|
Author
|
Topic: Granville Sewell and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
|
The Pixie
Member
Member # 548
|
posted 30. January 2004 07:45
A few comments about the Sewell article:
quote:
Top of page 2: We can define another "entropy" and another "order" to measure randomness in the distribution of any other diffusing substance... and the second law similarly predicts that...
This is not quite true. The second law is specifically about thermal (or thermodynamic) entropy); it does not directly cover the randomness of the distribution of diffusing substances. Substances diffuse because when they are spread out there are more energy levels available to use for distributing the thermal energy. Thus, diffusion is covered by the second law because thermal entropy increases (even if the temperature is constant), and not because of randomness of the substance per se.
This may seem a trivial point, but it is vital when one is trying to actually put numbers to entropy. Thermodynamic entropy is S = k ln(w), the natural log of the number of arrangements of thermal energy, multiplied by the Boltzmann constant. That is the figure used for all calculations in thermodynamics, whether for diffusing gases or thermal changes or chemical reactions. The disorder of the atoms themselves is not relevant.
quote:
The reason natural forces may turn a spaceship into a pile of rubble and not vice-versa is probability: of all the possible arrangements atoms could take, only a very small percentage could fly to the moon and back.
This again is confusing different types of order. The second law is about thermodynamic entropy and nothing else. This argument is about arrangements of atoms, so does not involve the second law. We may speculate that the arrangement of atoms also leads to greater disorder, but one would have to prove that to be generally true.
We had snow a few days ago, small crystals of water with very high order, that had formed from gaseous water with very low order. No intelligent agent was involved, but order was created. Some natural events destroy order, but some create order. Thus the conjecture above is proved wrong.
This idea is the basis of the next few pages, which discuss the improbability of atoms arranging into spaceships, computers and televisions. In particular, Sewell makes a distinction about something being macroscopically describable. A pile of scrap metal is desribed as a pile of scrap metal, whatever its configuration, but only a very few configurations can be described as a working television. Thus, he claims, a working television cannot appear from a pile of scrap metal.
However, only a restricted set of arrangements for water molecules can be described as a snowflake, compared to far more that could be described as water vapour. And yet, only last Tuesday, water vapour turned into snowflakes. Again, this example is sufficient to prove the hypothesis wrong.
From the middle of page 5 Sewell talks about Irreducible Complexity (IC). The second law, through statistical mechanics, is explained in terms of probabilities of thermal order. IDists claim that an IC system is very improbable. This appears to be the only link between IC and the second law. Page 7 introduces the fine-tuning argument, presumably because it invokes probabilities too.
quote:
Last sentence: But one would think that at least this would be considered an open question, and people who argue that it really is extremely improbable, and thus contrary to the basic principle underlying the second law, would be given a measure of respect, and taken seriously by their colleagues, but we aren't.
It is exactly this confusion between something being improbable and something being prohibited by the second law that will stop this aticle being taken seriously. The second law is based on probabilities, but so is poker, and no one tries to invoke the second law when considering a poker hand.
The second law of thermodynamics is a very simple thing. It says that if thermodynamic entropy would decrease in a proposed process, then that process cannot occur. It is restricted to a closed system, but our solar system is near enough to closed for any calculation. If you want to disprove evolution with the second law, estimate the entropy for the solar system 4 billion years ago and compare it to the entropy now. In fact, you can igore everything except 4 billion years of sunlight that reached the Earth, the heat radiated from the Earth, and the Earth.
code:
[sunlight] + [prebiotic Earth] --> [modern Earth] + [radiated heat]
If the thermodynamic entropy before is greater than the thermodynamic entropy after, evolution is disproved. And that is how the second law is used in science and engineering.
On the other hand, if you want to prove evolution is very improbable, work out the probability of it happening. But do not confuse improbability with the second law of thermodynamics.
The Pixie
IP: Logged
|
|
Granville Sewell
Member
Member # 550
|
posted 11. February 2004 10:05
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. The book, "Order and Chaos", from which I quoted, for example, gives the constuction of a building by humans as an example of a local decrease in entropy, but then makes the standard but absurd claim that this does not violate the second law because the local decrease is "compensated" somehow by increases elsewhere, as though the fact that buildings are being demolished in Hong Kong somehow makes it easier for us to build skyscrapers in New York.
The partial differential equations that govern diffusion of heat energy, or carbon, or anything else, are based on the second law, ie, they state that the flux will be from high density to low density areas, because of the laws of probability. These equations, as I demonstrated in my second Math. Intelligencer article, can be used not only to show that "heat entropy" cannot decrease in a closed system, but that in an open system, it cannot decrease faster than it is exported through the boundary. But there is nothing special about heat or energy; the same equations can be used to reach the same conclusions for anything else that diffuses, for example, in an open system, the "carbon entropy"
(defined via the same equations as heat entropy) cannot decrease faster than it is exported through the boundary (ie, "carbon order" cannot increase faster than it is imported). These examples simply illustrate the tautology that "if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it NOT extremely improbable."
It is amazing how many ways people can think of to avoid the real issue, which is whether or not unintelligent forces alone can reorganize unintelligent particles into computers, spaceships, and the Internet. If you are willing to argue that there is nothing improbable about all that, then I can't argue with you. I am just trying to show that you can't really avoid the issue.
IP: Logged
|
|
The Pixie
Member
Member # 548
|
posted 11. February 2004 11:28
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.
The important word here is "directly". Thermodynamic entropy is all about energetic disorder (as the equation S = k ln w shows), but in some situations the energetic disorder increases without a change in temperature (disorder increases due to a change in available energy levels).
quote:
The book, "Order and Chaos", from which I quoted, for example, gives the constuction of a building by humans as an example of a local decrease in entropy, but then makes the standard but absurd claim that this does not violate the second law because the local decrease is "compensated" somehow by increases elsewhere, as though the fact that buildings are being demolished in Hong Kong somehow makes it easier for us to build skyscrapers in New York.
I do not have that book available; is it possible that it is using the construction of a building as an analogy? Obviously the construction of a building involves a net increase in entropy, and that is not related to the destruction of buildings elsewhere. It is due to an increase in entropy when diesel is combusted inside the engines of the cranes, and similar processes.
quote:
The partial differential equations that govern diffusion of heat energy, or carbon, or anything else, are based on the second law, ie, they state that the flux will be from high density to low density areas, because of the laws of probability. These equations, as I demonstrated in my second Math. Intelligencer article, can be used not only to show that "heat entropy" cannot decrease in a closed system, but that in an open system, it cannot decrease faster than it is exported through the boundary. But there is nothing special about heat or energy; the same equations can be used to reach the same conclusions for anything else that diffuses, for example, in an open system, the "carbon entropy" (defined via the same equations as heat entropy) cannot decrease faster than it is exported through the boundary (ie, "carbon order" cannot increase faster than it is imported). These examples simply illustrate the tautology that "if an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it NOT extremely improbable."
The increase in entropy during diffusion is due to a decrease in energetic disorder.
If you try to invoke various types of entropy you will run into problems trying to decide which to use. Think about ice, water and steam. If you look at the "water molecule entropy" it is obvious ice and water will always turn to steam; a concentrated mass of water will become diffused throughout the room, much higher "water molecule entropy". On the other hand, if you just consider the energy, you will note that when water turns to steam it requires energy, while the reverse, steam condensing, releases energy, and further that water turning to ice releases energy. On that basis you would decide that steam will always condense as water, which will promptly freeze as ice. Two competing processes, apparently governed by different forms of entropy. How do you decide which entropy is in force at a certain temperature and pressure.
Can you just "water molecule entropy" above the boiling point, and "energy entropy" below the freezing point? Absolutely not! The boiling point and the freezing point are what they are exactly because of the entropy in the system. And how do you even account for a middle point when neither entropy wins?
Thus, we use thermodynamic entropy, which already encompasses both aspects. There is no need to decide when to use what, it is the same every time.
quote:
It is amazing how many ways people can think of to avoid the real issue, which is whether or not unintelligent forces alone can reorganize unintelligent particles into computers, spaceships, and the Internet. If you are willing to argue that there is nothing improbable about all that, then I can't argue with you. I am just trying to show that you can't really avoid the issue.
Does anyone really think that unintelligent forces alone can reorganize unintelligent particles into computers, spaceships, and the Internet? I think not.
I agree that the improbability of the life we see today forming on the pre-biotic Earth is a big issue. I do not think we know enogh about possible mechanisms to be able to assign a figure to that yet, and I do not think SLOT is a barrier to it either.
Pixie
IP: Logged
|
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 12. February 2004 00:40
Pixie,
You don't seem to understand the 2nd Law. The whole notion is about probability. The energy of systems tends to disperse and the order of systems tends to decrease. This is what the 2nd Law is all about. Evolutionists like to suppose that some mechanism exists to explain life, but this is also related to probability. What is the probability that complex boundary conditions exist enabling the construction of the first cell? Given the complexity of the cell, the probability is extremely small (much less than the 1E-150). Also, the same problem exists for the development of new systems related to life. The coupled nature of living systems are so extreme that the number of mutations required to explain digestive systems, immune systems, brains, eyes, etc is so large that the associated probability reaches the universal probability bound (1E-150). The common response is, "But we see evolution all the time in the lab." The irony to this response is profound, for they are actually observing design and don't realize it. They are blinded by their presuppositions. They believe that Neo-Darwinian evolution did occur, so they fail to look at the glaring evidence suggesting design. Engineering designers know the most difficult designs are ones which have to endure a multitude of environments. For example, the mars rovers -- some of NASA's greatest engineering feats -- cannot endure for an extended period of time as compared to living organisms on earth. The reason for this is that the designers cannot predetermine all the possible environments -- types of rocks required to traverse, the changes in terrain, temperature swings, energy requirements etc. Also, our technology of utilizing energy does not approach the ability of life. We cannot generate energy from a multitude of sources like life can nor with the same efficiency. Good Designers realize that they need smart mechanisms as well as intelligent systems to enable the mars rovers (and other systems requred to endure a multitude of environments) to adapt as problems arise and as environments change. For example, as the rovers memory had problems, the smart system could adapt itself to accommodate the problem. The whole process of evolution is actually evidence for design -- at an advanced level. Life not only adapts itself during the life of the life-form, but it has a multitude of designs in storage that are realized after changes occur in the environment. The cell acts as a smart system, where environmental changes triggers a switch in the "active" design -- though the plan is preprogrammed into the genome and other cellular systems and appears as mutuation coupled with natural selection.
Thermodynamics does present problems for evolution both for the origin of life and the development of life. Without an energy conversion mechanism, spelling out the precise ways of energy utilization, life cannot self-generate. Also, without the pre-written plans designed into the genome and other cellular systems, life will not evolve.
[ 12. February 2004, 01:24: Message edited by: kyle7 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
The Pixie
Member
Member # 548
|
posted 12. February 2004 03:32
Pixie,
quote:
The whole notion is about probability. The energy of systems tends to disperse and the order of systems tends to decrease. This is what the 2nd Law is all about.
You have to be quite specific that it is the energy order that decreases. But I fully agree that it is based on probability.
quote:
Evolutionists like to suppose that some mechanism exists to explain life, but this is also related to probability. What is the probability that complex boundary conditions exist enabling the construction of the first cell? Given the complexity of the cell, the probability is extremely small (much less than the 1E-150). Also, the same problem exists for the development of new systems related to life. The coupled nature of living systems are so extreme that the number of mutations required to explain digestive systems, immune systems, brains, eyes, etc is so large that the associated probability reaches the universal probability bound (1E-150).
The big, big difference is that thermodynamics puts a figure to improbability (indirectly, as entropy) based on well-accepted formulae and experimental methods. The entropy of a system can be measured by intregrating the heat capacity divided by the temperature over the range from absolute zero to the system temperature. It can be calculated using S = k ln(w), from the energy levels in the system. Both methods give the same result, and are applicable to many different systems. These figures are used routinely and have been for many, many years.
On the other hand, the improbability of evolution is calculated from a series of hotly-debated guesses based on the particular presuppositions of the debater (consider the calculation for the flagellum in Dembski's book). At the end of the day, we do not know the probability of life evolving. It may be below 10^-150, it may be inevitable. You tend to the former, I to the latter, but really we do not know.
quote:
Thermodynamics does present problems for evolution both for the origin of life and the development of life. Without an energy conversion mechanism, spelling out the precise ways of energy utilization, life cannot self-generate. Also, without the pre-written plans designed into the genome and other cellular systems, life will not evolve.
The second law of thermodynamics only states that entropy increases, it makes no claims about mechanisms or pre-written plans. It may be that these things are required, but those claims are outside the second law, so must be proved to be true on their own terms. If you are considering such a claim, bear in mind that water condenses in clouds. The entropy of the water decreases because there is a corresponding increase in entropy in the environment. There is no mechanism or pre-written plan, as I think you mean the terms.
Pixie
IP: Logged
|
|
Marktwain403
Member
Member # 4104
|
posted 22. February 2007 22:41
Actually Mr. Sewell is surrounding the second law of thermodynamics with needless complexity. Who should know best whether or not evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics? I thought it would surely be the authors of thermodynamics textbooks. So I wrote several of them to get their opinion. Turns out that all of those who responded reject the notion that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Their comments can be read here:
http://www.ntanet.net/Thermo-Internet.htm
I should add also that Mr. Sewell repeats the mistakes of many creationists. He does not accurately describe the second law. The second law is a very precise mathematical statement and Mr. Sewell, as so many others, distorts the meaning of the second law.
Granville Sewell made the following statement:
"It is amazing how many ways people can think of to avoid the real issue, which is whether or not unintelligent forces alone can reorganize unintelligent particles into computers, spaceships, and the Internet. If you are willing to argue that there is nothing improbable about all that, then I can't argue with you. I am just trying to show that you can't really avoid the issue."
My comment: It may or may not be true that unintelligent forces alone can reorganize unintelligent particles into compters etc. But this has nothing to do with the second law of thermodynamics. By resorting to this much different argument, Sewell is going outside the subject matter of the second law. Why? Because that is the only way he can cover his retreat.
Creationists get nailed on the details of the second law by any scientist who understands it and the only way they can save themselves from total defeat is to change the subject and hope not many people notice what they have done. It is sort of like a murderer being caught in his crime and then trying to change the subject by saying, "But look what that other fellow did!" I have noticed that there are two ways that a creationist tries to avoid the issue when cornered. They either resort to name calling and insults or they try to change the subject. Notice that the "real issue" that Mr. Sewell now claims does not involve the second law. If that is the real issue, why did Mr. Sewell not start with that, rather than the second law? They are two different things.
[ 22. February 2007, 23:10: Message edited by: Marktwain403 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 23. February 2007 08:31
Quote: "It is amazing how many ways people can think of to avoid the real issue, which is whether or not unintelligent forces alone can reorganize unintelligent particles into computers, spaceships, and the Internet. If you are willing to argue that there is nothing improbable about all that, then I can't argue with you. I am just trying to show that you can't really avoid the issue."
Quote: My comment: It may or may not be true that unintelligent forces alone can reorganize unintelligent particles into compters etc. But this has nothing to do with the second law of thermodynamics. By resorting to this much different argument, Sewell is going outside the subject matter of the second law. Why? Because that is the only way he can cover his retreat.
First, I agree that the existence (or non-existence) or presence of goal directed intelligence in computers or developmental processes or animal behavior or evolution has nothing to do with the second law of thermodynamics. But once you remove the reference to thermodynamics, the observation is still valid.
No one can seriously claim to be able to understand or scientifically explain the behaviors of computers, internets, biological development and assembly processes, evolution, animal behavior etc. without reference to the force of goal directed intelligence.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 23. February 2007 12:25
Wow, it's not often that you see a thread resurrected after being dead for so long.
It seems we're all in agreement that Sewell is trying to extend the 2nd Law in a way that isn't valid. The 2nd Law explicitly applies to the diffusion of thermal energy. The same principle also applies to other diffusing substances, such a carbon atoms in a solid. Sewell is correct up to this point, but going beyond this is unwarranted.
For example, can we assume that carbon atoms always diffuse? No. A large cloud of carbon dust floating in space will, over time, condense because of gravity. If we can't make the small leap from carbon in a solid to carbon in space, it's obvious that we can't justify the leaps that Sewell makes.
IP: Logged
|
|
Marktwain403
Member
Member # 4104
|
posted 23. February 2007 21:03
>>>>>>>First, I agree that the existence (or non-existence) or presence of goal directed intelligence in computers or developmental processes or animal behavior or evolution has nothing to do with the second law of thermodynamics. But once you remove the reference to thermodynamics, the observation is still valid.<<<<<<<<
I think it is debatable whether the observation is still valid or not. But my point here is that by having to go outside the second law of thermodynamics, Sewell is in effect conceding defeat with regard to the second law. Remember that his original claim was that evolution is contrary to the second law. The only way he can present a valid defense of that is to not stray outside the second law. If he felt that he had a valid argument outside of the second law, why mention the second law in the first place? The experts in thermodynamics don't agree with him on the second law being a problem for evolution. Who are you going to believe, the textbook authors on thermodynamics or Granville Sewell?
[ 23. February 2007, 21:07: Message edited by: Marktwain403 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Marktwain403
Member
Member # 4104
|
posted 23. February 2007 21:12
>>>>>Thermodynamics does present problems for evolution both for the origin of life and the development of life. Without an energy conversion mechanism, spelling out the precise ways of energy utilization, life cannot self-generate. Also, without the pre-written plans designed into the genome and other cellular systems, life will not evolve.<<<<<<
While the above is surely someone's opinion, it does not derive from an accurate understanding of the second law. The energy conversion mechanism and its relation to life has no connection with the second law. All the above statement amounts to is that evolution seems improbable to the person who made the statement. Thermodynamics does not make it improbable.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 25. February 2007 09:58
I am not terribly interested in the flawed form of Sewell's argument, but in the substance of the argument. Goal directed intelligence and cummulated knowledge may share some but not all of the scientific properties of force and energy. It is not productive to waste time to argue that evolutionary 'knowledge' must conform exactly to the theories applible to physical energy.
However, even rejecting the relationship with the laws of thermodynamics, evolutionary theory must still address the issues of the forces of goal directed intelligence and the impact of stored information.
Arguing against the thermodynamics strawman 'theory' is not a valid basis for arguing against the validity of goal directed intelligence theories nor does it provide an acceptable Darwinian explanation or theories addressing observed data that clearly indicates or appears to indicate the actions of stored information (the biological equivalent of energy) and goal directed intelligence (the biological equivalant of physical forces).
Supporters of conventional Darwinian theories ultimately face the same challenge as supporters of ID. Over the short term, you can rely on soft science methodologies and your dominant political position, but over the long term soft science positions will loose out to hard science positions and arguments. If advocates of the various METs are unable to support their positions in terms of hard science, then ultimately their science will have as little credibility as alchemy.
Once again, the substance of the topic being discussed here is not thermodynamics but stored biological information and its compatibility with various theories of evolution.
IP: Logged
|
|
Marktwain403
Member
Member # 4104
|
posted 28. February 2007 01:40
>>>>>Once again, the substance of the topic being discussed here is not thermodynamics but stored biological information and its compatibility with various theories of evolution.<<<<<<<<
The substance of Granville Sewell's argument was based on thermodynamics. I am pleased to see that you recognize his argument as a flawed argument. The views you advance don't have the persuasive force that a valid thermodynamics argument would have if it were true.
IP: Logged
|
|
Marktwain403
Member
Member # 4104
|
posted 28. February 2007 01:44
>>>>>>The book, "Order and Chaos", from which I quoted, for example, gives the constuction of a building by humans as an example of a local decrease in entropy, but then makes the standard but absurd claim that this does not violate the second law because the local decrease is "compensated" somehow by increases elsewhere, as though the fact that buildings are being demolished in Hong Kong somehow makes it easier for us to build skyscrapers in New York.<<<<<<<<<<
---Granville Sewell
Do you mean to say that the construction of a building by humans is a violation of the second law? Either it is or it is not. If it is not a violation of the 2nd law, in your opinion, why is it not a violation of the second law? Surely you don't wish to argue that it is a violation of the second law?
[ 28. February 2007, 01:44: Message edited by: Marktwain403 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 28. February 2007 08:18
Quote: The substance of Granville Sewell's argument was based on thermodynamics.
In other words you are incapable of discussing a substantive topic relating to ID.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
