[Right Wing Professor]

Newton has a second law of motion, as well as a second law of thermodynamics.

Aaargh! I guess I need to repeat this yet again!

Newton had nothing to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[bvw]

Did Newton make a business of turning splinters into oak beams?

[Revolutionary]

By no means do I have the answer yet, but the more I study chaos, the more I find hidden complexity. Each time I find the "pattern" or method I say "wow", it is so simple, yet so elegant. Each one I have found so far is deterministic; but generates near infinite outcomes; while moving towards and ending at a goal. At the risk of gross over simplification, it is like being on a stairway and you can choose whether the next step is up or down; however, every third time you choose up, you must choose up again. Given an entire population, most people will end up at the top of the stairs.

I also see where these "patterns" are changed somewhat (in the past) and go off in a better direction.

In genetics, my intuition says that "firmware" will be the most interesting. Firmware is what creatures know without being taught. Humans seem to have the least amount of firmware, but what they potentially do have seems more unique.

[betty boop]

Newton had nothing to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I have been (mis)attributing the Second Law of Thermodynamics to Newton for years by now, and you are the first to correct me -- in your usual charming and gracious manner, of course. Thank you for that.

Now that we have that straight, I would like to know your opinion of my contention that Boltzmann's conception of the second law as a law of disorder is not an exhaustive basis for the investigation of biological systems, which seem to be characterized by the ability to manifest higher and higher degrees of self-organization. Boltzmann's experiments with classical gasses apparently did not indicate this type of behavior.

It is very difficult for me to imagine that living systems are finally reducible to their chemical reactions, the outcomes of which can be anticipated probabilistically. But if they were, Boltzmann's would be the proper model.

It appears that there's more involved in a living system than can be accounted for on the basis of the physical laws alone.

Now I will sit back and let you tell me why my observation is incorrect, and why Boltzmann's approach to the second law is the sound basis for unravelling the thorny problem, "What is life?" I await your instruction in this matter.