|
Author
|
Topic: Thermodynamics for Intelligent Design
|
Chronos
Member
Member # 693
|
posted 29. April 2003 21:23
Mr. Moderator:
Our posts crossed and I saw this coming. I will no longer address posts that are not specific in addressing an area of the topic. Maybe that helps, maybe not.
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 29. April 2003 21:25
DNA is a physical species, just like hydrogen and oxygen are. Can you please recalculate your conclusions that pertain to evolution while taking heat into account?
Clearly, thermodynamics can overcome logical entropy in the case of burning hydrogen. It would seem that the same may be true of other processes as well, such as life and evolution.
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 29. April 2003 21:48
Chronos, in your conclusion post on page 2 you have a section titled “THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SECOND LAW TO NATURALISM AND ID”
In that (and over previous paragraphs and posts) you suggest relationships of entropy and states of matter in various systems. That is clearly intended to include evolving systems as is apparent from your “conclusion”.
And in that section you suggest that your conclusion is based mathematically on calculations of entropy. You give equations of “S” and suggest those equations are related to your explanation.
Then Rex gave a simple problem, clearly described in terms of states. I’ll let Rex handle the answer to his problem, what I am interested in is the equation of S (or delta S), and having your concept clarified mathematically. I am asking you to clarify that conclusion section, or to rewrite it, or whatever it takes to make the mathematical basis of your claims clear. Or if your claims don’t have such a mathematical basis that can be made clear, you could also state that.
Very specifically I have asked about formula you gave in that conclusion section.
Pim’s post time stamp April 2003 15:25 covers most of what I am interested in. (Rex’s “problem” is simply an example of the exact same issue as a concrete case.)
Could you please present again the formulas you intend for that section of the conclusion? Then could you deal with Rex’s question, in terms of those formulas? (And since Rex’s question was clearly in terms of the very aspects that you discuss in that concluding section, and also similar aspects from other posts prior to that, I think that Rex’s question is perfectly reasonable to ask. You can’t claim that something about states of matter are appropriate for the case you wish to make a claim for, e.g. evolution, obey a certain relationship from entropy, and then claim that other cases don’t also need to obey that same relationship from entropy. You can’t get out of the issue simply by claiming that some case that seems to contradict your concept needs to be calculated in terms of “heat”. Either your concept has a mathematical basis and can be calculated for various cases in nature, including those you wish to apply it to, or they don’t’. I suspect they are not consistent with observation, but you can help us by working through Rex’s examples in terms of your equations.)
I’ll let Rex deal with any actual answer that you give that is in terms of the states and description that he gave. My interest is in letting the readers know that there is an issue to be resolved in the understanding and application of the formulas of entropy, and how they relate to claims that you have made. I think it is completely reasonable for me to ask for clarification of the mathematical basis of your claims. Doing an example with Rex’s case is simply one way. Since Rex’s case is relevant, I think you shoud use it as an example to explain your theory. This explanation is beyond simply finding out what is wrong with Rex’s example, it is a matter of delving in more detail of your concept. That is what I am asking for, and that is my interest in pushing the issue.
[ 29. April 2003, 22:34: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Chronos
Member
Member # 693
|
posted 29. April 2003 22:31
No, I would have no way of doing this, Rex; because there is no heat involved in the entropy that degrades the genome over time and from generation to generation. Heat is irrelevant to that process because this is information entropy and not thermodynamic entropy. Remember what I had to say about thermodynamic entropy in my conclusion? “Thermodynamical entropy rises in the organism from conception forward and eventually ages and kills it. That is all we need to know about this version.” In other words, it has not a thing to do with the argument that complex macroevolution did not occur or that CSI can only be designed to come into existence.
When something is a spontaneous exothermic reaction as in the case of your hydrogen analogy, thermodynamics would predict that entropy SHOULD rise. If we look at your hydrogen strictly from a point of an exothermic reaction we see the following: If hydrogen burns within a beaker and emits energy in the form of 120J and the beaker is at 270 degrees K, then we can see by deltaS = deltaQ/T = 129J/270K = S = .44 and we see entropy rise.
