Fwd: thermodynamics...
Physics Story A thermodynamics professor had written a take home exam for her graduate students. It had one question: "Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with a proof." Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law or some variant. One student, however wrote the following: First, we postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, lets look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant. So, if hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose. Of course, if hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over. It was not revealed what grade the student got. _ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
The theorist (Noble Prize winning physical chemist) who has written about the significance of the arrow of time for a recasting of the timeless traditional account of systemic development is Ilya Prigogine. See Prigogine and Stengers 'Order out of Chaos' and a more recent book by Prigogine alone. Wallerstein picks this up in his Gulbenkian report on 'Open the Social Sciences'. Progigine was a member of this committee. To summarize a long and comlex argument, the application of the second law of thermodynamics to biological, ecological and human social systems is rubbish. David Byrne Dept of Sociology and Social Policy University of Durham Elvet Riverside New Elvet Durham DH1 3JT 0191-374-2319 0191-0374-4743 fax
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
From: D S Byrne [EMAIL PROTECTED] summarize a long and comlex argument, the application of the second law of thermodynamics to biological, ecological and human social systems is rubbish. Obviously, you are mistaken David. There are no exceptions to the laws of thermodynamics. They apply everywhere -- even in your backyard. The laws of thermodynamics tell us that you can not burn a barrel of oil twice. It's like gravity -- you can try it at home. Let me know how your experiment turns out. G Jay -- Erwin Schrodinger (1945) has described life as a system in steady-state thermodynamic disequilibrium that maintains its constant distance from equilibrium (death) by feeding on low entropy from its environment -- that is, by exchanging high-entropy outputs for low-entropy inputs. The same statement would hold verbatim as a physical description of our economic process. A corollary of this statement is an organism cannot live in a medium of its own waste products. -- Daly and Townsend
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
D. Byrne wrote: the application of the second law of thermodynamics to biological, ecological and human social systems is rubbish. Tor Forde wrote: Exactly what I am saying! Tom Walker agreed: Me three. Jay Hanson wrote (in response to Brad McCormick's quote from Habermas): This is not science. One is tempted to say that the Habermas quote is *closer* to science than Jay's paraphrase of the laws of thermodynamics (1. you can't win, etc.). Instead, I'll agree that philosophy of science is not science. It is, however, a condition without which science could not exist. Language is another such condition. Language is not science. One cannot, however, "do" science and repudiate language. It's also clear to me that there is no point arguing with someone who simply repeats a particular "fact" or "law" as the conclusive answer to every conceivable question. Science is science. Fundamentalism is fundamentalism. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ Vancouver, B.C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
Re: Evolutionary Science (and the evolution of mankind's
From: Tom Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's also clear to me that there is no point arguing with someone who simply repeats a particular "fact" or "law" as the conclusive answer to every conceivable question. Science is science. Fundamentalism is fundamentalism. As far as I know, you three have been so busy denying reality, that you haven't asked any questions. Did I miss something? G Jay
Re: [Fwd: Re: There are really only two kinds of knowledge]
"Information about lawlike connections sets off a process of reflection in the consciousness of those whom the laws are about. Thus the level of unreflected consciousness, which is one of the initial conditions of such laws, can be transformed. Of course...a critically mediated knowledge of laws cannot through reflection alone render a law itself inoperative, but it can render it inapplicable." (Jurgen Habermas, KNOWLEDGE AND HUMAN INTEREST, Beacon Press, Boston, 1971, p. 310) Jay Hanson wrote: This is not science. Huh? What's so *un*-scientific about the observation that social scientific "laws" can be true at one time and false at another (later) time *just because* the knowledge of them renders them "inapplicable". Possible Examples: theories of suicide before and after the "cry for help" theory was well publicised; theories of war before and after Frederic of Prussia; economics before and after Keynes. Isn't it scientifically true that announced expectations about us and our behaviour can lead us to change our behaviour and thus falsify the expectations (either quite consciously and purposefully or less reflectively)?? (I take it this is what Habermas is talking about.) -- Stephen Straker[EMAIL PROTECTED] Arts One / History (604) 822-6863 / 822-2561 University of British Columbia Vancouver, B.C.FAX: (604) 822-4520 CANADA V6T 1Z1home: (604) 733-6638 / 734-4464
