The 2nd Law fallacy

[Dan-Man916]

neo,

since I am also a BSME from a very good school of engineering who also graduated with high honors and received A’s in both Thermo 1& 2 and an A in Heat and mass transfer, my question is, why are you trying to use the physical to prove the spiritual?
Faith can’t prove the Bernoulli equation anymore than the 2nd law of thermodynamics can prove the divinity and pre-existence of the divine Logos.

They are metaphysically two independent things.

Faith is to the Spiritual, what mathematics is to the physical.
Why do we need one to explain the other?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Dan-Man916:

neo,

since I am also a BSME from a very good school of engineering who also graduated with high honors and received A’s in both Thermo 1& 2 and an A in Heat and mass transfer, my question is, why are you trying to use the physical to prove the spiritual?
Faith can’t prove the Bernoulli equation anymore than the 2nd law of thermodynamics can prove the divinity and pre-existence of the divine Logos.

They are metaphysically two independent things.

Faith is to the Spiritual, what mathematics is to the physical.
Why do we need one to explain the other?

Amen!

We are Catholics, not fundamentalists. We are not threatened by science – we accept it and see no conflict between science and religion.

Why belabor the point?

 

[Exporter]

Dan-Man wrote,"is, why are you trying to use the physical to prove the spiritual?
Faith can’t prove the Bernoulli equation anymore than the 2nd law of thermodynamics can prove the divinity and pre-existence of the divine Logos.

They are( metaphysically ?? are organisms metaphysical?)two independent things.

Faith is to the Spiritual, what mathematics is to the physical.
Why do we need one to explain the other?"

I said as much in post #14. Could Neophyte be using the wrong language? But remember he read it in an Engineering textbook. It is possible that the author was trying to use it for an analogy for another purpose. Neophyte is not all to blame…maybe.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Exporter:

Dan-Man wrote,"is, why are you trying to use the physical to prove the spiritual?
Faith can’t prove the Bernoulli equation anymore than the 2nd law of thermodynamics can prove the divinity and pre-existence of the divine Logos.

They are( metaphysically ?? are organisms metaphysical?)two independent things.

Faith is to the Spiritual, what mathematics is to the physical.
Why do we need one to explain the other?"

I said as much in post #14. Could Neophyte be using the wrong language? But remember he read it in an Engineering textbook. It is possible that the author was trying to use it for an analogy for another purpose. Neophyte is not all to blame…maybe.

As I see the issue (as best as I can follow the various posts), it’s “Is the Creationist argument that the Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves the idea of evolution a vaild argument?”

Clearly, the answer is no. It is an invalid argument. As has been pointed out, if it WERE valid, it would mean a plant cannot grow from a seed. It would mean that hydrogen and oxygen cannot combine to form water.

 

[FelixBlue]

Neophyte,

A few questions (I claim near to zero knowledge about this besides what I recall from classes and reading a few pop science books and what I’ve picked up from you and the ensuing discussion):

1. What does the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics/Entropy imply regarding the “closed” system of the universe? From what I understand, cosmologists now believe that the universe can expand indefinitely. If so, what does this mean regarding the entropy of the cosmos as a single system? Wouldn’t it eventually (over long periods of time) lead to the opposite of what we now perceive as evolved (ie the existence of stars, planets, life, etc.)? And isn’t this a fundamental violation of the idea of evolution? (Again, I’m only asking…)
2. I don’t understand how you can say, “The spacial arrangement of the objects in the system, in and of itself, has no bearing on entropy.” Isn’t entropy (and any other physical/energy property) fundamentally related to all other physical properties? And isn’t “order” or relative space merely a function of the different forces and so forth (I don’t recall all the names, but the weak and strong force, electro magnetism, gravity, etc.). I may very well be mistaken, but isn’t this the goal of finding a “theory for everything” in physics? If so, it seems that entropy would be related to spatial arrangement/relative space. If so, then wouldn’t the second law/entropy have some bearing upon the validity or invalidity of the theory of evolution?
3. While I recognize that Newtonian physics are for all intents and practical purposes useful and accurate, how does the second law/entropy change in light of the general (and perhaps specific) law of relativity. The only reason I ask this is as a type of follow up to #2: it seems that Newtonian physics allows for the theoretical separation of phenomena: thus there is absolute time and absolute space and, I would assume, absolute entropy. But given the reality of things, is this really possible in any absolute sense?

I’m very interested in the issue you raise and agree with you that the 2nd Law/Entropy argument should not be used if its use requires its misunderstanding.

