Article <vld7tn$tdr6$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<vld7tn$tdr6$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: 2nd law clarifications
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2025 17:13:12 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 121
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vld7tn$tdr6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vl5d4e$37pf6$1@dont-email.me> <vl6l0t$3et84$1@dont-email.me>
 <vl8ku6$3t4od$1@dont-email.me> <rhnfnj52ulno6ibgk8eqfkkuicrg3grbv6@4ax.com>
 <vlbaf4$f9ui$2@dont-email.me> <vlbotl$1qcur$1@solani.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="59771"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RAWFn7MYYsAfFh/NR4Nb/Eh+DOY=
In-Reply-To: <vlbotl$1qcur$1@solani.org>
Content-Language: en-US
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED,
	SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,
	USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org
Bytes: 7795

On 5/01/2025 3:51 am, DB Cates wrote:
> On 2025-01-04 6:44 a.m., MarkE wrote:
>> On 4/01/2025 12:38 am, Rufus Ruffian wrote:
>>> MarkE wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/01/2025 5:13 am, Ernest Major wrote:
>>>>> On 02/01/2025 06:53, MarkE wrote:
>>>>>> Are these statements correct? Could they be better expressed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Local entropy can decrease in an open system with an input of free
>>>>>> energy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Free energy alone is not sufficient to maintain or further decrease
>>>>>> low local entropy: an energy capture and transformation mechanism is
>>>>>> also needed.
>>>
>>> Capture and transform into what, something useful?
>>> Who defines what's useful?  It's subjective, isn't it?
>>>
>>> The sun beats down on surface rocks in the daytime. They get hot. At
>>> night, the heat spreads downward and evens out the temperature, and
>>> entropy is reclaimed. The entropic tide rises and falls, in a relative
>>> way. Who needs to capture and transform anything?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Extant life *maintains* low local entropy through its organisation 
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> processes.
>>>
>>> Life blows through energy like a hungry kid in a mcdonalds, leaving a
>>> trail of entropy in its wake. Even green plants do so.
>>>
>>> You are taking the old "entropy = disorder" meme too seriously. It's
>>> just a simplistic conceptualization. Entropy is the change in system
>>> energy divided by the system temperature. Details at
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy>
>>>
>>>>>> Evolving life *decreases* low local entropy through the ratcheting
>>>>>> mechanism natural selection acting on random mutations in instances
>>>>>> where that evolution increases functional complexity and 
>>>>>> organisation.
>>>
>>> How many joules per kelvin are there in "functional complexity and
>>> organization"?
>>>
>>>>>> There is no other known mechanism apart from natural selection that
>>>>>> does this. For example, neutral drift alone increases entropy.
>>>
>>> [citation needed]
>>>
>>> Life generates the entropy it's going to generate, without regard for
>>> anthropomorphic concepts like drift and neutrality, let alone
>>> complexity, let alone "intelligence".  As far as thermodynamics is
>>> concerned, those are not even things. Think joules per kelvin, old
>>> buddy.
>>>
>>>>> It is difficult to operationalise the concept of irreducible 
>>>>> complexity,
>>>>> as that necessitates a principled definition of system, part and
>>>>> function. But if you pass over that point, there are at least three
>>>>> classes of paths (exaption, scaffolding, coevolution) whereby
>>>>> irreducibly complex systems can evolve. I suspect that the last is the
>>>>> most frequent, and that it can be driven by drift as well as by
>>>>> selection. If you are equating an increase in functional complexity 
>>>>> and
>>>>> organisation with a decrease in entropy, then this would negate a 
>>>>> claim
>>>>> that neutral drift always increases entropy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What I would say more confidently is, "For example, neutral drift alone
>>>> increases disorder."
>>>
>>> It's good to see a man who can be wrong with confidence.
>>>
>>>> More precisely, if a population fixes neutral and near-neutral 
>>>> mutations
>>>> over time through drift, with no selection acting, the net effect over
>>>> time will be devolution, i.e. a loss of information and functional
>>>> complexity. The end state will be extinction.
>>>
>>> If devolution happens, it's not exactly neutral, is it?
>>
>> You're confusing the relative neutrality of a near-neutral mutation 
>> with a cumulative population effect over time.
>>
>>>
>>> If a population extincts itself, then mucho selection has occurred, has
>>> it not?
>>>
>>> Again, how many joules per kelvin are consumed by the loss of
>>> "information"?
>>>
>>>> Does this necessarily mean entropy will increase? It would seem so.
>>>
>>> No.  Entropy increases because that's what entropy does. It doesn't care
>>> than remarkable life forms are constructed along the way.
>>
>> Universally, of course. Locally, not necessarily. Would you agree that 
>> evolution produces a local decrease in entropy?
>>
> I would not agree with that. You need to discard the idea that 'disorder 
> means higher entropy'. My favourite example is rust. Iron rust has a 
> lower "local" entropy that the iron+oxygen that combine to produce it. 
> (see https://www2.oberlin.edu/physics/dstyer/P111/EntropyRust.pdf)
> Evolution changes aspects of life but doesn't (locally) reduce entropy. 
> Life (locally) reduces entropy but at the expense of greatly increasing 
> entropy less locally. Think of life as God's way of speeding up the heat 
> death of the universe.
> 

That's interesting - a cautionary example re assumptions about entropy 
changes. What response did the letter receive do you know?

Regardless, we seem to be in agreement that life increases entropy locally.

You're welcome to comment on my recent "exploratory" response to Rufus 
Ruffian on this:
snews://news.eternal-september.org:563/vld6k5$t7a6$1@dont-email.me