|
Author
|
Topic: A 4th Law of Thermodynamics
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 13. October 2003 17:48
There seems to be a number of people who espouse the theory that life is programmed into nature. This theory seems to be in conflict with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that requires an auxiliary device or system to enable entropy to decrease for both open and closed systems when moving away from equilibrium, quasi-equilibrium or local quasi-equilibrium. Although nature does have simple auxiliary devices and systems, these mechanisms are unable to produce the complex and specified systems required for the formation and construction of life. If life was programmed into nature, we would expect to see a plethora of different life-forms originating throughout time. Yet, this is not observed in nature.
I would like to address several criticisms that some will give. First, some will say that thermodynamics has nothing to do with mechanism. This may be true based on some idealized notion of thermodynamics, but in practice thermodynamics has been extended and does apply to the mechanism. This is clearly observed in engineering thermodynamics where many systems are analyzed (e.g. car engines, jet engines, refrigerators, heat pumps, Etc.).
A second criticism that some may present are dissipative systems. The speculation on dissipative systems is somewhat humorous. Showing that simple patterns can form in nature hardly shows that life can originate from inanimate matter. These devices are simple mechanisms that can produce small localized decreases in entropy in open-nonequillibrium systems. The boundary conditions in dissipative systems are such that the complexity is limited and constrained in a specified fashion based on physics. One example is the patterns produced by wind or waves on the beach. There are a large number of formations possible, yet at the same time it is constrained in a specified fashion. If we saw the words, "I am here" written in the sand, nobody would expect the words to be natural. The formation of sand and formations found in dissipative systems in general are constrained by physics.
This topic also applies to Dembski's 4th Law of Thermodynamics presented in the book "No Fee Lunch". Dembski argues that complex specified information into a system is greater than or equal to the information out of the system. I would modify the concept to include the CSI within the device and the concept of the storage of CSI. For example, we could make a transmitter used to send signals. We would need an intelligent agent to send the signal, Ia. Our device, the transmitter, would have CSI associated with the device, Id. For example, the transmitter could add in an additional signal stored within a storage device within the transmitter. In addition, there would be CSI associated with the environment, Ie. There would also be the output CSI, I out. The equation would be:
quote:
Ia + Ie + Id = I out
Some discussion is needed in regards to the CSI associated with the environment. All transmitters are influenced by the environment, but in all instances the environment tends to degrade the information (except maybe in the probability range less than 10^-150). Ie is therefore always negative.
There is an entropy relation between specified information (SI) and the entropy decrease that may generate interesting discussion. As I said before, for both open and closed systems you still need the auxiliary device enabling the entropy decrease when moving away from equilibrium. Consequently, there is a relation between the (SI) in the device and the entropy change. I am fuzzy what SI relates best with. The output specification is the result of work and the specification resulting from the mechanism. An explosion may produce a lot of work, but little specification may result. The mechanism needs to harness the energy and constrain it in specified ways. Entropy is a measure of the tendency of the energy to spread out. The specification of the energy by the mechanism tends to constrain the energy and not allow it to spread out. There is a relation here that some of you may be able to draw upon and expand. Possibly, we could develop a new measure based upon the constraints of the mechanism and the energy. Maybe we could integrate over the boundary conditions imposed by the mechanism in relation to the energy in some fashion to develop a new measure maybe called "specified entropy". Maybe from this measure we could discover a conservation principle. I should add that SI quickly becomes CSI as the complexity of the mechanism increases. Well, what are your thoughts?
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 13. October 2003 23:45
Kyle: There seems to be a number of people who espouse the theory that life is programmed into nature. This theory seems to be in conflict with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that requires an auxiliary device or system to enable entropy to decrease for both open and closed systems when moving away from equilibrium, quasi-equilibrium or local quasi-equilibrium.
Is that correct? I have checked my second law references and have not seen any need for 'an auxiliary device or system' for entropy to decrease. Could you please explain?
Kyle: All transmitters are influenced by the environment, but in all instances the environment tends to degrade the information (except maybe in the probability range less than 10^-150). Ie is therefore always negative.
Again this seems to go against the findings by Adami et al who showed how random mutation and natural selection are enough to increase the information in the genome.
They state that "We show that, because natural selection forces genomes to behave as a natural "Maxwell Demon," within a fixed environment, genomic complexity is forced to increase."
Since you state that "I would like to address several criticisms that some will give" I have taken the time to present my own.
In fact, and I am not the only one who argues this, the 4th law of thermodynamics by Dembski seems to be not much dissimilar from the second law of thermodynamics.
Victor Stenger, professor emeritus of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii, comments "In physics, the second law of thermodynamics specifies that, on the macroscopic scale of many-body processes, the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Thus Dembski's law of conservation of information is nothing more than "conservation of entropy," a special case of the second law that applies when no dissipative processes such as friction are present. This is a rare occurrence in everyday phenomena."
I would say that the combination of dissipative systems, open systems and far from equilibrium systems offer many ways of information/entropy in a system to increase/decrease.
Kyle: That is precisely what we do when we look for extraterrestrial intelligence (or will do if we think we've found it).
Actually I believe the argument is somewhat different namely that inspite of the requirement of independent specification, specifications in design inferences require some motive in order. In case of SETI it is the expectation that if there is an intelligence out there, similar to ours, they will try to communicate with us in the same frequency range in which we are searching.
Gedanken on this forum has provided us with some tantalizing insights into how the design inference is used in archaeology, criminology etc and why application in these cases requires the specification to include motive (such as motive means opportunity in criminology).
But what about 'new design' such as detecting design in nature, can the design inference approach by dembski work?
Del Ratzsch comments reflect my own
"So typically, patterns that are likely candidates for design are first identified as such by some unspecified ("mysterious") means, then with the pattern in hand S picks out side information identified (by unspecified means) as relevant to the particular pattern, then sees whether the pattern in question is among the various patterns that could have been constructed from that side information. What this means, of course, is that Dembski's design inference will not be particularly useful either in initial recognition or identification of design."
p. 159 Del Ratzsch Nature design and science
To conclude:
I believe that the 4th law of thermodynamics as defined by Dembski is nothing more than a reformulation of the second law of thermodynamics (for closed systems). In fact for open systems both intelligent designers as well as regularity and chance can be shown (see Adami) to displace CSI from the environment into the system. This displaces the issue of the origin of CSI to the Big Bang (or before) which means that we have to explain the origin of high CSI/low entropy at the beginning of the Big Bang. There is no evidence to suggest that the origin of CSI requires any intelligent designer so far and since the origin has effectively been displaced to outside the view of science, it seems to me that CSI is not a useful concept to infer intelligent design.
[ 13. October 2003, 23:47: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 14. October 2003 10:39
Consider an open system, say a container of water just sitting. At night it is cooler, and the material cools by radiation into the night and freezes. It's entropy thus decreases.
But another way to look at this is that the "other devcie" was the expanse of open space to which the block radiated. But that is simply a consequence of "open system". One can fix this by not specifying an "open system" but rather a closed system.
And of course since we are indeed in an "open" system, where is there a difficulty with the "information" existing in the combination of the larger expanse of the universe (at least that in our region) including the Sun, and surrounding open space?
And I thought the fossil evidence showed new life forms occurring at various times throughout history. And furthermore I thought that various origins and evolutionary theories put constraints on expected sequences of development, just as suggested that there would be constraints.
Also don't forget the ordinary expansion of life we see on the planet--each one a system operating with various states of "entropy" during the life cycle, however "entropy" is defined. Do these individual life forms exhibit both increases and decreases of entropy over time--as individuals, I mean the "entropy" of that individual (living in an "open system")?
I guess I'm not clearly understanding the point or question.
[ 15. October 2003, 22:39: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Erik
Member
Member # 160
|
posted 14. October 2003 16:34
Kyle7 wrote: "As I said before, for both open and closed systems you still need the auxiliary device enabling the entropy decrease when moving away from equilibrium."
Are you saying that moving away from equilibrium cannot be enough to decrease entropy? If so, I wonder what you mean by "equilibrium".
As for the general idea in your post, I think it will be difficult to develop the idea beyond a word game. Dembski's ideas aren't possible to express in terms of partition functions, state variables, etc.
Erik
IP: Logged
|
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 18. October 2003 10:28
Pim says,
quote:
"Is that correct? I have checked my second law references and have not seen any need for 'an auxiliary device or system' for entropy to decrease. Could you please explain?"