The reason you saw entropy decrease is because you did not take into account the fact that the burning hydrogen also raised the entropy of the system. This was left out of your conclusion. And even if you think that lowered entropy means that a spontaneous reaction cannot occur, that would be wrong as well. There are examples of endothermic reactions that raise energy and spontaneous reactions that lower it. The second law is strictly a law of tendency.
Now for the sake of clarity of the discussion, might I suggest that we pull completely away from heat in these calculations, because it is only muddying the water? Here is my argument again: “From the first article we can find W, because the researchers tell is there are about 100 million possibilities that could mutate, so four mutations is not that big a number, relatively speaking. But if this is positive entropy, then we can safely say that entropy has risen each generation for the last six million years and there is no evidence at all to suggest it hasn’t been this way throughout the entire 2 billion year process.
S = log2W, S = log2(100,000,000), S = 26.5754247590989, therefore S is positive showing a tendency of disorder.”
Can everyone see that there is no heat involved here? Only probability entropy. So heat is just irrelevant to this part of the discussion. I hope that is clear.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 29. April 2003 22:39
Hi Chronos,
I think we can by now all appreciate the impact of a less than solid mathematical foundation can be to one's argument. Confusion, arm waving, etc make it hard to pin down the real arguments versus mathematical errors.
When you started you stated
"S = 0, because information cannot be disordered if it is originally created information that has not been diffused"
I asked you why S should be zero and you responded that S was not to be zero but rather deltaS=0. What do you mean by deltaS=0? What does that mean for the example you provided? deltaS=0 implies a before and after condition, which seems needed if one wants to determine the increase/decrease in entropy. Or as you claim "Delta denotes change in the component that it is placed in front of" so a change in what context I wonder?
And why should deltaS be equal to zero in your example?
In a later posting you respond that "Our lack of agreement on whether S=0 or dS=0 is really not that important to the gist of the argument. Can we just say that S is minimum and leave it at that?"
Why should S be at a minimum, a minimum with respect to what? Why not a maximum? Certainly going from S=0 to dS=0 to S it as a minimum seems to indicate a lack of accurate mathematical formulations for your ideas.
You further make things even harder to follow mathematically when refering to "therefore S is positive showing a tendency of disorder" but the value of S does not say anything about the tendency deltaS so why confuse the two?
When Rex pointed out how your arguments seem to imply that hydrogen cannot burn you claimed that "heat was dropped from the calculation" but heat does not show up in your argument about entropy. As Rex has carefully pointed out the discrepancy between the consequences of your claims on hydrogen and reality can be explained by some missing parts, but how can we be sure that the same does not apply to your entropy arguments elsewhere? A lack of any real mathematical foundation makes it impossible to determine if your arguments have any relevance to reality or not.
You also claim that you 'observe an unknown law' but have failed to show that this law is not covered by existing laws. In fact so far your new 'law' seems to be not much different from a somewhat limited formulation of the second law of thermodynamics.
If you want a rigorous evaluation of your claims then you should provide us with rigorous tools, in this case a mathematical foundation.
You suggest to change to deltaS = (log2W2) +/- (log2W1). but why the +/- which suggest even more mathematical inaccuracy making drawing any conclusions even more problematic.
You then ask me an interesting though somewhat ill posed question
"I’m looking to put together a formula for logical and informational entropy where deltaS will come out negative if it is negative and positive when it is positive without having to change the probability formula to –S = -log2W. Any ideas? "
How do you define deltaS? as I proposed as deltaS=log2(W2)-log2(W1), then surely delta S can be negative or positive independent of the value of S. Nothing earth shattering here.
As you said, the math need not be complicated but it needs to be accurate and your changing claims about S=0, dS=0, S is at a minimum, and the conflation of S and dS, make a strong case for the lack of a mathematical foundation for your claims.
If you are interested in a theory of information which does have a mathematical foundation then you need to look no further than Shannon and more recently the additions to Shannon by Schneider who linked information entropy and thermodynamical entropy. I am sure that you are familiar with their work which somehow shows how entropy logical, information and thermodynamic can increase/decrease.
I am looking forward to you resolving some of these mathematical issues before we set out to determine if your claims about macro-evolution may have been a bit too hasty.
An interesting article may be
"Shuffled Cards, Messy Desks, and Disorderly Dorm Rooms - Examples of Entropy Increase? Nonsense!' by Frank L. Lambert
[ 29. April 2003, 22:58: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 29. April 2003 22:41
Chronos, you seemed to have hit the nail on the head when you said that "The reason you saw entropy decrease is because you did not take into account the fact that the burning hydrogen also raised the entropy of the system. This was left out of your conclusion."
So we can all rest assured in the knowledge that entropy can decrease in certain systems such as the genome as long as the entropy elsewhere increases enough to offset this. Exactly what Schneider and Adami showed for the genome under mutation and selective pressures.
But I have to disagree with your somewhat sloppy claim that "S = log2W, S = log2(100,000,000), S = 26.5754247590989, therefore S is positive showing a tendency of disorder.”"
A positive S has nothing to do with tendency, in fact tendency depends on deltaS which in this case can be shown to be log2(4)-log(100,00,000) or negative.
A more careful application of the mathematics is all that is needed.
As far as your response to Rex is concerned, your calculation does not help to explain the deltaS=-10 found by Rex. Adding 0.44 to S hardly makes a real difference here.
[ 29. April 2003, 22:49: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 29. April 2003 22:46
Chronos, with regard to the equations you make it clear that they don’t deal in heat. They deal in states.
Now Rex’s problem was given strictly in terms of states.
You respond that the reason that the reaction actually proceeds is that there is another aspect, namely the exhausted heat that is part of what needs to be considered. If you don’t consider that exhausted heat, then in Rex’s case you have a system that clearly uses what you seem to indicate is the proper equation, then clearly demonstrates a decrease in entropy.
This indicates that in general in nature that a system does not have to tend toward an “increase” in entropy, when that is expressed in the terms you are describing in that concluding paragraph that I have repeatedly referenced. This means that the equations you reference don’t relate to whether systems that exhaust heat and waste, like the reaction of water and hydrogen, or more complex systems involving populations, have a limitation that entropy thus measured must tend to increase. One example clearly you accept -- and appear to properly describe is the answer to Rex’s case. What is different in the case of evolution, wherein the system is simply the organisms in question? If the populations are increasing in complexity, where is the problem, where is the contradiction. You clearly indicated that such systems can exhaust their excess entropy into the environment, and are not so limited.
This is why presenting the equations more clearly is important. Either there is no argument, or there is a mathematical argument that can be presented more clearly. I suspect there is no sensible argument. Please convince me that is incorrect by presenting the details.
---
Also I disagree slightly with Pim in one respect. Pim has presented the case much better than I.
But Pim suggests that Chronos doesn’t need a new law of thermodynamics. But he seems to need such a law, one that somehow says that logical or informational or some such entropy must tend to increase, as opposed to thermodynamic entropy, and that is the case in open systems like evolutionary systems or organisms that take in outside energy and exhaust their waste to the environment.
However Rex’s excellent and simple example of a system that simply reacts and exhausts waste (heat) to the environment would contradict such a law. Chronos has simply not presented any argument for such a law, nor has he even stated such a law clearly. The argument appears to be hand waving. When pressed to explain an example of contradiction, Chronos claims that the case doesn’t apply because the system exhausts heat to the environment (or some such heat related issue). But Chronos can’t escape so easily, since virtually everyone here except Chronos seems to understand that evolutionary systems also have the very same properties of exhausting waste (thermodynamic) entropy to the environment. He can’t make a case.
