|
Author
|
Topic: Granville Sewell and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 31. March 2007 19:13
For well-named 2ndclass, whoever that is.
I couldn't care less about the indeterminacy of quantum physics as it has absolutely nothing to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny, both of which have obviously been driven entirely from within. Only ontogeny remains.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
EVERTHING is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 01. April 2007 09:16
John: quote:
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.
So you ask to be banned, blog owners oblige, and that proves that they're egomaniacal ideologues. Is this what passes for rationality in your world?
quote:
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.
So naturally you choose to remain in the snake-pit with us incurable Fascists. More Davison rationality.
quote:
Where may I find the publications of 2ndclass and under what name will they be found?
I have no publications. Why do you ask? If you're looking for fellow published biologists, surely you can think of better places than Brainstorms.
quote:
I couldn't care less about the indeterminacy of quantum physics as it has absolutely nothing to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny, both of which have obviously been driven entirely from within.
Are you acknowledging quantum indeterminacy, contrary to Einstein's view which you quote ad nauseam?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 01. April 2007 10:42
I do not choose to be interrogated by one who must hide his identity under the revealing and most appropriate alias of 2ndclass.
You no longer exist. Return to After The Bar Closes and join your fellow worshippers of the Great God Chance. Give them my warmest regards.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 01. April 2007, 10:44: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 01. April 2007 20:57
quote:
I do not choose to be interrogated by one who must hide his identity under the revealing and most appropriate alias of 2ndclass.
Well, I guess this is adios then. It's been a pleasure.
P.S. BTW, you and DaveScot seem to think alike. His excuse for not supporting his bogus claims about thermo was very much like yours: quote:
I have no interest in a one sided inquisition from anonymous inquisitors.
[ 01. April 2007, 22:31: Message edited by: 2ndclass ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 02. April 2007 06:23
DaveScot is an alias! His real name is David Springer. How is that for hypocricy?
Bye bye.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 03. April 2007 11:18
quote:
I see that 2ndclass has retreated to After The Bar Closes (where I cannot respond)
Actually I was banished there by the Great Novisad.
quote:
to claim that I have gone mad.
I don't see why that's even noteworthy. Surely you were already aware that the virtually unanimous opinion in these forums is that you're a raving lunatic.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 03. April 2007 12:11
Oh well named 2ndclass.
Here are some of my fellow raving lunatics in no particular order.
Robert Broom
William Bateson
Leo Berg
Albert Einstein
Otto Schindewolf
Richard B. Goldschmidt
Pierre Grasse
The magnificent seven indeed and not a chance-worshipping Darwinian mystic or a religious fanatic in the lot.
It doesn't get any better than this. Thanks for exposing your ignorance.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 03. April 2007, 12:12: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 03. April 2007 12:54
Looks like this thread is a goner. You can have it to talk to yourself, John, as you are wont to do.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 03. April 2007 15:53
Promises, promises.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 22. April 2007 23:28
nosivad/John A. Davison
quote:
Do you see any productive applications of the second law to living systems and if you do what might they be?
Properly understood, the second law will be seen as one of the primary methods of distinguishing between designed systems and consequences of natural forces. Then comparing biotic systems to designed for natural systems will show biotic systems as designed.
I believe more powerful will be analyses based on the Rates of Entropy Production.
See the new thread I started on this:
Reducing Entropy Production Distinguishes Intelligent Design
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000689
PS Lifeengineer
quote:
Since everyone seems to agree that shannon and the 2nd law are irrelevant it might be interesting to move on."
May I suggest that this is a bit presumptuous and premature.
IP: Logged
|
|
Klaus Lange
Member
Member # 3101
|
posted 23. May 2007 04:11
Lets go to the roots now.
If we talk about "open systems" than we have to define the meaning of
"open"
and
"system"
Most of the participiants of that discussion saws the planet earth as open system. Planet Earth as its own system and open to a lot of energy transfer from sun and so on.
My intention now is to "opens" the view:
The earth is part of our solarsystem and the solarsystem part of milky way and so on.
The basic system now we have to look for is the universe: Does the universe be an open system?
If the answer is "yes", than we have to ask open to what. A open system must be interact with material something else. That "material something else" is a part of that system, too.
Every material/energetic layer in interacting with the universe is part of the frame system, may be a muiltiverse or something else.
We have to ask to that framesystem, if it is open or closed. It is really closed if there is no one interacting material layer outside to interact than we have the closed boundarys of the framesystem. It is a closed ones and for that frame system the entropy rise.
If we have islands of order in that closed system than only for one reason: It must be a non-material layer outside that give this inormation of order. How could it be falsified from a internal point of view of that system? I think we have to look for more than one probability spaces.
If we analyse the bell theorem it makes sense for the prediction of only one probability space in locality. But if we have more than one probability spaces the bell theorem is broken. My point of view is that the nature plays the bell game not in a stochastical way, because it depends on immaterial layers of information from outside the material closed framesystem.
For those material closed framesystems evolution or saltation is possible.
Here a interessting paper to the question of non-locality and quantum mechanics: Karl Hess, Walter Philipp et. al.: Non-locality not proven
[ 23. May 2007, 04:31: Message edited by: Klaus Lange ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic