gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant) (06/12/85)
Just for a change of pace, I thought that I might raise a question that is
important to the investigation and practice of science and see how the
creationists and evolutionists respond. This is the issue of what constitutes
a fundamental assumption or phenomena of nature that does not require any
further explanation. Often it is the hidden assumptions that thwart effective
scientific investigations. One specific phenomena that seems to be a good
candidate for treatment is randomness (entropy). I was reminded of this topic
by a recent speaker at my church who expressed the sentiment that God Makes
Coincidences (GMC), implying that randomness is merely a statement of our
ignorance of details and purposes.
Prior to Galileo's time, for those who were interested in thinking about
it, circular motion was seen as natural and perfect. It required no further
explanation. All planetary motion was constructed of circles because this was
natural motion. Straight line motion was deemed imperfect and thus deserving
of further explanation (or excuses).
One of the cultural elements that I. Newton sought to overthrow was the
view that circular motion is natural (someone asked once what framework did
Newton have to struggle against; circles in celestial motion is one paradigm
that he had to fight to overthrow). Newton claimed that straight line motion
was natural, and that objects moved in circles or ellipses in response to
other effects. The force of gravitation was then introduced to explain the
alteration of straight line motion into elliptical orbits for planetary
bodies.
Thanks in part to the success of Newton's formulation for the motion of
objects (and the expanding industry of clockmaking), the seventeenth and
eighteen centuries (the age of F. Bacon) held a world view that, as Newton's
Laws provided precise descriptions of nature, all behavior is capable of
similar precise and exact description. This view considers all behavior to be
describable from a set of laws and an adequate knowledge of the past. A
metaphysical analogue of classical physics could be discovered to exactly
predict anything. Note that this is a cultural extension of physics, that it
does not reflect any established scientific principle, and that it persisted
well through the nineteenth century.
Theists added that while we mere mortals may not acquire sufficient
knowledge for this task, certainly God possesses this knowledge. All objects
and phenomena are but parts of a grand clock that points to the clockmaker (an
attitude quite prevalent even before the Industrial Revolution). Randomness
is our expression that in many interactions all of the predecessors or laws
are not known to us.
To the small contemporary group that studies the consequences of the second
law of thermodynamics, randomness is a essential property. It has structure
and limits that can be characterized and explained. The known laws of physics
are adequate for point interactions but fail for many-body interactions.
Randomness is an observed property of nature that refutes the argument of an
universe made by design. The uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics is a
manifestation of limited randomness.
The question at hand concerns the nature of randomness. Do creationists
hold that randomness is a failure of science, that design exists behind the
apparent randomness? Do evolutionists see a need for randomness as a
fundamental property of nature? Does randomness have structure or limits?
Does randomness require further explanation? Is the presence of randomness an
argument for or against natural evolution?
Any comment?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of what Karl Marx said cannot be tested.
That which can be tested is wrong.
Patrick Wyant
AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
*!iham1!gjphwjho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (06/13/85)
> Just for a change of pace, I thought that I might raise a question that is > important to the investigation and practice of science and see how the > creationists and evolutionists respond. This is the issue of what constitutes > a fundamental assumption or phenomena of nature that does not require any > further explanation. Often it is the hidden assumptions that thwart effective > scientific investigations. One specific phenomena that seems to be a good > candidate for treatment is randomness (entropy). I was reminded of this topic > by a recent speaker at my church who expressed the sentiment that God Makes > Coincidences (GMC), implying that randomness is merely a statement of our > ignorance of details and purposes. The classical definition of entropy is not based on randomness, but on experimental observation. Statistical mecanics/thermodynamics provides an interpretation of entropy in terms of disorder. There is no mystery behihd this disorder as some religionists/creationists try to to tell the uninformend. In statistical thermodynamics, we identify the entropy S in term of the number of the possible states W of a system. S = k ln (W) A simple example, taken from Denbigh's "The principles of Chemical Equilibrium", illustrates this concept. Let us consider a simple model of two crystals, each containing four molecules. The one crystal contains molecules of type A, whereas the other contains molecules of type B. The two crystal are separated by a barrier: A A | B B | A A | B B Since the crystals are isolated the number of states is 1. Therefore, the statistical entropy is k ln(1) = 0 . (Intechanging the possitions of the molecules within a crystal does not change the number of states, since the molecules within a crystal are identical.) If we lift the barrier then the molecules can mix. The number of states W is in this case is 8!/(4!*4!) = 70 due to the interchangability of the possitions of the A and the B molecules. The entropy would be = k ln (70), and the increase in entropy is k ln (70). The assumption that we made is that each configuration has an equal probability. Each of the disordered configurations has the same probability as the ordered one. Naturally, we have more disordered configurations. -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T-IS Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (06/13/85)
> To the small contemporary group that studies the consequences of the second > law of thermodynamics, randomness is a essential property. It has structure > and limits that can be characterized and explained. The known laws of physics > are adequate for point interactions but fail for many-body interactions.... What are you talking about? Up until the last sentence, it just looked like harmless blathering, but the last sentence seems like it could come only from someone with serious misconceptions about how physics works. Yes, in your Physics 101 homework, you always end up working with point masses, point charges, etc., but that's not because the laws of physics don't work for many bodies. It's just to make the problems easier for you to do. Maybe you were referring to the unsolved n-body problem, but that too refers only to the difficulty of solving the equations for the motions of n bodies in their mutual gravitational fields, *not* to a failure of the laws of physics. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Most of what Karl Marx said cannot be tested. > That which can be tested is wrong. > > Patrick Wyant That which can be tested is wrong??? So why bother testing anything? I mean, if you can test it, it must be wrong, right? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "It's a hard rain a-gonna fall." - Dylan
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (06/17/85)
> > Most of what Karl Marx said cannot be tested. > > That which can be tested is wrong. > > > > Patrick Wyant > > That which can be tested is wrong??? So why bother testing anything? > I mean, if you can test it, it must be wrong, right? That which can be tested has been found to be wrong. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (06/24/85)
>> > Most of what Karl Marx said cannot be tested. >> > That which can be tested is wrong. >> > >> > Patrick Wyant >> >> That which can be tested is wrong??? So why bother testing anything? >> I mean, if you can test it, it must be wrong, right? > >That which can be tested has been found to be wrong. >-- > | >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- This exchange is silly even by the standards of net.origins. The less Americans know about the thought of Marx, the more certain they are we have nothing to learn from Marx. If you want to attack Marxism, please do it in net.politics.theory, where the subject receives regular airing. Richard Carnes
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (06/25/85)
> >> > Most of what Karl Marx said cannot be tested. > >> > That which can be tested is wrong. > >> > > >> > Patrick Wyant > >> > >> That which can be tested is wrong??? So why bother testing anything? > >> I mean, if you can test it, it must be wrong, right? > >> Jeff Sonntag > > > >That which can be tested has been found to be wrong. > >-- > >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- > > This exchange is silly even by the standards of net.origins. The > less Americans know about the thought of Marx, the more certain they > are we have nothing to learn from Marx. If you want to attack > Marxism, please do it in net.politics.theory, where the subject > receives regular airing. > > Richard Carnes Nobody here is attacking Marxism, Richard. If you're so anxious to defend it, why don't you go back to net.politics.theory where you're much more likely to find someone interested in attacking it. And Paul - just what *is* your point? Do you even have one? Or do you just enjoy inserting ambiguity into scientific discussions? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "I went down to the Scrub and Rub, but I had to sit in the back of the tub." - Dylan
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (06/27/85)
>>> Most of what Karl Marx said cannot be tested. >>> That which can be tested is wrong. >>> >>> Patrick Wyant >>> [Jeff Sonntag] >>> That which can be tested is wrong??? So why bother testing anything? >>> I mean, if you can test it, it must be wrong, right? >>[Paul DuBois] >>That which can be tested has been found to be wrong. >> [Richard Carnes] >> This exchange is silly even by the standards of net.origins. The >> less Americans know about the thought of Marx, the more certain they >> are we have nothing to learn from Marx. If you want to attack >> Marxism, please do it in net.politics.theory, where the subject >> receives regular airing. > [Jeff Sonntag] > Nobody here is attacking Marxism, Richard. Quite right. I was just commenting on the meaning of Patrick's statement. > If you're so anxious to > defend it, why don't you go back to net.politics.theory where you're much > more likely to find someone interested in attacking it. > And Paul - just what *is* your point? Do you even have one? Or do you > just enjoy inserting ambiguity into scientific discussions? Patrick said: >>> Most of what Karl Marx said cannot be tested. >>> That which can be tested is wrong. My point was simply to clarify what Patrick said: most of Marxism is not testable. Some of it *is* testable, has been put to the test, and, having been put to the test, has been found to be incorrect. This has nothing to do with what I believe personally. You can ask him if that's what he meant, if you think this is incorrect. I do not think my statement was ambiguous. I do not even think Patrick's statement was unclear. I think you are being either deliberately contentious, or are trying to willfully misunderstand what was said. Perhaps you are not, but that's what it looks like to me. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Photoplankton" |