quote:
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.
Entropy does not only refer to closed systems. However the idea that LOCAL entropy must increase refers only to closed systems (IIRC technically "isolated" is more accurate than closed). So the argument you refer to - when your misunderstandings are removed is a correct reply to assertions that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. There is no equivalent law for information theory, so such arguments do not apply - because there is nothing for them to refute.
The second sentence of the quoted paragraph seems to have nothing to do with the first. Nor is it sufficiently well-defined to deserve much comment.
Your answers to the other points raised are also poor
1. No one ever produces a metric for determining how much of this kind of entropy a particular entity has.
Your answer to these does not address the question. The quote from Penrose shows that Penrose DOES have a metric and even shows that the entropy he is measuring is not Klyces "logical entropy". He just doesn't bother putting any detail into the units of measurement. The relevance of Klyces references to Wicken are also in question - and on doing a little reasearch I would say that I cannot trust Klyces representation of Wicken.
Wicken's book is apparently "approaches evolution as an expression of physical laws and thermodynamic theory". It "explains how genetic information is organized, how it evolves..." That doesn't sound as if it offers any hope for your views or even Klyce's.
Further investigation uncovers the fact that Wicken argues that the 2LoT will cause abiogenesis to occur. I suppose it's not surprising that Klyce tries to mislead on that point. See p4-5 of the thesis available here (pdf)
2. Because of the lack of ability to measure logical entropy, all claims about so-called "laws" that drive the conservation or tendency of the quantity of this entropy are completely and utterly baseless.
quote:
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.
We don't know for certain that it exists - I am all but certain that Klyce's "logical entropy" does NOT exist.
The 2LoT is NOT axiomatic.
And we can't attach units to a number that we DON'T HAVE. Shannon entropy has a metric, but no units. Penrose simply used the "natural" units rather than worrying about conversion into more commonly used standards. They had metrics. You can have a metric without units - but you can't apply units without a metric.
™ Version 4.2