The second law of Thermodynamics

[sandy_mcd]

Perhaps we could compare amount of complexity between a supposedly older organism and a evolutionarily higher one. Do you really need an equation to understand that a human is more complex than an ameba?
I would think that a measure of the amount of information would be a good measure to compare levels of design. I find some that say entropy is closely related to probability.

Hmm, I agree a human is more complex than an amoeba. But if you are going to use complexity as a property in entropic 2nd law arguments and say that evolution can't happen because of the change in complexity, then you need a way to quantify that. If it helps, the entropy of a mole of ammonia gas at 298 K is 46.01 cal/deg.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

If you notice, I am not dogmatic and I posted a definition that reaches both sides of the arguments. I have found arguments which forcefully argue both sides of the topic, so I picked the one that explained both sides of the issue.

If you are a realist, then mathematics is discovered and is part of the natural world. Therefore discovering mathematics is a science. If you think that we make up mathematics to explain what we see in the natural world, then mathematics is not a science. I am a realist, as was Einstein as in Paul Davies and many other brilliant scientists, so being a realist allows me to derive that mathematics is a science. You are free to disagree and I do not believe it is an issue of being narrow, it is an issue of whether or not you are a realist or an anti-realist.

Dan

So if I decide to model a universe using 14 dimentions and non eucledian geometry this is a reflection of reality?

Does this validate alternate universes?

When I use imaginary numbers to determine the differential of a snow plow plowing snow as more snow gathers on the plow (try saying that 10 times fast), does that mean that the snow actually exists in units of square roots of negative one?

Einstein was a realist, that's why he wanted to show that quantum mathmatics was not a representation of the Universe. But by your definition a realist beleives that math represents reality, so was he or was he not a realist?

Einstein that is.

[aa118816]

I do not understand your relation from Mathematics to quantum mathematics. For instance, realists do believe that numbers are real and were discovered. Quantum mathematics is a field of theoretical mathematics (just like physics is has field like theoretial physics, quantum physics ect-do these invalidate physics as a whole?) and does not represent the whole. The comment does not make any sense because if you were to extrapolate your assertion, we could not measure anything in our world because we cannot measure quantum phenomena? Also the quantum world is a burgeoning field of science, vastly incomplete and is still in the process of being discovered. Just because one cannot simultaneously find both the position and momentum of an object to arbitrary accuracy in the quantum world does not mean that we cannot measure the postion and velocity of objects in the macroscopic world. Anyone familiar with the quantum world will tell you that we do not know if the Universe actually behaves in a probabilistic manner (we have to use that dreaded field of mathematical science to help deterine where the position of the object may be in the quantum world) or if the Universe is deterministic in the sense that I could predict the path a particle will follow with 100 % certainty. Some folks have postulated that we will have tools in the future to measure these phenomenon. This is no reason to reject what we can determine from a realists perspective in the macroscopic world.

I actually do not understand what you mean and how it relates to my post when you consider imaginary numbers and pre-Planck time non-Euclidian Geometry. I just wrote a paper on A theory of time and the use of imaginery numbers and how it relates to the Kalam argument. Here is a current quote which is in NO WAY out of context from Stephen Hawking, "Hawking has more recently stated explicitly that he interprets the Hartle-Hawking Model non-realistically.” Hawking himself stated, “I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality.”

All quantum gravity models and multiple universes depend on the use of imaginery numbers. Imaginery numbers are wonderful mathematical excercises but do not correspond to reality. This is why when you switch to real numbers, the singularity reappears-which Hawking has admitted. This is why he is now saying that he is simply a positivist and is interested in working on theories that uphold his mathematical postulations.

Again, I do not understand how your snowplow analogy has anything to do with realism. In fact, a realist would reject such an analogy because it does not conform to reality in the real world. I spoke with my friend at MIT Lincoln Labs and he is a theoretical physicist. He believes that mathematics is science because mathematics, nothing in science coudl correspond to reality.

Dan

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I do not understand your relation from Mathematics to quantum mathematics. For instance, realists do believe that numbers are real and were discovered. Quantum mathematics is a field of theoretical mathematics (just like physics is has field like theoretial physics, quantum physics ect-do these invalidate physics as a whole?) and does not represent the whole. The comment does not make any sense because if you were to extrapolate your assertion, we could not measure anything in our world because we cannot measure quantum phenomena? Also the quantum world is a burgeoning field of science, vastly incomplete and is still in the process of being discovered. Just because one cannot simultaneously find both the position and momentum of an object to arbitrary accuracy in the quantum world does not mean that we cannot measure the postion and velocity of objects in the macroscopic world. Anyone familiar with the quantum world will tell you that we do not know if the Universe actually behaves in a probabilistic manner (we have to use that dreaded field of mathematical science to help deterine where the position of the object may be in the quantum world) or if the Universe is deterministic in the sense that I could predict the path a particle will follow with 100 % certainty. Some folks have postulated that we will have tools in the future to measure these phenomenon. This is no reason to reject what we can determine from a realists perspective in the macroscopic world.

