that the universe is as it is. The question at issue is how it got this way.
Your analogy of the lottery only indicates that, let's say, out of 7 million entries, one person wins. Whether it's you or someone else, you can't get 7 million wins out of it.
You forgot to ask if it should be extra virgin olive oil.
Shoe is on the other hand now.
No matter how loud their proponents yell, creationism and ID are mythology, religion, and philosophy. Evolution is science.
The only reason I get involved is because I worry about our kids getting screwed up thinking that when you hit something you can't explain, you basically throw your hands up and say "magic did this." That is very real damage.
No wonder we are losing so badly in worldwide academia.
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.