|
Author
|
Topic: Granville Sewell and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 27. March 2007 06:05
2ndclass,
You, of course, see where I am going. But, let’s not rush off to the supernatural yet. You must acknowledge that intelligent agents exist and that they invent, plan, and implement composite events. You seem to agree that the composite event where a 2,000 kg mass leaves the earth’s atmosphere apart from the designs of an intelligent agent is extremely improbable from a microscopic point of view. Since, as you point out, this event occurs regularly, the most reasonable conclusion would be that it is the result of the designs of one or more intelligent agents.
The above logic is the cornerstone of the ID argument. The physical law known as the 2nd law of thermodynamics can be modeled using statistical mechanics. This model can then be applied in other arenas. One such playing field is information theory. Incidently, ID proponents are not the only ones to do such extrapolations, although conclusions very (consider: “Information Theory and Evolution” by John Scales Avery). If then we find, using statistical mechanics, composite events that are extremely improbable from a microscopic point of view, and we recognize intelligent agents exist and act, then the most reasonable explanation for these events is design.
I agree with you completely that the calculation of the probabilities for these events is very much a sticky issue. Our predisposed world views make these calculations, on both sides of the issue, subjectively skewed.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 27. March 2007 06:24
Quote: The above logic is the cornerstone of the ID argument.
The above may be the cornerstone of one ID argument, but it is a very weak and scientifically unsound argument. It is an argument that says on the one hand that the laws governing information are defined by a weak analogy to energy, but on the other hand these laws are overriddent by an essentially magical intelligent agency.
It is interesting to note that lots of not very good 'science' in the AI field is based on a similar type of flawed logic.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 27. March 2007 12:48
Melvin: quote:
But, let’s not rush off to the supernatural yet.
I based the spaceship probability question on a hypothesis of non-supernatural forces because that is what Sewell does. As I quoted Sewell before: "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", and also, "Natural forces may turn a spaceship into a pile of rubble, but not vice-versa" (emphasis mine). So it seems that Sewell considers human activity to be outside of nature in some way. But his end goal is to prove that biocomplexity, including humans, does not arise naturally, so it seems a little silly to start out with the assumption that humans are supernatural.
I guess we could interpret his usage of "natural" as natural vs. artificial rather than natural vs. supernatural. But in that case, his use of physics and math makes no sense, since artificial phenomena cannot circumvent physics or math any more than nature can.
quote:
If then we find, using statistical mechanics, composite events that are extremely improbable from a microscopic point of view, and we recognize intelligent agents exist and act, then the most reasonable explanation for these events is design.
If a system is in a macrostate that is highly improbable according to a statistical mechanical model, then the most we can infer is that something beyond that model caused it.
If we take a mixture of simple molecules, we can model the mixture with statistical mechanics. This model would predict that it would be highly unlikely for amino acids to form, but if we zap the mixture with electricity, that may be the result we get. Should we conclude that the 2nd Law has been violated? No, nor should we conclude intelligence. Our probability estimate was simply wrong because it was based purely on statistical mechanics, which was an insufficient model.
That's why Sewell's approach of applying statistical mechanics to complex phenomena like biology and spaceships seems completely wrong-headed to me.
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 27. March 2007 21:56
2ndclass
On "codified information", I should restate that as “encoded information” for a more scientific rather than legal term. E.g., as written in a “code”, as in the text you are reading and writing, DNA etc.
Your example of Shannon entropy shows the limited validity of Shannon's equations and limited understanding of “information.” See Werner Gitt's five level hierarchy of information.
http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Werner_Gitt%27s_Information_Theorems
You statement: “It is Sewell's position, not mine, that the 2nd Law is invalid” is an invalid assertion. Stop wasting our time by stating the opposite of the authorities you cite.
Your example: “when thermal energy dissipates from water, the water organizes itself into a nice orderly crystal” fits Sewell's equations by radiating energy out across the boundary and thus decreasing entropy within it. Water flux is not necessary.
Your example of gravity does not work either, since for gravity to condense a gas, the gas has to radiate energy across the boundary and thus cool down. Gravity does not condense a hot gas in a closed system. The Big Bang required radiation before condensation.
