Entropy and the immutable law of death

On another thread, we were discussing whether or not the theory of evolution had a general direction which, at least in the minds of racists, gave them some justification for rationalizing their ideologies.My antagonists immediately latched hold of a quote I provided concerning entropy. The quote was taken from panspermist enthusiast, Brig Klyce, who argues that much of the arguing over "entropy" between creationists and evolutionists are somewhat needless. The reason, according to Klyce, is that they are often using the term "entropy" to mean different states-- either thermodynamic or logical, but that these terms are not well defined.When I discovered this essay, it immediately struck a chord in me because I understood exactly what he was getting at.I have been a long time advocate for the naming of a natural law, that to my knowledge, goes on nameless. This seems almost impossible to me given how axiomatic the law is.The law I'm referring to is the law of death. Klyce opens with:

"Sometimes people say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This is not the case; we know of nothing in the universe that violates that law. So why do people say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics?"

He goes on to explain thermodynamic entropy, which is hardly contested. But is their another kind of entropy-- one that is well understood in our minds, and yet remains, for some odd reason, nameless? He further explains:

"Entropy is also used to mean disorganization or disorder... This sort of entropy is clearly different. Physical units do not pertain to it, and (except in the case of digital information) an arbitrary convention must be imposed before it can be quantified. To distinguish this kind of entropy from thermodynamic entropy, let's call it logical entropy.
​
In spite of the important distinction between the two meanings of entropy, the rule as stated above for thermodynamic entropy seems to apply nonetheless to the logical kind: entropy in a closed system can never decrease. And really, there would be nothing mysterious about this law either. It's similar to saying things never organize themselves. (The original meaning of organize is "to furnish with organs.") Only this rule has little to do with thermodynamics... The rule that things never organize themselves is also upheld in our everyday experience. Without someone to fix it, a broken glass never mends. Without maintenance, a house deteriorates. Without management, a business fails. Without new software, a computer never acquires new capabilities. Never."

An excellent point. Yet classical entropy would assert that as long as energy is being introduced/replenished, a system won't deteriorate. Clearly that is only telling half the story. Yes, when we eat, we gain new energy, which is ultimately supplied by the sun. At some point, though, we are still dying in a very real sense, no matter how hard we try.Aside from which, the introduction of energy is not a sort of catch all reason for why life exists to begin with. You can't just blast sunlight on the earth and expect life to proliferate. If that were the case, then all of the planets in the solar system would be inhabited with life. Clearly that is not the case.There first must exist some mechanism which converts raw energy in to useful energy. For example: Sunlight blasts our roofs all of the time. The introduction of that energy certainly isn't improving the roof, now is it? In fact, it could be said that it is actually slowly deteriorating and dilapidating the roof. However, if we were to place solar panels on the roof, now we have a mechanism which converts that raw energy in to useful energy.The same is found within nature. Sunlight is only useful to a plant because the plant has a mechanism to convert that energy. The process of photosynthesis is only made true because of that catalysis. And yet, the plant will die regardless at some point.The big question is, why?Well, this is where evo's and creo's get to arguing. One side is arguing about thermodynamic entropy, while the other side is arguing about the other kind of entropy which stipulates that all systems tend towards disorder. Maintenance of that system only slows the inevitable process.Death... It happens. There is nothing that stops it. Life in the physical is intimately tied in to death in every way. Its a constant. And its as true of an immutable law as the 2LoT is. Why then is their not a specific name for it?Any thoughts?

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

I agree that this thread has the potential to go in all sorts of different directions. We'll just keep an eye on it.As far as placement goes, Misc Topics is probably most appropriate, IMO, but don't move it now. The Intelligent Design forum isn't a bad placement.I'm really curious to see what contributions everyone will be making.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

You must have a memory like an elephant. Apparently I participated on that thread and don't even remember it. Okay, then steady. If there is an abundant supply of energy, why must we die? And why is not such a prevailing, constant law, such as this, named? Whatever the reason is seems almost unimportant here though. We know that we all will die, since there is no one who has remained immortal in a temporal body. I want to know why this remains unnamed, and couldn't this reasonably be considered entropy, even if we are not directly discussing thermodynamics as Klyce as gone and described?

quote:

---

Aside from which, the introduction of energy is not a sort of catch all reason for why life exists to begin with.

---

That's not true. The general speculation about how life began simply and ambiguously starts with energy. Well, for however misguided most people think of him, he's right about that. Isn't that evidence of irreducible complexity? You can't have one without the other, since raw energy does nothing without something to convert it. Yes, all that is understood. But why must it be without invoking this principle of "logical entropy" described by Klyce which is separate of Boltzmann's constant? But this model only goes in to how mortality rates can be quantified with specific reasons of death. I'm curious to know why it is that while we continue to supply new energy, that we still die anyhow, no matter how we try. Yes, we have found ways of achieving longevity, but only for so long. The inevitable cell-death will afflict us all. Could not this law be attributed in entropic terms-- that all things tend toward disorder? And what exactly prevents this disorder while we are still maturing before adulthood? What biological systems determine these things? Would you be inclined to agree with Klyce that much confusion may be averted if we simply understood one another through the naming of a new law? No, I'm not asserting that evolution, or more broadly, biology, goes against any such law. I mean, how could anyone?

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Its not really argument either for or against anything. If anything, its just an exercise in brainstorming. I'm just trying to gather peoples opinions on the matter. There are no evolutionary ties in to this particular argument. At the least, as far as it relates to that, is that perhaps a lot of confusion could be ameliorated if we simply defined terms better. As far as it relates to biological function, the argument is designed to refute the poor argument that entropy only corresponds to closed systems. I believe there is a basis to discuss the little discussed notion that life does not organize itself without something necessitating the action.IOW, you can't just supply energy and, voila!, life, without something to first convert that energy in to something useful. Nor will the abundance of energy stop death. I think quaint terms don't tell the whole story. I think we need to distinguish terms of entropy. Sure, once you have ________. (insert arbitrary rule here). The problem is, how do you get there to begin with. Its a chicken/egg problem.I really wasn't intending for this inquiry to be a question of life's origins so much, but I'll play along for the time being. To quote Klyce quoting others:

In Evolution, Thermodynamics and Information, Jeffrey S. Wicken also adopts the terms "thermal" and "configurational." But here they both pertain only to the non-energetic "information content" of a thermodynamic state, and "energetic" information is also necessary for the complete description of a system. Shannon entropy is different from all of these, and not a useful concept to Wicken. Nevertheless, he says that evolution and the origin of life are not separate problems and, "The most parsimonious explanation is to assume that life always existed"
​
Roger Penrose's treatment of entropy is worth mentioning. In The Emperor's New Mind, he nimbly dodges the problem of assigning physical units to logical entropy:
​
In order to give the actual entropy values for these compartments we should have to worry a little about the question of the units that are chosen (metres, Joules, kilograms, degrees Kelvin, etc.). That would be out of place here, and in fact, for the utterly stupendous entropy values that I shall be giving shortly, it makes essentially no difference at all what units are in fact chosen. However, for definiteness (for the experts), let me say that I shall be taking natural units, as are provided by the rules of quantum mechanics, and for which Boltzmann's constant turns out to be unity: k = 1."

And yet we know for certain that it exists. Attach whatever coefficient seems fitting. The point is, it is as axiomatic as the 2LoT is. Very interesting. We see that they are not the same thing, yet, its almost that they need each other to make complete sense. In informational theory, what is the common metric in understanding lose information? Anyone know? Yes, which is why I'm astonished that no one really has. Claude Shannon certainly began going that route, but he never assigned any physical units. Ronald Fisher talked a bit about it, but he never defined it. Penrose and Fenyman briefly talked about it.I'm wondering why.

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Yes, of course it is. No one contends with that, least of all, me. I believe it does because of how axiomatic it is. At present, we simply don't have any way to quantify it. And that is a problem, no doubt. I'm wondering why after all of this time, this law of death has only been played around with by so few scholars. As well, I should probably add that "Logical entropy" is not my definition but someone else's. In fact, I think that kind of is a poor name for it. Life from non-life? Abiogenesis was debunked by Louis Pasteur over a century ago. There was an Italian scientist in the 1700's who was convinced that spontaneous generation after an ad libbed experiment with rotting meat. He reasoned that if he left meat, thoroughly checked beforehand for maggots, that eventually the meat would produce maggots. From this simple experiment he deduced that life came from non-life. Of course, what he didn't realize is that the putrid meat was attracting flies which layed their larvae in the meat. Eventually the larvae grew inside the meat and became full-blown maggots, which gave the appearance that the maggots sort of grew out of the meat.No one has ever demonstrated that life can ever come from non-life. Rocks, sir, are inorganic material, meaning its nonliving. There is no life from non-life in that. If you are now referring to order coming from disorder, I believe you are making a classical error. But, again, I echo the sentiments as before:

"In spite of the important distinction between the two meanings of entropy, the rule as stated above for thermodynamic entropy seems to apply nonetheless to the logical kind: entropy in a closed system can never decrease. And really, there would be nothing mysterious about this law either. It's similar to saying things never organize themselves. (The original meaning of organize is "to furnish with organs.") Only this rule has little to do with thermodynamics.
​
It is true that crystals and other regular configurations can be formed by unguided processes. And we are accustomed to saying that these configurations are "organized." But crystals have not been spontaneously "furnished with organs." The correct term for such regular configurations is "ordered." The recipe for a crystal is already present in the solution it grows from ” the crystal lattice is prescribed by the structure of the molecules that compose it. The formation of crystals is the straightforward result of chemical and physical laws that do not evolve and that are, compared to genetic programs, very simple."

-Brig Klyce You may be confusing 'equilibrium' with order coming from disorder, when in reality it is just disorder coming to a state of equilibrium. If entropy is associated with disorder, and entropy of the universe is headed towards maximum entropy, then how does the ordering process of evolution not directly contravene this law? This is the question asked by dissenters of evolution."I need scarcely say that the beginning and maintenance of life on earth is absolutely and infinitely beyond the range of all sound speculation in dynamical science. The only contribution of dynamics to theoretical biology is absolute negation of automatic commencement or automatic maintenance of life." -Lord Kelvin“Scientists have often been baffled by the existence of spontaneous order in the universe. The laws of thermodynamics seem to dictate the opposite, that nature should inexorably degenerate toward a state of greater disorder, greater entropy. Yet all around us we see magnificent structures”galaxies, cells, ecosystems, human beings”that have all somehow managed to assemble themselves.” -Steven Strogatz

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

quote:

---

Abiogenesis was debunked by Louis Pasteur over a century ago.

---

How is that a "creationist fallacy?" Its absolutely true, whether "creationists" assert it or not. Are you alleging that life comes from non-life, PaulK? If so, I would very much like to see some incontrovertible evidence. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typoEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

Then you would be essentially saying that another word for evolution is natural selection... That's not the case. Evolution is an extremely large topic theory within biology. But natural selection is not evolution, it is simply a part of a puzzle piece that makes up evolution. The law of death, then, can't be persuasively be described as evolution as a sort of catch-all blanket statement. If we were to assert that, then you might as well refer to gravity as evolution too, on the basis that gravity effects creatures subject to evolution, just as natural selection effects creatures subject to evolution.But more importantly, you are missing the greater part of the question. You are giving me reasons for why evolution can use death. It says nothing about why anything should die, and moreover, why nothing on earth can ever defeat death. The point is that all living materials are temporal. What makes this law?

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias