Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The illusion of organizing energy

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The 2nd law of statistical thermodynamics states that in a closed system any natural transformation goes towards the more probable states. The states of organization are those more improbable, then transformations spontaneously go towards non-organization, so to speak. Since evolution would be spontaneous organization, evolution disagrees with the 2nd law.

The tendency expressed in the 2nd law rules all physical phenomena and is clearly evident in our everyday life, where e.g. systems that were ok yesterday, today are ko, while systems that are ko, do not self repair and remain ko until an intelligent intervention. In short, things break down and do not self-repair, to greater reason they do not self-organize. All that can be related to the trend of the 2nd law.

Before this evidence an usual objection is that Earth is not a closed system because it receives radiant energy from the Sun, so the 2nd law doesn’t apply. Such energy — evolutionists say — would provide the organizing power for evolution. Here we will see in very simple terms as this is nothing but a naive illusion.

In my previous post I noted how, according to general systems theory, organization shows always two different aspects: power and control. Energy is related to the power that the system needs to work and control is related to all what pertains to the “intelligence” of the system, what governs both energy/matter and information in the system. Notice that control has even to organize the energy itself powering the system. If energy really had the organizing capability evolutionists believe, one would ask why systems theory does such distinction in the first place. (In philosophical terms, in a sense, the above distinction is related to the distinction between action and knowledge. Action without knowledge is only agitation and disorder. We will see below how power/energy without control is even destructive.)

All know what energy is. The capability to do a work. Mechanical work/energy is defined as a force producing a shift. A moving object has kinetic energy, due to its speed. Thermal energy is due to the disordered motions of the molecules making up matter. Electric energy is a flow of electrons. Chemical energy is sort of potential energy able to power chemical reactions. Radiant energy is carried by light and other electromagnetic radiation.

Energy can power the systems, but never can create the organized system in the first place. In short, energy is the fuel, not the engine. Example, in photosynthesis, used by plants to convert light energy into chemical energy, the light energy presupposes a photosynthesis system just in place. The light energy doesn’t create the photosynthesis system, like the photons don’t create the photovoltaic cell that outputs electric current.

In all definitions of “energy” there is nothing that could lead us to think that energy is able to transform improbable states into probable states. Consequently, energy cannot change the situation of the 2nd law: energy cannot create organization, which always implies highly improbable states. Indeed the opposite: per se uncontrolled energy is destructive. Example: an abandoned building is slowly but inexorably destroyed by the natural forces of the environment during some centuries. If we increases the energy by considering a flood, it can be destroyed in some days. With more energy, a tornado can destroy it in minutes. Finally with the energy of a bomb we can destroy the building in few seconds. More the energy, more the speed of destruction.

If we consider the physical principle of mass–energy equivalence we reach the same conclusion as above. Mass per se has nothing to do with real organization. Mass and matter are simply the initial support/substance on which an higher principle — intelligence/essence — must operate to obtain a final organized system.

In general we can say that what energy can do is to speed the processes/transformations. But since the transformations go towards the more probable states, uncontrolled energy, far from helping evolution, it could even worsen its problems, because accelerates the trend towards non-organization. The moral is that to invoke uncontrolled energy to revert the trend of the 2nd law is counterproductive for evolutionists.

An objection that evolutionists could rise is: energy can power and greatly speed the chemical reactions, so they can produce life. In these objection there are two problems.
(1) Usually chemical reactions go towards equilibrium, the more probable state, so they don’t overturn at all the 2nd law.
(2) In this context the alleged naturalistic origin of life stated by evolutionism is a non-sequitur. In the hierarchy of biological organization chemical reactions are at the lowest level. Between this level and the final organization of organisms there are countless layers of complexity, related to increasingly higher kinds of abstractness and formalism, which are unattainable by mere chemistry.

Another similar evolutionist objection is that in 1953 Miller and Urey conducted an experiment where some organic compounds such as amino acids were formed by providing thermal and electric energy to a mixture of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water. Again no new organization here. The compounds obtained are exactly the probable transformations that the system was able to produce, under the same circumstances. In fact if one repeats the Miller/Urey experiment he gets again the same results. This shows that nothing improbable happens, rather something of very probable, almost certain. No violation of the 2nd law. Obviously also here there is an abyss between the Miller/Urey amino acids and the organization of life, also if we consider a single unicellular organism.

