Um, where's the "program" in the case of evolution?
Also, can you evos clarify something for me: if I, say, take some OJ and cranbery juice and pour both of them together in a glass and stir it for a while and stop and then I notice that the OJ and CJ are perfectly separated, that would also not be a violation of the second law, right, on a pure energy basis?
But would it be a violation of the laws of entropy? Is there only one kind of entropy? Is there a single well accepted definition?
One more question: can you give me any example of observed natural processes which result in arrangements of matter of both long-term higher potential energy and statistical complexity with no guiding program or blueprint?
This is a result allowed by thermodynamics. However, thermodynamics would assert that this result is highly improbable.
But would it be a violation of the laws of entropy? Is there only one kind of entropy? Is there a single well accepted definition?
There are no "laws of entropy", though thermodynamics does describe a bias toward higher entropy under certain constraints. You can remove entropy from one place by putting it somewhere else, which is perfectly permissible in thermodynamics and why your example does not violate the 2nd law.
There is only a single abstract definition for entropy, but most people are familiar with constrained derivative descriptions (like in thermodynamics). There is no specific requirement for any system to increase its entropy in the theoretical abstract; for thermodynamics that bias exists due to intrinsic properties of our class of universe.
can you give me any example of observed natural processes which result in arrangements of matter of both long-term higher potential energy and statistical complexity with no guiding program or blueprint?
Your terminology is laden with assumptions that are not actually valid, making it kinda hard to answer that question. For starters, everything is an algorithm by definition by the simple fact of existence, yet it appears you are trying to posit a case where something exists that is not an algorithm. Trying to separate these concepts is a common example of intuition failing.
I didn't ask, but I could have - where is the "program" in the case of the origin of computer chips? Seems to me that this "program" analogy is being spread paper thin. However if life can be said to be following a "program" then evolution is following the same program plus some additional rules of nature (eg that tautology of "survival of the fittest"). Afterall evolution is simply a consequence of life replicating imperfectly and the better imperfects tending to be selected. If life doesn't violate the 2nd law then I don't see how evolution could.
Also, can you evos clarify something for me: if I, say, take some OJ and cranbery juice and pour both of them together in a glass and stir it for a while and stop and then I notice that the OJ and CJ are perfectly separated, that would also not be a violation of the second law, right, on a pure energy basis?
If it is possible that can happen then I am sure it wouldn't be a violation as nothing is known that violates the 2nd law.
But would it be a violation of the laws of entropy? Is there only one kind of entropy? Is there a single well accepted definition?
As far as I gather entropy is a complex term and has multiple definitions which are often mixed in a confusing way. For example entropy is a term in thermodynamics and unfortunately it is also a term in information theory meaning a quite different thing. That is a recipe for disaster in this debate where information and disorder crop up. I only use entropy in relation to disorder.
One more question: can you give me any example of observed natural processes which result in arrangements of matter of both long-term higher potential energy and statistical complexity with no guiding program or blueprint?
I do not know what potential energy or statistical complexity are so I cannot.