If you read an engineering thermodynamics book, you will see the discussion about the direction of processes under the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Spontaneous processes occur naturally and are expected. Nonspontaneous processes do not occur naturally and require some auxiliary device to enable them to occur. Engineers are concerned with building these auxiliary devices to enable nonspontaneous processes to happen. A car burns fuel and utilizes the energy to run uphill. A nonspontaneous process happens. A refrigerator uses electrical energy to run a thermodynamic cycle enabling air to cool within the refrigerator. Another nonspontaneous process occurs. Engineers are typically concerned about enabling nonspontaneous processes to occur by constraining boundary conditions by the use of auxiliary devices. The same argument applies to the origin of life and development of life, which is a nonspontaneous process.
Pim also says,
quote:
'Again this seems to go against the findings by Adami et al who showed how random mutation and natural selection are enough to increase the information in the genome.
'They state that We show that, because natural selection forces genomes to behave as a natural "Maxwell Demon," within a fixed environment, genomic complexity is forced to increase.''
The findings by Adami et al are highly speculative at best. They make a number of assumptions that bring into question the relation of their simple models with actual biological systems. At best one can say the models are analogies. Some related questions are the following:
- Does the analogy of digital organisms to biological organisms actually hold up?
- Do the rates of the increase of fitness associated with the digital organisms compare with actual biological systems?
- Does the analysis take into account the actual coupled nature of complex systems – increase of fitness is only realized by a large number of specified mutations?
- Are there actually significant amounts of information associated with the environment, or is this just some nebulous concept?
Victor Stangor makes some interesting comments, but I would like for him to clearly show how Dembski's Fourth Law is a restatement of the Second Law. He has not done this. Also, dissipative systems and far from equilibrium systems are limited by the physics of the system and cannot account for the specification that is inherent in information. For example, one may say that it is possible for waves to write, "I am here in the sand" but the probability of the event is so small that it will not happen.
Pim says:
quote:
I would say that the combination of dissipative systems, open systems and far from equilibrium systems offer many ways of information/entropy in a system to increase/decrease.
This may be true theoretically (for the systems act as simple auxiliary devices), but the probability is small that significant information is generated, just like the sand illustration above.
Gedanken,
Not all entropy-decreasing processes are of interest. Only those processes that are nonspontaneous, which move away from equilibrium, are of interest. You can change the surrounding equilibrium of a system and the entropy of the system may increase without an auxiliary device, but this does not illustrate the difficulty of life.
Erik,
The auxiliary device can be used to change the local entropy of the system. Typically, we are concerned with the change of entropy compared to the surroundings. The boundary conditions of the auxiliary device enable the entropy to be changed in relation to the surroundings. Oftentimes, energy is added or utilized in some fashion. These boundary conditions are a form of specification. You can look up the definition of equilibrium in any (engineering) thermodynamics text book.
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 18. October 2003 14:31
I will respond in more detail soon, since there are too many issues to be addressed. But there is one issue that I would like to emphasize since this is the most relevant comment
quote:
I would say that the combination of dissipative systems, open systems and far from equilibrium systems offer many ways of information/entropy in a system to increase/decrease.
quote:
This may be true theoretically (for the systems act as simple auxiliary devices), but the probability is small that significant information is generated, just like the sand illustration above.
This seems to be begging the question. In fact the strawman of the need of an auxiliary device clearly has to be rejected given Kyle's own comments here (theoretically true) and by virtue of the fact that nothing in the SLOT makes such a requirement.
If Kyle believes that the probabilities are too small, it would be helpful if such calculations can be presented.
In principle Adami et al have shown how RMNS can increase the information in a system, Kyle wonders about the applicability of Adami's experiments to biology but IN PRINCIPLE at least RMNS cannot be rejected as being capable of increasing information in the genome.
I think that is very relevant when Kyle believes that the probabilities are too small. Certainly in case of Adami's experiments they were not. Without further data how can we reject that RMNS did not play a similar role in the increase in information in biological evolution?
Spontaneous versus non-spontaneous
spontaneous: A process that occurs without outside help.
But that's of course not different from the fact that entropy in a closed system can only increase but for open systems all bets are off. So auxiliary device seems to be not dissimilar from 'an open system'. As others have argued, in an open system the mere heating and cooling of rock causes entropy to fluctuate or the ice to melt and freeze. All that is needed here is the exchange of heat.
[ 18. October 2003, 14:37: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 18. October 2003 16:21
quote:
spontaneous: A process that occurs without outside help.
Yes, indeed. The "outside help" that is needed for life includes the energy of the sun. Without that "external device" of the sun, pouring low-entropy form of available energy into the Earth system, life would be all but impossible.
This is easy to demonstrate with a thought ('gedanken') experiment. Put an organism in a completely sealed box, in which even heat cannot enter or exit. Soon the organism will die, and life will cease. It cannot continue, as there is no "available energy" source. Thermodynamic relationships will hold, the "available energy" will become diffuse or distributed in a sense, in which it is no longer available. The energy doesn't disappear, it simply changes form from a state that is typically described as "organized" to a "disorganized" state like heat in which energy elements are associated with typically random uncorrelated movements.
But give the organism's food sources (ultimately derived from the Sun for the most part) means to exhaust waste, and usually they will survive and even thrive. Waste materials are recycled for the most part, and waste energy ultimately is exhausted into space as heat radiation.
The ultimate "auxiliary device" is the Sun. Remove the Sun--what happens to life? (The descriptions in the thermodynamics text book are correct, when one learns how to apply them.)
quote:
You can look up the definition of equilibrium in any (engineering) thermodynamics text book.
Here is part of the problem, Kyle7: Engineering thermodynamics textbooks are correct. But they are written for what purpose, what subject? Engineering of course, not the general science of physics. Since they are to teach about application in design of engineered systems, those engineered systems are usually of a cyclic or repeating nature. In order to repeat in a cycle you have to have the conditions listed--generally in the way that the engineering design is done. The basic physics principles must always apply (when you learn them in detail, not the crude versions in an engineering textbook). The "auxiliary device" is just a different way of saying an "open system", wherein there is a regular infusion of "available energy" (low entropy energy) in some manner. Engineered systems that repeat activity cyclically, while considered as a fixed boundary, must obey the "Carnot cycle" which is essentially derived from the 2nd law, and that is the basis of that claim. Get away from engineered cyclic systems, and the terms no longer make sense.
Start with a cell. It divides. What is the boundary?. You see this is quite different from an engineered system with a fixed boundary with a fixed mechanism, and the only transport is of the continuously used or circulated materials. Cells take in low-entropy materials as fuels, and exhaust waste in various forms. But what happens in the middle is quite complex, sometimes with an increase in net entropy, sometimes a decrease. No violation of 2nd law occurs--but it may be quite difficult to apply that relationship. As my previous thought experiment shows, a crude application shows consistency with 2nd law.
For example, back to my divided cell example. Start with one cell, at a particular state. As cells replicate, the divided cells are essentially the same (for practical purposes) as the original cell. So let's declare our system boundary around one such cell. Now it is in an open system, but with a boundary. What is the "external device"? It is of course the surrounding environment of the cell including its food sources and means to exhaust waste. Now the cell divides, and we have two cells. Since we drew our boundary around the outside of the single cell, we should probably keep our boundary outside of the pair of cells, taking a joint boundary around the two cells. Now those cells divide, and we have four cells.
Wait for each of those four cells to return to the same state as the state of the first cell when we made our first measurement. Now what is the "entropy" of the later four cells, as compared to our starting single cell? Remember the cells are in the same state as we started. But also remember that people tend to think of higher "entropy" as disorganization, and lower "entropy" as organization. So now we have four cells, do we have lower "entropy"? No, of course not. We have a larger boundary to consider. We have a boundary that started surrounding one cell, and now surrounds four cells in identical state. So the entropy has simply multiplied by 4. There is 4 times the entropy! Make sense? This is basically technically correct, but it does not jibe with the way one would think about it from an engineering text book. There is nothing in the engineering textbook to help deal with this kind of situation.
[ 18. October 2003, 16:45: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Erik
Member
Member # 160
|
posted 18. October 2003 18:05
I asked:
quote:
Are you saying that moving away from equilibrium cannot be enough to decrease entropy? If so, I wonder what you mean by "equilibrium".
As for the general idea in your post, I think it will be difficult to develop the idea beyond a word game. Dembski's ideas aren't possible to express in terms of partition functions, state variables, etc.
Kyle7 replied:
quote:
The auxiliary device can be used to change the local entropy of the system. Typically, we are concerned with the change of entropy compared to the surroundings. The boundary conditions of the auxiliary device enable the entropy to be changed in relation to the surroundings. Oftentimes, energy is added or utilized in some fashion. These boundary conditions are a form of specification. You can look up the definition of equilibrium in any (engineering) thermodynamics text book.
The question I asked and the question you answered are quite different. I am familiar with thermodynamics, but I don't know what you mean by "equilibrium". You did not clarify your claim, but if it is correctly construed in my previous question and if by "equilibrium" you mean "thermal equilibrium", then you are simply wrong. Moving away from thermal equilibrium is generally enough to decrease the entropy.
The existence of snow crystals (or, indeed, any crystal formed spontaneously) disproves your claim that an auxilary device is required for entropy to (locally) decrease.
Your claim that the boundary conditions are a form of specification in Dembski's sense is (for the time being) nothing more than a claim. In the book "No Free Lunch" there are several requirements that are demanded of a "specification". Only after you've gone through these criteria in detail can you call your boundary conditions a "specification". What is the sample space? Which "chance" hypotheses do you consider? Which background knowledge uniquely and univocally identfies the rejection function? Is the background knowledge independent (in the sense required by Dembski, whatever it is) of the event you wish to consider?
-------------------
Pim van Meurs brought up the article "Evolution of biological complexity" by Adami. I don't think that article is relevant (at least not in any obvious way), because it is not about thermodynamical entropy, whereas Kyle7's post is. I also think that Victor Stenger has failed to note all the requirements that Dembski officially demands of a "specification".
Erik
[ 18. October 2003, 18:07: Message edited by: Erik ]
IP: Logged
|
|
RBH
Member
Member # 380
|
posted 18. October 2003 20:13
The OP is a good example of why I tend to stay out of SLoT 'discussions' around here. Just the first paragraph of the OP is replete with problematic claims.
Erik wrote quote:
The question I asked and the question you answered are quite different. I am familiar with thermodynamics, but I don't know what you mean by "equilibrium". You did not clarify your claim, but if it is correctly construed in my previous question and if by "equilibrium" you mean "thermal equilibrium", then you are simply wrong. Moving away from thermal equilibrium is generally enough to decrease the entropy.
Actually, Kyle7 slips back and forth between thermodynamics and Dembski's version of information. In the first two sentences of the OP Kyle7 wrote quote:
There seems to be a number of people who espouse the theory that life is programmed into nature. This theory seems to be in conflict with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that requires an auxiliary device or system to enable entropy to decrease for both open and closed systems when moving away from equilibrium, quasi-equilibrium or local quasi-equilibrium.
That seems to be a statement about classical thermodynamics, with the addition of the "auxiliary device or system" locution which is gratuitous as far as I can see. In fact, it's a throwback to the old creationist SLoT argument that has been refuted over and over. Henry Morris wrote quote:
The second law of thermodynamics could well be stated as follows: In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingester-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system. (Henry M. Morris, "Entropy and Open Systems," Acts and Facts, Vol. 5 Institute for Creation Research, October 1976, quoted in McDowell, J. & Stewart, D. (1981). Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity. San Bernadino, CA: Here's Life Publishers, Inc.)
But as Erik remarked, "moving away from equilibrium is enough to decrease the entropy."
But then in the next sentence of the OP Kyle7 slips into Dembskian terms, writing quote:
Although nature does have simple auxiliary devices and systems, these mechanisms are unable to produce the complex and specified systems required for the formation and construction of life.
Presumably that means that while there are some kinds of entropy decreases that can occur naturally by virtue of the "simple auxiliary devices and systems," nature can't generate the real stuff of biology. Now we're in Dembski-land, with "complex" meaning only "improbable on a random assembly hypothesis with respect to a flat PDF over alternatives," and "specified" meaning whatever it means today. If the NFL definition of "specified" still holds, then there are (again as Erik remarked) a number of criteria to meet before something can be called "specified," and Kyle7 has not even gestured toward those criteria. In addition, we have an empirical claim about the abilities (or lack thereof) of natural devices and systems that in the absence of evidence merely begs the question.
Finally, the last two sentences of the first paragraph in the OP say quote:
If life was programmed into nature, we would expect to see a plethora of different life-forms originating throughout time. Yet, this is not observed in nature.
One has no idea what this is supposed to mean nor how the prediction ("a plethora of different life-forms originating throughout time") follows from the single premise ("If life was programmed into nature"). One would think that if life were programmed into nature, what we would expect to see would depend on the programming, which we don't know anything about. Thus the bare premise yields no prediction of any particular pattern of the appearance of life-forms. (Incidentally, it is not obvious that we don't observe that plethora. A whole lot of species have come and gone over the millennia. Just how many species does it take to make a "plethora"?)
Given that the first paragraph of the OP has so many problems, I'm not going to bother with the remainder of it.
RBH
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 19. October 2003 14:39
Erik: Pim van Meurs brought up the article "Evolution of biological complexity" by Adami. I don't think that article is relevant (at least not in any obvious way), because it is not about thermodynamical entropy, whereas Kyle7's post is. I also think that Victor Stenger has failed to note all the requirements that Dembski officially demands of a "specification".
I would argue that with or without the demands of specification the link between Dembski's information and thermodynamical entropy seems trivial.
John Bracht argues similarly
quote:
Thus, the mathematical forms of informational and thermodynamic entropies are equivalent. Furthermore, the idea of thermodynamic entropy as a measure of the number of possible states from which the existing state was selected is remarkably similar with the informational entropy as a measure of the number of possible bit strings ruled out when the signal was sent.
Dembski himself seems to suggest some links as well
quote:
"For an open system (i.e., open to outside energy), entropy can readily decrease and the second law does not even apply. But for a closed system (i.e., closed to outside energy), for entropy to decrease means that the system has taken advantage of and utilized complex specified information (this was certainly the case with Maxwell's demon)."
Ignoring for the moment the statement that the SLOT does not apply for open systems, Dembski suggestst that a decrease in entropy requires the utilization of CSI.
In fact I would argue that both ID and regularity and chance processes can redistribute CSI which reduces the issue to the initial origin of CSI which should be placed at the Big Bang.
[ 19. October 2003, 14:52: Message edited by: Pim van Meurs ]
IP: Logged
|
|
gedanken
Member
Member # 594
|
posted 20. October 2003 11:30
From Dembski quote: quote:
(this was certainly the case with Maxwell's demon)
I wonder if Dr. Dembski understands that the "Maxwell's daemon" cannot exist in the real world due to quantum mechanical considerations. This is all part of taking the second law into a statistical mechanics framework, further augmented by quantum theory. (Noting that statistical mechanics per se can also be used in a classical formulation, if I understand correctly.)
[ 20. October 2003, 11:32: Message edited by: gedanken ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 20. October 2003 13:35
Gedanken has a good point, does Dembski realize that the Maxwellian demon, which was initially a paradox thought experiment does not really exist since the 'demon' will have to spend more energy and create more entropy than it reduces through its actions.
The reason why RMNS, which acts as a Maxwellian Demon, works is because it expends so much effort for a mutation to find itself into a population (death of organisms).
Thermodynamics can be quite complicated which may help understand why Dembski seems to claim that the SLOT does not apply to open systems. In fact the SLOT is universal, open or closed systems.
IP: Logged
|
|
Erik
Member
Member # 160
|
posted 22. October 2003 13:15
Pim van Meurs wrote: "I would argue that with or without the demands of specification the link between Dembski's information and thermodynamical entropy seems trivial."
Great. Let's make it "with the demands of specification", lest we wouldn't be able to refer to any "specified information". I request an example where you calculate both the "specified information" and the thermodynamical entropy for something, and discuss the trivial relation between the two quantities.
I also wonder what, exactly, the trivial link between them is in general. I suppose the claim with the highest potential of making sense would be that the 2LOT is a (very) special case of Dembski's LCI, but it is not clear which combination of sample space, background knowledge, specification and chance hypothesis that would justify this claim.
The quote from John Bracht that you provided is a slightly inaccurate statement about the relation between thermodynamical entropy and Shannon entropy, not about the relation between thermodynamical entropy and "specified information".
The quote from Dembski that you provided is just an assertion.
Erik
IP: Logged
|
|
Pim van Meurs
Member
Member # 541
|
posted 23. October 2003 00:26
I do not have time right now to discuss this in full detail. I would like to refer to Sobel's comments on specification which suggests that specification may be a trivial matter in that everything can be considered to have a specification.
The problem with issues like specification is that they are not always clearly defined and/or despite their definition, they are used in ways contradictory or apparantly contradictory with their definition.
My present feelings are that ignoring specification, the link between LCI and SLOT seems trivial. Including specification seems to make LCI a subset of the SLOT.
IP: Logged
|
|
Rex Kerr
Member
Member # 632
|
posted 23. October 2003 03:10
It's easier to use both the second and third laws. Information restricts the number of microstates available. Therefore, the third law implies information entropy. Restricting microstates takes energy; the second law says energy is conserved, so therefore information is conserved or lost.
Adding specification doesn't do anything to this picture, does it? You just focus on a subset of the problem that isn't coupled to the rest of the problem by any biased physical process (as specifications exclude effects from "regularities").
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic