so does this mean the sole purpose of human existence is to waist energy? hahaha that actually makes too much sense. guess god is neither subtle nor malicious, turns out the bastard is ironic! ...fuck you captain planet!!
This film suggest that abiogenesis is the universes's way of carrying out entropy. All the life that ever was is such a very small amount of terrestrial material. What materials are we changing from and what to? The last post was right. No good answer. Order=Order maker. God did it. Yes :-)
« This film suggest that abiogenesis is the universes's way of carrying out entropy »
No, that would be teleological thinking. What I *do* suggest is that abiogenesis might be an inevitable result of the tendency of entropy to increase to a maximum.
the second law of thermodynamics explains a phenomena that occurs in a particular manner as a result of the entropic effect. The conclusion of this video discards that explanation and replaces it with a completely inversed explanation
In effect, that since by definition, the word "evolution" entails a generative, constructive process & "entropy" entails a degenerative, deconstructive process, is why the narrator inversed entropy's explanation. Thereby, making entropy consistent with evolution
@Chuichupachichi Evolution entails life evolving, philosophically this is generative. Physically, it's nothing more than shit getting mixed up and eventually causing consciousness. No new energy is created, no new matter is created. However, if you wanted to site yourself as an argument against organisms actually evolving past the moron state, I would have to concede that you are right.
{Physically its nothing more than shit getting mixed up & eventually causing consciousness}
Thats the problem with you evolutionists...you actually believed all that BS about atheism automatically making you intelligent. Thats why you guys make statements like yours above in parenthesis. Your mind having been convinced that atheism equals intelligent & Creationist equals stupid, is what blinded you from recognizing that "eventually causing consciousness" is a generative process
I never claimed that any new energy was created. Nor is it necessary for new energy to be created in order for my argument to be valid. You made that statement because you're confused. I referred to the second principle of the law of thermodynamics. You're referring to the first principle
{no new matter is created}
Neither did I claim that new matter was created. However, you stated that no new matter is created, despite the fact that evolutionists claim the contrary
That was precisely the crux of the matter within the question posed to Richard Dawkins when he got stumped. Whether or not he can explain a evolutionary process that adds new information to the genome. Within Biology, information exists in the form of DNA matter. As one would expect from a true evolutionary intellectual, Dawkins replied by stating that "fish are just as modern as are we"??? He can't even correctly tell the fictional story, of which, is the field of his expertise
Its not a matter of belief. Its undeniable that DNA contains information. Every physical trait amongst the total that comprise a biological organism, is specific & is determined by the encoding within the DNA... that is "information". We know that offspring will inherit particular traits from their parents. Its not simply by chance that the offspring will have the same blue eyes as his father or the same curly, brown hair as his mother. There must exist something thats passed
from the parents to the offspring which dictates that specifically the blue eyes & specifically curly brown hair are possessed by the offspring. That something is necessarily "information". Otherwise all of the traits possessed by all biological offspring that are the same as traits possessed by their parents, would be caused by pure chance. The mathematical probabilities would be beyond any realistic, serious consideration
I've previously encountered this argument from Evolutionists & they merely amounted to a matter of semantics. They simply referred to "information" by a different name. Thus, beguiling themselves into believing it isn't "information"
@Chuichupachichi So what is it? It's my understanding that chemicals don't contain anything called "information" or akin to it. They contain complex shapes and structures. If you consider that information then that means that even carbon, helium, lithium, and every other element contains information, which means humans are in fact, no different than the stardust we're made of.
ha ha, you're too funny. You set it up with your question in your last reply. Its completely obvious that its your supposed "Creationist Killer" question that you greatly value as being invincible. Perhaps, its worked for you on many prior occasions? The funny part is that although I provided an answer that is accurate & valid, you still continued with your premeditated ambush & completely dismissed my scientifically accurate information as if it were not even existent
If you cant understand what I wrote within my last post, which if you did you wouldn't have presented your most recent reply, then its because you choose to not understand. I even somewhat foretold what would be your actions in that your entire argument would "merely amount to a matter of semantics"
I gave explanation & these were your words; "if you consider that information". It must necessarily be something that can cause for a son to be the spitting image of his father. What do you call it?
Your statement about humans being made of stardust reminds me... we are indeed, comprised of precisely the same atoms which also comprise rocks. Considering your Materialist Naturalistic view, how do you account for rocks not possessing a consciousness, while we do?
Its at the level of molecules that a comparison between humans & rocks would be incorrect. However, all matter within the universe is composed of atoms & all atoms are composed of a nucleus & electrons. Including the atoms that compose, both, humans & rocks
Remember, when biological organisms, including humans, die, we decompose & ultimately disintegrate to the level of Earthly elements that comprise the planet's general surface soil, which is the same general material from which rocks are composed. Thus, you can laugh your ass off to whatever extent you wish, but you most likely have no idea of how foolish you appear
@Chuichupachichi Lol soil is NOT the same thing as rock. Soil is a mixture of sediment and humus (degraded organic material). Take a sedimentology class and you'll learn more than you probably ever wanted about soil and how it is NOT rock.
@jpo2311 Actually we are all made of the same atoms all things are made of atoms, maybe you could elaborate what you mean by we are NOT made up of precisely the same atoms, what in your view is the difference between atoms in humans and atoms in rocks?
@allthingsarelikethis Yes, all things are made of atoms but not the same ones (periodic table). Humans are carbon based, meaning we are primarily made of carbon atoms. Rocks on the other hand are most frequently silicon and oxygen based. Take an organic chemistry class and a mineralogy class and you will quickly understand the differences between rocks and a living organisms. Chemically anyway.
@jpo2311 The periodic table is the 118 known CHEMICAL ELEMENTS that are organized by selected properties of their own atomic structures. The atoms that make them up are the same atoms it is the chemical elements and how they get organized that is different, atleast that is how I always understood it.
@allthingsarelikethis Yes, and the chemical elements are different atoms (ie hydrogen atom, oxygen atom). They are organized by number, atomic number is the number of protons the atom has in its nucleus; their valence, the number of electrons in the atoms outermost shell; and the valence shell types, s, p, d, ect. Other trends than be seen across the table, such as electronegativity and atomic radius, but these characteristics are a function of the properties I listed above.
@jpo2311 (continued) For example, oxygen has 4 electrons in its valence shell but wants 6, since gaining 2 electrons is easier than loosing 4 it will bond to other atoms that are trying to give up electrons such as calcium. There is a lot more to it, such as hybridization, but that's the basic gist. Different elements = different atoms.
@jpo2311 Dude that is interesting, I will have to check into this some more, if what you are saying is true "which it sounds like you know what you are talking about" then I have not understood this at all. :P Thanks for the comments!
But therein lays the revelation of precisely the reason why theory of evolution is invalidated by entropy. They are by very definition, two processes diametrically opposed to each other. Analogically speaking, one heads West & the other heads East
The monstrous problem for evolution is that with entropy, it runs head on with the most repeatedly validated natural law known to science
One will sooner jump from a skyscraper & not hit the ground, than will entropy cease to effect the universe
This video first diverts from science with the assertion of that "gravity causes stars to be born". But such a process would necessarily begin from no amount of matter & proceed to the stage of the first units of matter uniting to form a structure. However, what would cause the gravity to begin this process? Such a thing is purely speculative & entails a generative process.
But entropy is the reason why the birth of stars have never been observed or validated. The fact is, that "life" is indeed, special as it is the only thing known to science to possess the ability to overcome the entropic effect... albeit only temporarily before succumbing to entropy's inevitability. Flora constructively work energy with the mechanism of photosynthesis & the information within DNA dictates the organism's form, which in turn, dictates the mechanism's function
Fauna works energy with metabolism & DNA information causes the same function as within Flora. Thus, if Abiogenesis were to be plausible, necessary would be the existence of information molecules, independent of life & at least one of the energy working mechanisms... photosynthesis or metabolism, also existing independent of life. Science knows of no other process by which the degree of entropy can be decreased sufficiently to enable generation & an increase in the degree of order
The necessary components simply don't exist independent of life.
Evo was a dream derived from man's desire for autonomy. However, autonomy can be achieved only by submission to the Creator. Otherwise, man's natural power is easily superseded by the deceiver's supernatural power. Then, subscriptions to falsehoods will always hold the mind bound to the entrapment of the falsehood's dead-end avenues & man's potential is suppressed
@XGralgrathor "The simplest example is convection cells"
But a convection cell is a phenomenon that occurs inside a system, I am asking about the system itself, a system with the properties to maintain itself spontaneously appearing, as you said:
"2. Self-maintaining, ordered systems will appear spontaneously wherever there is sufficient potential."
Convection cells are not self-maintaining, ordered systems.
« What about two rocks colliding in outer space? »
Part of a system that comprises at least two rocks, the metric of space, whatever forces act upon them, and whatever events project those forces. Naturally.
@XGralgrathor "Part of a system that comprises at least two rocks"
The rocks are not inside a system.
Consider this: A volcano explodes and a rock is sent to outer space escaping the solar system, the same happens in another planetary system, the rocks are no longer part of those systems and they collide by chance.
Yes they are. A system is what one defines it to be. The rocks form a system. The rocks and the metric they are part of form a system. The rocks and the forces acting upon them form a system. And so on.
And they do. Two rocks form a system. A collision between those rocks is a phenomenon occurring inside that system. But those two rocks are also part of a larger system; the system encompassing the rocks and any external factors acting upon them. And so on.
The two rocks do not form a system until they collide, the collision does not occur inside the two rocks system because it doesn't exist until the phenomena occurs, the phenomena is the system, they began to exist at the same time and they cease to exist at the same time.
By what criteria these two rocks form a system before the collision?
If I throw a rock, would you say that it forms a system with an asteroid?
« by that concept a car and a piano having no relation can be defined as a system »
By defining them as such. It would be a particularly useless example of a system, of course, since I could not think of a way in which such a system might demonstrate any principle - other than the principle of its definition, of course.
If anything can be a system then the word "system" has no definition by itself because if the word system has a definition then that which is a system must apply to that definition.
The word system has a definition.
Then it is false that anything can be defined as a system.
In other words, a system is any collection of things, notions, forces, and so on, that can in any way be defined as part of a whole. If I am considering a collection of celestial bodies circling a star, then the system I am considering is a planetary system; if I am considering a collection of individuals living together, then the system I am considering is a society; if I am considering a head on collision of cars, then the system is a car crash; and so on.
@XGralgrathor "if I am considering a head on collision of cars, then the system is a car crash"
No objection about that, but if you have a car crash, you wouldn't say that this phenomena occurs inside the system of the car crashing because the system is the phenomena, it must occur inside a system that contains it, like the vial system.
If X contains Y, that means that X is greater then Y, not smaller neither equal but X is equal to it-self and therefore it can not contain itself.
@XGralgrathor "Then you should have said "planetary system""
I don't see you point, I did said "planetary system" but only to make the point that the rocks are no longer part of the system from where they originated but I could have skipped that part leaving only the rocks.
I wanted to make it clear that the rocks are not inside another system.
@XGralgrathor "For any phenomenon, there can be defined a system in which it occurs."
Do you see the paradox?
The origin of any system is a phenomena.
If all phenomena occur inside a system, the system itself must have originated inside a system which must have originated inside another system and so on and on.
I see that you still think in terms of specific systems, not the term 'system' in general. If you want to discuss a specific system, then name the system you wish to discuss.
@XGralgrathor "And in this case, what is "the system" and what would be "the origin"?"
What case? I didn't give any particular example.
It applies to any system since all systems must have an origin, the origin of any system is a phenomena, and if you are correct a phenomena must occur inside a system, a system that must have an origin, which is a phenomena and must occur inside a system, a system that must have an origin...
The properties of a system result from the properties of the elements of which the system is composed. In case of convection cells, these are the behavioural properties of the molecules of the gas or liquid that forms the convection cells.
« Convection cells are not self-maintaining, ordered systems. »
They are, as long as the energy differential remains sufficiently high. The same is true for all processes that depend on an energy differential, including life.
@XGralgrathor "They are, as long as the energy differential remains sufficiently high"
I think that by "self-maintaining" it is logical to understand that they maintain themselves and therefore that they perform some functions for maintenance as life does.
The maintenance of convection cells is determined entirely by the surrounding environment.
« The maintenance of convection cells is determined entirely by the surrounding environment. »
Again: as is life, which also cannot exist without specific environmental boundary conditions. In this respect, convection cells are as much a self-maintaining system as life is.
I think not, life maintenance is not determined entirely by the environment, even in ideal environmental condition life can not be maintained without performing some functions, life maintains itself in those specific conditions.
A self-maintaining system must perform functions for maintenance otherwise is not self-maintaining because it doesn't maintain itself.
"which also cannot exist without specific environmental [...]"
« life maintenance is not determined entirely by the environment »
But life's ability to maintain itself is entirely contingent upon environmental parameters, and the properties of the elements of which it consists, as it is with convection cells.
I said "I think not" only because writing just "No" seemed a little harsh (English isn't my main language) but of-course I am willing to hear how is my thinking in error.
"is entirely contingent"
Yes of-course, what system doesn't depend on something else?
The necessity of external factors doesn't make a system "self-maintaining", for that, even being dependent, a system must also perform functions for maintenance in those specific conditions.
Within the scope of the observable universe, you are probably right to treat this as a rhetorical question. However, if one considers any possible scope, the answer to the question would be "We don't know."
@XGralgrathor "However, if one considers any possible scope, the answer to the question would be "We don't know.""
But with that answer you are saying that all known systems are self-maintaining:
If all systems that depend on something else are self-maintaining and all known systems depend on something else, then all known systems are self maintaining.
I insist, for a system to maintaining itself, it must perform some functions for maintenance, like life does.
« But with that answer you are saying that all known systems are self-maintaining »
No. With that answer I am saying that all systems (within the scope of the observable universe) are affected by factors beyond them. But not all systems produce self-maintaining phenomena like convection cell systems.
« life maintenance is not determined entirely by the environment »
Indeed; the manner in which life perpetuates itself depends in great part upon the properties of the constituent parts of the system, from the organic agents comprising populations right down to the complex hydrocarbons making up the stuff of life. Just like the manner in which a system of convection cells maintains itself depends on the properties of the gases and fluids which comprise it.
@XGralgrathor "Just like the manner in which a system of convection cells maintains itself depends on the properties of the gases and fluids which comprise it"
Lets try another approach: could you name a system which doesn't maintain itself?
By your definition even a ball of iron is a self-maintaining system since it will be maintained as long as the environmental condition (pressure, temperature, etc...) are preserved.
« could you name a system which doesn't maintain itself? »
Sure: the universe at large. It starts out as an intense, heavily curved concentration of mass and energy, rapidly expands, fades, dies. The process is one way and irreversible (globally: discounting local reversals), like a rock falling towards the ground.
According to your understanding of a self maintained system: Why isn't the Universe a self maintained system?
If it is because there is nothing external that maintains it, we don't know that and a recent discovery (the dark flow) suggest that there is something beyond the universe.
Also, if all phenomena occur inside a system as you said, it must be inside a system and therefore it depends on external factors.
« Why isn't the Universe a self maintained system? »
Because, as a whole, it proceeds irrevocably towards a terminus. There are no external inputs that allow it to maintain some cycle or state, as there are with self-maintaining systems such as life and convection cell systems.
@XGralgrathor "Because, as a whole, it proceeds irrevocably towards a terminus."
_Everything proceeds irrevocably towards a terminus, this is even more evident if you consider everything that exist inside the Universe, that, as you said, proceeds irrevocably towards a terminus.
"There are no external inputs that allow it to maintain some cycle or state"
_We don't know that and even if it were the case, then the Universe would be the only non self maintained system.
« Everything proceeds irrevocably towards a terminus »
You ignore the term 'as a whole'. I meant that the universe as a unit does not - as far as we know, at least - regenerate (for one thing, there is no input or output to enable it to). But a system of convection cells does, as long as there is input of energy.
« We don't know if the Universe has no input or output, but ok, now you are saying that it must regenerate »
Moreover, its structure must actively assist in the formation of new similar structures, in the same way that an autocatalytic set actively assists in the formation of new catalysts within the set, and the way convection cells actively participate in the formation of new convection cells.
« We don't know if the Universe has no input or output, but ok, now you are saying that it must regenerate »
Moreover, its structure must actively assist in the formation of new similar structures, in the same way that an autocatalytic set actively assists in the formation of new catalysts within the set, and the way convection cells actively participate in the formation of new convection cells.
« In that case, a cloud, a lake, the ocean, etc... would be all self maintained systems. »
If the structure of a cloud were to cause or assist in new cloud formation, or the structure of an ocean were to cause or assist in new ocean formation, then yes.
@XGralgrathor "If the structure of a cloud were to cause or assist in new cloud formation, or the structure of an ocean were to cause or assist in new ocean formation, then yes."
Then, for you, almost anything is a self-maintaining system, you don't need the convection cells example, you have examples all around. I disagree of course of-course, a self-maintaining system must perform functions for maintenance.
No, I reserve the term for systems that show some form of cyclus, such as the convection cycles in the system I used as an example, or the reproductive cycle in life.
« Isn't that the meaning of the word cycle? A repeating process? »
Yes. I should rethink my definitions. I think I'm looking for the term 'formative cycle', as describing systems in which structures form as a result of interaction between the larger environment and previously existing structures of the same type.
"Within the scope of the observable universe, you are probably right to treat this as a rhetorical question. However, if one considers any possible scope, the answer to the question would be "We don't know.""
Meaning as I understand it that all known systems are dependent.
Convection cell-systems are self-maintaining. Their ability to maintain themselves is dependent on an input of energy. They are simple systems, not remotely as sophisticated as life, but they are still self-maintaining systems.
@XGralgrathor "Nevertheless convection cell systems persist as long as there is a sufficient heat gradient and no disruptive influences occur"
We are still in the same place, if its contingency makes it a self-maintaining system then all known systems are self-maintaining.
If, in the other hand, it is as I say, and a self-maintaining system must perform functions for maintenance, then convection cells are not self-maintaining.
No. A system of rocks falling towards the ground from an altitude of 30ft will last only as long as those rocks have not hit dirt, even though the environment of that system is not changing. A system of convection cells however *does* persist as long as the heat gradient is sufficient. It keeps forming new cells in an ordered pattern, each new cell being the result of innumerable interactions of the molecules forming the gas or liquid.
@XGralgrathor "No. A system of rocks falling towards the ground from an altitude of 30ft will last only as long as those rocks have not hit dirt"
So if these rocks never hit the dirt they are self-maintaining?
They are self-maintaining until they hit the dirt or if they happen to be in a trajectory of collision they automatically lose their self-maintaining properties?
I'm telling you that an increase in entropy does not necessarily mean a decrease in order. I have explained why. Could you acknowledge the explanation?
Or decreases. For instance, in a situation of maximum entropy, matter may be distributed over a volume with near uniformity, which is more ordered than the higher entropy situation from which it derives. But increasing entropy with decreasing overall order may (and does!) also locally result in decreasing entropy and increasing order. As is demonstrated in nature.
Thermodynamic order is a valid concept. It simply means a system that does work has an energy system. That energy is stored in molecular (and/or atomic) bonds. These bonds constrain the possible set of microstates can be in. This is the connection between order and energy and entropy. As you use energy more molecular bonds are broken than can be created, disorder increases and entropy increases. Unfortunately illiterates use a completely different meaning of 'order' than what is meant.
It is kinda funny how we all argue if god exist or not. God could reveal himself in plain sight to the whole world but that still would not be in his intrests mainly because God prefers to work discretly in the hidden parts of the soul of each person. For it is there we must choose Him.
That's nice. But when I choose for a politician on the voting ballot, I'd want to know the bloke actually exists. Why should the gods do any less for me if they want my vote?
Nah, rubbish video ;) But the points made in it are, if not clear, then at least accurate. I hope someday somebody will take up the subject and produce a video that's a bit less hazy.
I'm always a bit confused when people start debating about God when others are simply talking about evolution and physical science. Evolution and the laws of thermodynamics are no more effective in proving OR disproving the existence of God, than an apple tree is in proving the existence of the letters that make up the words apple tree.
I don't think *you* are the one that's confused. These people *do* (despite what I sometimes claim) care whether their beliefs are accurate or not. They just think that reality should conform to their beliefs, rather than vice versa. I call *that* confused.
Your right, I'm not really that confused with this issue. I only say so in order to draw the readers attention towards the rest of my post. Then, hopefully, I can point out the absurdities of such matters with more effectiveness.
To the poster... thanks for your patience concerning jltjdraketown!! I think its a wonderful thing when people have the patience to deal with the religion-induced ignorant. I was lucky people gave me the courtesy of responding to my mis-informed fundamentalist tripe when I was younger. I'm now very appreciative of people like you!
science today is merely another religion . the followers of science have tremendous faith in what they believe to be facts. Most scientists don't agree on many issues.why should I trust a scientist? they are desperate to have answers to peoples questions. I don't trust science any more than any other religion . My direct experience with God is my knowing without a doubt.
jltjdraketown, if you think you're having direct experiences with a god, I would highly recommend seeking medical help. Illnesses like schizophrenia can get quite serious. Concerning science being a religion - you shouldn't mistake your requirement of faith to accept scientific conclusions with the alleged necessity for others to do the same.
there is only one God. Once you are aware of Him. You get direct experience. I can show you how. If not, then all that is left is ignorance- a state of hell. You cannot trust science to find the truth.
And how would that experience be any different from one induced by LSD, or a piece of rotten meat? How would I establish conclusively that it was not merely a hallucination, afterwards? Hm?
once you see Him you will never have another doubt again for the rest of your life. that is how it works. It is not like blind faith, it is direct knowledge. LSD wears off. rotten meat either kills you or makes you very sick.
« you will never have another doubt again for the rest of your life »
I doubt that very much. But since you're on good terms with this fictional skydaddy of yours, why don't you give him the word and ask him to drop me a line? Then we'll see.
jltjdraketown - You're sorry that I forgot snowflakes melt? I'm sorry that I'm wasting even 2 minutes of my life on you. Please, please read a book other than the Bible.
regardless of what people think of the second law there is plenty of evidence around you that entropy exists everywhere. There is no way that an animal can become a higher form of life in this universe with these laws
« There is no way that an animal can become a higher form of life in this universe with these laws »
Yes there is. For one thing, the laws of thermodynamics state that overall increase in entropy may be offset against a local decrease. The Law of Maximum Energy Production says that a local decrease in entropy may actually promote a faster increase of total entropy. I know I don't have the best reading voice, but you should've tried to listen to the vid anyway.
you explain science very well. but entropy measures more harm than good, therefore I cannot believe in evolution. all would evolve into something worse.
Life would not exist if it weren't for entropy. Entropy is what allows chemical reactions to happen. Well, entropy and every other behavioral property of the universe.
« would evolve into something worse »
Where'd you get that idea? You haven't even acceeded the first point yet: that a global increase in entropy may be offset against a local decrease. You're not even close to addressing the second point - the Law of Maximum Energy Production - yet.
« you are still trying to convince me that only good can come out of entropy »
Now where'd you get that idea!? Entropy is simply a natural law. I wouldn't argue "only good can come of entropy" anymore than I'd argue "only good can come of gravity". Who writes your material, man?
the law states that the disorder in the universe is constantly increasing in one direction.energy is transformed from a usable to a less usable form(clausius) the disorder of the universe is constantly increasing irreversibly-Genesis 3 God cursed the serpent, the woman the man (he would finally know death} and then cursed the earthly elements. the law of entropy is deadly. it applies to everything in the material universe. Man would not have known death before this curse.
« the law states that the disorder in the universe is constantly increasing in one direction »
Ehr, no, it doesn't.
Entropy is a measure of the dissipation of energy throughout a closed system. In such a system, energy will dissipate until an equilibrium has been reached. But during this process of dissipation, it may be possible for overall increase in entropy to be offset against local decrease.
« the law states that the disorder in the universe is constantly increasing in one direction »
And besides, if you were right, and if evolution were somehow impossible due to entropy (which it is not, see my previous comment), then so would any form of growth be: it would also be impossible for a newly fertilized human egg to grow into a human adult, or for a seed to grow into a tree.
a fertilized egg can grow. but if there had to be mutation in a so called evolution with long time period. the mutation would be in one direction chaos. not any good mutation because entropy moves in one direction
- Entropy is not equivalent to disorder. Order may actually increase with entropy.
- Overall increase in entropy may be offset against a local decrease.
- There is no entropic difference between genetic copying pattern A and pattern B. A mutation does not increase entropy more than a reproduction of the original pattern.
There is no basic difference in complexity increasing through growth within the individual, and complexity increasing over generations. If growth in complexity were to violate thermodynamics, then both evolution and growth within the individual would be impossible. Obviously, neither are impossible, because both are observed.
« when the entire universe is dying you will not evolve into a higher organism »
Two misconceptions:
- Evolution has no direction. There is no 'higher' or 'better' in evolution. The reason that life become more complex over time is because of divergence, not because of upward strife.
- Life *does* evolve, and it *may* get more complex. I explain why this is possible in my comments and in the video. It *is* eminently logical.
« entropy governs the divergence evolving into more complex with higher intelligence does not happen »
Please make sense.
Just a few comments:
- The evolutionary algorithm works. We can easily show how organisms develop new traits through variation and selection. *You* can easily confirm this for yourself. You simply don't want to.
- You don't understand thermodynamics or entropy. Entropy is not a measure of disorder. A global increase in entropy MAY BE offset against a local decrease.
the text books say that there is disorder. But let us say that you are more accurate and that you are correct. let's say that entropy only measures energy. Then I would have to come up with a new term to explain what is going on in the universe. would you feel better that we did not call it entropy? I think that your narrow view is putting a monkey wrench in the phenomenon of science.
The textbooks are trying to make a difficult idea comprehensible for high school juniors. Later on, in those same textbooks, you'll find the formulae for calculating a change in entropy. Notice that these formula say NOTHING about order or disorder, but describe dissipation of ENERGY.
to measure the dissipation of energy. dissipation means disperse. when I say disorder I am actually saying the same thing that you are. arguing in circles is fruitless. You and I both know what entropy is. It is just too bad that you choose chaos, random chance, and accident, instead of the truth about design. to debate science when we both are actually saying the same things will get us nowhere. we all must choose what to do with these science definitions. do not choose accidental existence!
the way I look at entropy is not inaccurate. And you cannot take away from the true meaning. when I say disorder I mean dissipate. and if you think that heat death is orderly - that is only in your own mind
Heat death is the ultimate order. Mind you, it is a low entropy order, not the kind of order one expects where high energy states and low energy states meet. At the boundary of high energy and low energy states, where the increase in entropy is greatest, one *expects* to find order. This is demonstrable, and easily visible for anybody.
This statement you have here is totally false. Increasing entropy is always disoderly. And this statement is not at all in accord with the second law of thermodynamcs. this is another one of your attempts to stand for atheism
See? I told you you didn't get it. So what of ice crystals then, hm? They form where entropy increases. Are they not orderly? And convection systems? You're not going to tell me entropy is not being increased by them, are you? Stop making foolish claims about things you don't understand, boy.
This has been flagged as spam show
so does this mean the sole purpose of human existence is to waist energy? hahaha that actually makes too much sense. guess god is neither subtle nor malicious, turns out the bastard is ironic! ...fuck you captain planet!!
michaelofGB45 1 month ago
Comment removed
michaelofGB45 1 month ago
Atheist are so emotional.
This film suggest that abiogenesis is the universes's way of carrying out entropy. All the life that ever was is such a very small amount of terrestrial material. What materials are we changing from and what to? The last post was right. No good answer. Order=Order maker. God did it. Yes :-)
piperadio 4 months ago
« This film suggest that abiogenesis is the universes's way of carrying out entropy »
No, that would be teleological thinking. What I *do* suggest is that abiogenesis might be an inevitable result of the tendency of entropy to increase to a maximum.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
« What materials are we changing from and what to? »
Carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, and so forth.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
« Order=Order maker »
Nope. There are plenty of examples of order resulting from mindless behavioural patterns. The examples in the above video are just a few of them.
XGralgrathor 4 months ago
wow great video, great example...
loleceq 8 months ago
the second law of thermodynamics explains a phenomena that occurs in a particular manner as a result of the entropic effect. The conclusion of this video discards that explanation and replaces it with a completely inversed explanation
In effect, that since by definition, the word "evolution" entails a generative, constructive process & "entropy" entails a degenerative, deconstructive process, is why the narrator inversed entropy's explanation. Thereby, making entropy consistent with evolution
Chuichupachichi 9 months ago
@Chuichupachichi Evolution entails life evolving, philosophically this is generative. Physically, it's nothing more than shit getting mixed up and eventually causing consciousness. No new energy is created, no new matter is created. However, if you wanted to site yourself as an argument against organisms actually evolving past the moron state, I would have to concede that you are right.
Nervousification 8 months ago 3
@Nervousification
{Physically its nothing more than shit getting mixed up & eventually causing consciousness}
Thats the problem with you evolutionists...you actually believed all that BS about atheism automatically making you intelligent. Thats why you guys make statements like yours above in parenthesis. Your mind having been convinced that atheism equals intelligent & Creationist equals stupid, is what blinded you from recognizing that "eventually causing consciousness" is a generative process
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
{No new energy is created}
I never claimed that any new energy was created. Nor is it necessary for new energy to be created in order for my argument to be valid. You made that statement because you're confused. I referred to the second principle of the law of thermodynamics. You're referring to the first principle
{no new matter is created}
Neither did I claim that new matter was created. However, you stated that no new matter is created, despite the fact that evolutionists claim the contrary
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
That was precisely the crux of the matter within the question posed to Richard Dawkins when he got stumped. Whether or not he can explain a evolutionary process that adds new information to the genome. Within Biology, information exists in the form of DNA matter. As one would expect from a true evolutionary intellectual, Dawkins replied by stating that "fish are just as modern as are we"??? He can't even correctly tell the fictional story, of which, is the field of his expertise
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
@Chuichupachichi So you believe there is information within a DNA molecule? A kind of biological binary system like in a computer?
Nervousification 8 months ago
@Nervousification
Its not a matter of belief. Its undeniable that DNA contains information. Every physical trait amongst the total that comprise a biological organism, is specific & is determined by the encoding within the DNA... that is "information". We know that offspring will inherit particular traits from their parents. Its not simply by chance that the offspring will have the same blue eyes as his father or the same curly, brown hair as his mother. There must exist something thats passed
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
from the parents to the offspring which dictates that specifically the blue eyes & specifically curly brown hair are possessed by the offspring. That something is necessarily "information". Otherwise all of the traits possessed by all biological offspring that are the same as traits possessed by their parents, would be caused by pure chance. The mathematical probabilities would be beyond any realistic, serious consideration
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
I've previously encountered this argument from Evolutionists & they merely amounted to a matter of semantics. They simply referred to "information" by a different name. Thus, beguiling themselves into believing it isn't "information"
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
@Chuichupachichi So what is it? It's my understanding that chemicals don't contain anything called "information" or akin to it. They contain complex shapes and structures. If you consider that information then that means that even carbon, helium, lithium, and every other element contains information, which means humans are in fact, no different than the stardust we're made of.
Nervousification 8 months ago
@Nervousification
ha ha, you're too funny. You set it up with your question in your last reply. Its completely obvious that its your supposed "Creationist Killer" question that you greatly value as being invincible. Perhaps, its worked for you on many prior occasions? The funny part is that although I provided an answer that is accurate & valid, you still continued with your premeditated ambush & completely dismissed my scientifically accurate information as if it were not even existent
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
If you cant understand what I wrote within my last post, which if you did you wouldn't have presented your most recent reply, then its because you choose to not understand. I even somewhat foretold what would be your actions in that your entire argument would "merely amount to a matter of semantics"
I gave explanation & these were your words; "if you consider that information". It must necessarily be something that can cause for a son to be the spitting image of his father. What do you call it?
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
Your statement about humans being made of stardust reminds me... we are indeed, comprised of precisely the same atoms which also comprise rocks. Considering your Materialist Naturalistic view, how do you account for rocks not possessing a consciousness, while we do?
Chuichupachichi 8 months ago
@Chuichupachichi I can't. I guess that proves god did it! Nice distraction from me proving you wrong by the way. ;)
Nervousification 8 months ago
@Chuichupachichi Lmao!! Rocks are NOT made up of precisely the same atoms as we are.
jpo2311 2 months ago
@jpo2311
Its at the level of molecules that a comparison between humans & rocks would be incorrect. However, all matter within the universe is composed of atoms & all atoms are composed of a nucleus & electrons. Including the atoms that compose, both, humans & rocks
Chuichupachichi 2 months ago
Remember, when biological organisms, including humans, die, we decompose & ultimately disintegrate to the level of Earthly elements that comprise the planet's general surface soil, which is the same general material from which rocks are composed. Thus, you can laugh your ass off to whatever extent you wish, but you most likely have no idea of how foolish you appear
Chuichupachichi 2 months ago
@Chuichupachichi Lol soil is NOT the same thing as rock. Soil is a mixture of sediment and humus (degraded organic material). Take a sedimentology class and you'll learn more than you probably ever wanted about soil and how it is NOT rock.
jpo2311 2 months ago
@jpo2311 Actually we are all made of the same atoms all things are made of atoms, maybe you could elaborate what you mean by we are NOT made up of precisely the same atoms, what in your view is the difference between atoms in humans and atoms in rocks?
allthingsarelikethis 2 months ago
@allthingsarelikethis Yes, all things are made of atoms but not the same ones (periodic table). Humans are carbon based, meaning we are primarily made of carbon atoms. Rocks on the other hand are most frequently silicon and oxygen based. Take an organic chemistry class and a mineralogy class and you will quickly understand the differences between rocks and a living organisms. Chemically anyway.
jpo2311 2 months ago
@jpo2311 The periodic table is the 118 known CHEMICAL ELEMENTS that are organized by selected properties of their own atomic structures. The atoms that make them up are the same atoms it is the chemical elements and how they get organized that is different, atleast that is how I always understood it.
allthingsarelikethis 2 months ago
@allthingsarelikethis Yes, and the chemical elements are different atoms (ie hydrogen atom, oxygen atom). They are organized by number, atomic number is the number of protons the atom has in its nucleus; their valence, the number of electrons in the atoms outermost shell; and the valence shell types, s, p, d, ect. Other trends than be seen across the table, such as electronegativity and atomic radius, but these characteristics are a function of the properties I listed above.
jpo2311 2 months ago
@jpo2311 (continued) For example, oxygen has 4 electrons in its valence shell but wants 6, since gaining 2 electrons is easier than loosing 4 it will bond to other atoms that are trying to give up electrons such as calcium. There is a lot more to it, such as hybridization, but that's the basic gist. Different elements = different atoms.
jpo2311 2 months ago
@jpo2311 Dude that is interesting, I will have to check into this some more, if what you are saying is true "which it sounds like you know what you are talking about" then I have not understood this at all. :P Thanks for the comments!
allthingsarelikethis 2 months ago
But therein lays the revelation of precisely the reason why theory of evolution is invalidated by entropy. They are by very definition, two processes diametrically opposed to each other. Analogically speaking, one heads West & the other heads East
The monstrous problem for evolution is that with entropy, it runs head on with the most repeatedly validated natural law known to science
Chuichupachichi 9 months ago
One will sooner jump from a skyscraper & not hit the ground, than will entropy cease to effect the universe
This video first diverts from science with the assertion of that "gravity causes stars to be born". But such a process would necessarily begin from no amount of matter & proceed to the stage of the first units of matter uniting to form a structure. However, what would cause the gravity to begin this process? Such a thing is purely speculative & entails a generative process.
Chuichupachichi 9 months ago
But entropy is the reason why the birth of stars have never been observed or validated. The fact is, that "life" is indeed, special as it is the only thing known to science to possess the ability to overcome the entropic effect... albeit only temporarily before succumbing to entropy's inevitability. Flora constructively work energy with the mechanism of photosynthesis & the information within DNA dictates the organism's form, which in turn, dictates the mechanism's function
Chuichupachichi 9 months ago
Fauna works energy with metabolism & DNA information causes the same function as within Flora. Thus, if Abiogenesis were to be plausible, necessary would be the existence of information molecules, independent of life & at least one of the energy working mechanisms... photosynthesis or metabolism, also existing independent of life. Science knows of no other process by which the degree of entropy can be decreased sufficiently to enable generation & an increase in the degree of order
Chuichupachichi 9 months ago
The necessary components simply don't exist independent of life.
Evo was a dream derived from man's desire for autonomy. However, autonomy can be achieved only by submission to the Creator. Otherwise, man's natural power is easily superseded by the deceiver's supernatural power. Then, subscriptions to falsehoods will always hold the mind bound to the entrapment of the falsehood's dead-end avenues & man's potential is suppressed
Chuichupachichi 9 months ago
« Evo was a dream derived from man's desire for autonomy. »
Sure. Bye now, chups.
XGralgrathor 9 months ago
"2. Self-maintaining, ordered systems will appear spontaneously wherever there is sufficient potential."
Can you provide any observable example of such a system appearing spontaneously?
naujphantom 1 year ago
« observable example »
The simplest example is convection cells. That's the example I mention in the video.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor "The simplest example is convection cells"
But a convection cell is a phenomenon that occurs inside a system, I am asking about the system itself, a system with the properties to maintain itself spontaneously appearing, as you said:
"2. Self-maintaining, ordered systems will appear spontaneously wherever there is sufficient potential."
Convection cells are not self-maintaining, ordered systems.
naujphantom 1 year ago
« But a convection cell is a phenomenon that occurs inside a system »
All phenomena occur inside a system.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor "All phenomena occur inside a system"
What about two rocks colliding in outer space?
naujphantom 1 year ago
« What about two rocks colliding in outer space? »
Part of a system that comprises at least two rocks, the metric of space, whatever forces act upon them, and whatever events project those forces. Naturally.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor "Part of a system that comprises at least two rocks"
The rocks are not inside a system.
Consider this: A volcano explodes and a rock is sent to outer space escaping the solar system, the same happens in another planetary system, the rocks are no longer part of those systems and they collide by chance.
naujphantom 1 year ago
« The rocks are not inside a system. »
Yes they are. A system is what one defines it to be. The rocks form a system. The rocks and the metric they are part of form a system. The rocks and the forces acting upon them form a system. And so on.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor "The rocks form a system"
But you said: "All phenomena occur inside a system"
If the rocks colliding are the phenomena the rocks colliding can't be the system in which the phenomena occurs.
naujphantom 1 year ago
« But you said »
(1/2)
I think you are confused about the meaning of the word 'system'.
A system is:
- a whole compounded of several parts or members (wikipedia)
- an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole (dictionary . com)
- a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole (merriam webster)
- a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network; a complex whole (oxford)
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor "I think you are confused about the meaning of the word 'system'."
I don't think that the definition of the word "system" is the problem.
You said: "All phenomena occur inside a system"
I gave the example of the rocks colliding.
You said that the rocks colliding are a system
Even if that's true: the rocks colliding can't be the system in which the phenomena occurs, the rocks colliding are the phenomena.
I am not objecting the rocks colliding as a system.
naujphantom 11 months ago
« You said »
And they do. Two rocks form a system. A collision between those rocks is a phenomenon occurring inside that system. But those two rocks are also part of a larger system; the system encompassing the rocks and any external factors acting upon them. And so on.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor "Two rocks form a system."
The two rocks do not form a system until they collide, the collision does not occur inside the two rocks system because it doesn't exist until the phenomena occurs, the phenomena is the system, they began to exist at the same time and they cease to exist at the same time.
By what criteria these two rocks form a system before the collision?
If I throw a rock, would you say that it forms a system with an asteroid?
naujphantom 11 months ago
« The two rocks do not form a system until they collide »
A system is what you define it to be. If you define your system to consist of two rocks on close approach, then that is what your system is.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor "A system is what you define it to be."
That's not true, by that concept a car and a piano having no relation can be defined as a system.
From wikipedia (System): "is a set of interacting or interdependent system components forming an integrated whole."
"interacting" or "interdependent"
naujphantom 11 months ago
« would you say that it forms a system with an asteroid? »
If you define a system such that it consists of a thrown rock and an asteroid, yes.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor "If you define a system such that it consists of a thrown rock and an asteroid, yes."
There must be a relation between the elements that form a system.
I can't understand how you can hold that anything can be defined as a system, then there is no criteria to say what is and what isn't a system.
Then, all phenomena occurs inside a system only if you define one. The problem persist: What if there is nothing to use in your definition?
naujphantom 11 months ago
« by that concept a car and a piano having no relation can be defined as a system »
By defining them as such. It would be a particularly useless example of a system, of course, since I could not think of a way in which such a system might demonstrate any principle - other than the principle of its definition, of course.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor "By defining them as such."
"A system is what you define it to be."
If anything can be a system then the word "system" has no definition by itself because if the word system has a definition then that which is a system must apply to that definition.
The word system has a definition.
Then it is false that anything can be defined as a system.
naujphantom 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor "the system encompassing the rocks and any external factors"
That's different, what system is this? The galaxy? What if the rocks escape the galaxy?
You may define a system of galaxies but there must be a limit, what if the rocks escape this limit?
The big bang system? What about the singularity?
This is turning philosophical, anyway, I agree that for all practical cases, all phenomena occur inside a system.
naujphantom 11 months ago
« But you said »
(2/2)
In other words, a system is any collection of things, notions, forces, and so on, that can in any way be defined as part of a whole. If I am considering a collection of celestial bodies circling a star, then the system I am considering is a planetary system; if I am considering a collection of individuals living together, then the system I am considering is a society; if I am considering a head on collision of cars, then the system is a car crash; and so on.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor "if I am considering a head on collision of cars, then the system is a car crash"
No objection about that, but if you have a car crash, you wouldn't say that this phenomena occurs inside the system of the car crashing because the system is the phenomena, it must occur inside a system that contains it, like the vial system.
If X contains Y, that means that X is greater then Y, not smaller neither equal but X is equal to it-self and therefore it can not contain itself.
naujphantom 11 months ago
« the rocks are no longer part of those systems »
Then you should have said "planetary system", which is a very specific kind of system. What of it?
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor "Then you should have said "planetary system""
I don't see you point, I did said "planetary system" but only to make the point that the rocks are no longer part of the system from where they originated but I could have skipped that part leaving only the rocks.
I wanted to make it clear that the rocks are not inside another system.
naujphantom 1 year ago
« I don't see you point »
We are discussing the meaning of the term 'system' in light of your earlier erroneous remark:
« But a convection cell is a phenomenon that occurs inside a system, I am asking about the system itself »
To which I responded:
"All phenomena occur inside a system."
In other words: for any phenomenon, there can be defined a system in which it occurs.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor "In other words: for any phenomenon, there can be defined a system in which it occurs."
So far, for the rocks colliding you have defined the phenomena as a system but you didn't defined a system in which this phenomena occurs.
naujphantom 11 months ago
« So far »
For any phenomenon, there can be defined a system in which it occurs.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XGralgrathor "For any phenomenon, there can be defined a system in which it occurs."
Do you see the paradox?
The origin of any system is a phenomena.
If all phenomena occur inside a system, the system itself must have originated inside a system which must have originated inside another system and so on and on.
naujphantom 11 months ago
« Do you see the paradox? »
I see that you still think in terms of specific systems, not the term 'system' in general. If you want to discuss a specific system, then name the system you wish to discuss.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XGralgrathor "I see that you still think in terms of specific systems, not the term 'system' in general."
The term system must be applied to a specific case.
If you make the statement: "All phenomena occurs inside a system" then, a specific example in which this does not occur proves it to be wrong.
naujphantom 11 months ago
« any system »
Again, you omit an important qualifier: any system IN THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE results from its constituent parts.
And this time you compound your error by confusing origination from constituent parts with origination from a larger system.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor "Again, you omit an important qualifier: any system IN THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE"
A phenomena is anything that occurs, the origin of any system occurs, and therefore is a phenomena.
"you compound your error by confusing origination from constituent parts with origination from a larger system"
How or from what is irrelevant, you said that all phenomena occur inside a system, the origin of a system is a phenomena, there you have the paradox.
naujphantom 11 months ago
« the origin of any system occurs »
And in this case, what is "the system" and what would be "the origin"?
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XGralgrathor "And in this case, what is "the system" and what would be "the origin"?"
What case? I didn't give any particular example.
It applies to any system since all systems must have an origin, the origin of any system is a phenomena, and if you are correct a phenomena must occur inside a system, a system that must have an origin, which is a phenomena and must occur inside a system, a system that must have an origin...
naujphantom 11 months ago
« I am asking about the system itself »
The properties of a system result from the properties of the elements of which the system is composed. In case of convection cells, these are the behavioural properties of the molecules of the gas or liquid that forms the convection cells.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor Ok, you are referring to the convection cells as the self-maintaining system.
I will address this in the other reply.
naujphantom 1 year ago
« Convection cells are not self-maintaining, ordered systems. »
They are, as long as the energy differential remains sufficiently high. The same is true for all processes that depend on an energy differential, including life.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor "They are, as long as the energy differential remains sufficiently high"
I think that by "self-maintaining" it is logical to understand that they maintain themselves and therefore that they perform some functions for maintenance as life does.
The maintenance of convection cells is determined entirely by the surrounding environment.
naujphantom 1 year ago
« The maintenance of convection cells is determined entirely by the surrounding environment. »
Again: as is life, which also cannot exist without specific environmental boundary conditions. In this respect, convection cells are as much a self-maintaining system as life is.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor "Again: as is life"
I think not, life maintenance is not determined entirely by the environment, even in ideal environmental condition life can not be maintained without performing some functions, life maintains itself in those specific conditions.
A self-maintaining system must perform functions for maintenance otherwise is not self-maintaining because it doesn't maintain itself.
"which also cannot exist without specific environmental [...]"
Yes but that's not what I am saying.
naujphantom 1 year ago
« I think not »
Then your thinking is in error.
« life maintenance is not determined entirely by the environment »
But life's ability to maintain itself is entirely contingent upon environmental parameters, and the properties of the elements of which it consists, as it is with convection cells.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
@XGralgrathor "Then your thinking is in error"
I said "I think not" only because writing just "No" seemed a little harsh (English isn't my main language) but of-course I am willing to hear how is my thinking in error.
"is entirely contingent"
Yes of-course, what system doesn't depend on something else?
The necessity of external factors doesn't make a system "self-maintaining", for that, even being dependent, a system must also perform functions for maintenance in those specific conditions.
naujphantom 1 year ago
« what system doesn't depend on something else? »
Within the scope of the observable universe, you are probably right to treat this as a rhetorical question. However, if one considers any possible scope, the answer to the question would be "We don't know."
Anyway.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor "However, if one considers any possible scope, the answer to the question would be "We don't know.""
But with that answer you are saying that all known systems are self-maintaining:
If all systems that depend on something else are self-maintaining and all known systems depend on something else, then all known systems are self maintaining.
I insist, for a system to maintaining itself, it must perform some functions for maintenance, like life does.
naujphantom 11 months ago
« But with that answer you are saying that all known systems are self-maintaining »
No. With that answer I am saying that all systems (within the scope of the observable universe) are affected by factors beyond them. But not all systems produce self-maintaining phenomena like convection cell systems.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XGralgrathor "No. With that answer I am saying that all systems [...]"
I argued: life maintenance is not determined entirely by the environment.
You: But life's ability to maintain itself is entirely contingent upon environmental parameters
Me: Yes of-course, what system doesn't depend on something else?
If it is the contingency that makes life self-maintaining, then, all known systems are self-maintaining.
naujphantom 11 months ago
« life maintenance is not determined entirely by the environment »
Indeed; the manner in which life perpetuates itself depends in great part upon the properties of the constituent parts of the system, from the organic agents comprising populations right down to the complex hydrocarbons making up the stuff of life. Just like the manner in which a system of convection cells maintains itself depends on the properties of the gases and fluids which comprise it.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor "Just like the manner in which a system of convection cells maintains itself depends on the properties of the gases and fluids which comprise it"
Lets try another approach: could you name a system which doesn't maintain itself?
By your definition even a ball of iron is a self-maintaining system since it will be maintained as long as the environmental condition (pressure, temperature, etc...) are preserved.
naujphantom 11 months ago
« could you name a system which doesn't maintain itself? »
Sure: the universe at large. It starts out as an intense, heavily curved concentration of mass and energy, rapidly expands, fades, dies. The process is one way and irreversible (globally: discounting local reversals), like a rock falling towards the ground.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor "Sure: the universe at large."
According to your understanding of a self maintained system: Why isn't the Universe a self maintained system?
If it is because there is nothing external that maintains it, we don't know that and a recent discovery (the dark flow) suggest that there is something beyond the universe.
Also, if all phenomena occur inside a system as you said, it must be inside a system and therefore it depends on external factors.
naujphantom 11 months ago
« Why isn't the Universe a self maintained system? »
Because, as a whole, it proceeds irrevocably towards a terminus. There are no external inputs that allow it to maintain some cycle or state, as there are with self-maintaining systems such as life and convection cell systems.
XGralgrathor 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XGralgrathor "Because, as a whole, it proceeds irrevocably towards a terminus."
_Everything proceeds irrevocably towards a terminus, this is even more evident if you consider everything that exist inside the Universe, that, as you said, proceeds irrevocably towards a terminus.
"There are no external inputs that allow it to maintain some cycle or state"
_We don't know that and even if it were the case, then the Universe would be the only non self maintained system.
naujphantom 10 months ago
« Everything proceeds irrevocably towards a terminus »
You ignore the term 'as a whole'. I meant that the universe as a unit does not - as far as we know, at least - regenerate (for one thing, there is no input or output to enable it to). But a system of convection cells does, as long as there is input of energy.
XGralgrathor 10 months ago
@XGralgrathor "I meant that the universe as a unit does not - as far as we know, at least - regenerate"
We don't know if the Universe has no input or output, but ok, now you are saying that it must regenerate.
In that case, a cloud, a lake, the ocean, etc... would be all self maintained systems.
This is only, if you are correct and a self maintained system is equal to a system maintained by external phenomena.
naujphantom 10 months ago
« We don't know if the Universe has no input or output, but ok, now you are saying that it must regenerate »
Moreover, its structure must actively assist in the formation of new similar structures, in the same way that an autocatalytic set actively assists in the formation of new catalysts within the set, and the way convection cells actively participate in the formation of new convection cells.
XGralgrathor 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XGralgrathor "Moreover, its structure must actively assist in the formation of new similar structures..."
Are you talking about the Universe?
naujphantom 2 months ago
« We don't know if the Universe has no input or output, but ok, now you are saying that it must regenerate »
Moreover, its structure must actively assist in the formation of new similar structures, in the same way that an autocatalytic set actively assists in the formation of new catalysts within the set, and the way convection cells actively participate in the formation of new convection cells.
XGralgrathor 9 months ago
« In that case, a cloud, a lake, the ocean, etc... would be all self maintained systems. »
If the structure of a cloud were to cause or assist in new cloud formation, or the structure of an ocean were to cause or assist in new ocean formation, then yes.
XGralgrathor 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XGralgrathor "If the structure of a cloud were to cause or assist in new cloud formation, or the structure of an ocean were to cause or assist in new ocean formation, then yes."
Then, for you, almost anything is a self-maintaining system, you don't need the convection cells example, you have examples all around. I disagree of course of-course, a self-maintaining system must perform functions for maintenance.
naujphantom 2 months ago
« ball of iron is a self-maintaining system »
No, I reserve the term for systems that show some form of cyclus, such as the convection cycles in the system I used as an example, or the reproductive cycle in life.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor "No, I reserve the term for systems that show some form of cyclus"
Lets see if I understand you correctly, according to you:
All self-maintaining system must have cycles but all system that has cycles are not necessarily self-maintaining.
If this is correct you are changing your definition because by that definition your rock doesn't need to be falling towards the ground.
Then my question would be: Could you name a system with cycles which doesn't maintain itself?
naujphantom 11 months ago
« Could you name a system with cycles which doesn't maintain itself? »
Only if one uses another sense of the word 'cycle', to mean a mechanical cycle, such as the revolution of parts in a motor engine.
XGralgrathor 10 months ago
@XGralgrathor "Only if one uses another sense of the word 'cycle', to mean a mechanical cycle,"
Isn't that the meaning of the word cycle? A repeating process?
What is then this non self-maintained system with cycles?
I wonder why you take so long to reply...
naujphantom 10 months ago
« Isn't that the meaning of the word cycle? A repeating process? »
Yes. I should rethink my definitions. I think I'm looking for the term 'formative cycle', as describing systems in which structures form as a result of interaction between the larger environment and previously existing structures of the same type.
XGralgrathor 10 months ago
@XGralgrathor "I think I'm looking for the term 'formative cycle'"
Then: What is then this non self-maintained system with 'formative cycle'?
naujphantom 10 months ago
« what system doesn't depend on something else? »
No, what I said is that systems are *influenced* by external factors. I did not use the word "depend".
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XGralgrathor "I did not use the word "depend"."
But you answered my statement with:
"Within the scope of the observable universe, you are probably right to treat this as a rhetorical question. However, if one considers any possible scope, the answer to the question would be "We don't know.""
Meaning as I understand it that all known systems are dependent.
naujphantom 11 months ago
« The necessity of external factors »
Convection cell-systems are self-maintaining. Their ability to maintain themselves is dependent on an input of energy. They are simple systems, not remotely as sophisticated as life, but they are still self-maintaining systems.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor "Their ability to maintain themselves is dependent on an input of energy."
Their ability? What ability? What do they do to maintain themselves?
Sorry, I don't see how they are self maintaining.
naujphantom 11 months ago
« I don't see how they are self maintaining »
Nevertheless convection cell systems persist as long as there is a sufficient heat gradient and no disruptive influences occur.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
@XGralgrathor "Nevertheless convection cell systems persist as long as there is a sufficient heat gradient and no disruptive influences occur"
We are still in the same place, if its contingency makes it a self-maintaining system then all known systems are self-maintaining.
If, in the other hand, it is as I say, and a self-maintaining system must perform functions for maintenance, then convection cells are not self-maintaining.
naujphantom 11 months ago
« then all known systems are self-maintaining »
No. A system of rocks falling towards the ground from an altitude of 30ft will last only as long as those rocks have not hit dirt, even though the environment of that system is not changing. A system of convection cells however *does* persist as long as the heat gradient is sufficient. It keeps forming new cells in an ordered pattern, each new cell being the result of innumerable interactions of the molecules forming the gas or liquid.
XGralgrathor 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@XGralgrathor "No. A system of rocks falling towards the ground from an altitude of 30ft will last only as long as those rocks have not hit dirt"
So if these rocks never hit the dirt they are self-maintaining?
They are self-maintaining until they hit the dirt or if they happen to be in a trajectory of collision they automatically lose their self-maintaining properties?
naujphantom 11 months ago
« but that proves that entropy is disorder »
It proves the contrary. Matter equally distributed over a given volume is more orderly than matter unequally distributed.
What it is less is *structured*. There is little structure in matter that is ordered with maximum entropy.
But again: global increases in entropy can be offset against local decrease.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« That's the only way order would increase »
I'm telling you that an increase in entropy does not necessarily mean a decrease in order. I have explained why. Could you acknowledge the explanation?
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
« in the process, the disorder increases »
Or decreases. For instance, in a situation of maximum entropy, matter may be distributed over a volume with near uniformity, which is more ordered than the higher entropy situation from which it derives. But increasing entropy with decreasing overall order may (and does!) also locally result in decreasing entropy and increasing order. As is demonstrated in nature.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
If the 2nd law worked like creationists say life would not be possible.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Thermodynamic order is a valid concept. It simply means a system that does work has an energy system. That energy is stored in molecular (and/or atomic) bonds. These bonds constrain the possible set of microstates can be in. This is the connection between order and energy and entropy. As you use energy more molecular bonds are broken than can be created, disorder increases and entropy increases. Unfortunately illiterates use a completely different meaning of 'order' than what is meant.
TerrencePhillip66 1 year ago
@TerrencePhillip66
True. Unfortunately any attempt to provide a simplified explanation of these concepts will of course result in misinterpretation.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
you sound kinda like christopher hitchens
Pelonetillo 1 year ago
« you sound kinda like christopher hitchens »
Damn, I must cut down on the booze.
XGralgrathor 1 year ago
It is kinda funny how we all argue if god exist or not. God could reveal himself in plain sight to the whole world but that still would not be in his intrests mainly because God prefers to work discretly in the hidden parts of the soul of each person. For it is there we must choose Him.
orthowen 2 years ago
« For it is there we must choose Him »
That's nice. But when I choose for a politician on the voting ballot, I'd want to know the bloke actually exists. Why should the gods do any less for me if they want my vote?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Good video!
nickharvey7 2 years ago
« Good video! »
Nah, rubbish video ;) But the points made in it are, if not clear, then at least accurate. I hope someday somebody will take up the subject and produce a video that's a bit less hazy.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
I'm always a bit confused when people start debating about God when others are simply talking about evolution and physical science. Evolution and the laws of thermodynamics are no more effective in proving OR disproving the existence of God, than an apple tree is in proving the existence of the letters that make up the words apple tree.
TheAminoman 2 years ago
« I'm always a bit confused »
I don't think *you* are the one that's confused. These people *do* (despite what I sometimes claim) care whether their beliefs are accurate or not. They just think that reality should conform to their beliefs, rather than vice versa. I call *that* confused.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
Your right, I'm not really that confused with this issue. I only say so in order to draw the readers attention towards the rest of my post. Then, hopefully, I can point out the absurdities of such matters with more effectiveness.
TheAminoman 2 years ago
To the poster... thanks for your patience concerning jltjdraketown!! I think its a wonderful thing when people have the patience to deal with the religion-induced ignorant. I was lucky people gave me the courtesy of responding to my mis-informed fundamentalist tripe when I was younger. I'm now very appreciative of people like you!
daarong3 2 years ago
science today is merely another religion . the followers of science have tremendous faith in what they believe to be facts. Most scientists don't agree on many issues.why should I trust a scientist? they are desperate to have answers to peoples questions. I don't trust science any more than any other religion . My direct experience with God is my knowing without a doubt.
jltjdraketown 2 years ago
jltjdraketown, if you think you're having direct experiences with a god, I would highly recommend seeking medical help. Illnesses like schizophrenia can get quite serious. Concerning science being a religion - you shouldn't mistake your requirement of faith to accept scientific conclusions with the alleged necessity for others to do the same.
daarong3 2 years ago
there is only one God. Once you are aware of Him. You get direct experience. I can show you how. If not, then all that is left is ignorance- a state of hell. You cannot trust science to find the truth.
jltjdraketown 2 years ago
« there is only one God »
Prove it.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
you can see Him by proper meditation= direct experience.
jltjdraketown 2 years ago
« you can see Him by proper meditation »
And how would that experience be any different from one induced by LSD, or a piece of rotten meat? How would I establish conclusively that it was not merely a hallucination, afterwards? Hm?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
once you see Him you will never have another doubt again for the rest of your life. that is how it works. It is not like blind faith, it is direct knowledge. LSD wears off. rotten meat either kills you or makes you very sick.
jltjdraketown 2 years ago
« you will never have another doubt again for the rest of your life »
I doubt that very much. But since you're on good terms with this fictional skydaddy of yours, why don't you give him the word and ask him to drop me a line? Then we'll see.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
snowflakes melt! Oh, I am sorry that you forgot that part.
jltjdraketown 2 years ago
jltjdraketown - You're sorry that I forgot snowflakes melt? I'm sorry that I'm wasting even 2 minutes of my life on you. Please, please read a book other than the Bible.
daarong3 2 years ago
regardless of what people think of the second law there is plenty of evidence around you that entropy exists everywhere. There is no way that an animal can become a higher form of life in this universe with these laws
jltjdraketown 2 years ago
« plenty of evidence around you that entropy exists everywhere »
We *know* it exists everywhere. It is one of the fundamental principles of the universe.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« There is no way that an animal can become a higher form of life in this universe with these laws »
Yes there is. For one thing, the laws of thermodynamics state that overall increase in entropy may be offset against a local decrease. The Law of Maximum Energy Production says that a local decrease in entropy may actually promote a faster increase of total entropy. I know I don't have the best reading voice, but you should've tried to listen to the vid anyway.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
you explain science very well. but entropy measures more harm than good, therefore I cannot believe in evolution. all would evolve into something worse.
jltjdraketown 2 years ago
« entropy measures more harm than good »
Life would not exist if it weren't for entropy. Entropy is what allows chemical reactions to happen. Well, entropy and every other behavioral property of the universe.
« would evolve into something worse »
Where'd you get that idea? You haven't even acceeded the first point yet: that a global increase in entropy may be offset against a local decrease. You're not even close to addressing the second point - the Law of Maximum Energy Production - yet.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
so what is your purpose when you are still trying to convince me that only good can come out of entropy. are you being completely honest here?
jltjdraketown 2 years ago
« you are still trying to convince me that only good can come out of entropy »
Now where'd you get that idea!? Entropy is simply a natural law. I wouldn't argue "only good can come of entropy" anymore than I'd argue "only good can come of gravity". Who writes your material, man?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
the law states that the disorder in the universe is constantly increasing in one direction.energy is transformed from a usable to a less usable form(clausius) the disorder of the universe is constantly increasing irreversibly-Genesis 3 God cursed the serpent, the woman the man (he would finally know death} and then cursed the earthly elements. the law of entropy is deadly. it applies to everything in the material universe. Man would not have known death before this curse.
jltjdraketown 2 years ago
« the law states that the disorder in the universe is constantly increasing in one direction »
Ehr, no, it doesn't.
Entropy is a measure of the dissipation of energy throughout a closed system. In such a system, energy will dissipate until an equilibrium has been reached. But during this process of dissipation, it may be possible for overall increase in entropy to be offset against local decrease.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« the law states that the disorder in the universe is constantly increasing in one direction »
And besides, if you were right, and if evolution were somehow impossible due to entropy (which it is not, see my previous comment), then so would any form of growth be: it would also be impossible for a newly fertilized human egg to grow into a human adult, or for a seed to grow into a tree.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
what do you think about the words "heat death"? are they appropriate when referring to the universe?
jltjdraketown 2 years ago
« what do you think about the words "heat death"? »
An increase in overall entropy may be offset against a local decrease in entropy. I already explained this.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
a fertilized egg can grow. but if there had to be mutation in a so called evolution with long time period. the mutation would be in one direction chaos. not any good mutation because entropy moves in one direction
jltjdraketown 2 years ago
« the mutation would be in one direction chaos »
Not necessarily. For three reasons:
- Entropy is not equivalent to disorder. Order may actually increase with entropy.
- Overall increase in entropy may be offset against a local decrease.
- There is no entropic difference between genetic copying pattern A and pattern B. A mutation does not increase entropy more than a reproduction of the original pattern.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
even if entropy wasn't increasing at that time. you would still have entropy and mutation would be heading in an unorganized direction
jltjdraketown 2 years ago
« you would still have entropy and mutation would be heading in an unorganized direction »
Ehr, no. I just explained why not, in my previous comments, and in the video.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« a fertilized egg can grow. but »
There is no basic difference in complexity increasing through growth within the individual, and complexity increasing over generations. If growth in complexity were to violate thermodynamics, then both evolution and growth within the individual would be impossible. Obviously, neither are impossible, because both are observed.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
when the entire universe is dying you will not evolve into a higher organism. it just isn't logical
jltjdraketown 2 years ago
« when the entire universe is dying you will not evolve into a higher organism »
Two misconceptions:
- Evolution has no direction. There is no 'higher' or 'better' in evolution. The reason that life become more complex over time is because of divergence, not because of upward strife.
- Life *does* evolve, and it *may* get more complex. I explain why this is possible in my comments and in the video. It *is* eminently logical.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
because entropy governs the divergence evolving into more complex with higher intelligence does not happen, except in the atheistic fantasy
jltjdraketown 2 years ago
« entropy governs the divergence evolving into more complex with higher intelligence does not happen »
Please make sense.
Just a few comments:
- The evolutionary algorithm works. We can easily show how organisms develop new traits through variation and selection. *You* can easily confirm this for yourself. You simply don't want to.
- You don't understand thermodynamics or entropy. Entropy is not a measure of disorder. A global increase in entropy MAY BE offset against a local decrease.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
the text books say that there is disorder. But let us say that you are more accurate and that you are correct. let's say that entropy only measures energy. Then I would have to come up with a new term to explain what is going on in the universe. would you feel better that we did not call it entropy? I think that your narrow view is putting a monkey wrench in the phenomenon of science.
jltjdraketown 2 years ago
« the text books say that there is disorder »
The textbooks are trying to make a difficult idea comprehensible for high school juniors. Later on, in those same textbooks, you'll find the formulae for calculating a change in entropy. Notice that these formula say NOTHING about order or disorder, but describe dissipation of ENERGY.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« and that you are correct »
Which I am; go ask your physics or chemistry teacher.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« let's say that entropy only measures energy »
Entropy is a measure for the DISSIPATION of useable energy throughout a system.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« Then I would have to come up with a new term to explain what is going on in the universe »
No you wouldn't; we already have some. The second law of thermodynamics suggests that entropy will increase to a maximum.
But the law also states (it's not like I haven't said it before; perhaps it will help if I use capitals this time):
AN OVERALL INCREASE IN ENTROPY MAY BE OFFSET AGAINST A LOCAL DECREASE!!! ARE YOU DEAF, OR WHAT?
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
to measure the dissipation of energy. dissipation means disperse. when I say disorder I am actually saying the same thing that you are. arguing in circles is fruitless. You and I both know what entropy is. It is just too bad that you choose chaos, random chance, and accident, instead of the truth about design. to debate science when we both are actually saying the same things will get us nowhere. we all must choose what to do with these science definitions. do not choose accidental existence!
jltjdraketown 2 years ago
« when I say disorder I am actually saying the same thing that you are »
Then you know that the word disorder is inaccurate, and that in fact an equilibrium of energy states may result in a highly ordered situation.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
the way I look at entropy is not inaccurate. And you cannot take away from the true meaning. when I say disorder I mean dissipate. and if you think that heat death is orderly - that is only in your own mind
jltjdraketown 2 years ago
« the way I look at entropy is not inaccurate »
But it is. You obviously prefer the verbal physics 101 oversimplification over the actual formulae describing entropy.
« And you cannot take away from the true meaning »
You don't know the true meaning. Open up a physics book, find the formulae describing entropy.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« and if you think that heat death is orderly »
Heat death is the ultimate order. Mind you, it is a low entropy order, not the kind of order one expects where high energy states and low energy states meet. At the boundary of high energy and low energy states, where the increase in entropy is greatest, one *expects* to find order. This is demonstrable, and easily visible for anybody.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
This statement you have here is totally false. Increasing entropy is always disoderly. And this statement is not at all in accord with the second law of thermodynamcs. this is another one of your attempts to stand for atheism
jltjdraketown 2 years ago
« Increasing entropy is always disoderly »
See? I told you you didn't get it. So what of ice crystals then, hm? They form where entropy increases. Are they not orderly? And convection systems? You're not going to tell me entropy is not being increased by them, are you? Stop making foolish claims about things you don't understand, boy.
XGralgrathor 2 years a