Since I think this has now been demonstrated sufficiently and there are enough posts to show that the logic has not bee presented to support Chronos’s claims, I must desist from further posting I this thread. I see no reason to post again until Chronos actually posts a logical and mathematically clear argument. I will leave Chronos the last word, and readers may have to determine for themselves if any reply to this post actually addresses the issues in the post, or if it simply evades the issues by changing the subject as has appeared in other posts above. (Note the difficulty in pinning Chronos down on the issue of the hydrogen-oxygen reaction system and logical entropy decreasing therein. Note the difficulty in pinning Chronos down on the issue of whether a positive total entropy equation has anything to do with the entropy increasing and confusing and inconsistent usage of equations thereof. Note the difficulty in pinning Chronos down on the difference between an increase or decrease in a quantity, and the value of a quantity.)
[ 30. April 2003, 00:57: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Chronos
Member
Member # 693
|
posted 30. April 2003 00:12
Pim And Ged:
Concentrate right here: “that "S = log2W, S = log2(100,000,000), S = 26.5754247590989, therefore S is positive showing a tendency of disorder.”"
This is the heart of my argument.
If you cannot get past this fact that the human genome disorders with every generation via an increase in entropy, then you cannot win this debate. The rest is smoke and mirrors.
P1: With every generation in homo sapien, entropy increases in the genome.
P2: Complex macroevolution requires that the genome have a lower entropy over time through the generations.
Therefore, complex macroevolution did not occur.
Now, Aristotelian logic is valid in any form of debate. If you cannot prove at least one of these premises wrong, therefore showing the conclusion to be wrong, then you lose this debate and truth falls on the side of those of us who firmly embrace design in the tenets that macroevolution is not a valid scientific theory and that CSI cannot occur on its own naturally. There is no use to talk about anything else until this is resolved and I will not answer posts on any subject of thermodynamics until this is refuted.
Thanks, and good luck!
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 30. April 2003 00:23
Chronos:
Concentrate right here: “that "S = log2W, S = log2(100,000,000), S = 26.5754247590989, therefore S is positive showing a tendency of disorder.”"
This is the heart of my argument.
You are once again conflating entropy and change in entropy. Positive entropy can still show a tendency to order as long as the change is negative.
Thus when you state that "If you cannot get past this fact that the human genome disorders with every generation via an increase in entropy, then you cannot win this debate. The rest is smoke and mirrors." I would argue that so far the only smoke and mirrors seems to be in your claim that the human genome increases in entropy with each generation.
So please show us that entropy increases rather than showing that entropy is positive. Or to use your appeal to aristotelian logic, lets not confuse a parameters value with a parameter's tendency (rate of change).
Since the heart of your argument is fallacious, I would say that the rest of the body may be 'dead' as well.
IP: Logged
|
|
Chronos
Member
Member # 693
|
posted 30. April 2003 00:49
OK, I’ll allow you to explain to me how entropy which is a mathematical, numerical number can be positive and yet be negative at the same time. This entropy is a positive number. Please share with me how you can believe a positive number to be negative and still expect me to understand that you are espousing logic in your arguments. And there would be no need to show you ‘how’ the entropy increases (but the articles on the study show you how, if you’ll read them) because laws of science do not seek to provide the how of their governance. Only theories do this in the scientific method.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 30. April 2003 00:55
Chronos: OK, I’ll allow you to explain to me how entropy which is a mathematical, numerical number can be positive and yet be negative at the same time.
Do you understand the difference between the value of a parameter and its tendency? Lets refer to the value of the parameter as P while the tendency is described by deltaP. Similarly thus entropy S can be positive and its tendency can be negative in that for instance over time S decreases in value, in that case the tendency of S wrt time is negative but its value is still positive. It seems to me that you are confusing entropy and the tendency of entropy, by stating that since entropy is positive, it tends towards disorder but the value of the entropy does not say anything about its tendency.
For instance a car is situated at location x with a speed v and a tendency toward motion, that is dv/dt>0 this means that the car has a tendency towards motion because it's first derivative is positive. On the other hand v could be -10 and its tendency constant, positive or negative pointing to a conservation of speed, increase in speed or decrease in speed (acceleration/decelleration).
I hope that this simple argument helps you understand that the value of entropy does not say anything about its tendency.
I really suggest you check out the works of Shannon, Schneider, Adami and others who have dones quite some work on information theory, entropy and information/complexity. A more thorough formulation of your ideas in a manner more consistent with the requirements of mathematics and science show how for instance the genome can increase its information/decrease its entropy through its interactions with its environment. Mutations and natural selection are all that is needed.
[ 30. April 2003, 00:58: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 30. April 2003 01:20
OK, a claim was now made that the mathematics has been presented, and the equation was clearly indicated as correct and suggestion that was the fundamental basis. Thus a mathematical argument, incredulous as it is, has actually been proffered. That was what I was asking for (even though it makes no sense).
quote:
OK, I’ll allow you to explain to me how entropy which is a mathematical, numerical number can be positive and yet be negative at the same time.
The reason that you seem to be able to have a number that is both positive and negative at the same time is that you conflate or confuse the change in the quantity deltaS with the quantity itself S in your presentation. None of us claim that the value S is negative, rather we claim that the change deltaS can be negative as time moves forward. Rex’s case is one in which that is clearly the case, and your explanation was basically correct as to why deltaS was negative, that the heat entropy was exhausted to the environment and thus was not retained in the system, thus the system entropy S (in terms of microstates or information states) reduced from the earlier step to the later step.
Now I see this is what you intend as the presentation of your argument --you stick by your equation given in the section titled “THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SECOND LAW TO NATURALISM AND ID” that I repeatedly asked about. Now this is so incredulous that I could not have believed that you were using this and claiming this to be your mathematical presentation of the argument. I thought that you meant some sort of change in entropy deltaS in the equation, rather than the total value, in that section, since the words entropy is increasing clearly refer to a change or delta in the S and not to the value itself.
I hope you understand why this is so hard for any of us to understand. If you don’t even use very simple mathematical conventions of referring to the change in the quantity as deltaS, and to the value of the quantity S, how can we ever understand the argument as being reasonable? Then in your own defense you repeat the same confusion over, claiming it is the mathematical essence of the argument! Claiming that the value S being positive, is an indication that the change deltaS is necessarily positive!
Please please understand why so many of us find the presentation to be incoherent, when such simple aspects have not been made clear. We only ask that you make these issues clear by consistent and precise use of mathematical language. And if none is possible, desist from claiming that mathematics supports your case.
Now if this is ever cleared up, then the question will become whether deltaS is necessarily positive. Pim’s quote already answers this question clearly that deltaS can be positive or negative (and indeed deltaS was negative in Rex’s case of hydrogen-oxygen reaction followed by exhausting of heat to environment.):
quote:
There are several other entropies today in addition to that of Clausius. Prigogine's Entropy, for example, addresses what is called far-from equilibrium thermodynamics which looks at nonlinear dynamic processes and self-organizing systems such as the cells of our body. The equation for Prigogine's Entropy is:
dS_T = dS_I + dS_E
where dS_T is the total entropy change, dS_I is the change in internal, or Clausius' Entropy, the entropy produced by irreversible internal processes, and dS_E is the entropy exchanged with the surroundings (this term is zero for isolated systems for which Prigogine’s Entropy is identical to Clausius’ Entropy). While dS_I tends to increase, the term dS_E can increase or decrease or remain zero (it is positive if entropy enters the system and negative if entropy leaves the system). The important effect of Prigogine's Entropy is that the total system, entropy change of any open system, dS_T, can be positive, negative, or zero. Systems for which
dS_T lt 0 (i.e., where entropy is decreasing) are said to be self-organizing (Çambel, 1993).
