|
Author
|
Topic: Granville Sewell and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 21. March 2007 08:54
There are two topics being discussed here. One is the logical, mathematical and scientific nature of information. The second is the question of including and/or excluding individuals from discussion.
To review some of the discussion on the nature of information, we start with the question "Is information a natural phenomenon like energy with a single correct definition, or is information an abstract phenomenon defined at the discretion of mathematicians and scientists?" If you accept the concept of 'information defined at the discretion of scientists and mathematicians' option, then the issues surrounding information and thermodynamics becomes irrelevant.
If, like most scientists and mathematicians, you accept that information is a definable abstract concept, then the next question is whether the creation of information is to be defined as following deterministic concepts and principles. It is generally recognized that information in the forms of 'designs' or 'intelligent designs' or 'solutions to goal directed problems' is produced by processes or information processing. If these processes or this information processing
is defined as deterministic, then the information or solutions generated by these processes or this information processing is determined by the input in the form of either external input or processing algorithms. Using this approach, information is created, but not within a closed processing system.
This is the concept/definition/approach universally used in all hard science analysis, yet the concept is not widely accepted in its own right. Should it be accepted? Is there a scientifically acceptable alternative? If you accept information as scientifically definable, then these are the issues that need to be understood and debated.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 21. March 2007 09:01
The second issue that we can't get away from here is the question of who is and who is not qualified to make useful contributions to various components of this discussion.
It seems reasonably clear that those who accept information as energy concepts are going to have difficulty in dealing with the differences between competing forms of discretionary definitions.
It also seems reasonably clear that those who don't understand the differences between the various alternative approaches are not going to be able to make much of a positive contribution.
Finally, we have to deal with those who are posting simply to disrupt productive discussion.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 22. March 2007 06:30
Most people would accept that 'intelligent processing of information' can produce 'intelligent designs'. Most people would agree that a group of human engineers and builders designing and building a spacecraft that travels to the moon is an example of intelligent processing producing an intelligent design.
If we define 'intelligent processing' in terms of 1) a deterministic processing algorithm and 2) input data, 3) operating in an efficient and deterministic manner to produce an intelligent solution or design, then we have one possible approach to the scientific analysis of both human intelligent behavior and biological evolution.
The questions to be addressed are then 1) Can this approach be used in the scientific analysis of intelligent behavior and 2) Are there clearly defined alternative approaches that can be shown to be effective in performing this type of scientific analysis?
It would appear that very few individuals have the technical skills to address these questions in a productive manner.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 23. March 2007 08:00
Lots of people can at least partially understand that questions like 'How is information created?", and "How are novel designs (involving created information) like human beings, life, birds, trees, bridges, novels, and spaceships created?" are interesting questions on many different levels. Many people naively and incorrectly believe that science can address and answer these questions.
The more accurate and more correct answer is that science attempts to analyze the questions or even more accurately "Science attempts to identify logical frameworks that will permit useful and productive analysis of questions relating to the creation of information"
Once we begin to understand how science or real science or hard science actually addresses the questions of information creation and design by intelligence, we make the further discovery that there already exists an established and productive framework for performing this type of analysis.
The challenge for hard science ID is not discovering or establishing an appropriate framework for analyzing information creation or design by intelligence. The challenge for hard science ID is overcoming the strong political opposition and lack of understanding from academia to the established framework.
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 24. March 2007 18:19
John Davison in discussion with 2ndclass on second law:
quote:
Living things are able to violate the second law because they progress through carefully prescribed steps which are extremely energetically efficient.
Living organisms are supposed to resist thermal and chemical decomposition by degrading external energy. In such way darwinists explain 2nd law to be in effect in living organisms. They use terminus technikus "thermodynamically open systems" since organism's low entropy is presumed to be compensated by the increase of the entropy of the feeding source.
But existence of viruses cannot be explained away by application of terminus technikus "thermodynamically open systems". Because viruses do not possess any mechanism of metabolism, self-reproduction etc...
Anyway viruses remains intact.
http://www.accordinstitute.org/2006_2_5_biofield_control_system_of_organism.htm
[ 24. March 2007, 18:20: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 25. March 2007 10:25
The question of information preservation and creation, or more accurately the question of how scientists define information in order to analyze the phenomena referred to as information creation and preservation, has to be one of the central issues in the development of a science of ID. It is important to note how few people interested in ID science (or how few of those opposed to ID science) actually have the technical knowledge and training and interest needed to discuss the topic.
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 25. March 2007 19:37
Re: Applicability of entropy to thermal and material processes.
2ndClass
On mar 21st, 2007 you assert:
quote:
The point is that Sewell applies equation 4 to other things besides energy. For instance, he applies it to carbon atoms diffusing in a solid. As I said on March 7, he's fine up to that point, but then he seems to imply that it can be be applied to matter in general, which it can't.
On 7 Nov. 2002 (page 1) Sewell states: quote:
The first formulations of the second law were all about energy, but scientists later realized that the underlying principle, that the laws of probability at the microscopic level can be used to make macroscopic predictions, could be applied in many other situations, and if you look at any physics textbook today you will find the second law applied to many situations that have nothing directly to do with energy or heat.
A handy 1994 version of Crummett & Western "University Physics" p 559 states: quote:
"An important result of statistical mechanics is that the quantity we have defined as entropy is indeed a measure of the disorder of a system. Moreover, the statistical mechanical statement of the second law of thermodynamics is: All isolated systems tend towards a state of disorder.
I understand the the equation for entropy for thermal processes heat is identical to disordering of material processes. I have not seen you give any basis for your assertion. Please provide evidence with equations and references to published papers to support your assertion that Sewell's equations (and statistical mechanics) cannot be applied to matter in general.
---------------------
There seems to be agreement that entropy cannot increase in a closed system. Sewell extends this to the tautology with supporting derivation that:
quote:
“Thus in an open system, (4) means the decrease in entropy cannot be more than the entropy exported through the boundary.”
I understand "codified information" to be a decrease in entropy, and that such cannot occur in a closed system limited to the four natural forces. Thus, Sewell's tautology and Equation 4 state that decreases in entropy including codified information must come through the boundary of an open system.
Correlary: When coded information is introduced into a closed system, natural processes diffuse or destroy such codified information. e.g. sand storms or acid rain degrading encryptions, or mutations destroying DNA sequences and consequent gene function.
Maintaining codified information against the second law thus requires error correcting systems which must be sustained by energy input through the boundary of the open system. I know of no way for error correcting systems to be formed by the four natural forces.
To counter Sewell, you must either show that the 2nd law is invalid (entropy can decrease) in a closed system,
OR
show why Sewell's tautology and equation 4 is invalid. i.e., show that reductions in entropy in an open system can be greater than the reductions in entropy coming through the boundary of the open system. If you make any appeal to biotic systems or intelligent causes within that open system, you must first show how those were first introduced into the open system, or formed within the open system without violating the 2nd law.
I understand that this would require demonstrating abiogenesis by natural processes limited to the four forces of nature, e.g., with the input of solar, geothermal, nuclear or gravitational (e.g., tidal) energy. All the best in your endeavors!
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 26. March 2007 07:23
Quote: The first formulations of the second law were all about energy, but scientists later realized that the underlying principle, that the laws of probability at the microscopic level can be used to make macroscopic predictions, could be applied in many other situations, and if you look at any physics textbook today you will find the second law applied to many situations that have nothing directly to do with energy or heat.
This statement notes that the mathematical relationtionships, or the types of mathematical relationships, associted with the second law can often be used to model or simulate other types of relationships. The same can be said for the algebraic relationships involved in Newton's and Einstien's physics.
Note that the assertion is only that there is a possiblility that the mathematics involved in the second law might be applicable in other areas. There is no suggestion that the second law is applicable nor is there any suggestion the mathematical relationships can be applied without 1) defining the variables involved and 2) demonstrating scientifically that the relationship among the defined variables fits the type of mathematical relationships involved with the second law.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 26. March 2007 12:10
quote:
On 7 Nov. 2002 (page 1) Sewell states:
quote:The first formulations of the second law were all about energy, but scientists later realized that the underlying principle, that the laws of probability at the microscopic level can be used to make macroscopic predictions, could be applied in many other situations, and if you look at any physics textbook today you will find the second law applied to many situations that have nothing directly to do with energy or heat.
A handy 1994 version of Crummett & Western "University Physics" p 559 states:
quote:"An important result of statistical mechanics is that the quantity we have defined as entropy is indeed a measure of the disorder of a system. Moreover, the statistical mechanical statement of the second law of thermodynamics is: All isolated systems tend towards a state of disorder.
You'll note that the final sentence is specifically in the context of statistical mechanics. Statistical mechanical models are not valid for every system. For instance, they do not take into account chemical reactions.
If we want to define entropy more broadly and make use of the statistical principles that underly the 2nd Law, we have to model our system in terms of microstates and macrostates and find their respective probabilities. Sewell seems to be moving in this direction when he says ,"the underlying principle behind the second law is that natural forces do not do macroscopically describable things which are extremely improbable from the microscopic point of view," but he never fleshes out that approach. He never formalizes the notion of "describable", nor does he show that any particular describable composite event is extremely improbable microscopically.
quote:
I understand the the equation for entropy for thermal processes heat is identical to disordering of material processes.
