|
|
Posted by Steve on 12/21/07 14:59
"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:1198243301.21036.0@proxy00.news.clara.net...
> Steve wrote:
>> "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message
>> news:7rAaj.71221$RX.70203@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
>>> "Erwin Moller"
>>> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_much@spamyourself.com> wrote in
>>> message news:476a41e7$0$85783$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>
>>>> Yes, that is the problem if you want to defens the statement that
>>>> complexity can only be created by something more complex.
>>>> It is an endless loop.
>>> Such is the infinite nature of the universe.
>>>
>>> --
>>> All things tend toward entropy.
>>> Entropy tends toward chaos.
>>> Chaos tends toward all things.
>>
>> chaos is a relative and ficticious term. there certainly is randomness in
>> the universe, however there is NO chaos. chaos is associated with the
>> break-down of laws being enforced on things. the laws of physics are
>> constant. they only change based on our understanding of those laws. in
>> that, there can be no chaos.
>>
>
> Semantics.
not very.
> Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics. The mathematics of discontinuous
> functions. Of which it seems the universe is at least partly accurately
> modelled by.
yes, and chaos theory simply doesn't allow for the possibility of man being
able to know all the input variables. in fact, sits blindly aside it. it is
like saying the laws of geometry change for a game of billiards simply
because we've added a billion balls to the table. i go back to your
'universe in a large computer' analogy. if that computer exists or could be
created, we could very well make ourselves omniscient beings. not because we
would know all from a present perspective, but we would be able to predict
all based on such laws...perfect predictability. we simply have to know the
laws accurately and then define every variable. once in motion,
predictions - of even things like thought and behavior - could conceivably
be pefectly predictable.
i have never been a fan of the chaos theory. and again, randomness and chaos
are not semantically different in definition and meaning, they are
completely describing two very different and distinct things. one abides by
law and the other disregards it.
>> as for entropy, it tends toward the dispertion of energy...nothing more.
>> the only relationship is that it occurs at a greater frequency the more
>> ordered, or complex, a thing is. as for *trying* to related that to
>> chaos, good luck! even in entropy, the path of dispertion is *always* the
>> quickest route...meaning, my heated house will lose heat unevenly if i
>> open a window. so, even entropy itself follows the order inherent in
>> physics. again, in complete absense of chaos.
>
> Chaos as he d=efines it is infinitely dis-ordered. Nothing in the laws of
> nature precludes that.
actually, yes. the law of maximum entropy negates the possibility of
infinite disorder. again though, chaos is realted to UNPREDICTABILITY, not
with disorder strictly.
>> finally, not ALL things tend toward entropy...just energy. lest you think
>> that the evolution of life forms began as infinitely complex and have
>> entropied to human form now. that would put you in agreement with the
>> op...that everything complex was begat by something more complex. that is
>> just NOT something seen in nature.
>
> Well it depends on how you look at it.
thats what logically follows for me when i reflect on it. how do you see it?
> The Big Bang was a singularity that introduced extreme order into total
> formlessness.
sorry, the moment *before* the big bang was as ordered as the resultantan
universe could ever achieve after the big bang. the singularity event was
the point at which entropy in our universe began. to take your sentence
literally would mean the big bang produced order...instead of entropy acting
on the existence of order.
> Ultimately its pretty much the same as the God explanation, although the
> timescales are different, and the big bang is not generally supposed to be
> the conscious act of a supernatural entity. Nor does it dictate that we
> bow down and worship it, nor that our lives or deaths will be an any
> measurably significant way affected, if we do.
right, however it's important for us to discuss because we can be damned
sure some idiot with no background in science will start saying that god
staves of entropy somehow because the second law of thermodynamics says
so...having no clue at all what that law says, who said it, and why it
doesn't apply to whether or not complex beings and systems can arise in the
light of entropy.
> As far as creation myths go, its pretty neutral really. And the huge
> unanswered questions that it leaves, are at least honest ones. It does not
> attempt to paper over *all* the cracks with a big grinning monstrosity
> 'Full of Eastern Promise'. (I wonder who among ye recognizes *that*
> particular ad line)
nothing one can't google. :)
i'm not neutral about creation myth. i'm certainly not going to leave it as
goddidit. i don't need to know immediately, 100% accurately. i'll wait for
intelligent, provable theories that are reviewed by an objective board of
peers.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|