|
Author
|
Topic: Granville Sewell and the Second Law of Thermodynamics
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 07. March 2007 10:00
Quote: Humans are able to change information by controlling energy flows and information flows. Natural systems cannot.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support such an assertion. There is no evidence of any process in human neurons that does not occur in neurons of other animals. There is no evidence of any energy control process in neurons that is not compatible with energy control process elsewhere in nature.
You might be able to argue that humans involve different processes for controlling the flow of information than other animals(at least differences in degree of control), but that is not the same as asserting that there are differences in controlling energy flows.
No firm scientific relationship has been established between energy and information. Therefore the question of the creation and/or preservation of biological information has simply not been shown to be scientifically equivalent to the creation and/or preservation of biological information.
Quote: The burden is on Darwinists to demonstrate how biological information can be formed under closed systems of natural causes, or in open systems other than bringing it in through the boundary - i.e., where it has to come from another source, not from within the system.
Although it has nothing to do with energy and, IMO, very little to do with Darwinists, this creation of information issue is, again IMO, central to the science of ID.
To paraphrase your comment, A) closed mathematical systems, it appears, are incapable of creating information. B) Open mathematical systems ‘create’ information by importing it through the boundary. Given these two mathematical concepts or principles, we have a number of possible scientific implications:
1: In support of conventional ID it can be demonstrated that there must scientifically exist some type of non-material process which creates information in a manner incompatible with A and B above.
2: In support of conventional Darwinists theories, it can be demonstrated that there exists some physical or materialistic processes that create biological information in a manner incompatible with A and B above.
3: In support of an unconventional scientific form of ID, it can be demonstrated that the formal scientific analysis of intelligence, design and the creation of biological information can be produced within the constraints imposed by A and B above.
I am sure there are other logical possibilities, but these are, I believe, the options of interest here.
The third option, the one I advocate, accepts as valid the mathematical concepts that closed systems can not create information and that creation of information in an open system arises from (or can be viewed as arising from) information imported across the boundary. In other words, brains, neurons and evolving cells don’t create information, they solve problems and produce adaptive evolutionary change as a result of information imported from external sources.
Unlike the concepts used in Darwinian evolution, the information imported into ‘intelligent’ systems is not the information needed to support a random RM&NS type search. Rather the imported information is the type of information that produces an intelligent or efficient goal directed search. In many or even most situations, the information imported allows the biological processes unit to solve most problems on the first trial.
Given this view or perspective of intelligent behavior, the question is whether rigorous scientific analysis can be performed using the perspective.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 07. March 2007 12:39
LifeEngineer, to MarkTwain: quote:
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.
MarkTwain, if you're not familiar with LifeEngineer, there's something you should know. LE consistently ignores all requests for empirical data, math, references, operational definitions, and formal logic. In return, everybody ignores him as well. Occasionally he'll try to provoke a response by making a completely asinine insult, such as the one quoted above. Don't take it personally -- he's just desperate for attention.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 07. March 2007 13:10
David: quote:
Before dismissing Sewell's argument, one might actually try to show where there is an error in his mathematical derivations.
The problem is not in his math per se. In the appendix here, equations 1 and 2 are simply statements of the 1st and 2nd Laws, and equation 4 follows from them. But the leap from equation 4 to his ID argument is a complete non sequitur. Since equation 2 assumes random diffusion, we can't apply equation 4 to any old situation we feel like. For instance, we can't apply it to a large cloud of matter floating in space, which will tend to condense rather than diffuse over time. And there's certainly no way to apply it to the question of whether intelligence is required for the emergence of biocomplexity.
In short, nothing in his thermodynamic analysis applies to his conclusion, which is why he has to abandon thermodynamics and switch to rhetoric.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 07. March 2007 19:15
LifeEngineer: quote:
The third option, the one I advocate, accepts as valid the mathematical concepts that closed systems can not create information and that creation of information in an open system arises from (or can be viewed as arising from) information imported across the boundary.
If this is a mathematical concept, could you state it mathematically? Or provide a reference to a text in which it's developed mathematically?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. March 2007 06:28
William Paley claimed that where there is design there is a designer. That is incorrect. All that can be claimed is - where there is design there WAS a designer. Nietzche put it most succinctly -
"God is dead."
So did Pierre Grasse -
"Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE."
Evolution of Living Organisms, page 166, his emphasis.
So did Leo Berg -
"Evolution is in a large measure an unfolding of PRE-EXISTING rudiments"
Nomogenesis, page 406, my emphasis.
If only Berg had used the past tense.
So did Otto Schindewolf who DID use the past tense -
"...the main features of the evolutionary trend WERE laid out RIGHT FROM THE START with the abrupt, discontinuous production of the type, and with evolutionary potential being restricted RIGHT FROM THE START to certain paths.
Otto Schindewolf. Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 360, The entire statement is in italics . I have added my emphasis in caps.
So did Einstein -
"EVERYTHING is determined...by forces over which we have no control."
my emphasis.
The simple fact is that there is absolutely NO tangible evidence that God exists but there is overwhelming evidence that one or more Gods once did. That does NOT mean that God or Gods do not exist. It means only that the presence of God has no place in scientific inquiry. It never has and it never will.
There is neither a place nor a need for a living God in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
None of this will ever be reconciled with a classical thermodynamic explanation of either ontogeny or phylogeny. The second law has been repeatedly violated at every turn.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 08. March 2007 07:19
Quote: If this is a mathematical concept, could you state it mathematically? Or provide a reference to a text in which it's developed mathematically?
I am far from an expert on this type of abstract mathematics, but I believe shannon information theory deals with the inability of closed systems to create information. Increasing or creating information by importing it through a boundry should be a obvious conclusion.
It would appear to me that if anyone claims that either a closed mathematical system can create information, or that a closed real world system creates information, then the burden of proof to support such a claim falls to those making the claim.
All I am saying is that we can scientifically analyze intelligent behavior based solely on external inputs and outputs.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 08. March 2007 11:14
LifeEngineer: quote:
I am far from an expert on this type of abstract mathematics, but I believe shannon information theory deals with the inability of closed systems to create information.
First, thank you for acknowledging my request.
Second, Shannon theory says nothing about whether closed systems can create information. In Shannon's model, there's a sender, a channel, and a receiver. Shannon doesn't address the ultimate source of the information, but the sender could be a random message generator, creating information out of thin air, thus making the sender-channel-receiver trio a closed system.
quote:
It would appear to me that if anyone claims that either a closed mathematical system can create information, or that a closed real world system creates information, then the burden of proof to support such a claim falls to those making the claim.
Random message generator. Burden met.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 08. March 2007 12:44
John A. Davison: quote:
None of this will ever be reconciled with a classical thermodynamic explanation of either ontogeny or phylogeny. The second law has been repeatedly violated at every turn.
John, you seem to be jumping back and forth on this issue. Remember our exchange last October?
2ndClass: Let the record also show that JAD did make a claim, namely that increasing biocomplexity is a thermodynamic impossibility, and that he refused to support it.
John: Where did I say that increasing complexity is a thermodynamic impossibility?
2ndClass: Here -> "While each chemical step cannot violate chemical law and doesn't, the effect of those same reactions within the living system is to lead to greater complexity, clearly a thermodynamic impossibility."
John: Sorry about that. I apologize. I meant that the increase could not have come about entirely through "natural processes."
Are you now saying again that unprescribed evolution violates the 2nd Law?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. March 2007 18:47
Everything is natural or it wouldn't be here. The only place for a supernatural is at the beginning or, more likely, beginnings. I see no way that can be avoided. It is not intrinsic in matter to assemble itself and then evolve. That is the Darwinian position and it is absurd. If that were conceivable it could be demonstrated experimentally. Living things are able to violate the second law because they progress through carefully prescribed steps which are extremely energetically efficient. Bomb calorimeter(real thermodynamic)studies place the gross efficiency of the conversion of a hen's egg into a hatched chick at a gross efficiency of at least 80% and that does not even include the energy lost for maintenance during the 21 days of incubation. Those are real measurements, not armchair theoretical constructs.
I have no idea what you mean by unprescribed evolution. I no longer believe in such nonsense. Perhaps you will explain.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
Johhn A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 08. March 2007 23:38
John: quote:
Everything is natural or it wouldn't be here. The only place for a supernatural is at the beginning or, more likely, beginnings. I see no way that can be avoided. It is not intrinsic in matter to assemble itself and then evolve. That is the Darwinian position and it is absurd.
Absolutely. When water molecules assemble themselves in a hexagonal lattice, they're doing something that is not intrinsic to their nature. But it's not supernatural either, or else they wouldn't be here.
John: quote:
Living things are able to violate the second law because they progress through carefully prescribed steps which are extremely energetically efficient. Bomb calorimeter(real thermodynamic)studies place the gross efficiency of the conversion of a hen's egg into a hatched chick at a gross efficiency of at least 80% and that does not even include the energy lost for maintenance during the 21 days of incubation.
It's amazing how those chicks can violate a fundamental law of nature without being supernatural.
But unless you can model chick development as a heat engine and show that its efficiency exceeds that of a Carnot cycle, I don't see how they're violating anything.
John: quote:
I have no idea what you mean by unprescribed evolution. I no longer believe in such nonsense.
If you have no idea what I mean by it, then how do you know that you used to believe in it?
I added the "unprescribed" qualifier simply because I don't know whether you consider "prescribed" evolution (according to your PEH) to violate the 2nd Law. Do you?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. March 2007 06:42
second class
I have no intention of gettimg into a silly semantic arguement about thermodynamics with you or anyone else. A friend of mine, now dead, once called it thermogodammics because it has played no role whatsoever in our understanding of either ontogeny or phylogeny. When measurements were actually made, as they were over a hundred years ago, it was discovered that living systems are so efficient that there is no reason whatsoever to consider them as mere heat engines.
I know of not a single contribution of thermodynamics to our understanding of either ontogeny or phylogeny. In those areas it is nothing but fodder for idle conversation and meaningless speculation.
The second law states that the energy of a system tends to a minimum. If you think that law, which of course cannot be denied by definition (laws are like that), is compatible with what we know about either development or evolution, there is not a thing I can or will do for you.
If you wish to declare victory in this meaningless debate, be my guest. I have better things to do with my remaining time on this planet than to engage with those who believe life is an accident.
Are you the same "second class" that frequents Panda's Thumb and After The Bar Closes, where I cannot respond, or would you rather not say?
I am sorry I invaded this thread. I should have known better. It won't happen again.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 09. March 2007, 07:27: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 09. March 2007 09:09
Quote: Second, Shannon theory says nothing about whether closed systems can create information. In Shannon's model, there's a sender, a channel, and a receiver. Shannon doesn't address the ultimate source of the information, but the sender could be a random message generator, creating information out of thin air, thus making the sender-channel-receiver trio a closed system.
You clearly have no understanding of the topic being discussed and are simply attempting to disrupt discussion with your random incoherent blither.
The question of the ability of systems to create information is central to understanding intelligent systems. Both supporters of conventional ID and supporters of academic AI appear to believe that 'intelligent systems' have the capacity to create information.
Both shanon information theory and theories of computer information processing recognize that closed communications channels and conventional computer systems don't create information.
Both conventional AI advocates and conventional ID advocates continue to believe that intelligent systems have the capacity to create information eithr from supernatural sources or via some as yet undiscovered process.
In direct contradiction of both conventional beliefs, I am suggesting that the scientific analysis of intelligence and intelligent systems does not require an assumption that intelligent systems 'create' information.
This is a topic that should be of interest to those with a serious interest in either ID or AI.
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 09. March 2007 09:26
Discussing 2nd law has no meaning. Physics is very awkward tool to grasp life. John Davison is right. If evolution of life breaks 2nd law - who knows? There will be always scientists who are convinced that ancient fish climbing mount improbable became feathered eagle without breaking 2nd law. They will persuade laymen that everything is correct from physicist point of view. Chicken is considered something like dissipative structure of the back-garden.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. March 2007 10:41
Thank you Martin.
I guess "second class" would rather not identify himself.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 09. March 2007 11:37
John: quote:
I have no intention of gettimg into a silly semantic arguement about thermodynamics with you or anyone else.
There is nothing semantic about this argument. You're simply making naked assertions that fly in the face of physics.
John: quote:
Are you the same "second class" that frequents Panda's Thumb and After The Bar Closes, where I cannot respond, or would you rather not say?
Yes, that's me.
John: quote:
I am sorry I invaded this thread. I should have known better. It won't happen again.
We'll see.
John: quote:
I guess "second class" would rather not identify himself.
I'm sorry I don't check this thread every few hours to answer your questions. I'll try to do better in the future.
Martin: quote:
If evolution of life breaks 2nd law - who knows?
John does. Or he doesn't. Depends on what day it is.
Challenging a fundamental law of physics is either Nobel Prize material or crackpottery. Since nobody has received a Nobel Prize for overturning the 2nd Law ... well, you can fill in the blank yourselves.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