2nd law analysis is used on modelling power systems undergoing combustion. e.g. at IGTI ASME Turbo Conferences. GT2005-68628 Second Law Analysis of a Novel Combined Cooling and Power Cycle with Water Harvesting S.A. Sherif; W.E. Lear; J.R. Khan; J. F. Crittenden etc.
I don't see what your problem is.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 28. March 2007 08:00
Since everyone seems to agree that shannon and the 2nd law are irrelevant it might be interesting to move on.
Information in evolution and behavioral analysis is generally defined in terms of the improbability or complexity of goal-directed or problem solving responses or output. The complexity or improbability of output is defined and measured in terms of the relationship between the set of possible outputs and the set of goal compatible or problem solving outputs.
Information creation, in the context of this concept of information, means that at time T0 the output is not a solution or goal compatible and at time T1 there is a goal compatible output or solution.
Again, given this concept or approach, the question for science is developing predictive theories that explain/predict this creation of information.
There are no other existing or known methods of framing the creation of information issue.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 28. March 2007 10:41
David Hagen
Do you see any productive applications of the second law to living systems and if you do what might they be?
A past evolution in undeniable, a present evolution undemonstable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 28. March 2007 14:05
quote:
On "codified information", I should restate that as “encoded information” for a more scientific rather than legal term. E.g., as written in a “code”, as in the text you are reading and writing, DNA etc.
Your example of Shannon entropy shows the limited validity of Shannon's equations and limited understanding of “information.” See Werner Gitt's five level hierarchy of information.
[url= http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Werner_Gitt%27s_Information_Theorems]http://www.researchintelligentdesign.org/wiki/Werner_Gitt%27s_Information_Theorems[/url]
I didn't bring up Shannon as an example. I was trying to figure out your statement, "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."
The only entropy I know of in an information context is Shannon's. If you're talking about semantics (Gitt's level 3), then please define, or point to a reference that defines, entropy in terms of semantics and explain why natural forces cannot decrease this entropy. Thermodynamics isn't any help here, since it says nothing about encoded information.
quote:
You statement: “It is Sewell's position, not mine, that the 2nd Law is invalid” is an invalid assertion. Stop wasting our time by stating the opposite of the authorities you cite.
By "invalid assertion", I assume you mean "false assertion". But it isn't false.
Says Sewell:
That is why I prefer not to extend here the long-standing debate over the first point, but to dwell further on the much simpler and clearer second point of my article, which is that the increase in order observed on Earth (and here alone, as far as we know) violates the laws of probability and the second law of thermodynamics in a spectacular fashion.
He then goes on to ostensibly support that claim mathematically. In conclusion he states:
If we found evidence that DNA, auto parts, computer chips and books entered through the Earth’s atmosphere at some time in the past, then perhaps the appearance of humans, cars, computers and encyclopedias on a previously barren planet could be explained without postulating a violation of the second law here (it would have been violated somewhere else!)
He is clearly saying that the 2nd Law has been violated. But then he seems to backpedal slightly:
What is the conclusion then–that the explosion of new order on Earth has violated the laws of physics in a supernatural way? Not necessarily–since the advent of quantum mechanics, the laws of physics cannot be used to predict the future with certainty, and they do not really say that anything is absolutely impossible, they only provide us the probabilities. Thus one could argue that the origin and development of life may not have violated any of the laws of physics–only the laws of probability.
But this is no escape from the conclusion that the 2nd Law was violated. First of all, there was no need for him to invoke quantum mechanics, since the 2nd Law itself is a probabilistic law, with or without QM. As the 2nd Law is based on the laws of probability, if those laws are violable, then the 2nd Law is violable.
What does it mean if a physical or mathematical law is violated? If we find a particle (with non-imaginary mass) violating relativity by traveling faster than the speed of light, then it means that relativity is not a true law. Likewise, if we find something that breaks the 2nd Law, then the 2nd Law is not a true law. Sewell says that order on earth violates the 2nd Law, which is to say that the 2nd Law is invalid.
Thus my assertion regarding Sewell's position. Now it's your turn to justify your accusation that I am saying the opposite of the truth and consequently wasting your time.
quote:
Your example: “when thermal energy dissipates from water, the water organizes itself into a nice orderly crystal” fits Sewell's equations by radiating energy out across the boundary and thus decreasing entropy within it. Water flux is not necessary.