 

[FelixBlue]

Dan-Man916:

neo,

since I am also a BSME from a very good school of engineering who also graduated with high honors and received A’s in both Thermo 1& 2 and an A in Heat and mass transfer, my question is, why are you trying to use the physical to prove the spiritual?
Faith can’t prove the Bernoulli equation anymore than the 2nd law of thermodynamics can prove the divinity and pre-existence of the divine Logos.

They are metaphysically two independent things.

Faith is to the Spiritual, what mathematics is to the physical.
Why do we need one to explain the other?

I think your post, while true on the two types of reality and corresponding knowledge, misses the point. Neophyte said nothing about using physical laws to demonstrate spiritual reality. You have read this into the issue he has raised.

The issue was simply: does the 2nd law (a physical law) support or call into question the (physical) theory of evolution.

Neophyte said that folks oftentimes use the second law to disprove evolution. He is merely saying that this is a fallacious use of the 2nd law.

That is how I have read the issue he raised anyway…

 

[vern_humphrey]

FelixBlue:

The issue was simply: does the 2nd law (a physical law) support or call into question the (physical) theory of evolution.

Neophyte said that folks oftentimes use the second law to disprove evolution. He is merely saying that this is a fallacious use of the 2nd law.

That is how I have read the issue he raised anyway…

That’s how I see it.

There are a couple of points here – I notice that people who raise this argument often harp on the Second Law of Thermodynamics being a “Law” and the Theory of Evolution being a “mere theory.” Of course, this distinction is fallacious – Kelvin was following the old Newtonian concept of immutable Laws, and the naturalists were using the more modern terminology.

The simplist counter-argument to this simplistic Creationist position is, “Explain how a seed growing into a plant DOESN’T violate the 2nd Law.”

 

[neophyte]

Exporter:

I am corious why an Engineering book treats Evolution…

Exporter,

No, my text doesn’t talk about evolution at all, but why should it? I’m not talking about evolution either – I’m talking about thermodynamics.
Dan-Man:

why are you trying to use the physical to prove the spiritual?..

Dan-Man,

I’m not, what I’m doing is demonstrating that thermodynamic laws do not disprove evolution. As I said at the end of post #19, it’s not a good tactic to use science to prove spiritual truths any more than it is to use spiritual truths to prove science. Ya gotta use the right tools.

FelixBlue:

1. What does the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics/Entropy imply regarding the “closed” system of the universe?..
2. I don’t understand how you can say, “The spacial arrangement of the objects in the system, in and of itself, has no bearing on entropy.” Isn’t entropy (and any other physical/energy property) fundamentally related to all other physical properties? And isn’t “order” or relative space merely
3. … how does the second law/entropy change in light of the general (and perhaps specific) law of relativity…

FelixBlue,

I have little background in cosmology, but I don’t think that this is much of a problem. The universe started out with a certain amount of total entropy, and eventually will end up with some much larger amount of total entropy. In the meantime, here we are.

No, entropy is not fundamentally related to all other physical properties, at least not in the way you may be thinking. I expect that it’s related because of the way fundamental constants like Planck’s seem to underly everything, but things like density, electrical resistance, coefficient of friction, thermal conductivity, and even enthalpy are not dependent on entropy.

Note that you mention “order”. I understand why this is, you’ve always understood that “entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system”; the problem is, that definition is only correct for a partcular kind of disorder, that related to the heat content of the objects. It really and truly has absolutely nothing to do with the macroscopic spacial arrangements of the bodies in the system. When you lay down a pattern of tiles on the floor, energy is expended and total entropy is increased due to the inefficiencies of the chemical processes, the friction in your joints, etc., but there is no entropy change due to the fact that the tiles are laid out in a pattern rather than randomly.

There is no entropy transfer associated with energy transfer as work. If you put a brick up on a shelf, there is no change in the entropy of the brick, nor of the system. I know it sounds like it makes no sense, but that’s because you’ve always thought that entropy is something that it’s not.

I’ll have to defer to others for a discussion of relativistic effects on the 2nd Law, but again I don’t see any reason to think that it would fundamentally change what I’m saying.

 

[RMP]

Can work happen w/o divine intervention or the response of men or living beings?

 

[neophyte]

RMP:

Can work happen w/o divine intervention or the response of men or living beings?

Ultimately none, but that’s a metaphysical question, not a physical one. It’s a completely different discipline.

