|
Author
|
Topic: Is 2nd Law a special case of 4th Law?
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 19. April 2005 18:05
I am no expert on these issues, but my impression is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a special case of the 4th Law of Thermodynamics.
Consider what Professor Morwoitz had to say:
Harold Morowitz, eminent chemical evolutionist and origin of life researcher.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/krasnow/whats_new.htm
In the book compiled by Ultra Darwinist Daniel Dennett and mathematician Douglas Hofstadter, The Mind's I, Morowitz (a former Yale professor of physics/bio-chemistry) Writes:
quote:
The views of a large number of contemporary physcal scientists are summed up in the essay "remarks on the Mind-Body Question" written by Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner. Wigner begins by pointing out that most physical scientists have returned to the recognition that thought--meaning the mind--is primary. he goes on to state: "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. 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. The numerical value of the amount of information we are missing is proportional to the entropy. In earlier thermodynamics, entorpy had represented, in an engineering sense, the energy of the system unavailable to perform external work. In the modern view, the human mind enters once again, and entropy relates not just to the state of the system but to our knowledge of that state.
The founders of modern atomic theory did not start out to impose a "mentalist" picture of the world. Rather, they began with the opposite point of view and were forced to the present-day position in order to explain experimental results.
We are now in a position to integrate the perspectives of three large fields: psychology, biology, physics.....
First the human mind, including consciousness and reflective thought, can be explained by activities of the central nervous system, which in turn, can be reduced to the biological structure and function of that physiological system. Second, biological phenomena at all levels can be totally understood in terms of atomic physics, that is, through the action and interaction of the component atoms of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and so forth. Third and last, atomic physics, which is now understood most fully by means of quantum mechanics, must be formulated with the mind as a primitive component of the system.
We have thus, in separte steps, gone around an epistemological circle--from the mind, back to the mind. The results of this chain of reasoning will probably lend more aid and comfort to Eastern mystics than to neurophysiologists and molecular biologists...
[ 19. April 2005, 18:06: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 16. May 2005 06:22
Salvador, I would like to pursue this topic with you and others - as while I understand somethings about the 2nd and 4th laws there is much I do not - particularly their relationship (if any).
Bill Dembski states the 4th law as
"The complex specified information in an isolated system of natural causes does not increase (modulo the universal complexity bound)"
[NFL p169.]
Similarly the 2nd law could be stated
"The neg-entropy of an isolated system does not increase" (i.e. normally stated as the entropy - system disorder - is either constant or increasing).
The two are very similar, but I believe this is because the conduit of passing CSI through time is "natural causes". I wonder if it is simply because these natural causes are "entropic" in nature that the CSI decreases? I am thinking for example of, for example, a gamma ray (included within the isolated system) having a direct strike on some DNA encoded with CSI (or some replication error). If the conduit processes were not entropic would we not have CSI perfectly conserved?
In this sense I wonder whether the opposite of what you suggest is true - that the 4th law is embedded within the 2nd?
[ 16. May 2005, 08:50: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 17. May 2005 22:49
Thank you for responding. (The pace at ISCID is slow.)
The reason I put this thread out is that the general view is that the 2nd law is so fundamental, that the 4th law must surely be a special case. That view has been promoted, by people such as Victor Stenger.
I am open to finding a good answer. I do not think Stenger is correct.
Simply put the 2nd law is a special case of related to orderliness.
Orderliness is a form of specified complexity (there are many forms of specified complexity). This orderliness is sometimes expressed as being K-simple.
The 2nd law is a measure of the deterioration of orderliness and increase in K-complexity. Ironically, in this case, an increase in K-complexity is a decrease in specified complexity. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Within the 4th law, it we have 3 scenarios that are permissible for the increase in "entropy"
1. Increase in K-complexity (i.e. traditional 2nd law)
2. Decrease in K-complexity (a hard disk being formatted)
3. Neither 1 or 2 (noise added to modem signal)
The issues as you can see are pretty obstuse. I'm think perhaps a diagram would be helpful.
So, I'll have to revisit this.
Everyone is invited to offer their ideas, I have my biases, but I'm open to revising my views on this issue.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 18. May 2005 01:54
Help me out here, Sal. You are not referring to the 4th law as Zeroth's Law, but the one Dembski introduced??
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 18. May 2005 17:41
Hi Jerry,
There are 5 laws of thermodynamics:
First let us go over the first 4, namely 0,1,2,3:
quote:
From P.W. Atkins, a chemist: "There are four Laws. The third of them, the Second Law, was recognized first; the first, The Zeroth Law, was formulated last; the First Law was second; the Third Law might not even be a Law in the same sense as the others."
Actually now, IDists are suggesting a 5th law known as the "4th of Thermodynamics". The "4th of Thermodynamics" says basically information will tend to decrease over time. This make sense in that the music on your CD's will not spontaneously improve, but will tend to deteriorate and accumulate noise. One will never find a damaged CD resulting in better music from the CD, in general....
There are now 5 laws proposed:
0 (thermal equilibrium inference)
1 (conservation of energy)
2 (thermal entropy)
3 (entropy at absolute zero)
4 (information entropy and decay)
I believe that the 2nd law is a special case of the 4th law. Stenger disputes that view, but I think he is wrong. I've just not seen it discussed sufficiently.
Consider the following ordered configuration of coins
H H H H H H ......
It is actually (in ID parlance) considered specified complex, even though from a Kolmogorov view point it is actually K-simple.
When we shake the coins up it becomes K-complex and the specified complexity is blown away, and the configuration reaches entropy very quickly with random amounts of heads and tails....
The coins obey the 4th law. In like manner molecules being heated obey the 4th law going from the specified state of orderliness to disordierliness.
One would wonder then, why we need the 4th law at all, given it looks so much like the 2nd law. Well, there are cases that go beyond the simple examples I gave, which the 4th law can cover but not the 2nd law.
But hopefully this enlightens what I had in mind.....
[ 18. May 2005, 17:42: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 19. May 2005 01:39
Hi Sal,
I wonder if you could give me a reference to the arguments of Victor Stenger - would like to study them.
You say that in ID parlance the coin event
H H H H H H ------ 501x
as "specified complex". Perhaps some believe this to be "specified complex" but am really doubting if it is true?
1) It is certainly a low probability event if it happened by chance - hence it is "complex" information. From the algorithmic (Kolmogorov) viewpoint, however - as you have said it contains very little information - the algorithm just has to say "repeat the same". This is then not "complex" information -unless we have additional information that it was produced by chance. But indeed we know this because this event's probability is below the universal probability bound. It would thus have to have come about algorithmically.
2) Is it specified in the proper sense? Well it clearly matches a detachable pattern. But does it (or can it) DO anything in a functional/structural sense. In a biological or engineering sense could such a repetitive sequence ever make (give instructions for) a working interlocking sort of system - that we normally understand to be specified. In a biological sense we are looking at complex cell functions such as cell meiosis/mitosis and structures i.e. working flagella.
I think this is important, because your feeling is that this is information subject to decay - in a 4th law sense -> same as 2nd law. i.e. no real difference. Not sure I agree.
Consider a physics thought experiment. Imagine at time zero (for whatever reason) all the molecules of a gas were all in one corner of a box at the same place (consider them bosons!)all with the same momentum - a K simple state - just like the above coin state. As soon as the particles go on their way collisions take place and phase space occupied into a higher entropy state. The 2nd law has applied perfectly (no need for the 4th). But how would such a "specified complex" state come about in the first place ? - we have agreed not by chance. It would need some kind of Maxwell demon type apparatus that would somehow pick up molecules from their paths (knowing where they were) - take them to the corner and send them off with the correct velocity - some apparatus working on some kind of algorithm. CSI would probably have to reside in this apparatus - and it is here that perhaps the 4th law comes in. If this apparatus kept functioning the K-simple particle state would be maintained and the 2nd law would not operate as just described.
What do you think? Chris
[ 19. May 2005, 01:44: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 19. May 2005 02:44
Ok, you are cramming Zeroth up front. I can handle this.
I view the fourth law as still largely unsettled and this needs to be hammered out by those who teach this stuff. In a glossary on intelligent design I have written (but not yet published on my Web site) I define this fourth law as:
"Fourth Law of Thermodynamics: A 4th law has been introduced into intelligent design and is still undergoing peer-review at the time of this writing. One universally agreed on attribute of this law is that it deals solely with information rather than energy.
"Dembski has introduced a conservation of information proposal more similar to the first law (sometimes referred to as the fourth law) in that CSI cannot be naturally created. However, some seem in disagreement that this is really a conservation of anything, as CSI can easily be destroyed by the annihilation of a cell, book or CD containing CSI and therefore nothing is conserved in reality.
"Another view of the fourth law is more relative to the second law applying to "loose" information (information that can diffuse and degrade between recipients) just as the second law deals with "loose" energy (energy that can flow and degrade between systems): As loose information is diffused, information entropy will tend to increase unless energy, guided by intelligence, is added into the system to stabilize it. This latter concept has been shown to be true experimentally, but the paper has not yet been published at the time of this writing."
You are going with the latter description?
[ 19. May 2005, 02:46: Message edited by: Jerry D. Bauer ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 19. May 2005 10:56
I offer the following Venn Diagram to illustrate the concepts of complexity.
One of the difficulties is that most people associate complexity with K-complexity (a news paper article has high K-complexity). However, the most easily understood Specified Complex Objects are K-simple. And yet the most promoted objects for ID are K-Complex, Specified Complex, and Irreducibly Complex. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
The "All Coins Heads" falls in to the region of non-IC, SC, and K-Simple. The bacterial flagellum falls into the IC circle that overlaps K-complex. Have I thoroughly confused you all? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I point this out to show that the relationships are not straight forward. I hope the following diagram helps clarify my viewpoint:
SC = Specified Complex
IC = Irreducibly Complex
[ 19. May 2005, 11:27: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 19. May 2005 16:20
quote:
Chris commented regarding H H H ...:
This is then not "complex" information -unless we have additional information that it was produced by chance.
One of the challenges is what one means by complex, the above diagram tries to show the definition of "specified complex" does not require that it be kolmorgorov complex with respect to the symbols.
The meaning of "complex" in specified complex refers to improbability. One of the challenges, is that most people who think of "complex" think of irreducibly complex, and it refers to the k-complexity in as much as most IC systems have well matched diverse parts. However, I'm sure someone can find an IC system with homogenous parts, and thus from a symbol standpoint it is K-simple.
One must be careful. The confusion can be overcome, but it takes work. I appreciate one may not feel comfortable with the definitional challenges, but I believe Dembski's formulation ultimately works. If he said Improbable Specified Information (ISI) I think everyone would understand.
However, CSI works, in that it suggests that the pathways to reaching a particular configuration are indeed complex. To get all heads starting from a random flip of coins does require a complex set of events, formally speaking, and hence CSI is an appropriate acronym in that sense. If ISI helps you understand the concept better for now, think of it that way. But I think, with a little thought, and careful usage, CSI will work well enough.
Hope that helps.
Salvador
PS
I can't seem to get really good hits anymore on Stenger and the 4th law, except on discussion boards, however I found Perakhs ideas stated below
[ 20. May 2005, 00:20: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 19. May 2005 16:27
A Free Lunch in a Mouse Trap
quote:
I intend to show that the Fourth Law of thermodynamics suggested by Dembski fails on both accounts. First, it covers phenomena which have already been covered by the second law of thermodynamics and therefore, even if it were correct in itself, it would not constitute a new law but would at best be just another way to state essentially the same postulate already adopted in science. However, the situation with Dembski's allegedly possible new law of thermodynamics is worse because it actually contradicts the Second Law of thermodynamics.
Let me start with the first point. The Fourth Law of thermodynamics suggested by Dembski is a generalization of what he calls the Law of Conservation of Information (LCI for short).
I think, much as I really like the guy, that Mark Perakh is dead wrong on this.
[ 19. May 2005, 16:42: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 19. May 2005 19:39
Sal, Could you give me your meaning of K-complex and K-Simple. What does the K stand for? Sorry - should have asked this earlier. ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif) Thanks for the diagram.
Jerry, appreciated the comments on the 4th law. Chris
[ 19. May 2005, 19:42: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry D. Bauer
Member
Member # 756
|
posted 19. May 2005 21:01
Let me just comment on complexity. I believe this is now well defined in our field and the credit must go to Mike Gene (and a couple of others) as I stole the basics from him much in the same manner that I stole my ID quantum mechanics designer concept from Sal *wink*wink*.
1) Complexity: A quality of being intricate and compounded, these terms being measured by degree. Although some fields have a great deal of trouble in defining this term, intelligent design has precisely defined it for their purposes.
D. E. Berlyne defines one type of complexity, “A pattern can be considered more complex the larger the number of independently selected elements it contains.*
M. H. Emden tackles the issue with a different premise: “Complexity is the way in which a whole is different from the composition of its parts.”**
* Berlyne D. E. (1971), Aesthetics and Psychobiology, New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.
** Emden M. H. van (1971), "An analysis of complexity", Mathematical Centre Tracts, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
In intelligent design Berlyne's definition is known as aggregate complexity:
Aggregate Complexity: An object can be considered more complex the larger the number of independently like parts it contains. Removing buckets of gravel from a gravel pile will result in a state of less complexity in the gravel pile.
Emden's premise is expressed as specified complexity:
Specified Complexity: An object composed of differing complex parts wherein the whole is more complex than the sum of its parts--i.e., a heart + a kidney + a brain + a lung + blood vessels + hemoglobin + plasma = a cardiovascular system.
These two will cover everything in the field, won’t they?
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 20. May 2005 00:12
quote:
Sal, Could you give me your meaning of K-complex and K-Simple. What does the K stand for? Sorry - should have asked this earlier. Thanks for the diagram.
K stands for Kolmogorov.
The formal definitions are a bit gruelling, but an intuitive description should suffice.
K-simple is a slang term that I use. It's easer than saying "low kolmogorov complexity".
A K-simple sturcture is like all coins heads, it is very orderly:
H H H H H H ......
it is what is know as algorithmically compressible, low information content, has low entropy.
K-complex is the opposite, it is very "disorderly", it has high entropy.
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 20. May 2005 00:17
quote:
These two will cover everything in the field, won’t they?
Hi Jerry,
The definition of Specified Complexity you gave is closer to Irreducible Complexity.
Specified Complexity has this thing that is called "Probabilistic Complexity" which means simply that it's improbable.
These defintions are understandably confusing at first, but surmountable.
We have many complexities involved, and seriously each one should be explored, but I'll have to go into the details later:
Probabilistic Complexity
Specificational Complexity
Specified Complexity
Irreducible Complexity
Kolmogorov Complexity
All of these are in Dembski's book, and should be treated with care, lest one becomes totally confused. The diagram addresses 3 of the 5 complexities listed above explicitly.
Probabilistic and Specificational Complexity require a separate discussion.
Specified complexity has these features (per Design Revolution, page 84)
1. Low Specificational Complexity
2. High Probabilistic Complexity
Have I confused you all yet?
[ 20. May 2005, 00:18: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 23. May 2005 21:00
Sal:
I have been thinking about your diagram and trying to follow the other thread (Nature reports ..) on CSI (which I am beginning to find difficult because I dont play cards!). I am concerned about this because unless we can agree on the nature of CSI how can we talk about the 4th law?!
I am happy about some points of your diagram but not all. For example I am happy about IC (K-simple) and IC (K-complex). An example of IC (K-simple) are the tetrahedron and the buckminsterfullerene that can be realized with C-atoms. 
Examples of IC (K-complex) are the flagellum and the airplane.
But on my understanding of CSI I do not see how it is possible to have an object (event) that is both K-simple and Specified Complex (i.e. having CSI). You clearly do because you say (other thread):
quote:
However, the most easily understood Specified Complex Objects are Kolmogorov-simple
Could you share how you would see/realize such an object (event)? Are you considering say event B
3535 3535 3535 3535
This event is certainly specified - in that it represents and obvious pattern. However it is K-simple, algorithmically compressible in its description to just a few bits of information. In this sense it will easily fall through the complexity-specification criterion. [This is ok in one sense because such an event could have arisen from a pulsar for example. In another sense this sequence could equally have been produced by a human intelligent agent - for example by writing a simple computer algorith - In which case we get a false negative with regard to design - but thats not a problem - its just something we have to accept (p22 NFL)- we are allowed to live with false negatives - as long as we cannot get a false positive].
Even if one takes the measure of complexity with regard to the string length (i.e. one in 6^16)then one is still far below the universal probability bound (UPB) of one in 10^150. So event B cannot be considered CSI on this account too. But this is a trivial objection - because we could extend string B indefinitely so that it went over the UCB.
Event B* 3535 3535 3535 3535 3535 3535 .-> UCB+.
So this leaves a worry - how do we define complexity - Is it with regard to algorithimic (Kolmogorov) complexity or simply with regard to string complexity (improbability of throwing the string by chance). The ISCID definition seems unclear at this point - just refering to the probability of an event being less than the UPB. But the probability here depends on how the event was produced (which a-priori we do not know). Event B* could be produced
(a) By regularity (i.e. the pulsar) - not design
(b) By an intelligent agent's algorithm - design
My view is that we should play on the safe side and treat complexity in CSI as K-complexity (which in most cases would converge on string-complexity anyway) just so that we don't stand in danger of getting a false positive - which we could easily do with an event such as B*
[ 24. May 2005, 10:13: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic