Not bitter, Steven. Saddened and disappointed. Best, Gary
[image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us> wrote: > > So bitter Gary. You obviously do not receive my apology. I did apologize > you know and I have begged forgiveness. > > Steven > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> This from a man who recently insulted anyone and everyone who has taken >> teaching/learning seriously by offering that old Shavian quote, "Those who >> can, do, those who can't teach." >> >> And I add, as if it needed to be said, it is possible both to do >> important research *and* to teach well, >> >> I personally agree with John's critique. >> >> Best, Gary >> >> [image: Gary Richmond] >> >> *Gary Richmond* >> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >> *Communication Studies* >> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >> *C 745* >> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* >> >> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <ste...@iase.us> >> wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately, the only person that is really hurt by these claims, is >>> John, I encourage you to disengage. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Steven >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> >>>> Date: Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 9:18 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] What is information and how is it related to >>>> 'entropy' ? >>>> To: John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> >>>> >>>> >>>> John, >>>> >>>> For the benefit of these lists, my advise to you is simple: Let's do >>>> science; not personal attacks. >>>> >>>> I feel sorry for Steven. >>>> >>>> Sung >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 8:13 PM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is the sort of thing that I have called "nuts" Sung. Let better >>>>> people than you and me judge. It is unfortunately similar to your bizarre >>>>> comments about Peirce. >>>>> >>>>> You keep, as Edwina has said many times, repeating the same >>>>> nonsensical interpretations, and never admit you are wrong. It is >>>>> pointless >>>>> to try to communicate with such a strategy. This is much worse than the >>>>> strategy that Steven has adopted in claiming the a certain position does >>>>> not make sense because he does to understand how it could make sense. >>>>> You go further and try to reject the position of a perfectly >>>>> comprehensible >>>>> positon on the grounds that it does not agree with what you have >>>>> previously >>>>> said. You are an academic hazard, much like a drunken drive is a hazard. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have already responded to your objections in your interpretation of >>>>> Schrödinger's work, but you seem incapable of digesting them. Like Steven, >>>>> you object to view because they do not correspond to your preconceptions >>>>> without trying to understand the preconceptions involved and thus >>>>> interpret >>>>> them properly. I am sad that you have imposed such limitations on your >>>>> intellect, which is obviously large. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] *On >>>>> Behalf Of *Sungchul Ji >>>>> *Sent:* April 7, 2015 8:17 PM >>>>> *To:* John Collier >>>>> *Cc:* biosemiotics >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] What is information and how is it related >>>>> to 'entropy' ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You wrote: ". . . He points out a bit later that a piece of coal is >>>>> ordered with respect to its disordered burnt state, and can thus do work." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, you agree with Schroedinger that, whenever a system transitions >>>>> from an ordered state to a disordered state, the system can do work. In >>>>> other words, you believe that, when a system performs work, its entropy >>>>> increases. Do you ? How about me writing this email, which is a form of >>>>> work. Did my entropy increase as a result of my writing activity ? I >>>>> don't think so. What increased is the entropy of the Universe, not that >>>>> of >>>>> my body. What actually happened in my body due to my writing activity is >>>>> a >>>>> decrease in Gibbs free energy (due to my muscle mitochondria burning >>>>> NADH), >>>>> which is the function of both entropy and energy, i.e., dG = dE + PdV - >>>>> TdS. So it is clear that what is responsible for my body performing work >>>>> is not entropy increase in my body but Gibbs free energy decrease, i.e., >>>>> dG >>>>> < 0, which is always accompanied by an increase in the entropy of the >>>>> Universe but the entropy change, dS, of my body may be positive, negative >>>>> or zero, depending on environment. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If this analysis is correct, one reason that Schroedinger associated >>>>> order with negative entropy (which violates the Third Law) is his >>>>> pre-occupation with 'entropy' and failure to see that what allows >>>>> non-isolated systems to perform work is not just entropy but free >>>>> energies. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> All the best. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sung >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 4:53 PM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I shouldn't have started looking at these posts again. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] *On >>>>> Behalf Of *Sungchul Ji >>>>> *Sent:* April 7, 2015 4:38 PM >>>>> *To:* John Collier >>>>> *Cc:* biosemiotics >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] What is information and how is it related >>>>> to 'entropy' ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John, you wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ". . . .the rest of your post seems either commonplace or nuts to me, >>>>> so I will leave things there." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Can it be that "commonplace or nuts are in the eye of the beholder" ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [John Collier] Of course. Though commonplace is fairly easy to show, >>>>> "nuts" is clearly subjective. What I meant is that I don't get much reward >>>>> from trying to figure out what you mean. No doubt that is a failing of >>>>> mine >>>>> rather than a problem with the way you express yourself, but I have to go >>>>> with the way things seem to me. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You are also claiming that Brillouin meant "negative entropy change" >>>>> by his neologism, "negentropy". Since I have not read Brillouin deeply >>>>> as >>>>> you seem to have done, I cannot make any comment on your conclusion. But >>>>> this much is clear: Schroedinger did not mean "negative entropy change" >>>>> by >>>>> "negative entropy" as you can clearly see on pages 72 and 73 of his What >>>>> Is >>>>> Life ? (see attached). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [John Collier] I just don't see your point here. In the piece he >>>>> discusses order and disorder, with disorder associated with entropy and >>>>> order associated with negentropy. He points out a bit later that a piece >>>>> of >>>>> coal is ordered with respect to its disordered burnt state, and can thus >>>>> do >>>>> work. How you can interpret the illustration of negentropy as anything but >>>>> a difference between a lower entropy and a higher entropy state is beyond >>>>> my comprehension. He talks about food providing order to organisms and >>>>> says >>>>> that they feed off negentropy. Clearly he means order by negentropy. There >>>>> is nothing that implies that there are things with entropies lower than 0. >>>>> In particular, entropy he defines, as usual, as logD, and negative entropy >>>>> as log1/D, which is the negative of logD, and, as he says, a measure of >>>>> order (similar, as he says, to Boltzmann's usage). There is no way that >>>>> this implies that there are entropies less than 0. I don't have page >>>>> numbers in the manuscript version I have with me, but I am sure you can >>>>> find the appropriate passage, but it is mainly in Chapter 6; the coal >>>>> example that is meant to illustrate what he meant *against objections* >>>>> is in the note to Chapter 6. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. >>>>> >>>>> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology >>>>> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology >>>>> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy >>>>> Rutgers University >>>>> Piscataway, N.J. 08855 >>>>> 732-445-4701 >>>>> >>>>> www.conformon.net >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. >>>> >>>> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology >>>> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology >>>> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy >>>> Rutgers University >>>> Piscataway, N.J. 08855 >>>> 732-445-4701 >>>> >>>> www.conformon.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. >>>> >>>> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology >>>> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology >>>> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy >>>> Rutgers University >>>> Piscataway, N.J. 08855 >>>> 732-445-4701 >>>> >>>> www.conformon.net >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >>>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >>>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to >>>> PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe >>>> PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at >>>> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
