Thermodynamics and The Universe

Brad, you’re a hard read. I get the sense of a lateral attitude. That assumes we know what life IS, which we don’t, not well enough to say that life itself is a dissipative structure. Is that a coded message to the Klingons? If I understand this correctly, which I doubt, you are saying that negative entropy associates with life’s emergent property of self-organization. Well, maybe or maybe not. Many have built models to that effect. But nothing biologists and chemists have down yet provide the complete answer to the question, What is life? Otherwise, they would know all about abiogensis and be busy in their labs making life from scratch. Negative entropy doesn’t get you very far toward that goal.Besides, cellular-automata systems, like the Game of Life, lack one important feature that is crucial to biological life”coded inheritance. (Richard Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker model is an interesting exception.) Am I suppose to understand this? Klingons again?”HM

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 think I’ll leave you there, Brad, irregardless of the nonethenevertheless meaning of the enthalpy in your entropy where your asymmetry is symmetrical in all places without spaces. Good luck with your writing career, and give my best to the Klingons and Homer Simpson.”HM

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.

Hi Hoot Mon. Admin has granted me permission to participate in a science thread or two, so I'd like to address this. A lb of manure has lots of live highly complex organisms in it which work to energize plants which inturn energizes creatures, so forth. This all involves energetic organisms working to fuel the ecology of planet earth.With the rocks there's no work being done to lessen the net entropy on places like Mars et al. On earth the lb of manure takes on sun energy which energizes the organisms in it to in turn energize the soil so as for the energy to make the plants grow. With the rocks on Mars, well they just take on sun heat but no work is accomplished in the process to lower the entropy of Mars. I'd say that if tomorrow AM scientists somehow discovered living creatures producing manure and energizing plants that this would be evidence of a decrease of entropy on Mars. What say you to that?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

the heck are you talking about, buz? this makes practically no sense. the energy flow, biologically, is not
sun -> microscopic organisms -> soil -> plantsrather, it is
sun -> photosynthetic organisms (such as plants and algae) -> non-photosynthetic organisms (this is a generalization, not including chemosynthetic organisms that do not rely on the sun for energy)in layman's terms, you could say sun powers plants power animals (though this is a horrendous simplification). also, the soil is useless for plants with the exception of storing the minerals and whatnot that plants require--certainly you've heard of hydroponics (growing plants in water alone).

The question is which would be more indicative of entropy loss, a lb of manura full of living organisms or a lb of rock. What say you?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

what do you define entropy as?because I define it as an increase in disorder, as measured by a release of heat. living things increase the order within them, at the expense of what's around them.I'm not a physicist, so I wouldn't know how to determine if the decrease in entropy within the living counteracts the increase in entropy. I seem to remember that in an open system, entropy tends to equilibrium, and the earth's ecosystem is an open system.

Would manure heated up by the sun in sunny Ca so as to feed the soil (abe: in which plants grow,) more quicky be energized on a warm day than manure frozen in ice in Siberia? I'm asking. Teach me if you will. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

My understanding is that the entropy may decease by application of work. I'm thinking of the work that probiotic organisms in the manure do to feed/fertilize/energize the soil in which plants grow. Perhaps someone can tell me if that is correct.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

From that it would appear to me that a lb of manure would tend to have a measurement of entropy loss greater than a lb of rock even in an open system such as planets.In a closed system such as the universe entropy would be the measure of disorder or randomness and to trend toward equilibrium according to one source. As for things like manure and rocks I believe heat and other factors determine the measurement of entropy.That's about all I'm capable of understanding about it.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Entropy as a measure of disorder is a clear concept, but mapping it onto actual physical processes can often be counterintuitive. One way to think about entropy that more often, though not always, yields more accurate conclusions is to think of all the possible states for something to be in, and then judge how likely the current state is. If it isn't that likely compared to the rest, the entropy is low.One of the counterintuitive things about entropy is that though we know it is primarily the energy from the sun that drives biological activity on earth and counters the general tendency toward disorder, this is only because biological organisms store energy in chemical bonds, e.g., though the photosynthetic process. But if you merely heat something, say a non-reactive gas in an enclosed container, then the entropy (of only the gas, not necessarily the system that includes whatever is heating the gas) will increase as the more and more energetic molecules become less and less ordered. In this case we're adding energy to a system in the form of heat and causing it to become more disordered, have higher entropy.An example of cooling (radiating heat to the environment) causing decreased entropy is water turning to ice. The crystalline ice is far more organized and orderly than liquid water.This complex and counterintuitive behavior of entropy is why it is so risky to make explicit statements about the changing entropy of complex objects, such as a pile of manure. There is likely little photosynthesis going on in manure, I think that most of the biological activity in manure would be non-photosynthetic microorganisms, so the heat they give off is radiated into the environment and quite possibly is sufficient to increase the entropy of the manure. But we can't be certain of that without knowing how much of that heat is captured in chemical bonds within the manure, perhaps as trapped methane (I'm speculating, of course). The amount of energy stored in chemical bonds in manure cannot be insignificant, because if memory serves me correctly cow manure can be burned as fuel.Thus I think that any claims about knowing the relative change in entropy of a pile of manure relative to a pile of rocks are specious, at least given the information that has been presented here so far. To answer the question we'd have to know a heck of a lot more about manure, and even then we might not be able to generate a definite answer.--Percy

Relative to rocks, which is the question Hoot Mon raises, would you say manure is is indicative of more or less entropy than rocks? Or can one make that determination?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

It's sufficiently complicated that most people wouldn't be able to say for sure. My guess is that most people with a detailed understanding of thermodynamics would just throw up their hands in resignation at the impossibility of solving such a problem, but on the other hand their may be dominating factors at work. But I think that to give an informed answer you would have to learn a heck of a lot about manure. And if a simple cowpat is that difficult, you can imagine the difficulty for entire planets.--Percy

One distinction between manure and rocks is the presence or absence of a genetic code, which brings into consideration a digital reality that communicates with the material analogs, and thus adds another source of entropy. There is no doubt that the expressions of genes, manifesting in phenotypes, produce much more entropy than equivalent weights of minerals bound up in rocks.Perhaps one way to detect extraterrestrial life is to somehow measure the entropy production from the surface of a candidate planet and compare it with a relevant stardard of entropy production of a mineral-only planet (and I don't have a clue as to how to measure entropy production at a distance.)”HM