bruto
Penultimate Amazing
That shows consistency but nothing else. A delusion dearly held is not correct for being consistent.
Reincarnation as a trivial scientific fact
- Thread starter wogoga
- Start date
That shows consistency but nothing else. A delusion dearly held is not correct for being consistent.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Hi Wolfgang, Entropy can be defined in several ways. However the order/disorder interpretation is fraught with difficulties. The biggest one is actually defining what disorder is (read the Wikipedia entry on entropy). In your example we know that some of the gas in the box must have ended up in the just hatched chick. This is an increase in order. We can argue that 1 thing (an egg) has become 1 thing (a chick) and that has not affected the order of the system. It looks like you take the view that an egg is more ordered than a chick because the chick results from "blind downhill processes" and this overwhelms any other increase in order.
Luckily the second law of thermodynamics comes to our help: the system as a whole has experienced a loss of entropy. This means a loss of order. But there is no way to allocate this loss of order between the components of the system. Therefore we cannot say whether the chick, remains of the egg, atmospheric gas or anything else in the box has become more or less ordered.
Dorian Gray
Hypocrisy Detector
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2002
- Messages
- 20,366
Here's my contribution: if you rearrange the letters in 'wogoga' you get 'woo gag'?
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
No, you argue against several scientific principles by trying to point out their inconsistencies or errors. But your arguments reveal that you do not understand those areas of science, since they point out things that aren't so.
Irrelevant to the argument, and wrong. Evolution deals only with what happens to life over the course of time. It does not deal with how life got started. To
You do lack understanding, as your arguments reveal.
It is naive. You compare apples and oranges, and marvel that they aren't the same. Of course they're not the same, whoever said that they were?
Heat.
Put the egg somewhere cold and nothing will happen. It needs heat to form the chemical bonds in the cells of the chick. That's why the hen sits on it.
If the system is closed then the total entropy of the system will not change. You again show your lack of understanding of entropy. If the air in the box is warm enough the chick will form in the egg, and the air in the box will cool down. The cooling is a loss of energy to the egg. The air loses heat (and increases its entropy) whilst the egg forms into a chick (and decreases its entropy) whilst the entropy of the system (air plus chick) remains constant.
To put it in terms of order - at the end of the process the air is less ordered and the chick is more ordered than the egg was.
That I have to explain the simple fact that the total entropy of a closed system is constant shows very clearly that you don't understand entropy.
The population of Giant Pandas has been dropping steadily for a very long time, and the reason is ridiculously simple. At some point in the past, the Panda went from being a carnivore to being a vegetarian, eating a diet of little but bamboo. The reason for this change is unknown, but maybe the animals they ate became too rare to give them a steady food source so they started eating the most abundant food available to them - bamboo. Whatever the reason for this change the gut of the Panda is not equipped to draw enough energy from the bamboo to allow them to do much except eat, sleep and defecate, and mating and gestation both require energy. So Pandas don't like to mate, and when they do there is a high rate of miscarriage. Their captivity has allowed the population to increase from the wild population. If you ever get the chance you should visit the Giant Panda centre in Chengdu, Sichuan province where they do a lot of research and breed Pandas very successfully. You might learn a few things.
Strange how food and habitat do make such a difference then. Take for example the rabbit population in Australia. When rabbits were introduced to Australia they underwent an exponential population growth, exactly analogous to the one you suggest would be the case for reductionist materialism.
My argument is essentially independent from such definitions. Blind downhill processes lead from a state of lower probability to a state of higher probability. A good example is decay in general or the decay of a bacterium after death in special. Another example is the dilution by random movements of a group of particles suspended in a liquid (Brownian motion).
Imagine that one autotroph bacterium starts replication in a corresponding culture medium and that after some time the culture medium is full of bacteria. According to common sense, the transformation of simple molecules into such highly complex chemical factories constitutes not only a transformation from a state of higher probability into a state of lower probability but also an increase in order.
In the case of e.g. gravitation (of our planetary system) or Brownian motion, computer simulations can easily be made, because what happens in nature can be well explained by physical laws. In case of life however, simulations based on physical or chemical laws do not exist. Why? Those believing in quantum mechanics sometimes claim that such simulations are possible in principle, but that the needed computing power exceeds all existing computers.
However, I'm convinced that every unprejudiced examination leads to the conclusion, that no physical laws (as the basis of chemistry and biochemistry) can be formulated and implemented as a computer simulation in order to explain e.g. the construction of the Bacterial Flagellum, as shown in this animation. The behaviour of such enzymes must be explained by assuming that they somehow are able to sense their environment and to perform goal-directed movements. This only means that enzymes resemble rather insects than the dead particles of Brownian motion.