Sewell recognizes that the equation applies only to diffusing substances. For instance, he says here: "The above analysis can be repeated exactly for any other diffusing substance..." Unfortunately, he implicitly applies his analysis more broadly in order to come up with his conclusions, but he offers no justification for doing so.
It's a trivial fact that not all substances diffuse. That was the point of my counterexample of gravitational condensation.
quote:
I have not seen you give any basis for your assertion.
I offered a counterexample. How is that not a basis for my assertion?
quote:
Please provide evidence with equations and references to published papers to support your assertion that Sewell's equations (and statistical mechanics) cannot be applied to matter in general.
It appears that you have high evidentiary standards, which is good, but I would need to know what part of my argument you're challenging in order to provide support for it. (Obviously I can't provide reputable references that specifically address Sewell's argument, for the same reason that geology journals don't address flat-earth arguments.)
I'll repeat my counterexample to make sure we're clear on it...
Sewell's equation (2) is: J * \Delta U <= 0
This says that the direction of heat flux is opposite that of the temperature gradient. For randomly diffusing substances, the net movement is away from the area of highest concentration. But for gravitationally condensing substances, the net movement is toward the area of highest concentration, thanks to gravity.
This results in a reversal of the inequality in equation (2), which results in a reversal of the inequality in equation (4). Ergo, equation (4) as stated by Sewell is exactly opposite of the truth when it comes to gravitational condensation.
I'm not sure what references you're looking for. I could provide a reference to show that high concentrations of mass are gravitationally attractive rather than repulsive, but I suspect that you already know that. Since my counterexample follows mathematically from that fact, I don't understand why you disagree with it. Maybe you can point out specifically where you think I went wrong.
If there were no gravity, and the periodic table consisted solely of noble gases, then all substances in the universe would be diffusing per Sewell's equation. But in the real world, gravity and chemistry throw a wrench in the works. For instance, when thermal energy dissipates from water, the water organizes itself into a nice orderly crystal. Contrary to Sewell's equation, this occurs with no flux of water across the boundary.
quote:
Sewell extends this to the tautology with supporting derivation that:
quote:“Thus in an open system, (4) means the decrease in entropy cannot be more than the entropy exported through the boundary.”
This is not a tautology. If it were, then it wouldn't need a supporting derivation. It's a valid conclusion from the Sewell's premises, which include the premise of diffusion.
quote:
I understand "codified information" to be a decrease in entropy, and that such cannot occur in a closed system limited to the four natural forces.
I don't know what you mean by "codified information". Specifically, what is the operational difference between codified and uncodified information?
The only kind of information entropy I know of is Shannon's, but in that case an increase in entropy entails an increase in information. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that an increase in codified information entails a decrease in entropy. You're going to have to explain what you mean by codified information, and how it relates to entropy and the 2nd Law, and why you think that the four natural forces can't produce it.
quote:
Thus, Sewell's tautology and Equation 4 state that decreases in entropy including codified information must come through the boundary of an open system.
Correlary: When coded information is introduced into a closed system, natural processes diffuse or destroy such codified information. e.g. sand storms or acid rain degrading encryptions, or mutations destroying DNA sequences and consequent gene function.
Maintaining codified information against the second law thus requires error correcting systems which must be sustained by energy input through the boundary of the open system. I know of no way for error correcting systems to be formed by the four natural forces.
Sewell's equation (4) deals with flux and density. It says nothing about "codified information".
quote:
To counter Sewell, you must either show that the 2nd law is invalid (entropy can decrease) in a closed system
It is Sewell's position, not mine, that the 2nd Law is invalid.
quote:
OR
show why Sewell's tautology and equation 4 is invalid. i.e., show that reductions in entropy in an open system can be greater than the reductions in entropy coming through the boundary of the open system.
Done. See the counterexamples above.
quote:
If you make any appeal to biotic systems or intelligent causes within that open system, you must first show how those were first introduced into the open system, or formed within the open system without violating the 2nd law.
Since I don't believe that biotic or intelligent systems can circumvent the 2nd Law, it wouldn't make sense for me to make such an appeal.
quote:
I understand that this would require demonstrating abiogenesis by natural processes limited to the four forces of nature, e.g., with the input of solar, geothermal, nuclear or gravitational (e.g., tidal) energy. All the best in your endeavors!
I haven't said anything about abiogenesis, which I know next to nothing about. My claim is that Sewell's mathematical analysis isn't broadly applicable, which renders it insufficient to his conclusions, and that's what I've shown.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 26. March 2007 12:19
Martin, as I already told John on March 8, the only way I know of for high efficiency to violate the 2nd Law is for it to exceed the efficiency of a Carnot cycle. Maybe you know of another way, but I don't. So I don't see how high efficiency can be used as an argument against the 2nd Law unless we model the processes in question as heat engines.
