| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"brian0918" |
| Date: |
25 Mar 2005 03:01:28 PM |
| Object: |
Question about the 2nd law and the origins of order |
I'm currently debating the factual accuracy of the Wikipedia article on
"Religion", where it is stated:
"Some, for instance, note the empirical phenomena of entropy and the
Second Law of Thermodynamics, which indicate that over time, the
universe passes from greater to lesser levels of organization. They
further note that the only observable instances of increased
organization are caused by life (in the context of evolution) by
persons (in the context of human creative efforts to alter and organize
our universe), or from outside the system (in the case of the sun
heating the earth -- but only at the expense of the organization
outside the system, which begs the question of where that organization
came from). They then assert that naturalistic explanations alone are
insufficient to explain Order in the universe, because they provide no
mechanism by which order may arise from disorder, other than Persons.
They conclude that the most reasonable explanation for the origin of
Order in the universe is a Person of one form or another, who provided
the creative impetus that brought about the remarkable order and
structure evident in the universe."
Now, I first interpreted this as the old bad argument that the 2nd law
somehow says that evolution is bogus, but it's actually a different
argument. According to a defender of this section:
"the point is that the "whole" cannot decrease in entropy. those who
prefer the first view say that a "part of the system" can decrease in
entropy ... but they can only do this by dodging the question of the
entropy of the entire system. the EARTH can get more organized ... but
only at the expense of the organization of the sun. and how did the sun
form? the only possibility appears to be the supernova of a nearby star
.... or a creator. either way, the sun depends for its existence on
preexisting organization. same with snowflakes. no snowflakes without
the sun."
So, what am I missing? Does all organization require the
deorganization of another, and does that imply that a creator must've
kick-started the universe, or that the universe started off highly
organized (if so, where did that organization come from)
Thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the 2nd law and the origins of order |
26 Mar 2005 01:08:13 AM |
|
|
Ahhh Thermodynamics problems. These always kill people. Phd canidate in
physics at your service. I hope I can help.
brian0918 wrote:
I'm currently debating the factual accuracy of the Wikipedia article
on
"Religion", where it is stated:
"Some, for instance, note the empirical phenomena of entropy and the
Second Law of Thermodynamics, which indicate that over time, the
universe passes from greater to lesser levels of organization. They
further note that the only observable instances of increased
organization are caused by life (in the context of evolution) by
persons (in the context of human creative efforts to alter and
organize
our universe), or from outside the system (in the case of the sun
heating the earth
The second condition "or from outside the system" actually applies to
all cases including the first. The statement is a tautology. There is
no point in making it.
The major problem with this (other than the fact that it is a
meaningless tautology) is that the statements "caused by life" and
"from outside" are used. These statements have NO scientific meaning.
There is no perspective in thermodynamics. The author is guilty of
anthropomorphizing and then drawing a conclusion from the premise he
invinted in the first place. The conclusion is not a scientific
conclusion.
OTOH perhaps there is something interesting to be said here, but
unfortunately it was not said.
-- but only at the expense of the organization
outside the system, which begs the question of where that
organization
came from).
Actually there is no good reason for some replicating, entropy lowering
machines (aka life) not to form if they can and the bar is not set to
high. The answer to the question is very obvious, that organization
comes from good conditions and a sufficient length of time.
If the Earth were only 6,000 years old or inhospitable, then we would
deffinitely be begging.
They then assert that naturalistic explanations alone are
insufficient to explain Order in the universe, because they provide
no
mechanism by which order may arise from disorder,
This is the worst statement in the paragraph. Honestly, I am not sure
what it is that is trying to be said.
Life itself is a mechanism by which entropy is lowered in a subsystem,
but I am not sure if this is what they are looking for.
Perhaps they mean what explains the 'low' entropy at time=zero? Well
entropy is generally low near singularities and back in time, that's
just how things are.
Is this even a physically meaningful question?
other than Persons.
They conclude that the most reasonable explanation for the origin of
Order in the universe is a Person of one form or another, who
provided
the creative impetus that brought about the remarkable order and
structure evident in the universe."
Even if the premise is true, and it is not, this is an argument from
ignorance to construct a god of the gaps. It is a poor means to a
conclusion, but if that is their conclusion, then it is. And this
should be done with a NPoV.
However, the question can be raised, "explain the order of the god,
what is it's 'mechanism'". I am guessing that the answer to this will
just reveal that all of this handwaving argument is really just the
'first cause' argument in disguise. And most of us have learned by now
that the first cause argument is bunk.
Now, I first interpreted this as the old bad argument that the 2nd
law
somehow says that evolution is bogus, but it's actually a different
argument. According to a defender of this section:
"the point is that the "whole" cannot decrease in entropy. those who
prefer the first view say that a "part of the system" can decrease in
entropy ... but they can only do this by dodging the question of the
entropy of the entire system. the EARTH can get more organized ...
but
only at the expense of the organization of the sun. and how did the
sun
form? the only possibility appears to be the supernova of a nearby
star
... or a creator. either way, the sun depends for its existence on
preexisting organization. same with snowflakes. no snowflakes without
the sun."
So, what am I missing? Does all organization require the
deorganization of another,
In the macroscopic world, yes.
and does that imply that a creator must've
kick-started the universe,
no, it says nothing about the existance of any gods. I suppose it
places constraints on certain hypothetical gods, but there was no
mention of this in the paragraph.
or that the universe started off highly
organized
more so than now (almost by definition in fact)
(if so, where did that organization come from)
Trace back till the instant of beginning and that question becomes
meaningless in a physical way. Physics ends and phyilosphy begins at
that point (for now at least).
Thanks.
You are very welcome. I like wikipedia and I hope that these factual
errors get ironed out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the 2nd law and the origins of order |
25 Mar 2005 03:29:11 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, brian0918 poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
....
So, what am I missing? Does all organization require the
deorganization of another, and does that imply that a creator must've
kick-started the universe, or that the universe started off highly
organized (if so, where did that organization come from)
Organization can arise naturally through a process of self organizing
complexity.
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
http://www.thymos.com/tat/emergenc.html
Regards,
Josef
Science is based on the experience that nature gives intelligent answers
to intelligent questions.
-- Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the 2nd law and the origins of order |
25 Mar 2005 06:47:45 PM |
|
|
brian0918 wrote:
<snip>
"the point is that the "whole" cannot decrease in entropy. those who
prefer the first view say that a "part of the system" can decrease in
entropy ... but they can only do this by dodging the question of the
entropy of the entire system.
<snip>
Entropy is the total energy of a closed system, not chaos. The earth is
not a closed system, nor is chaos always lower in energy than order.
--
James B, former monkey #4,567,000,000
aa #944
"Hence the greatest crimes have been found, in many instances,
compatible with a superstitious piety and devotion: Hence, it
is justly regarded as unsafe to draw any certain inference in
favour of a man's morals from the fervour or strictness of his
religious exercises, even though he himself believe them sincere."
-David Hume, "The Natural History of Religion"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Anthoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Question about the 2nd law and the origins of order |
25 Mar 2005 07:21:39 PM |
|
|
brian0918 wrote:
I'm currently debating the factual accuracy of the Wikipedia article on
"Religion", where it is stated:
"Some, for instance, note the empirical phenomena of entropy and the
Second Law of Thermodynamics, which indicate that over time, the
universe passes from greater to lesser levels of organization. They
further note that the only observable instances of increased
organization are caused by life (in the context of evolution) by
persons (in the context of human creative efforts to alter and organize
our universe), or from outside the system (in the case of the sun
heating the earth -- but only at the expense of the organization
outside the system, which begs the question of where that organization
came from). They then assert that naturalistic explanations alone are
insufficient to explain Order in the universe, because they provide no
mechanism by which order may arise from disorder, other than Persons.
They conclude that the most reasonable explanation for the origin of
Order in the universe is a Person of one form or another, who provided
the creative impetus that brought about the remarkable order and
structure evident in the universe."
Now, I first interpreted this as the old bad argument that the 2nd law
somehow says that evolution is bogus, but it's actually a different
argument. According to a defender of this section:
"the point is that the "whole" cannot decrease in entropy. those who
prefer the first view say that a "part of the system" can decrease in
entropy ... but they can only do this by dodging the question of the
entropy of the entire system. the EARTH can get more organized ... but
only at the expense of the organization of the sun. and how did the sun
Actually, the entropy of the sun is decreasing, due to it dumping shitloads
of heat into space. It's the entropy of outer space that's increasing, due
to having all those disorganized photons dumped into it. So, it's outer
space that's becoming more "disorganized", not the sun.
form? the only possibility appears to be the supernova of a nearby star
... or a creator. either way, the sun depends for its existence on
preexisting organization. same with snowflakes. no snowflakes without
the sun."
So, what am I missing? Does all organization require the
deorganization of another, and does that imply that a creator must've
kick-started the universe, or that the universe started off highly
organized (if so, where did that organization come from)
Dunno. Alan Guth has his Inflation, Roger Penrose has his Weyl Curvature
Hypothesis. Probably quite a few other ideas knocking around.
Thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