I actually do not understand what you mean and how it relates to my post when you consider imaginary numbers and pre-Planck time non-Euclidian Geometry. I just wrote a paper on A theory of time and the use of imaginery numbers and how it relates to the Kalam argument. Here is a current quote which is in NO WAY out of context from Stephen Hawking, "Hawking has more recently stated explicitly that he interprets the Hartle-Hawking Model non-realistically.” Hawking himself stated, “I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality.”

All quantum gravity models and multiple universes depend on the use of imaginery numbers. Imaginery numbers are wonderful mathematical excercises but do not correspond to reality. This is why when you switch to real numbers, the singularity reappears-which Hawking has admitted. This is why he is now saying that he is simply a positivist and is interested in working on theories that uphold his mathematical postulations.

Again, I do not understand how your snowplow analogy has anything to do with realism. In fact, a realist would reject such an analogy because it does not conform to reality in the real world. I spoke with my friend at MIT Lincoln Labs and he is a theoretical physicist. He believes that mathematics is science because mathematics, nothing in science coudl correspond to reality.

Dan

If you're point is that since science models reality it therefore does not correspond to reality I'll agree with you here.
But these models are based on observations are they not?

And if not, there is an implied requirement that they be verified experimentally, am I correct?

However, then you say that because mathmatics also does not correspond to reality that it is also a science, then...

In a way it is a science, but is it a physical science?
In other words math alone may be used to predict quantum particles lets say, but does math alone confirm the existence of such particles?

Remember my original statement.

"Is probability science?

NO. "

What definition of science do you think I was using?
Think of it in context.

[sandy_mcd]

For instance, realists do believe that numbers are real and were discovered. ... Imaginery numbers are wonderful mathematical excercises but do not correspond to reality.

I'm sure there is a lot of philosophy in this, but my interest is mostly semantical. I don't think math should be included in science because math starts with axioms from which deductions are drawn whereas science starts with axioms (for August) and models are inductively tested against the real world to see if they agree. This is not the case in math where a conclusion is true if it follows logically from the initial axioms, not whether it corresponds to reality. You can start two systems, one with axioms for Euclidean geometry and one with some Euclidean axioms altered; some conclusions will be true in one system and false in the other. This is irrespective of any correspondence with reality. In physics, chemistry, biology, etc, conclusions are considered "true" if they correspond to or model reality. So if you want to use the term science to include fields with both inductive and deductive reasoning, then it would be nice to have a word for those areas dealing with just inductive reasoning. I don't know how this corresponds with your realist vs non-realist position.
Even moreso, if numbers are real (I wouldn't say that with my definitions), then imaginary numbers are real as well. Does "don't correspond to reality" mean you are saying imaginary numbers aren't real? And how don't imaginary numbers corrrespond to reality? Waves are conveniently described by e^ix. You could just as easily claim negative numbers aren't real either.
[edited to add: In physics, chemistry, biology, etc, conclusions are considered "true" if they correspond to or model reality. ]

[aa118816]

BGood,

I want to thank you for your response as I found it to be respectful.

I never said that mathematics is not science because it does not correspond to reality. What is did say is that imaginery numbers do not correspond to reality, therefore the science that it supports is purely metaphysical.

Let me say this, if you are not a realist, then mathematics is not a science and if you are a realist it is a science. Scientists do not make up the definitions of science. Philosophers of science make up the definitions of science. One of the problems with the evolution and creation debate is that you have scientists and theologians arguing over what is a science and what is not. They are both out of order and I woudl think that you might agree with this because you seem very bright (not patronizing, just a simple observation).

I would also agree that math is definitely not a physical science, but there are a lot of science which are not physical. Many sciences, of course, just make prediction based on inferences.

Good debate and you helped me sharpen my point.

Dan

[narek33]

What is science and what is not is relative to what you consider to be science. From my perspective I believe math is an application of science. However, many people will disagree with me but that is their choice to do so.

Now, about the second law of thermo, it's not as much of a law as it is a statement of the obvious. Thermodynamic laws have withstood the ideas of the greatest minds of our time. From Einstein, who said this about the laws of thermo “is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. Therefore, the deep impression which classical thermodynamics made on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown” to the ideas of Schrödinger and Heisenberg which led to quantum mechanical proof of the thermodynamic laws. So, please do not imply in any way that laws of thermodynamics are in any way flawed.

Thank you

[liger]

Please...make sense. Ranting isn't easy to understand

I imagine a lot of ranting on these fora is a result of frustration caused by disagreements on basic issues.

So by what avenue of logic can you come to the conclusion that natural selection can do that which no other force in the universe CAN do-break the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

I am frustrated by people who repeatedly post the same misunderstanding of elementary thermodynamics.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... ew&id=3122

Sorry the general interpretation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is false. The law only is true of energy. The law is only true if the original and scientific interpretation is used! Obviously enough.

Energy always progresses towards entropy. In the process matter can become ordered.

In other words.
High energy -> Low energy and work does not violate the second law

High energy -> Low energy + order in matter does not violate the second law

By stating that evolution violates the second law, you are admiting to us all that you do not understand this law.

You are admitting that you are ignoring something which rises every morning!

The Earth's main source of energy is the SUN.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics works more IN FAVOR of creation IMO, rather than evolution. Here's exactly why:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/jmc6/second_law.html

[BGoodForGoodSake]

There's a reason why we must consume food in order to survive.

The process of metabolism allows our systems to maintain order at the expence of the material we consume.

Heres the summary below.
Food + Cell has less entropy than Cell + Waste

As you can see the maintenence of life is not a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

When a cell divides it uses up resources stored in the cell. Cell division likewise does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

When DNA is duplicated it is succeptible to flaws. Flaws in copying does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

So the each process which is required for evolution; life, reproduction and heredity; do not violate the second law. The only conclusion is that intuition cannot always be counted on to make a conclusion. Many discoveries in the modern world are counterintuitive.

Modification through time is to be expected of a system which duplicates itself. Perfect copies may reduce entropy therefore require more energy.
(i.e. Perfect copies are more counter to the 2nd law than imperfect copies. Therefore more energy must be used, meaning entropy has to increase elsewhere)

In fact all systems through time are expected to change. This is due to the second law of thermodynamics.

Evolution it would seem is a basic principle of the universe.

[Canuckster1127]

There's a reason why we must consume food in order to survive.

The process of metabolism allows our systems to maintain order at the expence of the material we consume.

Heres the summary below.
Food + Cell has less entropy than Cell + Waste

As you can see the maintenence of life is not a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

When a cell divides it uses up resources stored in the cell. Cell division likewise does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

When DNA is duplicated it is succeptible to flaws. Flaws in copying does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

So the each process which is required for evolution; life, reproduction and heredity; do not violate the second law. The only conclusion is that intuition cannot always be counted on to make a conclusion. Many discoveries in the modern world are counterintuitive.

Modification through time is to be expected of a system which duplicates itself. Perfect copies may reduce entropy therefore require more energy.
(i.e. Perfect copies are more counter to the 2nd law than imperfect copies. Therefore more energy must be used, meaning entropy has to increase elsewhere)

In fact all systems through time are expected to change. This is due to the second law of thermodynamics.

Evolution it would seem is a basic principle of the universe.

I agree with you that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is routinely invoked well outside the scope of its relevance.

Entropy within a physics system relating to energy is not necessarily valid in drawing inference to the use of energy by a living creature or cell and certainly not over an entire population.

That being said, while I have no bias against evolution as a system and understand very well the extent to which it has been shown as a strong and overriding theory (in the scientific sense of the word) I still believe there are a lot of answers yet to be resolved before I'm prepared to concede it as a foregone conclusion on a broader scale.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I agree with you that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is routinely invoked well outside the scope of its relevance.

Entropy within a physics system relating to energy is not necessarily valid in drawing inference to the use of energy by a living creature or cell and certainly not over an entire population.

That being said, while I have no bias against evolution as a system and understand very well the extent to which it has been shown as a strong and overriding theory (in the scientific sense of the word) I still believe there are a lot of answers yet to be resolved before I'm prepared to concede it as a foregone conclusion on a broader scale.

Of course I agree with you there.

Evolution is a process not a cause.

[liger]

There's a reason why we must consume food in order to survive.

The process of metabolism allows our systems to maintain order at the expence of the material we consume.

Heres the summary below.
Food + Cell has less entropy than Cell + Waste

As you can see the maintenence of life is not a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

When a cell divides it uses up resources stored in the cell. Cell division likewise does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

When DNA is duplicated it is succeptible to flaws. Flaws in copying does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.

So the each process which is required for evolution; life, reproduction and heredity; do not violate the second law. The only conclusion is that intuition cannot always be counted on to make a conclusion. Many discoveries in the modern world are counterintuitive.

Modification through time is to be expected of a system which duplicates itself. Perfect copies may reduce entropy therefore require more energy.
(i.e. Perfect copies are more counter to the 2nd law than imperfect copies. Therefore more energy must be used, meaning entropy has to increase elsewhere)

In fact all systems through time are expected to change. This is due to the second law of thermodynamics.

Evolution it would seem is a basic principle of the universe.

Creation started it all, BASED on the 2nd law of thermodynamics...

http://www.personal.psu.edu/jmc6/second_law.html