Posted on 11/20/2009 6:40:11 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
So what? It's still -- as was my original point -- far, far more orderly and complex than a simple layer of atmosphere in which nothing happens. And it's especially -- again returning to my original point -- more orderly and complex than the surface of a planet with NO atmosphere, because it was stripped away by the solar wind, because the planet never developed a strong magnetic field blocking the solar wind, because the planet didn't have have a molten interior with lots of iron, which started moving in circular patterns due to convection currents, which spontaneously appeared due to the laws of physics. All this denying your original suggestion that we're talking about spontaneous appearances of order in a "random system".
My point was that, because neither the universe nor any appreciable part of the universe is a "random system," but rather a law like system, your objection to spontaneous (or natural) appearances of order does not apply. I was further pointing out that even initially simple appearances of order often do expand and combine across and within systems to greatly increase complexity and order.
Yes, weather is indeed less complex and orderly than living organisms. But it is substantially complex and orderly in contrast to the alternative of not having weather systems at all.
And it all spontaneously appeared, simply the result of natural law, as even creationists will admit. (With the possible exception of GGG, who recently asserted that any time the sun's energy does work it can only be due to intelligent design. Although he seems confused about the implications of his assertion.)
Much of the patterns observed for seasons are due more to the tilt of the earth’s axis, not because weather follows a pattern from year to year.
Again, so what? This is obviously true, but what difference does it make to the argument? I don't know what the current theory is, but whatever knocked the earth slightly off axis, it occurred long ago, and the energy (and entropy) cost was paid in full long ago.
Besides, this only reinforces the point I was making in originating this subthread: That we are NOT dealing with a "random system". We are dealing with a system in which every detail and every contingency matters and has effects. These effects often interact, in the context of the laws of nature, to produce complex and ordered patterns.
So, for instance, something as random and chaotic as an asteroid or planetesimal impacting or passing the earth and knocking it slightly of axis, can have the effect of creating orderly seasonal weather patterns which then continue for millions of years.
I think that perhaps you're misunderstanding what he meant.
I know that there is some debate and uncertainty about whether God set things up and put them in motion and left it alone, whether He set things up and put them in motion and tinkered with it occasionally, or controls every little detail of every little thing to the point of seeming absurdity.
I would agree that the only reason the sun's energy does work is because of intelligent design, the design of the system that gave us the laws by which the universe works. I just don't think that complexity to the point of forming and transmitting information as DNA does, can arise that spontaneously and even if natural law is enough to maintain the universe, I don't think that it's enough to account for living systems.
It doesn't even make any sense that the laws by which the universe operate could establish themselves from who really knows what? Mindless matter which expanded out of singularity when it expanded from as yet unknown reason?
I think that living systems required more than that, and that's what lends support to the idea of intelligent causation and a designer.
Until recently what existed before the Big Bang was undefinable. At T=0 general relativity is undefinable like dividing by zero. Science and math lacked the tools to breach the T = 0 barrier.
In a recent article in Physical Review Letters physicists Alejandro Corichi from Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and Parampreet Singh from the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario have introduced a new theory derivation of Loop Quantum Gravity where our universe stems from the collapse of a previous universe. Their paper can be found at http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.4543v2
There is no unanonymity on the size of the universe and a number of paradoxes associated. What you state is one theory, I accept another one. This gives rise to question; how can you accept the theories you have cited in this string and at the same time dismiss outright the possibility that some or all of the theory of evolution is true?
You answered your own question. It's a matter of choice. It's a matter of what one thinks makes most sense.
There's a difference between dismissing some or all of the ToE.
I recognize variation within species and the role that natural selection plays in it.
As I've pointed out to many evos many times before, even creationist organizations like AiG and ICR don't deny that.
It's the part of the theory of evolution that states that enough change is possible over enough time to account for the variety of life that we see on the planet and that the current interpretation of the fossil record is the correct one that creationists disagree with.
If you have the prerogative of accepting or rejecting theories of your choosing, I have the same prerogative. That's how I can dismiss parts of the ToE as not being true.
And I don't *outright dismiss* them, as if I hadn't given the matter any thought. I have and deciding that *macroevolution* or *speciation* is not well enough supported for me to accept it is the conclusion I've arrived at.
You may not agree with my conclusion, nor consider all the reasons for my decision to be valid, but it was not a decision made without looking at the evidence presented.
Evos seem to have a hard time with the concept that the evidence for evolution is not so overwhelmingly conclusive that everyone who sees it will not immediately come to the same conclusion that they do. It's beyond their comprehension that someone could see the same evidence and not be compelled to come to the same conclusion as they.
Well, it happens.
Even if our universe st3emmed from the collapse of another, it still does not make THIS one infinite in either size or life.
“then for the high degree of order created in life, should result in a high degree of disorder elsewhere”
No, that’s not correct. If you take a closed system, the average entropy would, over time increase. That order in one place would necessitate, statistically, that disorder be more prevalent over the rest of the system - on average. It does not mean there is an equal offsetting level of disorder of matching magnitude of the order thus presented.
Its sort of like an ice cube in a bathtub - it doesn’t mean there needs to be a patch of boiling water to match, just that - on average - the temperature of the remaining mass of water will offset.
this is my pre-coffee explanation.
OH, it’s OKAY to make snarky comments about “Evo’s”, but not to put the shoe on the other foot for the Cretins.
No it’s not. It’s an example of how abiotic systems can increase order and not violate entropy. A similar event occurs when amphiphilic molecules organize to orient a hydrophilic component on the exterior and hydrophobic component on the interior, forming micelles.
I looked up Hesiod and yes I had heard of him before, but I did not associate him with any heresy. It is interesting that the Hebrews, those closest to the events recorded in the OT, view chaos as the state in which God created (or gave order to) the earth and that Christians would reject it.
There is a Jewish interpretation that says that if God used pre-existing matter he made the earth out of junk/garbage and that would insult the majesty of God. I wonder if the same argument is the one used to get an ex nihilo creation from the clear meaning in Gen. 1?
It's absorbed over an effective area of pi r squared, the cross section intercepting the solar radiation, so the factor is 4. This is just part of the geometry, though, which also includes the dilution due to the evolution of the radiation in phase space. It spreads out over space, but is narrowed in direction. This is actually an example of Liouville's theorem - "phase space volume is conserved."
The dilution factor you're talking about from the sun's perspective is already accounted for in the delta-S of the absorption calculation.
Well, you'll note that T_e is not calculated in the paper, but simply presumed to be what it is. To calculate it you need to account for geometric dilution.
It's interesting that the paper asks us to consider the radiation as part of the sun, just detached as it were, i.e. no increase of entropy in sun+radiation over time, as long as no interactions with other systems take place. Entropy is an extensive variable, though, so it gets spread out over space just as the energy does, and the radiation retains the same effective temperature, E/S.
Now the paper asks us to consider that the entropy is produced upon thermalization at absorption, and not reemission, which is fine. But again, thermalization to what temperature? Here we have to consider the emitted terrestrial radiation and balance it with the ( geometrically diluted ) absorbed radiation. This will give us an answer for the entropy production independent of the terrestrial processes responsible for thermalization. So we can just ignore these processes and concentrate on the radiation.
Now here's the really pleasing part of it theoretically, since we work right from Boltzmann's definition of entropy. The geometrically diluted radiation is not spread out over the available states in phase space, being confined to a small solid angle. Note this is the same phase space used in the derivation of the black body distribution of radiation. When we take the radiation and spread its energy over the available states, we get the black body distribution at a lower temperature, and this is the state that MAXIMIZES THE ENTROPY for that amount of energy, as reflected in the factor of 1/T. Very simple in concept, and very beautiful.
This relates to your remark that you were considering the sun to be a point source. This is entirely unphysical, and it's quite ironic that you were complaining about black body radiation being a poor model for solar radiation. Suppose you were to shrink the sun and hold the radiation flux constant. Well, of course it would have to be hotter! But then the spectrum would of course shift to the blue, and the entropy flux would be reduced as well. So ignoring the unphysicality, we would formally have T_s ->infinity in the delta S calculation. OTOH, if we stipulate a point source and arbitrarily assign it the spectrum of the sun, we can not define a temperature or entropy for it.
“It is interesting that the Hebrews, those closest to the events recorded in the OT, view chaos as the state in which God created (or gave order to) the earth and that Christians would reject it.”
Yes, it is interesting, but not surprising. Theology evolves over time, even within a particular religion, much more between a spliter movement and it’s father faith.
For instance, in the Ten Commandments, we are told to have no other God before Him. But to most Christians, there is only one God. To us, the commandment means don’t believe in false gods. It’s not as if we imagine there are other Gods out there competing for our attention. As if Zeus sits on a lower cloud, shouting, “Hey, over here! Worship me!”
It’s been suggested that the ancient Hebrews may have thought there were other gods out there, and that their God protected them against other people’s gods. That’s a lot different from our modern view.
How do you see the evolution of Christianity? Is it a rediscovery of old truths or new revelations not previously available to mankind?
“How do you see the evolution of Christianity? Is it a rediscovery of old truths or new revelations not previously available to mankind?”
Well, both, I guess. The Reformation was all about bypassing the earthly intermediary of the church to reach a better understanding of the faith at a root level. Various revelations since Christian dogma was formed, mainly through science, have also changed the way people explain their faith.
I kinda stumbled across this post while researching entropy and the meaning of life. I’ve come to the conclusion that life is really simply a mechanism to break down the entropy gradient in the universe. We are “entropy machines” so to speak. There’s a paper written on this very subject - Physical History of Economics - which explains how entropy leads not only to life but to social behavior, in other words why we do what we do. Check it out:
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~ciotola/beta/PHE_2nd_Ed_v02.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.