Your example of gravity does not work either, since for gravity to condense a gas, the gas has to radiate energy across the boundary and thus cool down. Gravity does not condense a hot gas in a closed system. The Big Bang required radiation before condensation.
As you already know and as I have already emphasized, Sewell applies his equations to other things besides energy. When they are applied to something other than energy, then we are no longer dealing with thermodynamic entropy, and energy is completely out of the picture. Sewell himself is careful to point this out. See here:
quote:
If we look at the diffusion of, say, carbon, in a solid instead of the conduction of heat, and take U(x, y, z, t) now to be the carbon concentration instead of the temperature, we can repeat the analysis in the Appendix for ”carbon entropy” (Q is just U now), showing again that in a closed system (no carbon crosses the border) this entropy cannot decrease, while in an open system, the decrease in entropy cannot be greater than the entropy exported through the boundary. But it is important to notice that now ”entropy” measures the randomness of the distribution of carbon, not heat, so the amount of thermal entropy exported is not relevant to the change in carbon entropy in the solid. For example, if a steel rod of uniform temperature and uniform carbon concentration is placed between two steel blocks of unequal temperatures but carbon concentrations identical to that in the rod, the rod may import ”thermal order” (export thermal entropy), but the ”carbon order” will be unaffected.
So applying his equations to carbon, U represents carbon density, and so does Q (see Sewell's statement above, "Q is just U now"). How about J? Equation (1) says that the change in carbon density at a point is equal to the divergence of the flux, or outflux, at that point. Outflux of what? Obviously carbon. It would make no sense to say that that the change in carbon density at a point is equal to the outflux of energy or anything else. J is carbon flux.
Equation (4), then, says that the carbon entropy of the system can decrease no faster than the surface integral of the carbon outflux over the carbon density. It says nothing about energy flux or density. So your observation that there is an outflux of energy in the above two examples is irrelevant to equation (4) as applied to substances other than energy.
Likewise, when applied to water, equation (4) says that the water entropy of the system can decrease no faster than the surface integral of the water outflux over the water density. Your statement that "water flux is not necessary" is incorrect. According to equation (4), an outflux of water is necessary in order for water entropy to decrease.
Gravity definitely contradicts equation (4), as I've already shown that it reverses the direction of the inequality. Whether freezing water contradicts Sewell's argument or not depends on how we define "order". If crystallized water is more ordered than liquid water, then obviously water can become more ordered without importing "water order" (which would entail exporting water entropy, which would entail an outflux of water).
quote:
2nd law analysis is used on modelling power systems undergoing combustion. e.g. at IGTI ASME Turbo Conferences. GT2005-68628 Second Law Analysis of a Novel Combined Cooling and Power Cycle with Water Harvesting S.A. Sherif; W.E. Lear; J.R. Khan; J. F. Crittenden etc.
Yes, 2nd Law analyses have been done on combustion systems since the dawn of thermodynamics. I'm not sure what your point is. If you're objecting to my statement that statistical mechanics doesn't take into account chemical reactions, then I'll be try to be more clear: If fluid in an isolated system combusts, then the statistical mechanical model breaks down as kinetic energy isn't conserved.
quote:
I don't see what your problem is.
Hopefully I've made it more clear. There is an easily demonstrable gap between Sewell's equations and his overall conclusions. Other posters in this thread have pointed this out as well.
[ 28. March 2007, 16:07: Message edited by: 2ndclass ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 29. March 2007 17:44
I am still waiting for a response from David Hagen or anyone else for that matter.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 29. March 2007 19:38
John: quote:
I am still waiting for a response from David Hagen or anyone else for that matter.
And you certainly deserve one, seeing how you're so responsive yourself.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 29. March 2007 23:59
2ndclass, whoever that is.
Of course I deserve a response. I have asked a very important question. I see that 2ndclass does not provide an answer.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 30. March 2007, 05:57: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 30. March 2007 08:25
John: quote:
Of course I deserve a response. I have asked a very important question. I see that 2ndclass does not provide an answer.
And I see that you don't answer, and in fact ignore completely, virtually all of the questions posed to you everywhere you go, including those posed by myself. But for some reason we're supposed to care about your questions.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 30. March 2007 17:17
Anomymous, self named 2ndclass whoever that really is.
Virtually every question that has ever been asked me has been answered in my several published papers or in my unpublished Manifesto. Go back and examine the questions that were asked me in the Manifesto thread right here and see my answers. I do not answer questions that prove my adversary has never read my papers or those of my sources. I relish such demonstrations.
If my adversaries on both sides of this idiotic debate were really interested in having a dialogue with me would they ban me from all their proceedings? Would they sabotage my blogs time and again? Would they send out their goons to attack and denigrate me publicly, something they would never do themselves?
The simple truth is that they are all afraid of me and my sources. This is an old story and was going on long before I entered the scene. The real pioneers in evolutionary science, the real hands on investigators, were always ignored by the egomaniacal ideologues most of whom were not even scientists but prematurely retired snake oil salesmen who spent the bulk of their professional lives squatting in their endowed chairs at some of our most distinguished institutions cranking out book after book of pure science fiction concerning events which have never even been observed. There is more real evolutionary science in any one of the single evolution texts by Grasse, Broom, Goldschmidt and Berg than in all the dozens of books by Mayr, Gould, Provine, Dawkins, Johnson, Dembski and Wells combined, not a real scientist in the whole bloody lot.
There now, I feel somewhat better.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 30. March 2007 18:21
John: quote:
Virtually every question that has ever been asked me has been answered in my several published papers or in my unpublished Manifesto.
Can you tell me where in your papers I can find answers to the following questions that I have asked you?
1. "Given a carbon-14 atom that was generated today, what determines whether it will decay before or after the year 7700?"
(I asked this in response to your adamant and repeated claim of strict determinism.)
2. "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?"
quote:
If my adversaries on both sides of this idiotic debate were really interested in having a dialogue with me would they ban me from all their proceedings?
If you were interested in dialogue, would you ask to be banned?
quote:
Presently I am simply trying to see how many blogs and forums will ban me, thereby identifying themselves as hopeless, feckless ideologues.
quote:
I don't give a fig what any of you nitwits do anyway. I do this sort of thing for recreation. Ban me.
quote:
Or better yet ban me so I can't ever express myself on this blog again.
quote:
I intend to force them to ban me as they did in the past for the same reasons that Demnski did, Elsberry did, P.Z, Meyers did and every other forum owner ever did.
quote:
On second thought I am afraid you will have to ban me once again to silence me. Why delay the inevitable?
quote:
So what are you going to do about it? Ban me or delete me? I'll be just crushed if you do don't you know.
Have you considered that you get banned because you ask for it, literally?
[ 30. March 2007, 23:01: Message edited by: 2ndclass ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 31. March 2007 05:42
Self-named 2ndclass, whoever that is.
Of course I do. I thought everybody knew that by now. That is the way I now have of proving that I am dealing with hopeless "prescribed," egomaniacal ideologues. Thank you for supporting my purposes.
I began my internet experience confident that I would be treated with respect, but soon learned that it is a snakepit dominated by lightweight sectarian lemmings, blindly following their self-appointed, self-annointed leaders in lock step Fascist fashion. I have no respect for any of them at this point and see no prospect that will ever change. My work is largely published and now stands right next to that of my sources in the world's libraries. That is the way it is supposed to be, the way it was "prescribed" to be.
Where may I find the publications of 2ndclass and under what name will they be found?
"EVERYTHING is determined...by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 31. March 2007 10:09
In my post March 30 17:17 I failed to mention Otto Schindewolf, the greatest paleontologist of all time, whose evolutionary views were dismissed by Stephen Jay Gould as being "spectacularly flawed," a comment for which I never forgave him and never will, especially since Gould made that remark in the Foreword to the English translation of Schindewolf's great 1950 book. Of course Schindewolf had been dead for nearly a half century. So much for Gould and his cronies, Mayr and now Dawkins, in my opinion, the "Three Stooges" of evolutionary science, compulsive, egomaniacal, chance-worshipping atheists all.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic