Does reincarnation violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

[The One called Neo]

Someone in banter claimed precisely this. But surely a pre-existing person entering a fetus wouldn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics anymore so than if a new self is created ex nihilo?

Thoughts please.

 

[MRC_Hans]

As long as we dont know what enegies are involved with souls, it doesn't make sense to talk about the laws of termodynamics. Also, a fetus is not a closed system, so the second law is not applicable at all.

Hans

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This is difficult to discuss without defining exactly what the soul (or whatever) is and, in particular, how it maintains coherence when it is disembodied. I think it is the coherence issue that bothers people in relation to 2LoT.

~~ Paul

 

[Zombified]

I'm not even sure how I'd go about evaluating this. First, you'd have to start with some definition of "soul" or whatever that you can say is reincarnated, and define what the effect of having one is.

First, the body is not a closed system (we'd starve to death) so applying the 2nd law to a living organism requires care (see also Creationism). Even if you took that into account, however, if a "soul" has a physical effect on the body (brain?) then you have to consider the "soul" a physical input to the system, thermodynamically. So as ridiculous as reincarnation may be, I don't know that the 2nd law really has any bearing on the subject.

A more interesting question is that if the "soul" is a physical thing (if it influences the brain physically, it is physical by definition), then the 2nd law of thermodynamics would likely apply to it. It must therefore be explained why disembodied "souls" are stable and don't break down themselves. If the psychics' descriptions of "souls" are anywhere near the mark, "souls" are not anywhere near thermodynamic equilibrium.

 

[The One called Neo]

A more interesting question is that if the "soul" is a physical thing (if it influences the brain physically, it is physical by definition),

I'm not happy about this definition of physical. I would prefer to define physical as that which can be discerned from the third person perspective. If materialism is not correct then the self, or "soul" if you prefer, would be non-physical, and therefore wouldn't be subject to physical laws including the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Neo said:

I'm not happy about this definition of physical. I would prefer to define physical as that which can be discerned from the third person perspective. If materialism is not correct then the self, or "soul" if you prefer, would be non-physical, and therefore wouldn't be subject to physical laws including the second law of thermodynamics.

This won't work, unless everything we call physical is really just some kind of illusion projected by the soul. If the physical has a separate, external existence, then there is no way the soul can interact with it unless the soul is also physical.

So, we're left with some kind of mind/soul/being/matrix thing that projects the physical. In that case, I agree it doesn't have to be subject to physical laws. But then the term reincarnation doesn't even make sense. In fact, what's the point of my projected physical body dying at all? Heck, why do I have a projected physical body?

~~ Paul

 

[Zombified]

I'm not happy about this definition of physical. I would prefer to define physical as that which can be discerned from the third person perspective. If materialism is not correct then the self, or "soul" if you prefer, would be non-physical, and therefore wouldn't be subject to physical laws including the second law of thermodynamics.

That was a deliberately provocative statement. If something has a physical effect, then in principle at least I ought to be able to design an experiment that detects the effect. That's what I consider "discerned from a third person perspective." Calling something material or nonmaterial is a matter of interpretation, I am only interested in operational measurements.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I'm not happy about this definition of physical. I would prefer to define physical as that which can be discerned from the third person perspective. If materialism is not correct then the self, or "soul" if you prefer, would be non-physical, and therefore wouldn't be subject to physical laws including the second law of thermodynamics.

Again, what is soul? Sure it might in itself transcend the physical laws, but its effect on the physical being must be within them.

Hans

 

[hammegk]

...Heck, why do I have a projected physical body?

~~ Paul

And also, why do "energy fields" find it worthwhile (or be caused) to assemble into more & more complex structures?

Is 2nd Law actually a "Law"? IIRC there are strictly mathematical "proofs" that it must be so, but is this logically a-priori, or actually a model based on the scientific view of material as we perceive it?

Or, is this just another very dumb question?

 

[The One called Neo]

Again, what is soul? Sure it might in itself transcend the physical laws, but its effect on the physical being must be within them.

Hans

Well this is the term that everyone else is using. I guess it simply means the self with the implication that this self is neither identical to, is a function of, or is caused by the physical world.

I'm unclear as to your meaning in the latter part of your statement.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:

And also, why do "energy fields" find it worthwhile (or be caused) to assemble into more & more complex structures?

These questions are all meaningless until we define what this soul thing is. If it's physical energy (e.g., electromagnetic), then it's subject to 2LoT and someone needs to explain how it remains coherent. If it's not physical, then I suppose it can do anything it wants except affect physical things.

~~ Paul

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well this is the term that everyone else is using. I guess it simply means the self with the implication that this self is neither identical to, is a function of, or is caused by the physical world.

I'm unclear as to your meaning in the latter part of your statement.

As Paul says, the soul (if such exists) is independent of the physical world, to physical laws don't apply to it. However, if it somehow influences the physical world, there must be a boundary past which it must adhere to physical laws.

Hans

 

[hammegk]

Hammegk said:
These questions are all meaningless until we define what this soul thing is. If it's physical energy (e.g., electromagnetic), then it's subject to 2LoT and someone needs to explain how it remains coherent. If it's not physical, then I supposed it can do anything it wants except affect physical things.

~~ Paul

Soul is imo an unnecessary complication. Also, your final sentence restates the reason I find Dualism an unsustainable, in any meaningful sense, position.

I.E. Life up to & including human consciousness is a manifestation of (inert) matter, or

Matter is a manifestation of "something else" and by deduction that is "life -- up to & including human consciousness". And what is life if not "energetic" exemplified?