To sum up, the 2nd law in the context of statistical thermodynamics, provides a fundamental reason why naturalistic origin of life is impossible. To resort to energy doesn’t solve the problem, because energy is not a source of organization, rather the inverse: uncontrolled energy can cause destruction (= non-organization). Only intelligence is source of organization, and as such can explain the arise of life, the more organized thing in the cosmos.

Comments
Check out Scordovo's (who is ID proponent-by his own admission) comment
I’m an ID proponent and creationist, but with respect to the 2nd law I’ve had to side with the ID-haters on the question of the 2nd law. I’ve never been quite forgiven by many of my peers for breaking ranks...
Me_Think
March 16, 2015
March
03
Mar
16
16
2015
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
H, a moment. The evidence of the blindness is all above. KF PS: I usually refer to Darwin's pond as that is the first and th one build on by Oparin et al. Others, I occasionally mention or simply use etc. None of them makes a material difference wrt FSCO/I the heart of the matter.kairosfocus
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
Headlined: https://uncommondescent.com/molecular-animations/piotr-and-ks-dna_jock-vs-et-al-and-compensation-arguments-vs-the-energy-audit-police/kairosfocus
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT
KF @197, ref 163, No use telling me that you have elsewhere addressed other OoL scenarios. I don't doubt it, but your specific comment @163 was on protein formation in open solution, plus the untrue insinuation that OoL researchers, and interlocutors here, are blind to thermodynamic considerations (real ones, not marbles, coins, shuffled decks and nanobots).Hangonasec
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
Yes, Hangonasec, and the poor pedagogical tools are generally restricted to introductions to general physics. Introductions to thermodynamics do much better.DNA_Jock
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
Kf, in a moment of lucidity, writes:
Clausius set up two subsystems of differing temp and pondered heat flow d’q, then took ratios and showed that as Ta > Tb, net entropy rises, when we do the sums. A direct implication is that raw energy importation tends to increase entropy.
And raw energy exportation tends to decrease entropy. As you and eng have noted, dS = dQ/T. It is the presence of a heat sink that matters.
The micro view indicates this is because the number of ways micro level mass and energy can be arranged consistent with gross macro state has risen. Thus, the point that I clipped in 169, that importation of raw energy into a system leads to a trend of increased entropy. Where as G N Lewis and others have highlighted, a useful metric for entropy is that it indicates the average missing information to specify particular microstate consistent with a macroscopic lab level gross state.
Excellent. Yet you blithely ignore the effect of a heat sink and refuse (172, 188, 263, 277) to calculate how much water would need to be melted to account for the information content of the human genome. Telling. “Ill informed, ill advised posturing.” One might say. Meanwhile niwrad retreats to
Those structures/configurations in no way cannot be defined “organization” in the sense I mean. [sic]
As predicted. You are going to have to come up with a definition of "organization" that does not reduce to "requires intelligence", and come up with a way of measuring it thermodynamically. Good luck.DNA_Jock
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
Box @205,
They are true statements and quite clever, but they don’t diminish the DOMINANT TRUTH which everyone will understand: “wind coming from the north poses an obstacle for things wanting to go north”.
I know you think that cleverly anticipatory, but it isn't particularly relevant. If you must analogise, you have left all other points of the compass unrestricted. Organisms sail cheerfully downwind, whatever they might 'want'. No second law means no wind at all, in any direction. The result would not be 'no degradation', but the opposite. No air or water molecules, for starters. This was intended to counter niwrad's insistence that the only thing to come out of entropy increase is disorder. Atoms, crystals, planets and proteins are ordered because of it, not in spite of it. I partly blame poor pedagological tools. Statistical mechanics and disorder is fine, imagine all the gas atoms in a box at one end, now look at a student's room - the sort of thing that KF could weave into another mighty post - but it misses the point by a mile when it comes to biology and chemistry.Hangonasec
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
niwrad @204
Hangonasec #198 You need to think at the molecular scale. Physics is not scale invariant. Cars are not molecules… niwrad: The 2nd law applies to all systems with many atoms. [...]
Way to think at the molecular scale! Entropy increase is not all about 'degradation'. Sorry, but You Are Wrong.Hangonasec
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
KS & DNA-Jock. Kindly cf the just above. Show the relevance of claimed "compensating" energy flows or hold out your hands for the cuffs of the energy flow audit police. KFkairosfocus
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
Piotr, Perhaps it has not dawned on you what saying "private misconception" dismissively in front of someone who long since studied thermodynamics in light of the microstate underpinnings of macrostates, rooted in the work of Gibbs and Boltzmann comes across as. Ill informed, ill advised posturing. FYI, it is the observational facts, reasoning and underlying first plausibles that decide a scientific issue, not opinions and a united ideological front. In direct terms, FYFI irrelevant energy flows and entropy changes as are commonly trotted out in "compensation" arguments are a fallacy. FYYFI, 2LOT (which has multiple formulations as it was arrived at from several directions . . . Clausius being most important in my view), is rooted in the statistics of systems based on large numbers of particles ( typically we can start at say 10^12, and run to 19^19 - 10^26 atoms or molecules etc for analyses that spring to mind), and in effect sums up that for isolated systems the spontaneous trend is towards clusters of microstates with statistical dominance of the possibilities under given macro-conditions. On peeking within conceptually (somewhat oddly, as strict isolation means no energy or mass movement cross-border so we technically cannot look in from outside . . . we are effectively taking a God's eye view . . . ) Clausius set up two subsystems of differing temp and pondered heat flow d'q, then took ratios and showed that as Ta > Tb, net entropy rises, when we do the sums. A direct implication is that raw energy importation tends to increase entropy. The micro view indicates this is because the number of ways micro level mass and energy can be arranged consistent with gross macro state has risen. Thus, the point that I clipped in 169, that importation of raw energy into a system leads to a trend of increased entropy. Where as G N Lewis and others have highlighted, a useful metric for entropy is that it indicates the average missing information to specify particular microstate consistent with a macroscopic lab level gross state. Now, too, work can be understood to be forces, ordered motion at macro or micro levels, generally measured on the dot product F*dx. Energy conversion devices such as heat engines couple energy inflows to structures that generate such forced ordered work, commonly shaft work that moves a shaft and loads connected to it. In so doing, to operate they exhaust degraded energy, often waste heat to a heat sink. The pivotal issue comes up here: relevant energy conversion devices (especially in cell based life, such as driving ATP synthesis (ATP synthase) or photosynthesis, or onwards synthesising proteins, are FSCO/I rich, composed of many interacting parts in specific arrangements that work together. At OOL, there are suggestions, such machinery is supposed to have spontaneously come about through diffusion and chemical kinetics etc. But the same statistics underpinning 2LOT and integral to it for over 100 years, highlights that such amounts to expecting randomising forces or phenomena such as diffusion to do complex, specific patterns of constructive work. The relevant statistics and their upshot is massively against such. The non functional clumped at random possibilities vastly outnumber the functionally specific ones, much less the scattered ones. Hence the thought exercise I clipped at 242 above. The only empirically, observationally warranted adequate cause of such FSCO/I at macro or micro levels (recall that classic pic of atoms arranged to spell IBM?) is intelligently directed configuration. Which of course will use energy converting devices to carry out constructive work in a technology cascade. It takes a lot of background work to carry out the work in hand just now, as a rule. Such is not a violation of 2LOT, as eg Szilard's analysis of Maxwell's Demon shows. There is a relevant heat or energy flow and degradation process that compensates the reduction in freedom of possibilities implied in constructing an FSCO/I rich entity. But, RELEVANT is a key word; the compensating flow needs to credibly be connected to the constructive wiring diagram assembly work in hand to create an FSCO/I rich entity. It cannot just be free floating out there in a cloud cuckooland dream of getting forces of dissipation and disarrangement such as Brownian motion and diffusion to do a large body of constructive work. That is the red herring-strawman fallacy involved in typical "compensation" arguments. There ain't no "paper trail" that connects the claimed "compensation" to the energy transactions involved in the detailed construction work required to create FSCO/I. Call in the energy auditors! Arrest that energy embezzler! In short simple terms, with all due respect, you simply don't know what you are talking about and yet traipse in to announce that others who do have a clue, misunderstand. That does not compute, as the fictional Mr Spock was so fond of saying. Such does not exactly commend evolutionary materialist ideology as the thoughtful man's view of the world. But then, long since, that view has been known to be self-referentially incoherent. E.g. per Haldane's subtle retort:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
I suggest to you that you would be well advised "tae think again." KFkairosfocus
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
Niwrad, Stop using the term "2nd law" for something that is your private misconception. You've got it all backwards, like your nick. Organised dynamic non-equilibrium states are very efficient mechanisms for maximum entropy production in the right circumstances, which makes them attractors in the evolution of some kinds of dynamic systems powered by natural energy flows. Such self-organisation not only obeys the LOT2 (the real one, not your travesty), but obeys it particularly well. Sorry, but if I give you an example of a self-organising dynamic structure produced in controlled conditions in a laboratory experiment and you object that it doesn't count because the experiment conditions are "designed", I can only turn my attention somewhere else.Piotr
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
01:21 AM
1
01
21
AM
PDT
By the way thanks to Eric Anderson (in particular I appreciated his remarks on the "compensation argument"), and whoever has given contributions to distinguish the true from the false.niwrad
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
01:19 AM
1
01
19
AM
PDT
Piotr #276 organization.................systems-----------> ---> = 2nd law arrow Thanks for the links to those papers, however they don't show thermodynamic origin of spontaneous organization. The first paper explains (with a triumphalist evolutionist bias) how nanotubes are structures formed by the natural laws when apt experiment conditions are set-up by design. Ditto for the micelles: they are configurations that particular groups of molecules assume given their physical/chemical properties. Those structures/configurations in no way cannot be defined "organization" in the sense I mean. They lack just the first requisite of organized dynamic systems: hierarchies of functions & tasks.niwrad
March 15, 2015
March
03
Mar
15
15
2015
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT
Another relevant comment from that thread:
For anyone who still doesn’t get it, here is an explanation of Granville’s biggest error. The compensation argument says that entropy can decrease in a system as long as there is a sufficiently large net export of entropy from the system. Granville misinterpets the compensation argument as saying that anything, no matter how improbable, can happen in a system as long as the above criterion is met. This is obviously wrong, so Granville concludes that the compensation argument is invalid. In reality, only his interpretation of the compensation argument is invalid. The compensation argument itself is perfectly valid. The compensation argument shows that evolution doesn’t violate the second law. It does not say whether evolution happened; that is a different argument. Granville confuses the two issues because of his misunderstanding of the compensation argument. Since the second law isn’t violated, it has no further relevance. Granville is skeptical of evolution, but his skepticism has nothing to do with the second law. He is just like every other IDer and creationist: an evolution skeptic. You can see why this is a huge disappointment to him. Imagine if he had actually succeeded in showing that evolution violated a fundamental law of nature!
keith s
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT
DNA_Jock, to Eric:
That’s not the same thing at all as “Earth-is-an-open-system”, now, is it? When you misrepresent what your interlocutors said, you appear dishonest.
This sort of dishonesty is literally a perennial problem for Eric. Back in 2013: Eric:
The compensation idea is, frankly, silly. The reason a tree can exist has nothing to do with the fact that the Earth is an open system and the tree’s reduced entropy is “compensated” by increased entropy at the sun. Otherwise, tell me, please, what physical mechanism alerts the Sun to the fact that there is a tree growing on the Earth and, therefore, the Sun should increase its entropy?
Keith:
Eric, You have misunderstood the compensation argument. The argument is valid, but your understanding of it isn’t. In the case of Earth, the compensation is not taking place on the Sun. In fact, the radiation emitted by the Sun actually works toward reducing its own entropy. Instead, the compensation happens because Earth is radiating energy out into its surroundings. How do the surroundings “know” that they should increase their entropy? Because they receive the radiation from the Earth.
Eric refuses to let go of his straw men, even if he has to lie to himself and to others in order to maintain them. He reminds me a lot of this baboon.keith s
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT
Eric, you are being naughty: @280 You write:
Piotr @254:
Possibly, but since nobody’s made such a claim, you’re fencing with a straw man. Where have you taken this idea from?
Excellent. So I trust I can count on you to stand with me in shooting down the “Earth-is-an-open-system” canard next time an abiogenesis proponent brings it up — which is essentially every time this topic is discussed, it being one of the most common “explanations” for how entropy can decrease in the local Earth environment.
So I scroll up to 254 to find out what was the claim that Piotr referred to, and I find:
The idea that the Sun “compensating” for what happens on Earth makes the impossible possible, or the improbable probable, is absurd.
Possibly, but since nobody’s made such a claim, you’re fencing with a straw man.
That’s not the same thing at all as “Earth-is-an-open-system”, now, is it? When you misrepresent what your interlocutors said, you appear dishonest. BTW, it’s the presence of a heat sink, rather than a heat source, that allows entropy to decrease locally.DNA_Jock
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
Eric, Perhaps you can tackle the question that KF fears: how is photosynthesis possible if the compensation argument is invalid?keith s
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
kairosfocus, You are avoiding the question:
I’m still waiting for the resident thermodynamic geniuses to explain how photosynthesis is possible if the compensation argument is invalid.
We both know the answer: the compensation argument is correct. The local entropy reduction due to photosynthesis is compensated for by an increase of entropy in the surroundings -- just as the second law requires. Please do better. ETA: If mockery is such an abuse, you should file a restraining order against yourself for self-parody.keith s
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
Piotr @254:
Possibly, but since nobody’s made such a claim, you’re fencing with a straw man. Where have you taken this idea from?
Excellent. So I trust I can count on you to stand with me in shooting down the "Earth-is-an-open-system" canard next time an abiogenesis proponent brings it up -- which is essentially every time this topic is discussed, it being one of the most common "explanations" for how entropy can decrease in the local Earth environment.
Living things “export” entropy to their immediate environment, not to the Sun. They disperse heat and low-free-energy chemical compounds — that‘s what compensates for any local decreases of entropy in biological systems.
Yes. Which simply means that a chemical reaction will do what it is going to do. If it is exothermic it will release energy; if it is endothermic it will uptake energy. We're all in agreement on this point, I presume. So the remaining question for OOL is whether the types of reactions required to build and maintain a far-from-equilibrium living system are the kinds of reactions that we would expect to see occur under purely natural conditions. The answer is "no," as is recognized by those who work in OOL research.Eric Anderson
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
KS, passed by to see how things are getting on. Mockery not substance, when already it has been noted that photosynthesis is a bit of cellular nanotech that is chock full of FSCO/I, similar to metabolic networks, DNA and associated machinery etc. Wiki before wandering off on just-so stories:
Although photosynthesis is performed differently by different species, the process always begins when energy from light is absorbed by proteins called reaction centres that contain green chlorophyll pigments. In plants, these proteins are held inside organelles called chloroplasts, which are most abundant in leaf cells, while in bacteria they are embedded in the plasma membrane. In these light-dependent reactions, some energy is used to strip electrons from suitable substances, such as water, producing oxygen gas. Furthermore, two further compounds are generated: reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) and adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the "energy currency" of cells. In plants, algae and cyanobacteria, sugars are produced by a subsequent sequence of light-independent reactions called the Calvin cycle, but some bacteria use different mechanisms, such as the reverse Krebs cycle. In the Calvin cycle, atmospheric carbon dioxide is incorporated into already existing organic carbon compounds, such as ribulose bisphosphate (RuBP).[5] Using the ATP and NADPH produced by the light-dependent reactions, the resulting compounds are then reduced and removed to form further carbohydrates, such as glucose.
A bit later it picks up:
In the light-dependent reactions, one molecule of the pigment chlorophyll absorbs one photon and loses one electron. This electron is passed to a modified form of chlorophyll called pheophytin, which passes the electron to a quinone molecule, allowing the start of a flow of electrons down an electron transport chain that leads to the ultimate reduction of NADP to NADPH. In addition, this creates a proton gradient across the chloroplast membrane; its dissipation is used by ATP synthase for the concomitant synthesis of ATP. The chlorophyll molecule regains the lost electron from a water molecule through a process called photolysis, which releases a dioxygen (O2) molecule.
In short typical cascaded integrated reactions, use of membranes, "wet electricity" and the like, energised by coupling of photons. Nanotech. Things that need constructive, very specific work inputs to be able to couple to energy inflows of light and do their own constructive work; which includes . . . energy conversion. Sorta, sorta as has been pointed out all along but brushed aside. But then the very notion of complex organised things that need to be just so to work by coupling energy inflows to do onwards constructive work is apparently uncomfortable. Mockery is so much easier . . . especially when you can neatly dodge the point that ruthless factionism and alinskyite tactics used by radical atheists is a real challenge . . . and mockery is one of them. FB abuse, anyone? KS, please do better. KFkairosfocus
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
I'm still waiting for the resident thermodynamic geniuses to explain how photosynthesis is possible if the compensation argument is invalid. Here's a not-so-subtle hint from an earlier comment:
If you reject the compensation argument, you reject the second law.
You guys crack me up. KF, please snip something from your always-linked-but-rarely-clicked that explains how photosynthesis is a fraud perpetrated by the amoral evomat Alinskyite radicals and fellow travelers that Plato warned us about 2,350 years ago, who shamelessly poison, polarise and confuse the atmosphere with their photosynthetic talking points. ENDkeith s