That's not an argument from incredulity, but from common sense and from consistent logical reasoning. By the way, the less one knows and understands, the more seems possible.
Cheers, Wolfgang
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
That is beside the point. Entropy in your example will increase or remain the same. So disorder will increase. But there is no way to allocate the increase in disorder between the components of the system unless you can calculate the entropy of each individual component. You do not present any such calcuation. You seem to assume that the chick is that only thing that will be more disordered.
"Blind downhill processes" has 2 assumptions - the process is blind and the process is downhill (I assume that means decreases in energy?). But chick development is not blind and may not be downhill.
Another small tiny point - an egg in a isolated box will never hatch. Eggs need energy to develop. That is the reason why chickens incubate them. It is also the reason why eggs in the supermarket do not develop into chicks. In your example the egg will cool down and there will be no chick.
"Blind downhill processes" has 2 assumptions - the process is blind and the process is downhill (I assume that means decreases in energy?). But chick development is not blind and may not be downhill.
Another small tiny point - an egg in a isolated box will never hatch. Eggs need energy to develop. That is the reason why chickens incubate them. It is also the reason why eggs in the supermarket do not develop into chicks. In your example the egg will cool down and there will be no chick.
Last edited:
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
If you want to talk about scientific processes and laws you need to use the same definitions as they do, otherwise you're just talking garbage.
That's actually nearly correct!
No, since the laws of QM are probabilistic, not deterministic, no such precise simulation is possible. It would be possible to produce a simulation that gave a probable outcome, but not a certain outcome, as is possible for Newtonian mechanics.
Try watching this video instead. Simple evolution with no guiding thought process.
There is no must about it. You're just anthropomorphising again.
It is an argument from incredulity, to whit, you can't believe that such a thing could happen without the enzymes being able to sense their environment. Pretty much the definition of an argument from incredulity - "I can't believe that that could happen unless the enzymes can sense their environment, therefore they must sense their environment".
Or was there some other point to your argument?
There's your problem, right there. A lot of science is contrary to "common" sense, and if you throw out stuff just because it doesn't make sense to you then you are again making an argument from incredulity.
I'll admit that your reasoning might possibly be consistent.
I really can't say anything to damn your ideas more than your own words do right here.
zeusbheld
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2008
- Messages
- 260
i suspect therein lies the secret.
"The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy in the combination of a system and its surroundings (or in an isolated system by itself) increases during all spontaneous chemical and physical processes." (Wikipedia)
The second law is a logical consequence of the randomness of molecular motions. That a big enough number of random motions can only transform a state of lower probability into a state of higher probability is obvious. However, humans can transform states of higher probability into states of lower probability, because we are able to sense our environment and are able to purposefully move our bodies. The same is valid also for animals and for bacteria.
But what about DNA polymerase enzymes which replicate DNA in vitro? The decay of DNA is the normal reaction, leading to a state of higher probability. Therefore, such enzymes doing the opposite create states of lower probability. Because random motions only could create states of higher probability, we are forced to admit: the motions of such enzymes are not random.
"It has been reported that during incubation, large eggs produce more heat than small eggs. Large eggs also face more difficulties to remove the surplus heat from the egg, as a result of the decreasing ratio between egg surface and egg content with increasing egg size and the reduced air velocity over the eggs in commercial incubators." (Source)
A decade ago, I wrote in a discussion with somebody who argued like you:
"Your comments show a further time that you do not understand at all the (original) second law. This law is aequivalent to the impossibility of a perpetuum mobile of the second kind. What you write is exactly the contrary: thermal energy can be transformed into energy of chemical bonds. It would be possible to convert thermal energy without temperature differentials into chemical energy. If certain bonds are built up at a temperature of about 37° Celsius, there must be other bonds which can be built up at lower temperatures, e.g. 10° Celsius. In any container we could produce chemical energy by simply cooling down the environment!"
But now I had to learn:
"On the other hand, some reactions need to absorb heat from their surroundings to proceed. These reactions are called endothermic. A good example of an endothermic reaction is that which takes place inside of an instant 'cold pack.' Commercial cold packs usually consist of two compounds - urea and ammonium chloride in separate containers within a plastic bag. When the bag is bent and the inside containers are broken, the two compounds mix together and begin to react. Because the reaction is endothermic, it absorbs heat from the surrounding environment and the bag gets cold." (Source)
Yet this could be further evidence for what I wrote at that time:
"Most time of my life I have been sure that a perpetuum mobile of the second kind is not possible, but now I'm no longer sure."
Cheers, Wolfgang
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
Ah, thanks for the link to your post 96, I hadn't read that one.
Having read that, I can safely say that you are completely delusional, either knowing nothing of history, demographics, or human motivation, or simply discarding all knowledge of such to fit your bizarre personal beliefs.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
In a closed system
Which the Earth isn't.
No, it's complete nonsense. We can reduce our local entropy at the cost of an increase in global entropy.
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 13,749
Oh, clearly that is psychonic proof that woggo is not a woo woo, just full of it. I'm convinced, as this was a very very scientific process.
*grins*
Last edited:
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
I apologise, you are correct, the entropy of a closed system can increase, but not decrease.
Of course, that doesn't make your argument right, it just means that that particular criticism of it is wrong.
The Earth, as has been pointed out by others, is not a closed system, so the entropy of the Earth can decrease with no contradiction of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Not a closed system. An input of energy can spontaneously decrease the entropy of a system with no need for conscious intent.
And yet the eggs still need a constant input of heat energy.
No, because such a perpetuum mobile would require constant replacement of the reactant chemicals, which would take more energy than that released by the reaction. It would also require a heat source to supply the heat or it would rapidly reduce its surroundings to absolute zero.
In other words, you have to keep heating the thing up or it will stop working. Doesn't sound like a perpetuum moblie to me.
Furthermore, there are still several criticisms of your argument which you have failed to address. I notice you have made no comment on my latest point about the pandas or the Australian rabbit population. You have not even acknowledged my criticisms of your analogy between abiogenesis and the dice, your "final laws of nature", your errors in particle physics, the formation of fullerenes, or your lack of evidence for several things that you assert as existent (to name but a few).
So you concede that the rather deterministic than probabilistic construction of the bacterial flagellum cannot even in principle by explained by quantum mechanics and similar theories?
And here you can find a short refutation of the hypothesis that a bacterium-like Adam as the result of purely materialist abiogenesis could have started Darwinian evolution. By the way, one should not forget that the existence of a high enough concentration of corresponding building blocks (simple organic molecules) is a prerequesite for any materialist trial-and-error abiogenesis process to start. The famous Miller–Urey experiment is strong evidence against such a high concentration of the needed building blocks on the early earth.
Cheers, Wolfgang
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Nope. I said that it's only possible to produce probabilistic models in QM. That doesn't mean that the actual evolution of the flagellum is impossible. One is a predictive model, which can only be probabilistic in nature. The other is reality, which has already happened. It can be explained in terms of QM, but it can't be predictively modelled.
Besides, the evolutionary model of the evolution of the flagellum isn't based on QM, it's based on comparison of the enzymes involved in the flagellum and the functions each individual enzyme has on its own, and careful thought about how they might have evolved into the final system. It's a post hoc model of a possible evolutionary path.
Again, you compare apples and oranges, and marvel that they aren't the same colour.
No. The Miller–Urey experiment was an ad-hoc experiment, which shocked everyone involved by actually producing biochemical building blocks. Furthermore, the concentrations required are unknown, although estimates may exist, nobody can be certain.
As for your "Knockout blow to neo-Darwinism", it's more of a tap with a sponge. You start badly, stating that "it is a (logical) fact that
abiogenesis is a prerequisite for neo-Darwinism", which is patently untrue, since evolution only concerns existent life. It would be as true in a reality where a god set life going as in one where it started on its own.
Next you go on to state some "concrete assumptions". Let's ignore, for a moment, the oxymoronic nature of such a statement and the fact that your assumptions are totally flawed. You start with a complete cell capable of replication and assign it attributes such as a number of genes and a replication rate. You then show how this cell, with these attributes couldn't possibly survive past a few generations of replication. Of course, to do so you assume further that it couldn't possibly mutate in a beneficial way, which is yet another unwarranted assumption. You may, however, be right in that conclusion, but your argument is in fact a straw man. All you have shown is that a particular individual cell with particular attributes couldn't have survived and evolved. You have not shown that abiogenesis is impossible. All you have shown is that you can imagine a cell that can't evolve in its environment. Congratulations on destroying a model that was designed to be destroyed.
To disprove abiogenesis you must prove conclusively that the building blocks of life could not have formed by undirected chemical reactions. Nowhere have you even attempted to do this, you just assert it.
Last edited:
"I'm still confused about the localization of psychons."
