|
Author
|
Topic: The Theory of evolution in the Perspective of Thermodynamics and Experience-de Jong
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 29. May 2006 08:51
William DeJong: "Consider a system that moves from state1 toward state2... Conclusion: the thesis that the entropy of a system stays unchanged if its vibrations and twisting bonds stay unchanged is false."
Putting the toys in the toybox and pulling the toys out of the toybox both increase entropy in the child. And whatever small change over time in the entropy of the toys will occur whether the toys are neatly stacked in the toybox or scattered across the floor.
Please don't create a strawman. I specifically postulated simultaneous arrangements. There is no difference in thermodynamic entropy with the toys scattered about the room or neatly arranged in the toybox.
[ 29. May 2006, 08:52: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 29. May 2006 14:50
William: quote:
This deterioration of systems just happens of itself, and can only be stopped by directed effort; that is: by energy flows over the boundary of a system, divided by T, that do not add up to zero over a longer period of time.
You have defined "directed effort" in a way that includes sunshine. Solar energy flows into our atmosphere from a hot spot in the sky (high T) and flows out into space (low T). Because of this temperature difference, the "integral of all energy flows, divided by the temperature T" does not equal zero, and thus constitutes "directed effort" according to your definition.
Thank you for clearing that up. "Directed effort" is nothing more than the dissipation of free energy, and has nothing to do with intelligence.
IP: Logged
|
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 30. May 2006 00:51
quote:
There is no spontaneous tendency in groups of macro objects to become disorderly or randomly scattered ...
Houses do wear out due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Desks become messy also due to the Second Law. But you cannot look at it simplistically ignoring the processes that affect the macro objects. Random directed energy will tend to disorganize the macro objects. Maintaining a clean desk does require directed energy -- a thermodynamic mechanism that focuses the energy to accomplish useful work.
If I had the pieces of a mosaic formed in a picture and I dumped them into the sea water at a beach, the Second Law would predict that the pieces would not form a picture on the beach. The most probable state is a disordered state. Just like the air molecules will not all migrate to one side of the container, so the mosaic pieces will not form a picture. As the air molecules have a probability distrubution, so the mosaic pieces have a probability distrubition of formations created on the beach. Although one can look naively at only the microstates of the individual pieces, one would more rationally look at the available microstates of the total system.
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 31. May 2006 05:15
2ndclass: Thank you for clearing that up. "Directed effort" is nothing more than the dissipation of free energy, and has nothing to do with intelligence. posted 29. May 2006 14:50
The left term of the second law of thermodynamics is zero for closed systems and for systems where the energy exchange with the environment is zero on average. The latter is the case when random energy flows pass the boundaries of a system, such as changing winds on a beach, flashes of lighting hitting Millers' basic chemicals, or sun radiation heating a rock. Only non-random energy flows ("directed effort") can result in a left term of the second law that is not zero over a longer period of time.
When you put an object in the sun, indeed a flow of energy passes the boundaries of the object. The temperature of the object will rise, and after a while it will start radiating energy to its environment. Soon equilibrium will be reached between the incoming energy and the radiated energy, and the integral of all energy flows over the boundaries of the system will be zero. From that moment, according to the second law of thermodynamics, its entropy will increase, unless directed energy will be supplied to the system. If you put a refrigerator in the sun, the molecules inside it will start vibrating faster and the entropy will decrease. Soon, however, the temperature of the refrigerator will reach equilibrium with its environment. From that moment, the entropy will increase again. Only by putting the jack of the refrigerator into a power point, directed energy flows be supplied, resulting in a decrease of the entropy of the molecules inside the refrigerator.
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 31. May 2006 05:18
Zachriel : Putting the toys in the toybox and pulling the toys out of the toybox both increase entropy in the child. And whatever small change over time in the entropy of the toys will occur whether the toys are neatly stacked in the toybox or scattered across the floor. There is no difference in thermodynamic entropy with the toys scattered about the room or neatly arranged in the toybox. posted 29. May 2006 08:51
Entropy is a fundamental concept of empirical science that captures the notion that the state of a system normally moves from order into disorder. This can be illustrated by the following experiment. Take a picture P1 of a room with toys scattered across the floor. Take a picture P2 of the same room on an other moment with the toys neatly stacked in the toybox. Show P1 and P2 to a large group of people and put the following two questions (1) "Can the state of the room as shown on P1 turn into the state as shown on P2 without directed effort? (2) "Can the state of the room as shown on P2 turn to the state shown on P1 without directed effort? You will find that everybody is convinced that directed effort is needed to turn the state as shown on picture P1 into the state as shown on picture P2; and that as soon as you have created the state shown on picture P2, it will turn all of itself into the state shown on picture P1. The second law of thermodynamics mathematically formalizes this common knowledge.
The thesis that any positioning of the toys in the room is equal is incorrect. Any kid knows that neatly sticking his toys in the toybox costs lots of energy, but that one kick of his brother against his neatly arranged toybox will spread the toys again across the floor and will ruin his efforts in one second. Both kids know that any reached order is not conserved, but is lost again sooner or later, unless directed effort is taken to preserve the order (as the second law of thermodynamics formalizes mathematically).
Indeed the vibrations and twisting bonds in the toys do not change by scattering them across the floor or sticking them into the toybox. If you burn them, the same amount of heat will be produced. Their energy content does not change. But the entropy of the state of the room with toys scattered across the floor and the entropy of the state of the room with toys stacked into the toybox are not the same, according to the second law of thermodynamics (energetic view of entropy), Boltzmann's law (statistical view of entropy) and the theoremas of information theory (information view of entropy).
Entropy and energy content are completely different concepts, as the examples above prove. Therefore, Frank Lambert's paper " Shuffled Cards, Messy Desks, and Disorderly Dorm Rooms - Examples of Entropy Increase? Nonsense!", is nonsense.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 31. May 2006 11:32
kyle7: "Houses do wear out due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics."
So does lumber.
William DeJong: "When you put an object in the sun, indeed a flow of energy passes the boundaries of the object. The temperature of the object will rise, and after a while it will start radiating energy to its environment. Soon equilibrium will be reached between the incoming energy and the radiated energy, and the integral of all energy flows over the boundaries of the system will be zero."
Ok. Let's try it. We put the Earth's atmosphere and oceans in the Sun. They heat up. Eddies form. Water evaporates from the oceans. This moisture is driven up in the atmosphere and freezes into complex crystals.
Ok. Let's wait a little longer...
Hmm. Millions of years and the Earth's atmosphere is still not in equilibrium. There areas of low and high entropy, incredibly complicated and chaotic interactions, "Impossible" orderings of matter. And the interior of a lightning bolt. Where did all that energy suddenly come from!
William DeJong: "Any kid knows that neatly sticking his toys in the toybox costs lots of energy, but that one kick of his brother against his neatly arranged toybox will spread the toys again across the floor and will ruin his efforts in one second."
A kid kicking the toybox is directed energy.
William DeJong: "But the entropy of the state of the room with toys scattered across the floor and the entropy of the state of the room with toys stacked into the toybox are not the same"
I suggested you count eigenstates. Take a simple example. Two blocks of wood, side-by-side, or separated and at angles. You will find that there are many many more possible vibrational positions and twisting bond angles possible in the wood fibres in the blocks themselves, than in any conceivable macroscopic arrangement of two, ten or millions of blocks.
[ 31. May 2006, 12:09: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 31. May 2006 13:35
William: quote:
The left term of the second law of thermodynamics is zero for closed systems and for systems where the energy exchange with the environment is zero on average.
This is true only when T is constant over the boundary of the system. Such is not the case for earth, or any other system sitting in a temperature gradient.
IP: Logged
|
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 31. May 2006 19:12
quote:
quote:
William DeJong: "But the entropy of the state of the room with toys scattered across the floor and the entropy of the state of the room with toys stacked into the toybox are not the same"
I suggested you count eigenstates. Take a simple example. Two blocks of wood, side-by-side, or separated and at angles. You will find that there are many many more possible vibrational positions and twisting bond angles possible in the wood fibres in the blocks themselves, than in any conceivable macroscopic arrangement of two, ten or millions of blocks.
Zach, you need to analyze this correctly. Again going back to the mosaic example, but this time we will supply the energy by shaking the mosaic picture and letting the pieces fall naturally to the floor. If we only look at the microstates of the individual pieces then we fail to truly account for all the available microstates. Each change in macro location of a piece is a change in the microstates of that same piece. So basicly, the distance that the pieces are able to fall and spread out on the floor provide the total number of microstates. This number is significantly greater than the number calculated based on only the individual microstates of the pieces from the mosaic. This is why we expect the pieces to spread out over the floor and not land and re-form the mosaic picture.
The error of Dr. Lambert is that he fails to define the system and the process. He also fails to properly account for the possible microstates of the system. For the mosaic illustration, the system would include the room and the possible locations that the mosaic pieces could fall. The process would be the shaking of the pieces and their falling to the ground. Although the energy of the human is directed, the net effect is undirected energy -- just like the case where the kid kicks the toys. An example of directed energy is the case where the person takes the mosaic pieces and places them on the ground to form a picture -- something that random energy could never achieve. The beginning state is where the mosaic pieces form a picture. The final state is where the mosaic pieces are lying on the floor.
* Note that the amount of energy imparted to the mosaic pieces determines the number of possible microstates.
[ 31. May 2006, 19:22: Message edited by: kyle7 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 31. May 2006 21:54
William: quote:
But the entropy of the state of the room with toys scattered across the floor and the entropy of the state of the room with toys stacked into the toybox are not the same, according to the second law of thermodynamics (energetic view of entropy), Boltzmann's law (statistical view of entropy) and the theoremas of information theory (information view of entropy).
Let's go through the numbers in a simple scenario:
Suppose we have a liter of water at room temperature. The standard entropy of water is 70 J/molK, and its molecular mass is 16+1+1=18. Since water weighs 1 kg/liter, the entropy of the liter of water is: 1 kg * (70 J/molK) / (.018 kg/mol) = 3889 J/K.
Now suppose we pour the water from its container into random puddles on the table. What is the final entropy of the water?
[ 01. June 2006, 00:03: Message edited by: 2ndclass ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 01. June 2006 00:55
William: quote:
Entropy and energy content are completely different concepts, as the examples above prove. Therefore, Frank Lambert's paper " Shuffled Cards, Messy Desks, and Disorderly Dorm Rooms - Examples of Entropy Increase? Nonsense!", is nonsense.
Can you show me where Lambert equates entropy with energy content?
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 01. June 2006 01:08
Kyle, William defines directed effort as "energy flows over the boundary of a system, divided by T, that do not add up to zero over a longer period of time." But you seem to use the word directed to mean "intelligent." Am I misinterpreting you? Can you give us an operational definition of directed?
[ 01. June 2006, 11:04: Message edited by: 2ndclass ]
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 02. June 2006 13:18
I apologize for beating this thread to death. I'll make this my final post unless someone wants to continue the discussion.
According to the PCID page: The editorial advisory board peer-reviews articles submitted to the society's journal and comprises the society fellows.
If I were one of these fellows reviewing de Jong's paper for publication in PCID, I would first point out the spelling errors. These obviously don't impact de Jong's argument, but most journals try to clean them up before publication.
Second, I would point out the mathematical errors. The first is a notation problem in the integral on page 3. This should be a double integral, with one integral over time from 1 to 2 (and a corresponding dt in the integrand), and the other over the closed surface.
The second, more significant error is in the definition S = k Ln W, with W defined as "the probability of the state of a system." Since W is always less than one, this yields a negative value for S, which makes no sense. I see two ways to fix this problem. We could add a negative sign, changing it to S = -k Ln W, and define W as the probability of a given microstate, or we could define W as the number of microstates in a given macrostate. (Note that both definitions assume equiprobable microstates.)
The third, most serious math error is found in the following statement: If an open system is subjected to undirected external effort, for instance random flows of wind and water, lightning, radiation, or random movement and transportation processes, than the left term will be zero averaged over a longer period of time. This is mathematically and empirically false. The vast majority of interesting thermodynamic systems have an average energy flux of zero, yet many of these systems experience decreases in entropy, contrary to de Jong's statement. The source of de Jong's error is clear if we look at the math. He is claiming that the closed surface integral of dS/T is zero if S averages to zero, but any calculus student will tell you that this is not true unless T is constant over the surface.
So far I have mentioned non-controversial errors only. As to the quality of de Jong's argument, I imagine that I see it from a different philosophical perspective than that of the ISCID fellows. In my view, a thesis that directly contradicts the consensus position of scientists in the relevant fields should be supported with solid empirical evidence and/or rigorous theory. Instead, de Jong offers very little theory, which is rendered invalid by mathematical errors, and a lot of rhetoric. (Needless to say, I find the latter to be riddled with fallacies, but I suspect that ID proponents would disagree with me on this. I'll be glad to enumerate those fallacies if anyone cares to see them.)
In summary, I think de Jong's paper tells us more about the PCID review process than it does about evolution.
As a postscript, I'll just mention that I find de Jong to be a perfect gentleman, and I hope that nothing I've said is construed as a personal attack.
[ 02. June 2006, 18:33: Message edited by: 2ndclass ]
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 03. June 2006 04:44
Zachriel : There is no difference in thermodynamic entropy with the toys scattered about the room or neatly arranged in the toybox. posted 29. May 2006 08:51
The (macro) theory of evolution presumes that molecules can start ordering themselves, maintain that order and expand it ever further, driven by random energy flows (e.g., the random flows of wind and water on a beach, the random flashes of lightning that hit a pool of water, or the combination of random heating and loss of heat by radiation present at rocks flying through space). Empirical science, and the laws and theorems that are related to "entropy" in particular, contradict this supposition flatly. To get rid of this contradiction, some have begun (a) to contend that entropy has nothing to do with order and disorder, (b) to claim that order, disorder, information and non-information are subjective concepts that depend on one's personal taste, (c) to replace - implicitly - the concept of "entropy" by the concept of "energy content", (d) to suggest that thermodynamic entropy is different from statistical entropy and information entropy, (e) to cast doubt over the reach of the empirical laws that are concerned with entropy, and (f) to jettison empirical science and common knowledge.
The following experiment is meant to clarify the concept of entropy further as well as the laws and theorems of empirical science that are concerned with entropy. The experiment draws on Kyle's post of May 2006 20:29.
Experiment.
A perfectly isolated room R is divided by a separation wall into two compartments C1 and C2, which are filled with the same mixture M of two indifferent gasses G1 and G2. In the separation wall, an electric device D is present, which can filter the gas in each compartment by putting G1-molecules into C1 and G2-molecules into C2. In the wall, a valve V is present, which can be opened or closed.
- On t0, V is closed, D is switched on and the separation of M starts.
- On t1, the separation is completed. C1 is filled now with G1-molecules and C2 with G2-molecules only. D is switched off. V is opened.
- On t2, C1 and C2 appear to be filled again with the same mixture M as was present on t0.
Discussion.
(1) Over the interval [t0, t1] a flow of energy passes the boundaries of R to power D, resulting in a positive left term of the second law of thermodynamics and a decrease of the entropy of R. Over the interval [t1, t2] no exchange of energy with the environment takes place, thus the energy content of R does not change. Since no energy flows over the boundaries of R are present, the left term of the second law of thermodynamics is zero. As a result, the entropy of R increases. Over [t1, t2] conservation of the energy in R is present but no conservation of the entropy of R. Notice that the left term of the second law would be zero as well, if random flows of energy would pass the boundaries of R.
(2) The increase of the entropy over the interval [t1, t2] can be viewed statistically as well. After opening V, a probability emerges that a G2-molecule arrives in C1 when moving around at random. As long as the ratio of G2-molecules and G1-molecules in C2 is larger than the ratio of G2-molecules and G1-molecules in C1, the probability of a G2-molecule moving from C2 to C1 is larger than the probability of a G2-molecule moving from C1 to C2. As a result, the state where G1 and G2 are separated gradually turns into the state where G1 and G2 are completely mixed again. When moving toward this most probable state the entropy of R increases according to Boltzmann's law (S = k Ln W, where S is the entropy and W is the probability of the state of a system).
(3) The decrease and increase, respectively, of the entropy during the experiment can also be observed from an information theory point of view. Over the interval [t0, t1] the entropy decreases, at the cost of supplying directed energy. On t1, C1 is filled with G1 only, and C2 is filled with G2 only. In this state, C1 and C2 together can represent binary information. In other words, over the interval [t0, t1] the information content of R increases, corresponding with moving toward a less probable state. Over the interval [t1, t2] the entropy of R increases. At t2 the separation of gasses is lost completely, as well as the ability of C1 and C2 to represent binary information. The increase of the entropy over [t1, t2] thus results in information loss. Entropy, probability and information appear to be closely linked (see also, William Dembski's "Information as a measure of variation", 2004).
Conclusions.
1. A fundamental property of reality is that any order normally turns into disorder sooner or later, unless non-random energy flows are supplied to maintain or expand the order. Empirical science uses the concept entropy ("disorder") to capture this fundamental property of reality.
2. Entropy and energy content are completely different concepts. In a situation of conservation of energy, entropy is not conserved.
3. Entropy can be studied (a) from an energetic point of view, focussing on the energy exchange of a system with its environment, resulting in the second law of thermodynamics; (b) from a statistical point of view, resulting in the law of Boltzmann; and (c) from an information point of view, resulting in the theorems of information theory. These three views of the same concept complement and enrich one another.
Reflection
- If a disorderly system appears to have turned into an orderly system, non-random flows of energy must have been supplied. This is common knowledge, mathematically formalized in laws by science, and confirmed by everyday experience in homes, offices, factories and laboratories. Ordering a toybox, separating a gas mixture, defragmenting a computers hard disk or producing more complicated molecules out of simple chemicals, requires directed effort.
- The non-random flows of energy that have produced order in a specific disorderly system can be an object of theorizing. A valid scientific theory of the nature of these energy flows must be testable and not be in contradiction with empirical science and everyday experience.
- If such a theory cannot be formulated, the position "We don't have a valid theory (yet)" can be taken. The position "We don't know (yet)" is quite normal in any branch of science. It allows scholars to put invalid theories aside, serving the progress of science
quote:
Hmm. … "Impossible" orderings of matter…Where did all that energy suddenly come from! (Zachriel, posted 31. May 2006 11:32)
We simply don't know.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 03. June 2006 17:56
William DeJong: "1. A fundamental property of reality is that any order normally turns into disorder sooner or later, unless non-random energy flows are supplied to maintain or expand the order."
Actually your experiment showed that the gases remained separated until you opened the valve.
William DeJong: "After opening V, a probability emerges that a G2-molecule arrives in C1 when moving around at random."
That's because they are vibrating molecules of gas. The rate of mixing is related to the degree of vibration. If they were not vibrating, they would not mix.
William DeJong: "(2) The increase of the entropy over the interval [t1, t2] can be viewed statistically as well."
The entropy of mixing is proportional to the number of particles. How many particles in a mole of gas? How many toys are in the toy box?
2ndclass: "Now suppose we pour the water from its container into random puddles on the table. What is the final entropy of the water?"
William DeJong, you neglected to answer the very pertinent question posed by 2ndclass.
IP: Logged
|
|
kyle7
Member
Member # 191
|
posted 04. June 2006 00:43
quote:
Kyle, William defines directed effort as "energy flows over the boundary of a system, divided by T, that do not add up to zero over a longer period of time." But you seem to use the word directed to mean "intelligent." Am I misinterpreting you? Can you give us an operational definition of directed?
Directed energy is energy utilized to allow nonspontaneous processes to occur. The "direction" is the result of the Thermodynamic Mechanism. Typically these devices are machines with complicated components and interacting parts. These devices direct the energy flow and are the exception to the "sole result" in the Kelvin-Planck Statements of the Second Law:
quote:
It is impossible for any system to operate in such a way that the sole result would be an energy transfer by heat from a cooler to a hotter body.
And yes, there are implications of intelligence related to these machines. Fine tuned systems utilizing energy in detailed ways presents us with the thermodynamic problem. How do these machines originate naturally when the vast majority of molecular collisions are in opposition to the development of them. Dembski's work has a relation to this. A large number of fine tuned interacting parts can be shown to possess CSI (complex specified information).
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
