From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >One of the things that I would like to do is break the cycle of repeated >arguments, that tend to exist after mostly the same people cover mostly the >same territory. Spoilsport ! Its like a Bach symphony, or perhaps more Peter and the Wolf.. And here comes Dan, with the rich tones of the Viola..
>>From this, possibly, a more fruitful discussion might emerge. But on a serious note, I can't but support your intentions, my only quibble would be that sometimes one needs to go over the same ground a few times. <snips a lot of stuff I generally agree with> >Having said this with confidence, it doesn't mean that counter-intuitive >things cannot happen. For example, creationists have argued that entropy >is inconsistent with evolution. One way to look at evolution is that more >and more complex and ordered systems evolve from less complex and ordered >systems. Since the principal of entropy states that things naturally >become less ordered, this cannot happen. >There is a hole in this reasoning, of course. The law of entropy is for a >closed system. There is no reason why the entropy of an open system cannot >be reduced.as long as the entropy of other systems that are connected to >this system rise at least as much as that system falls. So, localized >drops in entropy, which appear paradoxical to the casual observer, can be >seen to be very compatible with the laws of physics. I have long found this topic interesting. Does this have any sort of "action at a distance" implications. How is the rise of apparent order, in the form of life on earth say, balanced by some entropy increase elsewhere. And what form does this take. When I mow my lawn, does some distant sun go supernova? A silly example perhaps, but how is the presence of life (which does seem rather anti-entropic) balanced somewhere else, in another system. How does this other system know to become less ordered? Surely, either life is not as anti-entropic than we think, or the Universe is a pretty kinky and wierd place. I guess its the latter, but its interesting to speculate upon none-the-less. And if life is as important as I/we think, what does this tell us about the closed/open nature of the universe. >This gives us a rule for the use of complexity. Complexity can result in >phenomena that are counter-intuitive to one who just thinks in general >about basic principals. Complexity cannot result in phenomena that are at >odds with the basic principals. Umm, I tend to agree. Not so sure that we have all the basic principals down pat yet, or that there arent bits of the Universe, or other universes, that dont work the same way our bit does, but I take your point. And we do have to argue from what we know, or think we know. >Well, this post has gotten long while giving us just one axiom. But, I >think it helps lay the groundwork for explaining my thinking. I'd welcome >any critique of this analysis. I admire your reference back to basic principals Dan, and applaud it fully. We will stilll argue in circles though. Perhaps thats how we balance out the entropy. Andrew
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
