David
>Since responding to DNAunion's long 2-part post of 22 OCT would require
>more time than I have, and since any response I would make to it would
>most likely be met with a further interminable barrage of low signal-to-
>noise ratio responses that would be demanding of further cycles of
>correspondence on my part, I have decided to spare the reflector
>readership from suffering through it all by not responding to those
>posts in the first place.
>
>However, DNAunion's last post of 24 OCT on this thread has been much more
>focused to the point and can possibly be responded to without miring the
>reflector into another worthless argument, I have taken the risk of
>responding to it.
>
>Regarding:
>
> >>> DNAunion: All life requires that it actively maintain itself far above
> >thermodynamic equilibrium. For an acorn to grow into an oak, it must fight
> >against, and "overcome", entropic tendencies at every moment along the
> way.
> >This example does not contradict my statements.
> >
> >>>FMAJ: Exactly. This far for equilibrium thermodynamics is exactly
> >whatdrives evolution and creation of completity. So what does this show?
> >
> >>>DNAunion: It shows that there *is* something that opposes matter's being
> >organized in complex ways, which must be continually fought: when it is
> >battled, it *can* be "overcome".
> >
> >How many times do I have to explain this. I am *not* stating that
> increases
> >in order or complexity *cannot* occur, just that in order for them to
> >occur,that entropy must be *overcome*. Entropy *is* something that opposes
> >matter's being arranged in organized and complex ways.
>
>I think DNAunion's point here has been clear all along. My point is that
>entropy does *not* have to be 'overcome' for matter to organize itself
>in complex ways if it so organizes. Rather, the organization itself is a
>result of the system in interaction with its environment generating
>entropy *according to* the 2nd law (not in opposition to it).
Chris
Let me add that without the thermodynamic/energy disequilibrium that leads
to thermodynamic dissipation, life *couldn't* occur. Life can only arise in
systems that are held *away* from thermodynamic equilibrium. This can be
done by trapping a potential environment for life near an energy source on
one side and toward an energy "sink" on the other side, so that energy must
flow "through" the system on its way to dissipation. Both functions
(holding the environment in place and providing energy) are performed by
the Sun in our case.
Systems in such a situation will "seek" to find ways to dissipate the
energy that befalls them. One way for this to happen is via chemical
reactions that produce molecules that are replicated and that use energy in
the process. Life also uses (and thus dissipates) energy. It does this
better than does inanimate matter.
Because of the necessity of the energy disequilibria for life to arise, and
for energy to be used in the creation and perpetuation of life, it becomes
clear that, far from being mysteriously opposed to the second law, we are
in fact *creatures* of the second law. In a (very) metaphorical sense, the
second law is God.
For more on this, see:
http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/Life_as/text.html
and also my post of 9/15/2000
I will add that the reason why our DNA does not "run down" is that it is
being constantly replicated with enough variations to ensure (more or less)
that the ones that *do* run down are replaced by "new models." Unguided
and more or less "random" modifications to information *must* sometimes
increase information (if they *never* do, they are decidedly not random).
If these increases often enough have differential survival value to the
entire "message," *they* will tend to survive while their "decaying"
comrades are dying out. Whether this works or not also depends on things
like the average size of the modifications, the severity of selective
factors, the rate of replication versus the rate of modification, and so
on, of course. My point is only that the thermodynamic decay of individual
copies of a "message" does not stop some copies from having *more*
information if there is a replication process and an environment that
favors some of the ones with more information.
In fact, *this* process, too, is driven by the same energy disequilibria
that feeds life to begin with.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 26 2000 - 01:59:47 EDT