 

[clmowry]

Heck I don’t remember what I got in Thermodynamics. It was an A but heck if I know the number. So you win… hehe.

Actually what you’ve written here looks right to me. But then again I was a mechanical engineer too, find an EE on the forum and he/she might argue with you, most seemed to flunk that part of the EIT exam each year.

Chuck

neophyte:

For example, if you take a box of white and black marbles that have been segregated by color, then shake the box up well, the only change in entropy is that due to the energy you expended in shaking the box. The change in entropy due to the fact that the marbles are now mixed is exactly zero. That you never manage to shake the box until the marbles are re-segregated is due to the fact that the number of arrangements in which the marbles are mixed vastly outnumber those in which they are segregated. If you shake the box long enough, you’ll eventually get lucky - it’ll just take a very, very, very long time.

In the same way, the state of clutter in your bedroom impacts entropy only insofar as it reflects the way energy is distributed. Anything sitting on a shelf stores potential energy because you had to do work to it to pick it up, and if you shake the room hard enough it will fall down, but if you seal the room and come back a thousand years later nothing will have moved. If you lay down a mosaic of loose floor tiles they will remain in place forever, provided no one disturbs them and they don’t rot away. Rooms do not spontaneously clutter themselves up.

Let’s assume that I’m wrong, and that entropy is indeed dependent on spacial arrangement. Frozen water at 32 degrees F, being arranged in a very ordered crystal structure, would then have a higher entropy than liquid water at the same temperature. If this were true, then heat would flow out of the ice into the water and your drink would boil away! We could create an engine that has no effect but to make heat flow from a cold object to a warmer object, which is a Second Law violation.

The assertion “order cannot arise from disorder” is typically used in creation/evolution debates to describe the low probability of a particular spacial order occurring out of the quadrillions of alternative states. For example, we would take a mosaic of floor tiles as the work of a talented artist, because it would be extraordinarily unlikely for the mosaic to exist if the tiles were just thrown onto the floor. This is not, however, a Second Law argument, because as I’ve explained there is no entropy associated with the arrangement of the tiles.

In fact, spacial order can and often does arise out of spacially disordered systems during the course of energy transfer. Ever seen a convection cell? How about cloud bands in a hurricane? Lightning? Spacial order often serves to lower a system’s resistance to energy flow, and so is quite in keeping with the Second Law.

Comments? I’d particulary be interested in the conversion factor from units of information to units of entropy (not that such a conversion exists, but it must if information has entropy).

 

[neophyte]

clmowry:

…find an EE on the forum and he/she might argue with you, most seemed to flunk that part of the EIT exam each year…

that’s good, I gotta tell my Dad, he’s an e.e. and we make fun of each other.

 

[FelixBlue]

neophyte:

Exporter,

No, my text doesn’t talk about evolution at all, but why should it? I’m not talking about evolution either – I’m talking about thermodynamics.

Dan-Man,

I’m not, what I’m doing is demonstrating that thermodynamic laws do not disprove evolution. As I said at the end of post #19, it’s not a good tactic to use science to prove spiritual truths any more than it is to use spiritual truths to prove science. Ya gotta use the right tools.

FelixBlue,

I have little background in cosmology, but I don’t think that this is much of a problem. The universe started out with a certain amount of total entropy, and eventually will end up with some much larger amount of total entropy. In the meantime, here we are.

No, entropy is not fundamentally related to all other physical properties, at least not in the way you may be thinking. I expect that it’s related because of the way fundamental constants like Planck’s seem to underly everything, but things like density, electrical resistance, coefficient of friction, thermal conductivity, and even enthalpy are not dependent on entropy.

Note that you mention “order”. I understand why this is, you’ve always understood that “entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system”; the problem is, that definition is only correct for a partcular kind of disorder, that related to the heat content of the objects. It really and truly has absolutely nothing to do with the macroscopic spacial arrangements of the bodies in the system. When you lay down a pattern of tiles on the floor, energy is expended and total entropy is increased due to the inefficiencies of the chemical processes, the friction in your joints, etc., but there is no entropy change due to the fact that the tiles are laid out in a pattern rather than randomly.

There is no entropy transfer associated with energy transfer as work. If you put a brick up on a shelf, there is no change in the entropy of the brick, nor of the system. I know it sounds like it makes no sense, but that’s because you’ve always thought that entropy is something that it’s not.

I’ll have to defer to others for a discussion of relativistic effects on the 2nd Law, but again I don’t see any reason to think that it would fundamentally change what I’m saying.

Thanks for the reply…