Can we say hi Jack??? Sorry, I'll stop this line of comment, here.

 

[Zombified]

And also, why do "energy fields" find it worthwhile (or be caused) to assemble into more & more complex structures?

Is 2nd Law actually a "Law"? IIRC there are strictly mathematical "proofs" that it must be so, but is this logically a-priori, or actually a model based on the scientific view of material as we perceive it?

Or, is this just another very dumb question?

The 2nd law is very well established by both theory (which includes mathematical reasoning) and by experiment. Such things as engines and fridges depend on the 2nd law.

To understand the 2nd law you really have understand what it actually means, which includes understanding the definition of entropy, which has to do with the accessible states of a system. A system in equilibrium maximizes the number of accessible states. A system not in equilibrium is somehow constrained to a smaller number of states. This is sometimes interpreted as "randomness" because the probability of finding a system in a particular state is inversely proportional to the number of accessible states, but describing entropy as randomness is often misleading. But that does *not* mean an ordered or nonequilibrium system is violating the second law; systems not in equilibrium invariably depend on extracting energy from an environment not in equilibrium.

 

[hammegk]

...Such things as engines and fridges depend on the 2nd law.

Or as I would say, use available energy to locally contravene 2nd Law.

To understand the 2nd law you really have understand what it actually means, which includes understanding the definition of entropy, which has to do with the accessible states of a system. A system in equilibrium maximizes the number of accessible states. A system not in equilibrium is somehow constrained to a smaller number of states. This is sometimes interpreted as "randomness" because the probability of finding a system in a particular state is inversely proportional to the number of accessible states, but describing entropy as randomness is often misleading. But that does *not* mean an ordered or nonequilibrium system is violating the second law; systems not in equilibrium invariably depend on extracting energy from an environment not in equilibrium.

Yeah, I get some of that that. IIRC the math proof is dependent on "accessable states" and ? degrees of freedom (or, is that the same thing). And yes back to "randomness" -- a subject discussed from many viewpoints many times many threads.

How would we determine if a given "energy field" is or is not in equilibrium? What is a "local energy field", in that all would to me seem infinite in extent?

 

[Zombified]

Or as I would say, use available energy to locally contravene 2nd Law.

That is an incorrect interpretation of the 2nd law.

Yeah, I get some of that that. IIRC the math proof is dependent on "accessable states" and ? degrees of freedom (or, is that the same thing). And yes back to "randomness" -- a subject discussed from many viewpoints many times many threads.

More degrees of freedom means more accessible states, which has to be taken into consideration when you don't have a constant number of particles (a photon gas or phonons in a nonideal solid, for example).

How would we determine if a given "energy field" is or is not in equilibrium? What is a "local energy field", in that all would to me seem infinite in extent?

Wherever there's an energy differential, there's nonequilibrium. I'm not sure what you mean about energy fields of (in)finite extent.

 

[hammegk]

That is an incorrect interpretation of the 2nd law.

How about this; It is interesting that the 2nd Law tendency towards universal randomness is contravened locally so often by utilizing energy, from particle formation in the vacuum up though human life.

(a photon gas or phonons in a nonideal solid, for example).

Er, is there a difference between photon gas and say, a light beam? First I've ever heard of phonons or nonideal solids. When did these enter the vernacular?

Wherever there's an energy differential, there's nonequilibrium. I'm not sure what you mean about energy fields of (in)finite extent.

Er, where ISN't there an energy differential?

Infinite is incorrect -- expansion at c from source limits thems. Last I heard gravity fields "most likely -- but still not at 100% certainty" propogate at c.

 

[Zombified]

How about this; It is interesting that the 2nd Law tendency towards universal randomness is contravened locally so often by utilizing energy, from particle formation in the vacuum up though human life.

There are situations where the entropy of a non-isolated part of a system decreases, but that does not involve a violation of the second law, since the second law specifically refers to isolated systems. When the total system is examined which surrounds all the inputs and outputs to various parts, the 2nd law still holds. Calling these cases violations of the 2nd law is like saying conservation of mass is violated when you flush the toilet.

Er, is there a difference between photon gas and say, a light beam? First I've ever heard of phonons or nonideal solids. When did these enter the vernacular?

Hmm, poor choice of examples on my part. Sorry. An example of a photon gas would be the infrared photons in the interior of a heated chamber. Phonons are a quantum mechanical description of vibrations in the atomic structure of a solid; in real solids there are imperfections which cause the phonons to interact with one another. These are, however, examples where the number of particles is not constant, and each new particle brings with it additional degrees of freedom. So the number of accessible states, and therefore the entropy, is partly a function of how many particles you expect there to be.

Er, where ISN't there an energy differential?

A uniform gas at uniform temperature, for example.

 

[hammegk]

...When the total system is examined which surrounds all the inputs and outputs to various parts, the 2nd law still holds. Calling these cases violations of the 2nd law is like saying conservation of mass is violated when you flush the toilet.

Agreed, but where does toilet end? We are talking at cross purpose I believe.

An example of a photon gas would be the infrared photons in the interior of a heated chamber.

OK. Got 'ya, but what would that imply viv-a-vis entropy?

A uniform gas at uniform temperature, for example.

How do you propose to shield the container of gas from gravitational gradient, other energy fields, & other non-static energetic effects like neutrinos? Or am I totally missing the point?

I know for sure we've hijacked a thread on reincarnation. Sorry, II.

 

[GreyWanderer]

Zombified: you really know a lot about a lot of stuff