|
Author
|
Topic: Is 2nd Law a special case of 4th Law?
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 09. October 2006 19:21
quote:
The implication is that all processes can be traced back to deterministic origins.
Regarding this, I don't think tracing things to deterministic origins is possible for at least 2 (if not more reasons):
1. Things at the molecular level are subject to quantum effects which are inhrently non deterministic (as far as we know, anyway). von Neumann was able to demonstrate 2nd law purely from quantum principles and some little trick with matrices. Wigner took this to also show the difficulty of cellular replication except in extreme boundary conditions....
2. Even in mathematics, we don't know if the root of mathematics is deterministic, but rather driven by MIND. This follows from Godel's incompleteness. Paul Davies suggests free-will may be at the root of reality. Davies view would be consistent with ID.
Reflecting back to the opening of this thread and the quote of Morowitz:
quote:
"It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness." And he concludes by noting how remarkable it is that the scientific study of the world led to the content of consciousness as the ultimate reality.
A further development in yet another field of physics reinforces Wigner's viewpoint. The introduction of information theory and its application to thermodynamics has led to the conclusion that entropy, a basic concept of that science, is a measure of the observer's ignorance of the atomic details of the system.
I have not been able to tie these diverse lines of thought rigorously. It is still my feeling MIND and information somehow constrains behavior of the 2nd law. But I think we're still far away from demonstratining that rigorously, if such a thing is even possible...
I do not think MIND is deterministic, and if MIND is at the root of reality, then we can not model things in a purely deterministic manner.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 09. October 2006 22:06
Richard,
Does describing things at the molecular level in terms of generalized coordinates contradict the results macroscopic thermodynamics (equilibrium or non-equilibrium)? Surely not. Statistical mechanics does not equate with a generalized coordinates thought experiment (which was what I was doing - sorry for not saying this). The former is based on the fact that we do not know the particle coordinates (positions Q(i), momenta P(i)) at time t=0, and so a statistical – probabilistic approach, which is all we have available for physical modeling, is necessary. The latter assumes that have available all the Q(i) and P(i) at time zero – we don’t. (i) As Sal points out QM would prevent this information being obtained. (ii) Practical considerations of measuring and storing all the Q(i) and P(i) are obvious. (iii) As I pointed out in my last post – the fine meshing effect (finite information) effect at t=0 would also prevent predictability. You would agree that our ignorance on (i), (ii) and (iii) does not warrant belief that the laws of physics operating on the {[Q(i),P(i)] t=0} were they all known, and to sufficient accuracy, inside one ginormous computer, would not predict the hurricane.
Dissipative structures such as Bernard cells, are K-simple (ordered structures). I.E. as one progresses through the liquid one goes through cells where the convective flow is up, down, up, down, up, down etc. Meshing the measurement of such flows with the correct sized grid over a sufficiently large region of liquid would lead to a complex number (more than 500bits) –
|BC>=101010101010101010 ----500th SF.
This is, however, a K-simple pattern. K-simple patterns can either be produced by human intelligence (i.e. as in computer algorithms) or as in the case of Bernard Cells by physical regularity (necessity). The first case is not of much interest to us since we are primarily interested in whether natural law can produce functional information (CSI) as seen in life (4th law #3 in my diagram) or not (4th law #1,#2 in my diagram) – and not whether human beings can write computer programs. The second option does concern us. My own take on this is that the 1st (contingency) stage of the explanatory filter (EF) would rule out any physical law (regularity) that by necessity would produce the observed string. [In the case of Bernard Cells – this is the theorem (law) of minimum system entropy production rate – see Phillip Engle’s book Far From Equilibrium p242 – i.e. in essence the 2nd law]. Physical law such as that which produces the Bernard Cells, in all known cases, gives rise to K-simple patterns (i.e. NaCl crystals, Snowflakes etc). What is required for life is a K-complex string carrying functional information. - Chris
[ 10. October 2006, 20:03: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Richard Oldani
Member
Member # 2606
|
posted 10. October 2006 17:52
Salvador,
I would like to clear up one point first of all that I am not advocating a deterministic model nor does it say that in the quote. I am questioning whether a molecular model is suitable as a model for thermodynamic processes. Secondly, I disagree strongly with Prof. Morowitz's claim that "It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness." I don't believe you will find many establishment physicists that agree with this. It is one of about five physical interpretations that are in the literature and openly discussed. In fact the accepted method is not to make any physical interpretation at all but to merely apply the mathematics. In that case quantum mechanics should not make any contribution at all to thermodynamics except to say that the individual trajectories of molecules are indeterminate.
As to the question what role the mind plays, I think the mind is part of most theories either explicitly or implicitly. That is why I question the use of molecules in a thermodynamic model. They could be in a theory simply as a logical extension of the mind's need to picture processes in terms of its components, or to describe the whole in terms of the sum of its parts. This is a natural extension of our desire to understand a process and the possibility to manipulate it to our advantage. It is embodied in the genetic model of evolution which most of us would agree is deficient.
Chris, statistical mechanics doesn't contradict the thermodynamics of dissipative structures, but it doesn't add anything either. Why do you think it's necessary? Of course I would not expect a hurricane to be predictable no matter how much information is obtained about the initial conditions. What I am saying is that a molecular model is inadequate to explain dissipative processes and life is one of them. In fact the authors of Thermodyanamics and Origin of Life say pretty much the same thing at the conclusion of chapter 9. If a molecular model is inadequate then maybe the 2nd law is inadequate because that's how it was derived. quote:
What one does not put into the equation will not finally be given by the mathematics. James Franck
Richard
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 10. October 2006 17:53
Salvador
I disagree about not being able to trace everything back to a deterministic origin. Don't take my word for it.
"Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
All of mathematics, assuming the math is sound, was always there, just waiting to be discovered. The mind had nothing to do with it or with any of the laws of chemistry and physics either. There is nothing subjective about the real world. To the extent is is subjective it is not science. The Darwinian fairy tale is the perfect example of subjective failure.
"An hypothesis does not cease to be an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it."
Boris Ephrussi
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
perplexity
Member
Member # 2675
|
posted 10. October 2006 20:30
"All of mathematics, assuming the math is sound, was always there, just waiting to be discovered. The mind had nothing to do with it or with any of the laws of chemistry and physics either. There is nothing subjective about the real world."
How do you know this? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
How do you know that mathematics, and the laws are not a creation of the mind, an affectation of perception?
If these are meant to be statements of faith, axiomatically imponderable, fair enough, no more to be said, but if there is an argument or method to convince me that these are not a creation of the mind, I should very much like to see it.
-- RH.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 11. October 2006 01:55
Not a chance perplexity. Believe what you want. We all do you know. Enjoy.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Albert Voie
Member
Member # 1941
|
posted 11. October 2006 02:57
quote:
All of mathematics, assuming the math is sound, was always there, just waiting to be discovered
It was possible for Gödel to construct true statements in any consistent formalization of mathematics that can be neither proved or disproved within that system itself.
This is truly a indeterministic result that depends upon the mind. It is created. This shows also the inexhaustibility of mathematics.
[ 11. October 2006, 04:54: Message edited by: Albert Voie ]
IP: Logged
|
|
perplexity
Member
Member # 2675
|
posted 11. October 2006 05:30
re. "It was possible for Gödel to construct true statements in any consistent formalization of mathematics that can be neither proved or disproved within that system itself."
If that is not a red herring, it would seem to suggest that there is a mathematical method to prove that mathematics was always there, just waiting to be discovered, but I am not yet aware of what the mathematical proof of that would be.
Gödel's fear, as I would understand it, was rather that mathematical restrictions prevent discovery.
By analogy, a computer conversing with a computer would never know that reality consisted of anything more than discrete bits of binary information, while a broader perspective bestows a more sophisticated view of the circumstance which, I submit, relates ditectly to the original cause of this thread.
I am thus concerned with the derivation of opinion.
Wanting to believe solves the problem only to the extent that it creates another one, how to know what to want to believe. Unfortunately, I have no idea at all of how to do that.
-- RH.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 11. October 2006 06:04
I suggest that everyone take a look at the diagram posted by Chris on 9 Sep. 2005 at 23:05 on this thread. Here we see how it is exactly that mathematics is used, by our species, to make predictions concerning the “real world.” As to the nature of mathematics, perhaps we should leave that for another thread?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
perplexity
Member
Member # 2675
|
posted 11. October 2006 06:30
To return to review this thread's original posting, e.g.
"The introduction of information theory and its application to thermodynamics has led to the conclusion that entropy, a basic concept of that science, is a measure of the observer's ignorance of the atomic details of the system. When we measure the pressure, volume, and temperature of an object, we have a residual lack of knowledge of the exact position and velocity of the component atoms and molecules."
My point would be that the supposed lack of the knowledge may be due to reaching the limit of the capability of mathematics as an observational means, rather more so at least than by approaching the boundary of knowledge in any other sense. Possibly we know as much as we need to know, except that the mathematical method is inadequate to describe it.
I therefore attempt to meet the very challenge that the original posting implied, the very challenge that attracted me to subscribe to this forum in order to respond:
"We are now in a position to integrate the perspectives of three large fields: psychology, biology, physics....."
-- RH.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 11. October 2006 07:03
I have no problem whatsoever about knowing what to believe and what not to believe. If it can be verified expermentally, I believe it and I also believe in the testimony of the fossil record. Both render the Darwinian model a monumental joke and an invention of the human imagination on a par with the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics. Ether, Selection, Phlogiston, ESP, ExtraSensory Perception indeed.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
perplexity
Member
Member # 2675
|
posted 11. October 2006 07:29
Re. "I have no problem whatsoever about knowing what to believe and what not to believe. If it can be verified expermentally, I believe it and I also believe in the testimony of the fossil record."
Perhaps, but it continues to beg the question I put: my problem is how to know what to believe.
What sort of an experiment would prove that the experimental method itself is valid?
The mere statement that somebody believes in the experimental method fails to tell us how they came to do so.
One may well say that the experimental method works well enough for us for as far as it goes, as well it did, but the danger is then of the inductive fallacy. The Earth appears to be flat for as far as we can see from where we are, or were, but that is not to say that it looks the same from another perspective.
-- RH.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 11. October 2006 07:57
O.k. Perplexity, I think I see what you are after. As has been noted early we, human beings, choose to take measurements. We then make decisions based on these data. It has always been the case that error exists in the measurement, being propagated by any subsequent calculation. Any decisions made with the measurements as a basis would be necessarily erroneous. Are you suggesting that in past exploration we have been “close enough” but in the case of micro-entropy we can never be “close enough” using this scheme?
Take for example the 2000 Bush-Gore US election. Long story short; the margin of error was greater than the margin of victory and therefore, the outcome is unknowable at least by mathematical analysis. How else might we discover the true victor in that case?
As John has said, we all believe what we want. I believe there is a personal almighty God and I believe mathematics is a tool of the imagination used to describe physical reality. It has its limitations to be sure; however, it has been shown to be very versatile. Have you a better tool for analysis of these phenomena under discussion?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
perplexity
Member
Member # 2675
|
posted 11. October 2006 09:10
re."Are you suggesting that in past exploration we have been “close enough” but in the case of micro-entropy we can never be “close enough” using this scheme?"
I think of it as the "best guess".
re."Take for example the 2000 Bush-Gore US election. Long story short; the margin of error was greater than the margin of victory and therefore, the outcome is unknowable at least by mathematical analysis. How else might we discover the true victor in that case?"
And that is a wonderfully poignant analogy for what has been happening with metaphysical science recently, the realisation that the observer affects that which is observed, the eventual impossibility of what used to be affectionately known as "objectivity". The game is rigged. As ye seek, so ye shall find; we create the result that we pretend to be the discovery.
-- RH.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 11. October 2006 11:35
Hi perplexity; thanks for joining the thread. I think we should stay away from getting too metaphysical however - let me tell you why. There are two distinct forms of scientific endeavor and its important to keep them separate. (i) Operational science - done on the bench and repeatable everytime we do the experiment and no matter our location, (ii) Origins science - where we attempt to predict backwards in time with our knowledge of operational science; then check and see if the evidence we have in the present concurs with our backward projection. (ii) is a much more difficult game to play because the processes of the past are not repeatable.
I know your main point, however, is on the operational science game where the regularities we observe in the lab (and call laws) we assume will always be such. Of course we don't know for sure - Operational science is after all basically inductive and we have to accept that. We believe the sun will rise again tomorrow as it did today but we cannot prove it deductively. It is a warranted belief based upon previous repetitive human experience. If you want to go a little further - perhaps most scientists believe, as I do, that behind the regularities we see there are deeper processes and regularities that we cannot see - that sustain the laws in their constancy.
quote:
Gödel's fear, as I would understand it, was rather that mathematical restrictions prevent discovery.
o.k. so their are barriers in maths as their are in physics - but it doesn't stop us applying maths to the world of science.
But I think you make an important point - since we don't really know the deeper things - who is to say that they might not suddenly change - indeed if one believes in Creation as I do then one has to believe that somewhere along the timeline in the past there had to be one or more discontinuities (perhaps not in the regularities (laws) themselves - but certainly in the boundary conditions). I think this is probably what Sal is driving at when he says that he is not happy with full scale determinism:
quote:
I do not think MIND is deterministic, and if MIND is at the root of reality, then we can not model things in a purely deterministic manner
Hope this helps: -Chris
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
