Thermodynamics and The Universe

Although I am still wrestling with how Gladsyhev's views may scale into populations I am somewhat appreciative of his reservations about dissipation.
I had posted this on EVC before:
http://EvC Forum: Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution -->EvC Forum: Thermodynamics, Abiogenesis and Evolution

quote:

---

In editorial paper published in a very authoritative journal ?Entropy ? the editor-in-chief Dr. Shu-Kun Lin has written [16]:
"?it is not surprise that an honest chemist (among any other educated chemists, biologist, etc.) will tell you that he has never found an application of this entropy theory in chemistry (or in biology, physics, engineering?)". Author bears in mind "the Prigogin?s dissipative structure theory". Dr. Shu-Kun Lin concludes: "I have a clear opinion regarding this entropy theory. Its main problem is that it does not conform with the Second law of thermodynamics". I personally fully agree with this point of view.
The apologists of the theory of the entropy production and of dissipative structures (which really exist in the system far from the equilibrium state) discuss sometimes the question about the production and accumulation of some ?low-entropy product ? in the evolutionizing biological systems. Some authors believe that the principle of the minimum entropy production (S?) at some circumstances may be equivalent to the principle of maximum production of this ?low-entropy product?. However, if to speak about the classical entropy ( S ) all above mentioned arguments must be rejected as deprived of the physical sense.

---

I had tried to read Prigogine's original papers after reading the more popular but I could not find the details I was looking for. I had reasons to think that dissipation was important because that weird idea I had had as a teenager about gravity waves affecting protein kinase phosphorlyation and protein shapes off ribosomes may have with Prigogine's dissipation a provided quanity of gravity able to change chemical kinematics. I found however that this ideas was replaced in my mental place for physiology by the possible scaling properties of the temporality of monohierarchies in macrothermodynamics for the continuum contemplated. This quote on EVC is a little "broken" so perhaps you may be interested in some of his own links.Dr. Gladyshev's site in Russia is:
I would suggest trying not to fall student to out-of-equilibria positions as long as possible, as you can be a better intellect for it! The other way only becomes "smater" if you FIRST reject all "Christianity" etc and this I doubt you would prefer. I see no other alternative.It is true that there may be suspicions otherwise

quote:

---

http://net.bio.net/bionet/mm/btk-mca/1997-July/001282.html

---

But in my own ideas on physiology in part developed by trying to think what Bohr would have thought I know that "this" is NOT already worked out.There "is" a logical contradiction if the argument is pursued in all its creation and evoltion aspects (there is a book on how do deal with creation and evolution and it simply states that the "energy converter" that YECs insist is missing from evos IS dealt with by the thought of Gladsyhev but the book insists that that is a non-issue, that no one is argueing about it. There ARE ways of thinking life and earth evolved together without this but... and THAT is why I had to change my physiological mind. There IS INDEED something there/here).Here is an excerpt from a paper Dr. Gladshev sent me a year back.

quote:

---

I. Progogine's [29-31], and other researchers' fallacies accounted for by neglecting (to some or another extent) Gibbs's works and underestimating the possibilities offered by thermodynamics. In some of my publications, I emphasized the substantial misunderstandings in this field [11, 20, 22, 23] that the founders of classical thermodynamics noted long ago [1, 2, 10-13].

---

I have uploaded the whole document at
http://aexion.org/product.aspxunder

quote:

---

SecondLaw(...)doc

---

I have also uploaded the most recent information that Georgi sent me before this past new year.
under

quote:

---

Brad(...)doc

---

which opens with

quote:

---

For decades, the opinion was widespread that natural open biological systems are far from an equilibrium state. It was also believed that far from equilibrium processes take place in these systems. Indeed, if this is true, then thermodynamics (i.e. thermostatics), or the thermodynamics of quasi-equilibrium systems and processes, cannot be applied.
However, recently, the law of temporal hierarchies was formulated. This law substantiates the possibility of identifying, or discerning, quasi-closed monohierarchical systems or subsystems within open polyhierarchical biological systems.

---

You can find information about the relation to QM in his work if you read far enough.Edited by Brad McFall, : 2nd to last quote

and then there was a second "if"...
WHY?

quote:

---

and if I were to assume that living organisms qualify as dissipative structures, then ...

---

It seems to me we can not have living organisms "qualifying" as 'dissipative structures before we have life quantified as the same. This of course is something different than living organisms possessing so-called dissipative structures whether one tends to scotch the snake with old Simpsons shows or not.It seems that this reason to consider Earth having a different entropy than Venus etc. IS due to life affected chemcial changes. Perhaps there is a planetary scientist out there who argues without respect to life. I am not just not familiar with such.If one is going to think that life is far from equilibria then I also dont see why one would not associate negative entropy with such superfludity in life and yet then it would be hard for my physiological sense to distinguish prima facie that it is the replication of bacteria LIFE that is generating the sense that "more" entropy is so produced (on and off Earth)than rocks weathering etc, especially if one accepts that celluar automatata following simple rules that are not-life can "replicate" in (the) sense (that say Dyson seperated replication and metabolism).If however one trys to think about linear extensions in one's understanding only first(and then) to the terminus of discussion, then, by not falling into the fad/modernism of non-linearity etc, one may be in a state to accept that even if parts of life may be dissipative that (particular)individual life never was and the difference between the entropy of Venus and Earth may be approached IF LIFE was found Venus or Mars but not otherwise (unless I am wrong and Wolfram is right). Part of the problem is the notion of "information entropy" and other kinds that Gladyshev discusses. I do not hold it against anyone for not taking the more proactive position on Gladyshev's work as I do as I still struggle to get the clearest possible intuition of the affect on populations. Javaman expressed this opinion to me on EVC before as well. All I know is that I can not be accused of NOT using "population" thinking as Ernst Mayr tried to do and say to me.Gladyshev did relate his own ideas to QM but this was IN PART via a meta commentary on Penrose and brain states with what I conceptualize in an earlier narrative as a weak discussion of cellular differentiation. He does provide pure physics work but this depends in this case we are discussing on one being able to relate simple notions of aggregation and dissociation to a complete track in ontogeny and phylogeny as a whole.I know I based my comments to you at "Christianity" largerly out of the "mirror" in my mind of you and not based on what is gleanable from your posts. I was really trying just to keep the domain of studies of non-linearity and non-equilibrium issues OUT of the better and better discussion. That was more a social comment.
You wrote earlier

quote:

---

But if I look at a genome or a population as a biological macrostate I can see how genes and their alleles might represent microstates that provide both vital variation and far-from-equilibrium boundaries. (To me, life seems more thermodynamical than quantum mechanical.)

---

The future of biology to me is one where this difference is bridged. I have after 40yrs just suffiently gained enough knowledge in biology to think of the clear difference of a "genome" or a "gene" or an organism or a population but I know of no one who has this knowledge (most of the biologists of our day) AND and ability to DO QM and Thermo.There is only ONE dynamics in evolution not a plurified"evolutionary dynamics".That is what the next 40 yrs of my life is for. I do not see this "synthesis" as one where "genes" or even the 1-D 'codes' o them are QM microstates WITHIN a level of organization of an accumulated "macro"state of species individuality of lower order at all. If THAT was to be my biophysical thought then I would find that Einstein's view of a fusion of all forces including LIFE was not criticizable as it has been by physicists since. I tend to think that there is much more going on here but it is hard for me to say just what today.I dont mean to be divisive here especially as the links I provided may be of help. I just wanted you to know what I thought(as an aside and indicating a direction to take this intrathread linkage elsewhere on EVC you might know that Gladyshev considers "social structures" as well as subject to his LAW and this rather than the reference to Christianity is where I would have expected the Beckett of Brad And Martin V to have headed in(to)).

Right,And at the same time that Pasteur would have thought of a “grand asymmetry” in life or biology Ernst Mayr decided that trying to think of “life” (or “death”) was not helpful for distinguishing biology as a discipline in German schools and yet Mayr continued to think decades later that I was NOT thinking with the most modern biologists, populationally.Yes, while I tend to think/ class creatures and plants and protos not as a 6th force in our kinematic slide into the future but as whole levels of organization when not organisms themselves, I am NOT an “organacist” which seems to be the only other way to have this whole individual and not narrate it under the term “life” When I personally think of life I actually refer most often simply to neoontology. I have no problem with abiogenesis if we had a more physical biology, which I noted in my previous post, I felt we did and do not. I for one can not do QM yet and yet unlike Roland Hoffmann who can and does write on beauty and science I do not think not being able to do this kind of applied maths prevents me from talking to him or anyone else about the individual teleology and possible designs man might have on the formations of creatures generally as he insisted. That is a social prejudice akin to those who START THINKING about levels of selection say FROM a non-equilibrium position to begin with.

quote:

---

BM wrote:
It seems to me we can not have living organisms "qualifying" as 'dissipative structures before we have life quantified as the same.

​

That assumes we know what life IS, which we don’t, not well enough to say that life itself is a dissipative structure.

---

I think what was hard in that sentence was simply the difference of whole organisms biology vs organcism biology. I could have written the words “living organisms” twice rather than apparently confusing you with the word “life”. Sorry, when I have a lot on my mind it is easier just to write as I think as it is hard for me to anticipate every different read of any different word.

quote:

---

BM

This of course is something different than living organisms possessing so-called dissipative structures whether one tends to scotch the snake with old Simpsons shows or not.

HMIs that a coded message to the Klingons?

---

In an end it might have been to “Klingons” or those who watched Sunday’s Simpsons where Homer sold “manure” etc or even those who still can read Kant’s “alien life” contemporaneously but actually it was only in the difference of oragancist
Organicism - WikipediaAnd not organicist thought. I wanted simply to make the obvious point that larger levels of selection (or organization) may be in a trajectory incompatible/incongruent/nonincident with the assigning of dissipation to PARTS within the whole (whole open vs closed Thermo issue etc). So even if I had wanted to take on your first “if” I need not take that positively for an affirmation of your second to third etc etc.As for the third extract of my last post I wanted to point to many complications that arise as soon as one attempts to remain fixed within a non-linear and non-equilibrium framework. Gladyshev’s work which does not go here nonethenevertheless requires one to think about enthalpy vs entropy IN THE SAME WHOLE and this is not so easy to do irregardless of the scale of the phenomenon. But if one DOES NOT heed his advice nor Sewall Wright’s to only WORK from the linear extensions of past work, then all kinds of seemingly neo-secularized thoughts are possible. I for one attempted to discuss cell death and negative entropy before on EVC. This opens up places when not spaces *almost* as if a priori. As a creature when not also a creation I know I am not such a tabla rasa.Now it seems that Wolfram has insisted that computational complexity and universality applies to LIFE no matter whether one is an organacist or not or even if one were a reductionist. But because we may find life on Mars or extend our theory of biological change and form-making through strict paternity from the past rather than by disjunct cells ruled from downward control only I find that a sense entropy where order and organization exists is far from making a simple observation. The appearance of ordinal quality IS what distinguishes Cantor and Russell. These will never give birth to any Klingon offspring nor view Kant in the same physical geometry. Wolfram would make a hybrid of them no matter what.Is not the automata “code” simply the ”cells’ and the ”rules’ used to control the changes in the next iteration? For me it does not mean if there is life or not life but if there is symmetry or asymmetry. We can take the discussion to the former but then we go where social deconstruction only is, today. Yes, I guess you were not meant to understand the last, but I did not expect my name and a response to appear in this thread. If we are going to discuss towards asymmetry vs life and entropy or enthalpy etc perhaps a less cosomological thread would be more appropo. Else, good day.Edited by Brad McFall, : BB clarity

I'm OK with leaving the objection in this narrative/documentary place.Here is where Gladyshev discusses

quote:

---

principle was applied by the author to various hierarchies as part of the theory of the evolution of life.

---

http://www.endeav.org/evolut/pcc/pcc.htm"in various hierarchies" but works principally (I think - and of course, you can assert I am not thinking correctly )and do think I have thought it for "all" hierarchies.The presentation of this will eventually make it ontohttp://www.aexion.org
or
http://www.axiompanbiog.com
(-one picture not scanned to be uploaded here in edit-
In the meantime there is a C/E disconnect (not relevant in this thread that the conversation with you bodily brought clear to my attention).nontheless=

quote:

---

The principle of the stability of a chemical substance is a set of qualititaive regularities

---

nevertheless=

quote:

---

It is in agreement with the principle of structural stabilization.

---

This is where" asymmetry is symmetrical"
Click for full size image
Click for full size imageAll quotes from the first link above.

But... at this 'compelling' point (motion to reproduce different in plants without mitochondria and aminals(as a kid I heard pronounce it) with) no matter the metabolism...,in other words your reference to DNA and "information" entropy may be heterogeneous in a homogenous thought of "sexual selection" without regard to the phyla.Phylogeography of mitochondrial DNA seems to divide Diamondback Terrapins and Horseshoe crab geography the same way but how would this be related to MANGROVE diversity say? Is that a matter of information"" or "thermodynamics?"You insist on organisms BEING far from equilibriums, but what parts of what organisms are how far and by what measure or metric?As for the comparison to phase transition diagrams, at least for me, all I need recall is that Will Provine in his book on Sewall Wright, contextually where Will was trying to conceptualize Wright's use of either gene combinations per individual or gene frequencies in a population, was Will resting his case by a simple comparison to these non-living "diagrams" and yet it was done AFTER a discussion of the supposed non-adaptive characters that are nonetheless thought heritable.Here is the macro/micro boundary problem made more obvious.The only thought I have ever had that can retain the phase diagram and remain IN LIFE is if catastrophe theory was applied to the same CONTINUUM. I have not seen this done and instead you are pushing"" for the discrete effects while where your point comes out instead in my reading is towards "more philosophy" of reductionism, like Weiner’s cybernetic justification and the idea that bodies are machines rather than a detail of the forces (gravity, e-m, weak, strong) responsible for the chemical bond high energy metabolically operated on and specifically simple claims of replication vs. metabolism or as Dr. Gladyshev had it, "synergistically" (sic!).I do not need Prigogine's "theory" to have it appear that Shrodinger meant something with his term "aperiodic" crystal. My Grandftather's PhD Thesis (before DNA)while attempting to differentiate the effects of homo, hetero and wild zygous types flies developing different morphologies under different temperature regimes included speculations about how Arrhenius's work
http://www.shodor.org/UNChem/advanced/kin/arrhenius.html
may be part of the organization of inheritance. This was not "analog" nor based on "information theory".

quote:

---

Phylogenetic Systematics

---

Do we really know that this "barrier"(dark triangle) diagrammed by Hennig (no matter whether it was conceptualized from Croizat first or not) that may be Earth or Mars in your content implies a non-equilibrium thought (is sexual dimorphism vs. polymorphism an ordinal or a cardinal thought??)).Edited by Brad McFall, : deleted one character-spelling

If you don't care to, dont respond. Others do that!! (then it would be on me, or at least I might get such an impression if I was not confident in what I said... obviously this one is not, nor is it "on" ...)...The whole post GIVEN YOUR POINT was to have demonstrated that there was a confusion of heterogenity and homogenity going on precisely where you attempt to discuss a difference between planet-rock and our rocky planet.