Entropy, Rebellion, and Thought

[Wyman]

No, entropy would be the ultimate 'order.' It is stagnation, or even distribution throughout. Life is a different kind of order, contrary to 'even distribution throughout'; almost the opposite of it in fact, which is the paradox.

Perhaps you could say it is both order and disorder, but I wouldn't see this as a paradox.

I think seeing it as a paradox is my point, which I am not expressing well, perhaps because I am wrong. Was the singularity (supposing there was one) prior to the big bang the ultimate ordered state, or would a completely cold, expanded universe, with single hydrogen atoms evenly distributed over incomprehensibly large distances the ultimate ordered state? I could see an argument for each. If the universe ran back in time from expansion to singularity, which I have read some physicists speculate about, then things would tend to congregate, and entropy would be the exception. I think of life in our universe as perplexing as would be a life form in a contracting universe which survived by reversing course and resisting synthesis - perhaps a gaseous, sublimating life form?

[Ginkgo]

No, entropy would be the ultimate 'order.' It is stagnation, or even distribution throughout. Life is a different kind of order, contrary to 'even distribution throughout'; almost the opposite of it in fact, which is the paradox.

Perhaps you could say it is both order and disorder, but I wouldn't see this as a paradox.

I think seeing it as a paradox is my point, which I am not expressing well, perhaps because I am wrong. Was the singularity (supposing there was one) prior to the big bang the ultimate ordered state, or would a completely cold, expanded universe, with single hydrogen atoms evenly distributed over incomprehensibly large distances the ultimate ordered state? I could see an argument for each. If the universe ran back in time from expansion to singularity, which I have read some physicists speculate about, then things would tend to congregate, and entropy would be the exception. I think of life in our universe as perplexing as would be a life form in a contracting universe which survived by reversing course and resisting synthesis - perhaps a gaseous, sublimating life form?

Yes, I was thinking along these lines myself. In the beginning we have a highly order universe that undergoes expansion and a movement towards disorder, yet out of this we get starts, galaxies and planets.

As to whether this is a paradox or not would be dependent upon a suitable scientific explanation. On the other hand, a suitable suitable scientific explanation may well be paradoxical. Perhaps Blags or uwot might provide us with some insight.

[uwot]

Dunno if it's any help, but one way to imagine the Big Bang is as a very tightly coiled spring. Once it's let go, it goes bonkers. Matter and energy are analogous to waves and tangles in the spring but eventually, it will wind down, and while in the absence of friction it will never completely stop, it will be more or less flat and all the meaningful action is over. Current estimates for when this will be, range from a very, very long time to a really humungous time.

[Greylorn Ell]

In a universe that is contracting, would human philosophers experience the 'problem of analysis' rather than the 'problem of induction?'

The universe begins with complex systems bunched together and spreads out more and more until all that is left is a cold, even distribution of simple objects; this is entropy. Some physicists think that this process gives the direction to events that we call time. Other universes may be going in the opposite direction.

Analysis is analogous to entropy, induction is the opposite. Analysis is the egg hitting the floor and breaking, induction is the egg putting itself back together. Analysis breaks apart complex concepts into parts and seems natural and easy for us, and often somewhat boring. Induction creates new concepts out of the old and seems somewhat mysterious or unnatural to us and requires things such as 'creativity,' 'inspiration,' 'genius.'

Life itself defies entropy in a way. While in total, the universe is expanding and breaking apart, we are pocket systems which defy this trend. We heat ourselves internally, we build things, we procreate and our most basic instinct is for survival, or keeping ourselves from 'dispersing' our atoms out into the cold universe.

Could our way of thinking be in some way patterned after the physical laws that govern our universe? Is our creativity a rebellion against those laws? And how could a universe undergoing entropy produce systems (life) which run counter to it?

Wyman,

These are interesting perspectives.

Of course a universe undergoing entropic dissolution cannot itself produce life. An entropy reversal mechanism is required. This is consistent with the observation that we live in a cause-effect universe.

Darwinism hypothesizes that random chance operates as the de facto entropy reverser for the development of life via DNA changes, but probability math shows that this is, by all accepted scientific standards, impossible. Experiments designed to simulate the effects of random, Darwinian-style mutations (via fruit flies, etc.) have consistently failed. Moreover, random chance has not been able to account for abiogenesis, which must precede genetic modifications.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (that defines entropy, and the general direction of events within the universe) actually represents a force-- possibly the only real force in the mindless universe.

Within that universe effects require causes. Perhaps you might consider the possibility that life is caused, neither by random events nor the almighty God of Christianity, etc., but by a consortium of limited, self-aware entities that act, both individually and collectively, as entropy reversers.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

Dunno if it's any help, but one way to imagine the Big Bang is as a very tightly coiled spring. Once it's let go, it goes bonkers. Matter and energy are analogous to waves and tangles in the spring but eventually, it will wind down, and while in the absence of friction it will never completely stop, it will be more or less flat and all the meaningful action is over. Current estimates for when this will be, range from a very, very long time to a really humungous time.

Even a simple spring represents a serious technological achievement. Its iron must be mined and smelted, combined with the right amount of carbon and metal alloys to produce spring-steel, then cast or formed into its shape, then tempered with heat.

The job of engineers and metallurgist spring makers is made fairly easy by the convenient supply of available raw materials-- iron, carbon, chrome or vanadium or nickel. In this context the obvious questions in reply to your comment are...

What processes made the raw materials for the spring?

What formed the basic spring?

What compressed it, providing the energy stored in the spring?

What event released that stored energy?

Greylorn

[HexHammer]

What processes made the raw materials for the spring?

What formed the basic spring?

What compressed it, providing the energy stored in the spring?

What event released that stored energy?

Maybe you should go read up on astrophysics, normal people have a tiny amount of knowledge of this, but you have a heart acheingly none.

How could you stay so ignorant of this for so long? You never watch any media?

[Wyman]

In a universe that is contracting, would human philosophers experience the 'problem of analysis' rather than the 'problem of induction?'

The universe begins with complex systems bunched together and spreads out more and more until all that is left is a cold, even distribution of simple objects; this is entropy. Some physicists think that this process gives the direction to events that we call time. Other universes may be going in the opposite direction.

Analysis is analogous to entropy, induction is the opposite. Analysis is the egg hitting the floor and breaking, induction is the egg putting itself back together. Analysis breaks apart complex concepts into parts and seems natural and easy for us, and often somewhat boring. Induction creates new concepts out of the old and seems somewhat mysterious or unnatural to us and requires things such as 'creativity,' 'inspiration,' 'genius.'

Life itself defies entropy in a way. While in total, the universe is expanding and breaking apart, we are pocket systems which defy this trend. We heat ourselves internally, we build things, we procreate and our most basic instinct is for survival, or keeping ourselves from 'dispersing' our atoms out into the cold universe.

Could our way of thinking be in some way patterned after the physical laws that govern our universe? Is our creativity a rebellion against those laws? And how could a universe undergoing entropy produce systems (life) which run counter to it?

Wyman,

These are interesting perspectives.

Of course a universe undergoing entropic dissolution cannot itself produce life. An entropy reversal mechanism is required. This is consistent with the observation that we live in a cause-effect universe.

Darwinism hypothesizes that random chance operates as the de facto entropy reverser for the development of life via DNA changes, but probability math shows that this is, by all accepted scientific standards, impossible. Experiments designed to simulate the effects of random, Darwinian-style mutations (via fruit flies, etc.) have consistently failed. Moreover, random chance has not been able to account for abiogenesis, which must precede genetic modifications.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (that defines entropy, and the general direction of events within the universe) actually represents a force-- possibly the only real force in the mindless universe.

Within that universe effects require causes. Perhaps you might consider the possibility that life is caused, neither by random events nor the almighty God of Christianity, etc., but by a consortium of limited, self-aware entities that act, both individually and collectively, as entropy reversers.

Greylorn

Well, one of my attributes is an open mind. Unlike Hexhammer.

I was thinking of something originally unrelated to this post (see my fundraiser story below), but since you brought up chance and probability - what do you think of the anthropic principle? If the physical laws and constants necessary for a universe to exist which supports life are extremely rare, what if there were a billion universes popping in and out of existence before this one? Wouldn't that explain the mind boggling improbability? It is also highly improbable that I will win the lottery or get struck by lightning today - and yet, people do win the lottery.

Of course, I can predict the gist of your response, but would like to hear the details.

As a related aside, I was at a fund raiser for a grade school and they had a silly game to win a prize. Someone would flip a coin while everyone attending placed their hands either on their head or on their butts - if the coin ended up opposite their hand placement, they stepped aside until one person was left. I, being a humbug, just stood with my hands on my hips, waiting to be eliminated. One flip of the coin after another came up tails. A woman in the group had the same strategy and soon, out of a large crowd of people, it was just me and her, with our hands on (or near) our butts. After something like 8 or 9 'tails' in a row with both of us stubbornly adhering to our strategy, I finally put my hands on my head and won with the next coin toss.

Now, people thought this was amazing but obviously knew, under the circumstances, that it was mere coincidence. But think of other circumstances that aren't so transparent. If I were a stockbroker and chose 9 companies in a row that doubled in stock price over a year - by pure luck - instead of thinking it was an amazing coincidence, they would call me a genius and people would analyze my methods and try to imitate my 'strategies' for years to come. They would see similarities, trends, laws being obeyed, perhaps even superstitions being vindicated - the list is only as short as one's imagination. But it would 'really' just be blind luck, although only I would be privy to that fact.

[Arising_uk]

...
Within that universe effects require causes. Perhaps you might consider the possibility that life is caused, neither by random events nor the almighty God of Christianity, etc., but by a consortium of limited, self-aware entities that act, both individually and collectively, as entropy reversers.

Greylorn

And then he might consider how such an answer answers nothing as this 'consortium' would then need an explanation ad infinitum. Its the 'who made 'God' then?' or 'Who is 'God's creator?' all over again.

[HexHammer]

Well, one of my attributes is an open mind. Unlike Hexhammer.

This is a philosophy forum, not a supersticion forum, please go elsewhere if you want to waste time on supersticion.

Philosophy = love of wisdom ..wisdom is refined knowledge, this nonsense and babble isn't wisdom, not even knowledge.

[uwot]

What processes made the raw materials for the spring?

It's not certain that there is a spring. I haven't said it for a while, but I still think the most likely cause of the phenomena that give the impression that the universe is made of stuff, is some stuff the universe is made of, but it may not be.
If the spring is a good analogy for whatever the Big Bang was 'made of', some quantum field or fields perhaps, then we have no means presently of observing it directly; we can only infer it's existence from the behaviour of the 'excitations' or 'disturbances' in that field, which we describe as particles or waves. Ironic, really.

What formed the basic spring?
What compressed it, providing the energy stored in the spring?
What event released that stored energy?
Greylorn

All of which are very interesting questions, but for now at least, so far beyond the range of detection that any proposed answers are necessarily speculative. Not only that, but as I say in Philosophy's Roots and Branches, we will never know that the model we use to understand the universe will not be superceded. That is true even of beon theory.

[Greylorn Ell]

What processes made the raw materials for the spring?

What formed the basic spring?

What compressed it, providing the energy stored in the spring?

What event released that stored energy?

Maybe you should go read up on astrophysics, normal people have a tiny amount of knowledge of this, but you have a heart acheingly none.

How could you stay so ignorant of this for so long? You never watch any media?

Oh shit. Hex, I am so sorry for not watching enough TV documentaries, counting how many times Dr. Caca (Michelle, Krauss, Dr. Kaku, etc.) wag their silly heads while presenting the latest astrophysical dogma, never mentioning how this week's bullshit differs from last week's.

Somehow I thought that a degree in physics and 15 years experience in astronomy, including pitching the first astronomical telescope into space and obtaining useful data from it for 4 years might have been useful by way of credentials. I imagine that in whatever passes for you as mind, writing the control code for the first completely automatic, computer controlled telescope, and generating a paper explaining the discovery of short-period variable stars, is not as useful, by way of credentials, as watching Dr. Caca on TV.

I guess that writing a couple of books on the subject of the beginnings of things doesn't count quite as much, in your demanding mind, as enthusiastically reading from a teleprompter on TV while wagging one's head up and down like a dashboard-mounted bobble-headed Jesus doll. I manage to read several pop-science magazines every month to see what acts the clowns are planning, and I try to get a couple of books in, but dammit, I have a tendency to upchuck when watching Dr. Caca and his cronies regurgitate their nonsense for the dimwitted nincompoops who imagine that they are keeping up on science by watching and believing the bullshit presented on documentary TV.

Hex, I'm just not smart enough to meet your high standards. Sorry about that. So I promise not to waste your valuable TV-watching time by responding to anything else that you might write.

BTW, between this response and the end of the universe, you might consider actually finding the answers to the questions I posed in the post to which you so generously responded. Friendly tip: don't try to find them on the Dr. Caca show or anywhere else. They have yet to be found.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

In a universe that is contracting, would human philosophers experience the 'problem of analysis' rather than the 'problem of induction?'

The universe begins with complex systems bunched together and spreads out more and more until all that is left is a cold, even distribution of simple objects; this is entropy. Some physicists think that this process gives the direction to events that we call time. Other universes may be going in the opposite direction.

Analysis is analogous to entropy, induction is the opposite. Analysis is the egg hitting the floor and breaking, induction is the egg putting itself back together. Analysis breaks apart complex concepts into parts and seems natural and easy for us, and often somewhat boring. Induction creates new concepts out of the old and seems somewhat mysterious or unnatural to us and requires things such as 'creativity,' 'inspiration,' 'genius.'

Life itself defies entropy in a way. While in total, the universe is expanding and breaking apart, we are pocket systems which defy this trend. We heat ourselves internally, we build things, we procreate and our most basic instinct is for survival, or keeping ourselves from 'dispersing' our atoms out into the cold universe.

Could our way of thinking be in some way patterned after the physical laws that govern our universe? Is our creativity a rebellion against those laws? And how could a universe undergoing entropy produce systems (life) which run counter to it?

Wyman,

These are interesting perspectives.

Of course a universe undergoing entropic dissolution cannot itself produce life. An entropy reversal mechanism is required. This is consistent with the observation that we live in a cause-effect universe.

Darwinism hypothesizes that random chance operates as the de facto entropy reverser for the development of life via DNA changes, but probability math shows that this is, by all accepted scientific standards, impossible. Experiments designed to simulate the effects of random, Darwinian-style mutations (via fruit flies, etc.) have consistently failed. Moreover, random chance has not been able to account for abiogenesis, which must precede genetic modifications.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (that defines entropy, and the general direction of events within the universe) actually represents a force-- possibly the only real force in the mindless universe.

Within that universe effects require causes. Perhaps you might consider the possibility that life is caused, neither by random events nor the almighty God of Christianity, etc., but by a consortium of limited, self-aware entities that act, both individually and collectively, as entropy reversers.

Greylorn

Well, one of my attributes is an open mind. Unlike Hexhammer.

I was thinking of something originally unrelated to this post (see my fundraiser story below), but since you brought up chance and probability - what do you think of the anthropic principle? If the physical laws and constants necessary for a universe to exist which supports life are extremely rare, what if there were a billion universes popping in and out of existence before this one? Wouldn't that explain the mind boggling improbability? It is also highly improbable that I will win the lottery or get struck by lightning today - and yet, people do win the lottery.

Of course, I can predict the gist of your response, but would like to hear the details.

Wyman,
I love your "aside," thinking that it is not so far aside as you might suppose. I'd prefer to comment on that, favorably from at least my perspective, after calling your hand. You wrote, "Of course, I can predict the gist of your response, but would like to hear the details.."

Before generating a response, I'd love to obtain your prediction of the gist of it.

That is because I doubt that you can predict the gist, or core, of my response. If you can, this suggests that you and I are kindred spirits who should exchange personal phone numbers.

I wonder if there is a way for me to post my response somewhere where you cannot find it, and I cannot modify it to make myself look good? Would this not be an interesting experiment?

One notion that comes to mind is this: I could send my response to one of the people with whom I share email correspondences. Or several. I could obtain their permission to share their address with you. My response, sent to him/her would be dated and time stamped in his/her email box, waiting to be forwarded to you AFTER you have explicitly expressed your prediction.

We ought to be able to work this out. Perhaps R. Lewis or our other moderator would be willing to hold my reply and make it available after you manifest your prediction. This should be fun. Let's find a way to make it work.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

...It is a bit odd that two of our most profound theories, entropy and evolution, on the face of it, are going in opposite directions.

It looks as if the more sophisticated we become, the better we are at making things simple.

uwot,

Had you eliminated the last sentence of this pair, you would have left us with a profound and relevant observation upon which to reflect, without the dilution of a personal opinion.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

...
Within that universe effects require causes. Perhaps you might consider the possibility that life is caused, neither by random events nor the almighty God of Christianity, etc., but by a consortium of limited, self-aware entities that act, both individually and collectively, as entropy reversers.

Greylorn

And then he might consider how such an answer answers nothing as this 'consortium' would then need an explanation ad infinitum. Its the 'who made 'God' then?' or 'Who is 'God's creator?' all over again.

AUK,

Your point is right on.

My theory includes a mechanism by which "god" comes into a definable state of existence as the result of what might be called a mini-bang, and develops from there into a consortium of creators, who eventually assemble a functional universe from the available material, and according to its principles of operation.

This "God" did not develop in isolation. He/she/it/whatever became the core of a complex group of entities that are kind of related to the conventional God-concept, except that they are genuinely plural, and are neither omnipotent nor omniscient. They did not create the universe from nothing, but rather shaped it from the available material.

Before complaining about the validity of these brief statements, all of them generated after 10pm my time, consider perusing either my book or website. The latter is free, except that it requires honest input and criticism, which is worth much more to me than the 4-bits income that a book purchase puts into my sponsor's coffers.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

Seems you like to confuse yourself with beautiful rhetorical babble and nonsense, fortunaly there's loads of other cozy chatters like you that would like nothing better to endulge it.

Hex, you're losing your touch. You called my rhetorical babble 'beautiful.'

Even us dull, logical types get to daydream once in a while.

So what do you base your OP on? It seems to defy any scientific understanding that I know of.

Hex,

Although this was not directed to me, I'm inclined to wonder, in light of your general input on this forum, exactly what "scientific understanding" do you know of, and from what sources is it derived. University degree, or television documentaries?

Greylorn