[net.origins] in Order to Order the Order

dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/06/85)

This article is being posted for Ray Miller

/* Written  2:35 am  May  3, 1985 by miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA in uiucdcsb:net.origins */
/* ---------- "in Order to Order the Order" ---------- */
On the subject of thermodynamics, Yosi Hoshen writes:

> Try an experiment:  take some
> water and freeze it in your refrigirator.  That water entropy
> will decrease (ice is more ordered than liquid water).  However,
> the enropy of its surrounding will increase!

Um, not quite right for what you want to demonstrate.  The problems arises from
the multiple definitions of the word "order".  Most of us (myself included in
SOR pamphlet #2) are quite sloppy with our terms in this instance.  Order can
mean "geometric regularity" (which in informational thermodynamics is *worse*
for the evolutionist since it carries no information content) or it can mean
"functional capability".  Complexity, not symmetry, is required.  Evolutionists
still have not demonstrated how, theoretically, codes capable of carrying
information (such as the DNA program) can arise spontaneously.  Indeed, every-
thing we know indicates that they will degenerate, not improve, with time and
mutations to the code sequences.  I close with a quote from the evolutionist
Hubert Yockey, in "A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis
by Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 67, Aug. 1977,
p. 380:
"Attempts to relate the idea  of `order'  in  a  crystal with biological
organization or specificity must be regarded as a play on words which cannot
stand  careful  scrutiny.  Informational macromolecules  can code genetic
messages and therefore can carry information."

A. Ray Miller
Univ Illinois
/* End of text from uiucdcsb:net.origins */

-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois     {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
"The presence of weeds in the garden is not explained by            |
  saying that the gardener has not pulled them yet."

hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (05/07/85)

______________________________________________________________________

A. Ray Miller,

You wrote a nice little article on the meaning of the word "order".
In it you said that Yosi Hoshen might have made errors in the usage
of the word, since it, as you demonstrated, has multiple meanings.

Unfortunately, the word, taken in the context of the original reply
by Yoshi, has no poor usage in anyway.  He was simply demonstrating
that entropy can decrease locally, while other regions increase to
at least balance the decrease, if not exceed it.  You can actually
compute this entropy decrease.  (Please refer to any book on thermo-
dynamics.)

Yoshi's example is quite valid for his point.
______________________________________________________________________

Live long and prosper.
Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }

rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (05/07/85)

>> Try an experiment:  take some
>> water and freeze it in your refrigirator.  That water entropy
>> will decrease (ice is more ordered than liquid water).  However,
>> the enropy of its surrounding will increase!

> Complexity, not symmetry, is required.

@#*%$%#& !!!!

Then why do you keep shouting about the second law of thermodynamics?
So far as I know, the laws of thermoddynamics say NOTHING about
complexity.

> The problems arises from the multiple definitions of the word "order".
> Most of us (myself included in SOR pamphlet #2) are quite sloppy with
> our terms in this instance.

But thermodynamics is NOT slopy in it's definition.  You seem to be
trying to EXPLOIT the multiple definitions people use.  If you call
complexity order does the second law of thermodynamics make it
imposible for complexity to increase?  Word games!  If you call leaves
money do leaves not grow on trees?

For examples and analysis of how order (complexity) can arise spontainiously
in simple systems written by someone who knows what he is talking about
try

H.  Haken, _Synergetics An Introduction Nonequilibrium Phase
Transitions and Self Organisation in Physics, Chemistry and Biology_,
Springer-Verlag, 1983.

Mostly phisics, tough going I'm afraid.

				Ralph Hartley

js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (05/08/85)

> On the subject of thermodynamics, Yosi Hoshen writes:
> 
> > Try an experiment:  take some
> > water and freeze it in your refrigirator.  That water entropy
> > will decrease (ice is more ordered than liquid water).  However,
> > the enropy of its surrounding will increase!
> 
>Um, not quite right for what you want to demonstrate.  The problems arises from
> the multiple definitions of the word "order".  Most of us (myself included in
> SOR pamphlet #2) are quite sloppy with our terms in this instance.  

> "Attempts to relate the idea  of `order'  in  a  crystal with biological
> organization or specificity must be regarded as a play on words which cannot
> stand  careful  scrutiny.  Informational macromolecules  can code genetic
> messages and therefore can carry information."
> 
> A. Ray Miller

    All of these problems arise from trying to apply vague natural language
interpretations of the second law of thermodynamics to processes which have
little to do with thermodynamics.  Saying that the second law of thermodynamics
requires that the order in a system decreases, and that evolution would 
require an increase in order sounds somewhat logical.  However, it is exactly
similar to saying that Newton's law of gravity says that things fall, thus
explaining the fall of the Roman empire.
    Increasing entropy is NOT decreasing order.  The change in entropy for
a system is defined as:
         final state
    integral    |   (1/T)  dQ
         initial state                   where T is temperature and Q is heat.

    In other words, people, the second law of thermodynamics, as the name
implies, has to do with *thermodynamics*, and cannot be meaningfully applied
to any other field.
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
    "A plot to takeover CBS was pushed today by some narrow-minded, manip-
ulative, right-wing, flaky conservatives who think their weirdo views aren't
being handled fairly by our more liberal and intelligent news staff!"

brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (05/13/85)

Paul DuBois (posting for Ray Miller) writes:
>
>...Evolutionists
>still have not demonstrated how, theoretically, codes capable of carrying
>information (such as the DNA program) can arise spontaneously.  Indeed, every-
>thing we know indicates that they will degenerate, not improve, with time and
>mutations to the code sequences....

    There is the Miller experiment, which attempted to recreated the
young Earth environment, ran an energy source through it (a spark gap), and
ended up with amino acids, some fairly long, in only two weeks.
    It was rather bizarre listening to Duane Gish (of creationist fame) explain
this away during a lecture of his, especially since:
1) he said evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics (zzzz...)
2) he "amended" the second law of thermodynamics to allow an increase in com-
plexity (decrease in local entropy) by adding totally arbitrary "amendments":
    a) needs outside energy source [HINT: this is the only one needed]
    b) this energy needs to be useable, not destructive
    c) needs something that can "use" it (i.e. plants for sunlight)
    d) someotherconditionIcan'tremember
3) after this, he talked about the Miller experiment, COMPLETELY IGNORING
how it produced "order from disorder" without using any of his kludgy
"amendments" to the 2nd law (except for the neccessary one, that of an
outside energy source).

    Now, when a prominent creationist can't even present a prepared
lecture without contradicting himself...

Merlyn Leroy
"Creationism is false, THEREFORE evolution is true!"  :-)