Localization and spacial extension are attributes of matter. Whereas mass/energy and space are divisible continuous quantities, psychons are indivisible units. Yet psychons can only be active, inasfar as they eventually interact with mass/energy. Take for instance youself as an acting and experiencing subject:
When you move a finger you do not affect the finger but neurons in your brain. A pain in your foot you do not perceive directly but only in your brain. Optical effects you perceive neither directly nor on the retina but as neural states. These states are the result of a complex process, starting with photoreceptor cells.
Brain research has shown that optical attributes such as form, movement and colour are processed in various regions of your brain, though an object appears to you as a unity. It is you, i.e. your soul, which perceives the states of different brain regions as a consistent picture of the object.
"How do these psychons know what country to inhabit? Are they physical?"
Primitive psychons are "physical" inasfar, as e.g. the physical behaviour of photons, the catalytic properties of platinum or the very complex and goal-directed movements of enzymes all depend on corresponding psychons.
Due to the continuous transition from primitive psychons to human souls, also human souls must be considered physical resp. empirical entities. And if souls are real then also the relations between souls can be real, i.e. empircally relevant. The more times souls of the same species have been in contact with each other and the closer these contacts have been, the more evolutionary related are such souls.
"Are they sentient in and of themselves?"
Psychons can only be sentient if they are active, i.e. if they ultimately have an effect on mass/energy. The consciousness of enzyme psychons could maybe be compared with the consciousness paralleling the instinctive behaviour of a newborn.
"Some cults are of the opinion that souls choose their recipients. Are they right?"
Souls without bodies cannot act in any way, so they cannot choose their recipients. Our perception, feeling and thinking is so closely linked to the human body and especially to the human brain, that the assumption of feeling, thinking and acting without a brain is completely brainless.
It was Ludwig Feuerbach, who argued in such a way against bodyless ghosts or souls. Nevertheless Feuerbach never adhered to militant atheism and was rather sceptical of pure emiricism and pure materialism. He was also a great admirer of Spinoza's philosophy, in the same way as later Albert Einstein, whose inborn atheism, which became manifest in his youth, was essentially Feuerbachian.
"If so, why can they not move from country to country as necessary? If that is so, wouldn't the soul distribution be unrelated to nationality or ethnicity?"
The baby boom in the United States caused by the many deaths in Europe during World War II is a good example showing that souls "move from country to country". Where souls are reborn can only be answered in a probabilistic way. This is essentially the same probabilistic nature which can be found in the world of quanta (see also).
The soul distribution actually is related to nationality and ethnicity, because nationality and ethnicity are related to evolutionary relatedness and environment continuity. The closer evolutionary relatedness of a given soul to potential parents, the higher is the probability of a conception with this soul. Evolutionary relatedness of a given person having lived all recent lives in Japan, is much higher with persons living in Japan than with persons living elsewhere. So it is very probable that this person will be reborn in Japan. But what is decisive is not the country as a geographic region but the souls living in the country. If all Russians moved to Japan and all Japanese to Russia, then a typical Japanese soul would be reborn among the Japanese in Russia and not among the Russians in Japan.
Cheers, Wolfgang
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
Why did those souls move from Europe to the US, when Europe was also going through a baby boom? Where did those spare souls come from, when, despite all the deaths in WWII, the population of Europe significantly increased between 1930 and 1950?
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
There's also a wee bit of a problem there if ethnicity is a factor in the distribution of souls, because I don't recall that the baby boom over here reflected the great losses of certain ethnic groups in the holocaust. It might be hard to figure out for large and varied ethnic groups such as the Jews, since I'm sure American Jews participated well enough in the American baby boom, but smaller groups that were also heavily and disproportionately thinned in that time should have seen an enormous and equally disproportionate increase in their numbers that would stand out noticeably. American and Irish Gypsies and Travellers, for example, should have seen an unprecedented and conspicuous population explosion after the terrible toll paid by their European cousins. If not, why not?
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
six7s
veretic
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Messages
- 8,716
I have lost track of the number and variety of questions that have been addressed to and ignored by the OP (Wolfgang aka wogoga aka woogaga)
I have a hunch that the reasons for this sorry state of affairs AND the answer to "why not?" are inextricably linked to two simple factors:
- the OP is talking out of his ass
- the OP hopes that others will be blinded by his bull-science to the point where we can only see how wise he is
I might have missed some posts... Am I right in thinking that has he yet to answer the Q about how he knows (i.e. why we should accept) that souls (and therefore psychons and everything else that rides on this whacky concept) are anything other than a feature of popular fantasy-fiction?