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
Kf @269
DNA_Jock: I am not going to chase a red herring led away form the pivotal issue.
I thought this thread was about whether “evolution disagrees with the 2nd law”. The relative contributions of thermal and informational entropy would seem central to this issue.
The issue is that there is a micro level work of clumping that is already against the forces of diffusion etc,
What a good description of crystallization.
then there is a further configurational work that is required to move to FSCO/I rich functional states.
You will need to be explicit about how you measure “configurational work” and how you quantify “FSCO/I rich functional states” for a biological. When you provide examples, please avoid the mistake of assuming that the elements are independent of each other. I note with some amusement that this is something that you have never done , despite repeated requests. I also look forward to someone, anyone, demonstrating how to quantify ‘organization’. Piotr – very cool links.DNA_Jock
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
#273 Niwrad, Here's an interesting example: http://engineering.illinois.edu/news/article/10591 [the full report] If you'd like to see how entropy-driven self-organisation can occur in equilibrium systems, consider micelle formation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micelle http://www.mpikg.mpg.de/886719/MicelleFormation.pdfPiotr
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
niwrad: Don’t say crystals as Zachriel because crystals have nothing to do with organization. But it does have something to do with your claim in the original post. Your argument, encapsulated in your diagram, would mean that crystals can't form either. As crystals can form, your argument is contradicted by fact.Zachriel
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: Your “compensation” strawman is simply further distracting form the statistical underpinnings of 2 LOT. Which has lower thermodynamic entropy, a human brain, or the same mass of quartz? niwrad: it is from the very beginning of this thread that I continue to repeat that the present ID argument from the 2nd law deals with probability only. You forgot to answer the question. What happens with regards to heat when snow forms from liquid water in clouds? Unless your understand is consistent with entropy measures, then it is not the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Maybe you mean the 2nd law of something-something instead.Zachriel
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
Piotr #272
Actually, an “organised” state may be thermodynamically favoured if it makes the system disperse waste energy more efficiently (something that life is very good at).
O.................S-----------> S = systems O = organization ---> = 2nd law arrow Dreams. Whatever "life is very good at" is due to its intelligent design in toto. I wait for you to show an “organised” state "thermodynamically favoured". Don't say crystals as Zachriel because crystals have nothing to do with organization.niwrad
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT
#258 KF, Of course LOT2 is a statistical principle, which doesn't mean that any of its naively vulgarised interpretations we've seen here is correct. Niwrad, for example, is completely wrong in claiming that increasing entropy universally draws a system away from an organised state. Actually, an "organised" state may be thermodynamically favoured if it makes the system disperse waste energy more efficiently (something that life is very good at).Piotr
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Zachriel #268
But thermodynamic entropy is a measurable property...
O.................S-----------> S = systems O = organization ---> = 2nd law arrow Again.. it is from the very beginning of this thread that I continue to repeat that the present ID argument from the 2nd law deals with probability only. You continue to speak of thermal entropy, which is irrelevant here. Thermal transformations have nothing to do with spontaneous creation of organization. ...Zachriel: "but the standard molar entropy of ice is 38 and..."niwrad
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
Z, the discussion on nanomachinery should have made photosynthesis clear. Photosynth machinery couples light to energise transformation of raw materials to produce results, with efficiencies of a few percent was it. Your "compensation" strawman is simply further distracting form the statistical underpinnings of 2 LOT. When you can show some reasonable responsiveness to pivotal issues, you will have something relevant to say, but until then you are simply playing at distractionsand showing a subtext of unwarranted contempt and mischaracterisations that frankly are beginning to go to character now. For you know better or full well should know better. So, do better, mon! KFkairosfocus
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
DNA_Jock: I am not going to chase a red herring led away form the pivotal issue. The issue is that there is a micro level work of clumping that is already against the forces of diffusion etc, then there is a further configurational work that is required to move to FSCO/I rich functional states. If you need a reference on what that implies, I suggest chs 7 - 9 of TMLO which has worked out all relevant considerations at first level. KFkairosfocus
March 14, 2015
March
03
Mar
14
14
2015
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
1 2 3 10

Leave a Reply