Hi CTD
You don't get to change laws of science.Nor would I want to. I just wish that some others here would learn what they actually say and follow them.
Get real. If any law only applied in a closed system, it wouldn't be a law because there are no closed systems.The universe is, as far as we can tell, a closed system.
OK so you don’t know what 2LoT says. As I said earlier, ignorance is not a sin, just ask and there are many here who’ll help you overcome it.
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
Sure and chemistry provides us with literally thousands and thousands of known ‘mechanisms’ that can do work without life. Just look up inorganic chemistry and read through some of them
Redox reactions
Redox reactions are prevalent for the transition elements. Two classes of redox reaction are considered: atom-transfer reactions, such as oxidative addition/reductive elimination, and electron-transfer. A fundamental redox reaction is "self-exchange", which involves the degenerate reaction between an oxidant and a reductant. For example, permanganate and its one-electron reduced relative manganate exchange one electron:
[MnO4]? + [Mn*O4]2? ? [MnO4]2? + [Mn*O4]?
Each of those steps is work being done without life in line with 2LoT.
And Heat = Entropy is a false equation. At least try to keep that straight.In simple terms, the second law is an expression of the fact that over time, ignoring the effects of self-gravity, differences in temperature, pressure, and density tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world. Entropy is a measure of how far along this evening-out process has progressed.
There is more to it than just heat as you can see but heat is the most obvious and easily measured part of it.
You tell your evomyth of creation, but you do not define information, nor do you make any case for your previous definition. Your only progress in misinforming is to try to paint an association between lack of heat and information. Might help if you figure out what order is, and quit trying to use it as a synonym for information.You may not like the ‘synonym’ but it works. They are not the same but they are closely related. In a plasma particles are disconnected, they don’t form structures at all, not even atoms, so virtually no information, virtually no order exists or persists. As that plasma cools matter forms, ordered structures capable of forming bonds and holding information. Here are a few articles you might want to read to understand how order and information relate in 2LoT.
Brillouin, Leon (1956). Science and Information Theory. name. ISBN 0-486-43918-6.
Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas (1971). The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-25781-2.
Chen, Jing (2005). The Physical Foundation of Economics - an Analytical Thermodynamic Theory. World Scientific. ISBN 981-256-323-7.
What do you call the distance from the sun to mercury?
Is that not information?[/]
It is not.
What is it then?
What is it once someone measures it and writes it down? Does it magically become information once it is in a mind? Does the tree make a sound in the forest if no one is watching when it falls?
[i]What do you call the distance between mineral grains in the rocks of Mercury?
Is that not information?Of course not.What is it then?
What is it once someone measures it and writes it down?
If not what is information?It would be unfair of me to give a definition. You are using the term, and no definition I know will work. So anything I offer will make your statements false.Not true. I have slowly fleshed out what I believe order is and what I believe information is what I don’t understand is what you think they are. Information is either ‘that which a mind holds about the world around it’ or it is ‘the raw information on which those impressions are formed’. Personally I hold to the latter. Information is the raw order on which mind impressions, ideas etc are formed. The distance between the sun and the earth is information regardless of whether someone notices it. It was information before there were humans, it is so today now that humans have measured and recorded it and it will remain so once human and their minds have ceased to exist.
You have explained above that you take it to be something else. So what is it CTD. Put your money where your mouth is, what is the distance between the earth and the sun if no one has noticed it? Is it information? It is information/order of this sort that drives evolution. If the mountains are steep creatures able to climb them may have an advantage and be selected for, they will pass on their abilities by the simple fact that they survive and breed. By this extraction by evolutionary means of information unnoticed by minds mountain goats are shaped. If the distance between the sun and the earth is not information is it order? What is it that you call this stuff that drives evolution that is the shape and arrangement of this world and its parts? Or have you not thought hard enough about this question to find a name for it that suits your world view?
Or you may provide a mockworthy definition...Yes I understand that mocking is pretty much all you have to contribute to this discussion but I’ll give you another chance to be a productive party to it. Can you actually do this CTD?
The second law of thermodynamics says in closed systems entropy will always increase but entropy will reduce locally in open systems.No it doesn't.OK Poorly worded. 2LoT says that, in an open system with energy flowing in and out work will be done and local entropy may decrease at the expense of entropy elsewhere. This has, obviously, been observed to occur so it’s hardly controversial, have you ever seen a snowflake form for example?
Look at this jumble. It has nothing to do with what I said. I took R2's own statement and showed that it logically means life must be created. He responds with this, after he himself said meaningful information requires a mind.I understand that that was your intent but did you succeed? I would have to suggest that you did not. You may define everything as needing a creator such as you have in your statement that the comet now requires one but that is one of the claims you are trying to prove. Can you? Prove that the comet needs a creator? You have to before you can just throw that idea out there as a given.
We are back to trying to define information and you don’t seem to be able to do it. For me information is the details of the order that exists in our universe. That order appears to have come into existence as the universe cooled and matter formed bonds and accumulations in this universe. When minds observe that information and form ideas from it they assign it meaning. There is no meaning in DNA except that which we give it by observing it. DNA and the machinery of our cells are mechanistic, they have no idea what the DNA says they just slavishly follow the sequence in much the same way as a Pianola does with a roll of paper with holes in it. If we change the code or if a mutation does the machinery of our cells will produce new or altered proteins regardless of whether they make any sense or have any meaning and natural selection will select for or against this new creature based on how well it survives and reproduces and thus it will test the new DNA sequence against the information of the real world in which the creature exists. If it passes this test this new DNA sequence will be passed on to the next generation. If it is more successful than the other DNA sequences out there it will come to dominate that gene pool over time no meaning required.
By his new twist the comet requires a creator too. The distraction buys nothing. It's rather odd that we haven't heard of the "comet code", if comets contain the same type of meaningful information as DNA. At least with such logic, we can expect to be entertained if he ever gets around to defining 'information'.Yes I’ve already gathered that you can’t or more probably won’t tell us what you think information is. This is obviously a purposeful tactic so that you can go on banging around the edges of these discussions without really getting into the guts of what is being discussed. I wonder why that is CTD?
Computers run programs without any understanding too, but that's just too easy an analogy, and may or may not involve play.It’s actually a perfectly appt analogy. Computers don’t think or feel or understand they just run programs as the famous kids movie once said. Computers can also use random number generators and evolutionary algorithms to write new code more efficient and faster than human programmers can write. When analysed many of these programs don’t conform to the norms of programming the Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) devices used, the code should not work and no one actually understands how it works in many cases yet it does and it works very well.
Who writes this junk for you?
Evidently they consider it impossible that variation would render them inert.
Anyhow, your propaganda is meaningless in the real world, as usual.No, no one suggested that variation would not render them inert, obviously it would sometimes but there is a large population of replicators and, equally obviously, the inert ones would not reproduce so it is the ones which are still replicating that would carry on into the next generation and if any faster one’s arise, as has been observed, they will come to dominate by simple weight of numbers and compounding. I’m not sure how you define the real world here, this is experimental observational science not an unsupported idea on a black board on in an ancient book.
This article does not resolve the issue for you. It does not address "my complaint". These people state a requirement. They do not say that this is the only requirement. They do not state that the synthetic replicators could evolve into life. They just point out that unchanging replicators would be incapable of changing into life. Duh!Duh exactly. The authors of this article state that the replicators they worked with were observed to change. So let’s break this down, the only sort of replicator that is ‘incapable of changing into life’ is an unchanging replicator and these authors describe their observations of
changing replicators. In other words replicators that are not limited by this issue to being incapable of changing into life. Is there some other problem you see with them that would prevent them evolving into life other than that it does not say so in the bible?
But this DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS your own statementSelf replication is all that is required and the rest is up to evolution.You are ignoring the fact that we already know that there are more than one type of self replicator and that some of them change from generation to generation. It’s a given that this is true so even if some self replicators don’t change evolution will continue with those that do. Given that one of the already observed changes was a change for increased speed of replication those which do not change will be swamped by those which do and replaced by simple weight of numbers. That’s evolution in action right there no life required.
So like so many of your complaints this one does not pan out. My statements did not contradict each other one was simply more complete than the other. I don’t always give every detail in every post, I assume (maybe foolishly) that all the readers here are clever enough to look at the big picture, to remember things that have been said before so I don’t have to spell out every single step every single time. In the paragraph that you mined that quote from I went on to explain that random chance was part of “Evolution” and that Natural Selection was part of “Evolution”. You can’t just ignore that word, I put it in the sentence and went on to detail it further, for a reason CTD.
You say ANY self-replicating molecule would produce life. Nobody believes this. Absolutely nobody, unless they just take some liar's word for it.And neither do I and, of course I didn’t say it. Any self replicating molecule will undergo evolution which may result in it going extinct quickly. It might be replaced by other ‘better’ self replicators, it may simply reproduce till there are no more resources and then break down or it may go on to evolve over 3.5+ billion years into a sentient life form capable of having this sort of argument. There are few guarantees in Evolution.
*Consider the irony of this blunder, just as an unreasonably strict requirement for absolute perfection is being applied to HY's book.I never asked for ‘absolute perfection’ from this book, it would be interesting if he got anything at all right, if so that one thing would be worthy of discussion IMHO. Did he? Can you point to one thing that he got right in his book CTD?
In reason
Russell
Circle-of-Life Forums - Welcome