I know, I can’t resist posting when the lack of communication seems so frustrating. It’s a disease on my part -- I’m putting a sticker on my computer that says “no more posting”. Then I’ll wait until this weekend to even check in.
[ 30. April 2003, 01:50: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Chronos
Member
Member # 693
|
posted 30. April 2003 01:35
YOU WROTE: “stating that since entropy is positive, it tends towards disorder but the value of the entropy does not say anything about its tendency”
Begging your pardon, but it’s not me saying that when entropy is positive it "tends" toward disorder. When entropy is positive there is no longer a tendency involved. It has already happened. The reaction is over and a passed event. Therefore the term tendency no longer applies. And anytime entropy is positive the system has disordered:
“Entropy is a measure of disorder. A positive change in entropy value indicates that
the system has become more disordered; a negative change in entropy value indicates
that the system has become more ordered.”
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:4w2qUlXlkBIC:
www.terrificscience.org/lessonexchange/genchemPDF/
Entropy.pdf+%22entropy+is+positive%22+%2B+disorder
+%2B+system&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
“2KClO4(s) ® 2KClO3(s) + O2(g)
moles of gas increases, therefore more disorder, change in entropy is positive”
http://faculty.uccb.ns.ca/~dkeefe/chem122/sset5/chem122sset5.htm
“Entropy is positive for this. The reason this occurs is that the disorder of the system increases (Remember tendency toward maximum disorder).”
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:qqqu5nt-4BcC:faculty.leeu.edu/~pmauldin/powerpoint/
Chy%2520112/chy112ch19.ppt+%22entropy+is+
positive%22+%2B+disorder+%2B+system&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
“In each case, the change toward a less ordered system is described by a positive change of the system's entropy. In this sense entropy is a measure of disorder, and the natural tendency of physical systems is toward disorder or increasing entropy.”
http://www.umich.edu/~amophys/125/tsix/tsix.html
“If the change in entropy is positive, the entropy of the system is increased. This is an example of an irreversible process in which a loss of capacity for work results in an increase in entropy for the system.”
http://cougar.slvhs.slv.k12.ca.us/~pboomer/physicstextbook/ch9.html
[ 30. April 2003, 01:36: Message edited by: Chronos ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Chronos
Member
Member # 693
|
posted 30. April 2003 01:41
YOU WROTE: "Please please understand why so many of us find the presentation to be incoherent, when such simple aspects have not been made clear. We only ask that you make these issues clear by consistent and precise use of mathematical language. And if none is possible, desist from claiming that mathematics supports your case."
I've consistantly asked you to tell me what is unclear to you and you seem do not want to do this. Please go back, see the math again, read the syllogism and address that. This is the gist of my argument and if you cannot address this, you will have to admit that ID takes this debate.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 30. April 2003 01:42
Chronos still confuses the concepts of tendency and value when he states that "And anytime entropy is positive the system has disordered:"
Not necessarily, if the entropy before the event was more than after the event, despite the entropy being positive the system has become more ordered.
Postive change, negative change are very different concepts from the actual value of the parameter.
You are still conflating entropy and tendency or rate of change or change of entropy. Thus Gedanken's suggestion to present a more solid mathematical foundation which can help to avoid such confusions on your part and can help us understand what arguments you are really trying to make.
None of your links supported your claims and all of them supported mine and Gedanken's.
So it seems time to abandon the confusion of value (S) and tendency deltaS.
You also state that "This is the gist of my argument and if you cannot address this, you will have to admit that ID takes this debate."
This argument reminds me of my blisful teenage years but I found out in my college years that such arguments fail to impress for obvious reasons. But even if the claim were correct, you fail to appreciate that he did address your arguments and showed many significant shortcomings and confusions in your arguments.
Thus once again our requests for a more solid mathematical foundation for your claims because so far you have failed to separate entropy S from its change deltaS and failed to appreciate how S can be positive while deltaS is negative.
Let's keep this discussion going in a mature manner and not resort to logical fallacies like the one above.
[ 30. April 2003, 01:45: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