And with regard to viruses, you'll need to say specifically why you think they violate the 2nd Law. Otherwise, there's nothing to explain. I can just as easily claim that this internet site violates the law of gravity, and you won't be able to refute it because I've given you nothing specific to refute.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 26. March 2007 16:13
This is for 2ndclass whoever that really is.
The 2nd law never had anything whatsoever to do with the aims of this forum. This is the forum of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design, none of which have anything to do with thermodynamics. I have referred to the only experimental thermodynamic studes that were ever made. They revealed an exceedingly efficient system of energy conversion which can never be reconciled with classical thermodynamic theory which is only that anyway, armchair speculation. In my opinion to continue endlessly belaboring thermodynamics contributes absolutely nothing to the purposes of this forum and it never will. It is little more than a device to see ones meaningless assertions emblazoned in the ephemeral print of cyberspace.
Show me a single biological, biophysical or biochemical advance that in any way depended on the application of thermodynamics in any form. You can't and you know it, but I strongly suspect you will not admit it. It is no wonder that a friend of mine once described it as thermogodammics. It has nothing to do with living systems beyond what I reviewed and it never will have. In other words, nothing of thermodynamic significance for living systems has been added in the last 100 years!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 26. March 2007, 16:14: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 26. March 2007 19:10
Everyone appreciates clear definitions and the more formal the better. However, to be fair, Sewell does clarify what he means by “macroscopically describable” when he adds, “A "macroscopically describable" event is just any event which can be described without resorting to an atom-by-atom (or coin-by-coin) accounting.” The real problem with definitions is when they change mid-argument.
You are somewhat miffed that Sewell does not show “that any particular describable composite event is extremely improbable microscopically.” Do we need to perform the calculations to show that the composite event of a mass of 2,000 kg leaving the earth’s atmosphere (macroscopically described) is extremely improbable from a microscopic point of view?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 26. March 2007 19:32
quote:
They revealed an exceedingly efficient system of energy conversion which can never be reconciled with classical thermodynamic theory which is only that anyway, armchair speculation.
So remind me again how high efficiency violates the thermodynamics? What does a Carnot cycle look like for the organisms in question, and how much is it exceeded by their actual efficiency? I've already brought this up in response to your claim, and I'm sure you must have answered me, you being the responsive discussant that you are, but I just can't seem to find your answer.
And if you say that thermodynamics is nothing but armchair speculation, then by golly, it must be so. The work of thousands of physicists and engineers has no credibility compared to the opinion of the great John Davison.
quote:
Show me a single biological, biophysical or biochemical advance that in any way depended on the application of thermodynamics in any form. You can't and you know it, but I strongly suspect you will not admit it.
I don't know of any, but then I don't know much about biological, biophysical and biochemical advances, period.
quote:
In my opinion to continue endlessly belaboring thermodynamics contributes absolutely nothing to the purposes of this forum and it never will.
Yes, we know how much you hate this thread. In fact, a few weeks ago, you said, "I am sorry I invaded this thread. I should have known better. It won't happen again."
I'm with you, man. I mean, look at the topic of this thread: Granville Sewell and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Who would want to talk about that?
Here's an idea: Why don't you fill the thread full of random rants that have nothing to do with Sewell's argument. Maybe that will drive everyone away, and you can have the thread, or maybe even the whole site, to yourself.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 26. March 2007 19:53
quote:
However, to be fair, Sewell does clarify what he means by “macroscopically describable” when he adds, “A "macroscopically describable" event is just any event which can be described without resorting to an atom-by-atom (or coin-by-coin) accounting.”
I think Sewell would have to flesh this out quite a bit more in order to make it an objective criterion. I can describe any event with a single word: "event". Does that meet Sewell's criterion? Not detailed enough? Is the description "flagellum" detailed enough, or do we need to describe the actual proteins? How do we know how much detail is required?
quote:
You are somewhat miffed that Sewell does not show “that any particular describable composite event is extremely improbable microscopically.” Do we need to perform the calculations to show that the composite event of a mass of 2,000 kg leaving the earth’s atmosphere (macroscopically described) is extremely improbable from a microscopic point of view?
Since that event happens pretty regularly, I don't see how it can be described as improbable.
I'm assuming that you consider the building of a spaceship to involve a supernatural element. But suppose that this element didn't exist. How would go about calculating the odds of purely natural processes resulting in the emergence of intelligent lifeforms, who in turn build spaceships?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 27. March 2007 03:07
2nd class.
Thanks for freely acknowledging that thermodynamics has contributed absolutely nothing to our understanding of biology, biophysics or biochemistry.
I love it so!
"A past evoluton is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable"
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
