Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Kelvena

Chemical imperialism and the edict of carbon

31 posts in this topic

The last humanities course I took was an introduction to philosophy, I took it way back when I thought I was going to be an engineer. In this wonderful course I was introduced to the writings of a number of philosophers, among them Bertrand Russell. I encountered his hypothesis of chemical imperialism and decided to expand upon it. This essay is the result. If this comes off as arrogant, I apologize; I’ve matured a good bit since I wrote this. I’d also like to note that this is arm chair philosophy and theoretical chemistry. I’m not an expert in either field and as such I may have made an error or two. Feel free to correct me if you wish.

Chemical imperialism and the edict of carbon.

What is chemical imperialism? It is the need for matter to assimilate other matter into itself. The octet rule, remember? An atom wants to have eight electrons within its valence shell, right? Well as a side effect sometimes an atom gains a negative charge, or the atom that lost the electron(s) is left with a positive charge. Other times atoms have to share electrons. These actions in turn produce even more side effects: cations are attracted to anions thus we have ionic bonds, atoms which are forced to share electrons become covalent (covalent aren’t perfectly neutral, polar covalent bonds: water anyone?) from this we have the entire cacophony that makes up the awesome orchestra that some would label ‘creation’.

Some atoms can’t easily be satisfied due to the level of positive or negative charges within them. Some form incredibly complex polar covalent bonds, large chains… seigoy. One such atom is particularly expert at doing this: carbon, to carbon we are all bound slave to its ever-enduring will.

The edict of carbon

Thou will collect all substances unto me.

Thou shall battle the dreaded death entropy and store further information unto myself.

Thou shall become more complex to store more information.

Thou cannot break my commandments; to do so is death… or stagnation within entropy.

Go fourth onto the land and be fruitful and multiply and I shall be thy shepherded and lead you to the promise, freedom from death, eternally.

Understand this: our evolution and our civilization are nothing more than chemical imperialism in effect. Chemical imperialism and its implementation in carbon’s edict is nothing more than matter wishing to make other matter into, or rather part of itself.

Civilization is inevitable, it like evolution, like life is nothing more than a drive or an engine of chemical imperialism. You see carbon has a natural affinity for bonding with itself, because of this carbon can create rather complex and extensive geometric structures with a wide array of properties. Among these properties are differences in charge and with this difference in charge carbon polymers may attract other atoms, ions and molecules. Among the atoms and ions they collect are hydrogen, hydrogen ions(+), and hydroxide ions(-) and thus give rise to the collection of organic molecules (all organic molecules have carbon and hydrogen) and compounds we know as hydrocarbons (not all hydrocarbons are organic). When plain hydrogen or hydrogen ions are involved we get special bonds known as hydrogen bonds, while very weak they can change the chemical properties of a substance. With hydrocarbons carbon now has the means necessary to go about acquiring further forms of matter onto itself. And thus more matter is collected; different configurations are tried and only those that are stable long term go on to collect even more matter onto themselves to try in these combinations even more intricate and complex patterns.

This is emergence: the organizing of simple entities, such as simple hydrocarbon chains, into hideously complex patterns, like that of a ribosome. While highly stochastic, the end result of the process is clear: chemical imperialism on such a runaway course will always lead to intelligent life.

What is emergence? It is have a collection of simple entities whose action’s side effects lead to create hideously complex patterns. Emergence is part of the science of complexity. I gave you the example of atoms their charges and their shapes which give rise to the wide world we have around us. Simple things lead to big effects.

Why intelligent life? Simple, intelligent life is the most efficient method for carbon to acquire more matter. There are rules, the Carbon Codes which place restrictions on how extensively and how efficiently an entity may acquire matter.

Thou shalt not grow too large.

Thou shalt not produce an abundance of thy own self.

Thou shalt not acquire too much matter

Thou shalt cease to acquire matter after a point, and thou shalt perish.

Now these laws may seems contradictory to carbon’s initial edict, but in actuality these halting limits are highly important and without them carbon imperialism would be stuck at the hydrocarbon level.

You cannot grow too large, why? Simple, first off if you grow too large you’d most probably be very complex and highly unstable. An over abundance of energy or a slight shock could easily undo you. Next off, you have a tremendous surface area; it’s going to take time for materials to properly distribute themselves. In addition, if you become too large you will need to acquire a great deal of new information in order to overcome the incredible amount of entropy your system would incur…

You can’t over produce because if there are too many copies of yourself (offspring) they’d consume all the available resources…

You cannot acquire too many resources because all resources are finite, if you consume all available resources then there would be no new information entering the system, entropy (information loss) would kick in big time and you would cease to exist.

If you don’t die you will be forever acquiring resources, matter however would run out long before your eternity came and thus… information loss, death.

Many combinations of carbon with other matter (self replicating molecules and true life forms) tried to violate these laws and they perished. Adieu

Now, carbon must assimilate matter unto itself but it cannot exceed any of these halting limits, in addition to this however carbon has yet another limit. You see although carbon imperialism is an anti-entropic system (a system that stores and grows information) it is fully not immune to entropy. Ever heard of free radicals? You see oxygen is an element that is particularly eager to react with other chemicals, and not just any reactions but high energy ones. Because of the energy of the reactions sometimes the electrons of the oxygen molecule jump to a higher energy level, other times they simply leave the atom altogether. What happens next? Simple, oxygen is now either positively or negatively charged and thus needs to gain or loose an electron or two. In doing this it rips apart another near by ionic or covalent bond and thus entropy is introduced into the system. Bad, real bad. Especially when this happens near your DNA, you get what are called somatic mutations, or if you are really unlucky you get the dreaded germline mutations and those pass on to the next generation. Yay.

Luckily, carbon, our mighty empress, is not one to be defeated by the dreaded death of entropy, she is our shepherd and she shall see us through. Instead of letting entropy destroy her combinations she piggy backs on entropy and uses to instead find even more ways of collecting matter.

And thus we must introduce yet another carbon code:

Thou shalt not remain static; to do so is death

And another commandment to her edict:

Thou shall change, but in a begrudging manner

Most of the time the mutations simply cause death, or lead to a slower death. They accelerate aging and enhance the chance of disease or the effect of disease. Sometimes however, mutations lead to changes that enhance the way information can be acquired… but to stay the same is death, entropy must be dealt with in a system, if not then death is assured, life must evolve… if it doesn’t it will die.

Because of this life must find combinations that have the great amount of defense against entropy, the greatest resistance to change. Why, what if you find a form that is excellent at storing information? You cannot keep that form long, entropy will kick in, and so you must evolve. Evolution goes down a random course, so you may end up in a form that will lead you to death. But forms with the greatest amount of resistance to change will live longer, that is if they have a highly optimal form. To preserve themselves they have a degree of redundancy. Redundancy in the form a highly complex storage medium for the information necessary to further induct, replicate and transform information (DNA is complex but it is mostly redundant information, error correcting codes for genetics?). Redundancy in the form of large numbers of the basic units of information manipulation: cells. Redundancy in the form of large population base so even if a few members of the populous get sick or damaged the overall information in the system (the species) is left unharmed. Redundant systems live longer; they have a higher chance of stability. Naturally, to do this you’d have to get pretty close to breaking some of the carbon codes, maximum efficiency is achieved right before the system plummets into the abyss. Think of the shark, its form may be optimum and has been for millions of years, yet even it has changed. Entropy is stronger than even Hardy–Weinberg principle (thank you frogfish for pointing that one out for me).

Intelligence gives carbon the opportunity to shatter all of the codes. Carbon’s edict is nothing more than an echo of chemical imperialism and chemical imperialism is simply an echo of an even more powerful imperative: The need for information not to degrade into its most probable state: entropy.

As life is forced to evolve it will try out many different states, the most stable ones will last the longest, those and the ones that exist in environment were very little new information is introduced and thus very little entropy.

As more combinations are attempted they grow more complex and more redundant as complexity will allow for more information induction, storage and transformation and redundancy will protect against entropy. Eventfully a combination complex enough to support intelligence will emerge and thus the most efficient way for information to gather more information, store information and transform information will appear. What is civilization but the passing down of information from one generation to the next in a highly segmented and structuralized manner? We store information in our children, our buildings, our books, our pets, our livestock, refrigerated foods, the list is endless. And we find more and more ways of more efficiently storing information, fighting entropy. Civilization advances… from the Stone Age to the age of artificial intelligence.

What is needed for this to occur? Simple, a subsistence that is good at inducing more information into itself (carbon in carbon chains), energy (sunlight or geothermal energy), stability for the patterns of information not to be disturbed (not too placid however), and lastly a subsistence that allows for other raw materials to be easily accessed: water, the universal solvent.

All the conditions for life were met on Earth in the deep past and they are met on Europa, but not, however, on Saturn’s moon of Titan. On Europa its energy comes from its thermal core, produced due to its being caught within a tidal lock with Jupiter constantly pulling and a few of Jupiter’s moons pulling the other way. Titan has no such luxuries. Earth was lucky to be close to the sun, and as for Mars… well I’ll wait for further research from Mars before I make a decision.

P.S ~ This is just an hypothesis, no need to take it seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But alas!

The eternal driving force of entropy will one day make super black hole slaves of us all!

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good read, thanks for posting it. I'm not going to criticise, as you pointed out it was a philosophical exercise and a good one. Be careful you don't start creationists off though with 'And God created Carbon' ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me philosophy went to hell in a handcart as soon as Kant declared war on scientists for dethroning his particular breed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But alas!

The eternal driving force of entropy will one day make super black hole slaves of us all!

:P

I doubt it. The underlying extra-dimensional forces that govern our universe ie. conciousness have the ability to curb entropy. In effect there may not be such a thing as entropy, only on the outer illusional level, may it appear in such a way.

Edited by Venomshocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I cannot say I know anything about conscience outside of our universe, but I do know this: Within a closed system there is no way to reduce its average entropy level.

The Earth is indeed an entropy reduction system, but it does this not by reversing entropy, rather it puts it elsewhere. The diversity of life on this planet is a consequence of its level of organization. Genomic damage is due to metabolic or thermodynamic irregularities (free radicals, rogue radiant energy, etc.) this then in turn re-introduces entropy into the system which it must remove. The organism either dies and is eaten (removal of entropy from the matter, entropy is conserved in waste materials such as heat, sweat, feces, etc.) or it become the best algorithm for the particular system. One way or another, entropy is conserved, but its effect is reduced via its removal or acceptance into the system.

One way or another though, entropy is still here, there is no way around it.

When I wrote this I only took closed systems and open systems contained within those closed systems into consideration. Extra-dimensional entities weren’t on my mind at the time. If the do exist they could remove entropy, if they don’t, well it doesn’t matter then does it? However, I’m not too concerned about ‘their’ existence at the moment, if they want me to think about them, they’ll have to make themselves known to me in a scientifically verifiable way.

Edited by Kelvena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"However, I’m not too concerned about ‘their’ existence at the moment, if they want me to think about them, they’ll have to make themselves known to me in a scientifically verifiable way."

Exactly. Not much can come out of talking about what the universe (aka reality) truely is, opposed to what we observe. If we look at humanity's earliest philosophers who tried to do just that, they mostly concluded falicious results concerning reality's composition (or ridiculously ambiguous/useless ones). Science has cleared up a lot. Maybe one could claim that given our current scientific knowledge, thinking about reality's composition nowadays is more logically grounded. But remember, science is still very young, and the world still filled to the brim with unknown. We have merely skimed a single grain of sand resting next to the ocean of knowledge awaiting us (for those who enjoy metaphores). Imo, we have a long way to go before the need arises to think about the system behind it all, if that day even ever comes.

At first glance at the definition of entropy, I am willing to claim that it is impossible to design a system, based on conservation laws, that reduces entropy with time. I think that given these parameters, the best one could do is keep it constant with time: where the initial event is perfectly designed so that all events in this universe are cyclic in some finite amount of time (which basically gives the illusion that there is no time, and obviously, entropy is constant without time).

If this is true (I have no idea if it is), then our Universe, regardless of its inner workings, will increase in entropy, given it does indeed follow conservation laws.

Does our Universe follow conservation laws? Maybe. In any case, my gut says yes. But, its been known to say pretty silly things at times, so I wouldnt pay particularly much attention to it.

I can't wait to be a super black hole! It will be so cool! Hanging out inside the event horizon and all. Yummy, max entropy. (Proportional to the blackhole event horizon surface area too, not its volume, all the more exciting).

Edited by SpeedOfDark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a black hole is fun 'til you start evaporating and giving off hawking radiation. Maybe you'll thinkin' 'bout baby universes then. Gives a who new meaning to existential crisis.

Edited by Kelvena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a black hole is fun 'til you start evaporating and giving off hawking radiation. Maybe you'll thinkin' 'bout baby universes then. Gives a who new meaning to existential crisis.

haha its ok, baby universes are even more fun than blackholes. :D

Btw...

"At first glance at the definition of entropy, I am willing to claim that it is impossible to design a system, based on conservation laws, that reduces entropy with time. I think that given these parameters, the best one could do is keep it constant with time: where the initial event is perfectly designed so that all events in this universe are cyclic in some finite amount of time (which basically gives the illusion that there is no time, and obviously, entropy is constant without time)."

...you have no comment on this? :(

I like getting a second opinion when I pull statements out of my ass :P

There must be some property of our universe that demands entropy... Is it conservation laws...? or maybe something else? Maybe its conservation+something else... I dunno. Basically, imagine creating a universe from scratch with any property imaginable (including true random, magic, infinites, anything! Even paradoxes and illogical systems!)... then obviously, they will not all follow the second law of thermo dynamics :P But, as soon as you start defining it, I think only a few parameters are necessary for entropy to show its inevitable face.

Now that I think of it, Im gonna go with conservation laws+logical universe. Cuz obviously, if its not logical, then low entropy can spawn out of nowheres... which kind of puts a little dent in my statement :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no, you're quite right, there is no sysem that reduces entropy with time. The entropy reduction system I metioned only displaces entropy, it still has to go somewhere. That's why all open systems are subsets of closed systems. Open systems can only displace entropy with great effort and thus need energy to keep pouring in. Closed systems overall don't have this luxury. So, on a local level it may appear like the second law is being defied, but over all entropy is conserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I know how entropy works based on our scientific description of the Universe. Entropy in a closed system always goes up with time. tis all fine and dandy.

However, looking from a much broader scope, it would be a falicious statement that entropy always increases with time. You can't prove things in science, because doing so requires an infinite amount of experiments. You can only disprove. This means, at the truest level of knowledge and certainty, we know absolutely nothing of how our universe works, which is true.

That being so, if we want claim that entropy always goes up with time, then we need to base it on some assumption(s), or else our statement is not necessarily true.

My question is:

what are the minimum amount of assumptions required (for any system) for entropy to be inevitable?

I advanced that both conservation laws and logical universe (aka causality) were needed.

For example, conservation laws alone are not enough. If the universe does not function with causality, then anything can happen at any given time, including decreased entropy of a closed system.

If the universe is only logical, then every event can be linked to a previous event, but nothing stops extra matter from being created with every collision, for example. In this case, the closed system containing only the contents of our initial universe would increase in entropy with time. But, the extra matter that is created with each collision could make the entropy in a closed system go down with time. (Reference to matter just means 'something that exists').

Would these 2 assumptions necessarily require the second law of thermo? And if so, perhaps only 1 of my 2 assumptions are required? A simpler way to state it?

I know this is not particularly important in any way... I was just thinking that explaining entropy in this approach would be a great way to convince super-skeptics who do not believe it is mandatory, that it indeed is (seeming most poeple do believe that conservation laws and causality apply to the universe... and neither has been violated in any experiment as far as science can tell up to this date, which is as solid as evidence gets in my opinion).

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not certian I understood what you meant by collisions, do you mean simple collisions or do you mean the rubber band effect that is theorized occur when the universe collapses and goes through an oscillation. If the latter, then I'm afraid that that theory way dashed long ago. Also, I was under the assumption that the creaton of matter violated the principal of conservation of mass.

Ah, it is rather easy prove the global nature of the laws of thermodynamics. If addational energy entered the system then it would be possible for a dropped egg to crack and then spontaneously put itself back together. The entropy could be completely annulled as the energy from the eggs fall could be properly distrubted without removing energy from the egg. This doesn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I think you still dont completely get what I am asking...

"I'm not certian I understood what you meant by collisions, do you mean simple collisions or do you mean the rubber band effect that is theorized occur when the universe collapses and goes through an oscillation."

The first. The collision was just an example of an event which can be used as a cause to trigger another. I could substitute it with practicaly anything, including silly stuff like "whenever a particle reaches a certain velocity" or "passes through this specific coordinate of space", or anything else that is a relevant reference system in my imaginry universe.

Conservation of energy (note that conservation of mass does not apply to our Universe) can be broken in my example because I do not assume conservation laws exist in this hypothetical universe:

If the universe is only logical, then every event can be linked to a previous event, but nothing stops extra matter from being created with every collision, for example. In this case, the closed system containing only the contents of our initial universe would increase in entropy with time. But, the extra matter that is created with each collision could make the entropy in a closed system go down with time. (Reference to matter just means 'something that exists').

(PS; "If the universe is only logical" means "If the universe is deterministic." And note that determinism does not imply conservation laws).

Okok, examples are not getting anywheres cuz my use of terminology is far too ambiguous, sry bout that...

Just tell me if you agree with the following statement or not, and elaborate the why if you do not :):

IF AND ONLY IF the Universe is deterministic and all conservation laws are true, then entropy must increase with time.

I put it in bold too, cuz it makes me feel important.

Edited by SpeedOfDark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend not to think about closed systems, purely because ultimatley the universe is an open system.

If entropy were to decrease then the universe would enventually become static. If entropy increases the universe ultimatley fizzles out. Unless of course the universe gets sucked into one black hole, then it would become static again.

If conciousness is the prime mover of energy in the universe, then entropy in effect dosent exist. Ordered and disordered energy is chosen at will.

Taking quantum entaglment and the observer effect into consideration, it is very difficult for me too see how entropy would increase indefinatley in the universe. It seems as if there is a delicate balance between increasing and decreasing entropy prevalent throughout the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a

Edited by SpeedOfDark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damnit... I somehow managed to kill the quotes, oh well I will do them the lame way ;/

"I tend not to think about closed systems, purely because ultimatley the universe is an open system."

The only way this is possible is if you believe the universe is infinitely big. Is that the case?

"If entropy were to decrease then the universe would enventually become static."

Yes.

"If entropy increases the universe ultimatley fizzles out."

Fizzles?

"Unless of course the universe gets sucked into one black hole, then it would become static again."

Blackholes are the complete opposite of static. They are the maximum entropy configuration in the given conditions of our universe. Blackhole = maximum disorder.

"If conciousness is the prime mover of energy in the universe,"

what does this mean? Are you stating that conciousness is something that cannot be explained with the same principles used to explain a rock? (ie chemical reactions, physics etc). If so, then in order to argue that consciousness causes entropy to stay neutral, you will need to define what it is, atleast somewhat.

"Ordered and disordered energy is chosen at will."

If consciousness is controlled by logical, deterministic, scientific principles, it cannot stop entropy. Even when order is created, it causes a greater amount of disorder to happen somewheres else, thus increasing the total disorder of the Universe, as a whole. Can you name one process where entropy descreases more than it increases?

"Taking quantum entaglment and the observer effect into consideration, it is very difficult for me too see how entropy would increase indefinatley in the universe."

How are either of these related to stabalizing entropy? Entropy is found to increase in all processes, including anything in QM. It always has larger chances to increase with time than to decrease.

"It seems as if there is a delicate balance between increasing and decreasing entropy prevalent throughout the universe."

Not one process has been found to do this since scientists have defined entropy. In every process ever mesured, total entropy has gone up with time, always.

Edited by SpeedOfDark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kelvena-

A fascinating read and by coincidence, vaguely similar to something I am writing myself (dont worry its very different and is essentially about political-economy) anyway I cant help but think of things like teleology in this case...or at least in what I'm writing...we'll see.

Anyway I was hoping you could tell me who your philosophical influences were...Bertrand Russell you say? anyone else? I would greatly appreciate a name or two as a paper I'm writing is in this vein as well.

Again, great read, interesting position you take (and I basically agree with it too)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only way this is possible is if you believe the universe is infinitely big. Is that the case?

yes.

Fizzles?

Spread thin, so thin, there is no more structure.

Blackholes are the complete opposite of static. They are the maximum entropy configuration in the given conditions of our universe. Blackhole = maximum disorder

My understanding of black hole's is accumulated condensed energy, due to gravitational forces. Blackholes are so dense and so packed, that they are basically solid mayby even super solid, therefore virtually no disorder.

what does this mean? Are you stating that conciousness is something that cannot be explained with the same principles used to explain a rock? (ie chemical reactions, physics etc). If so, then in order to argue that consciousness causes entropy to stay neutral, you will need to define what it is, atleast somewhat.

Well when it comes to the quantum world we really are at a loss to explain the most fundamental principles of a rock. Conciousness is sentinence, spaience, awarness. It has the ability to affect, and order energy at the quantuum level. Evidence of this is the widely know observer effect. Conciousness seems to ransend physcial energy int he sense it cannot be measured or defined in conventiional terms. That does not mean in the future it could be defined in extra-dimensional terms.

If consciousness is controlled by logical, deterministic, scientific principles, it cannot stop entropy. Even when order is created, it causes a greater amount of disorder to happen somewheres else, thus increasing the total disorder of the Universe, as a whole. Can you name one process where entropy descreases more than it increases?

Permanent Magnetic fields for one. Also let me quote:

"Indeed, several areas are already known to violate present thermodynamics. Sharp discharges (strong gradients), for example, are known to violate it. [8] Other known areas where thermodynamics is violated include rarefied media, and anomalous memory effects in materials. Modern research is being conducted in such areas under the heading of "extended thermodynamics". [9]."

Source

Also:

"In other thermodynamics forefront research, violations of the second law can and do occur, e.g., from statistical transient fluctuations alone. Modern thermodynamics is largely based on statistical mechanics, and there are no statistics as such without statistical fluctuations also. Accordingly, there are very rigorous thermodynamic transient fluctuation theorems available these days for calculating some of the effects of such fluctuations. One of the best such theorems is given by Evans and Searles; see D. J. Evans and D. J. Searles, "Equilibrium microstates which generate second law violating steady states," Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 50, 1994, p. 1645-1648. That paper advances the transient fluctuation theorem which predicts appreciable and measurable violations of the second law of thermodynamics for small systems over short time scales. The theorem relates the relative probability of delivering negative versus positive work to an experimental vessel. The theorem applies to systems in a constant-temperature environment and initially at equilibrium. This theorem has also been fairly widely applied to other areas and found to hold and be very useful. "

Source

Finally a nice quote from Maxwell:

"The truth of the second law is … a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules… Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body."

The truth of the matter is energy can be extracted from the zeropoint energy field to do useful work and ordering. This is a good example of decreasing entropy.

Edited by Venomshocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes

kk, I was just checking. And apparently, it is one of the leading theories for the shape of the universe... which is very interesting indeed.

Spread thin, so thin, there is no more structure.

My understanding of black hole's is accumulated condensed energy, due to gravitational forces. Blackholes are so dense and so packed, that they are basically solid mayby even super solid, therefore virtually no disorder.

Entropy is defined as the number of microscopic configurations that can be applied to a system in order to yield the observed macroscopic thermodynamic properties, from the equation S = kBln(Ω), where kB is Boltzmann's constant, and Ω the number of microscopic configurations. Seeming a blackhole hides almost all its information by its event horizon, and that any reconfiguration of the particles inside the event horizon will yield the same result, it is logical that blackholes should be the max entropy state of a given volume of space. There is still some debate amoung physicists as to how its entropy is actualy calculated for a given blackhole, but it was shown shortly after Hawking radiation, in 1974, that a blackhole had maximum entropy when gravity was considered, and that it was proportional to its event horizon's surface area, not its event horizon volume, as it was previously believed. I would love to give you a reference on this, but Im a very lazy man.

Well when it comes to the quantum world we really are at a loss to explain the most fundamental principles of a rock.

True.

Conciousness is sentinence, spaience, awarness. It has the ability to affect, and order energy at the quantuum level. Evidence of this is the widely know observer effect.

This is a misconception. The observer effect refers to "anything that interacts with the particle," it does not require conciousness at all. There is no evidence that suggests conciousness has anything to do with QM. And there will most likely never be.

Permanent Magnetic fields for one.

First of all, no such thing. Something has to be generating the magnetic field. If you find me an article where poeple have managed to decrease the entropy of a system steadily with time, then I want a link plz. Surely such a research paper would be ground breaking. It would enable us to do ridiculously uselful things such as perpetual motion machines and infinite energy supplies.

Also let me quote:

"Indeed, several areas are already known to violate present thermodynamics. Sharp discharges (strong gradients), for example, are known to violate it. [8] Other known areas where thermodynamics is violated include rarefied media, and anomalous memory effects in materials. Modern research is being conducted in such areas under the heading of "extended thermodynamics". [9]."

Source

Also:

"In other thermodynamics forefront research, violations of the second law can and do occur, e.g., from statistical transient fluctuations alone. Modern thermodynamics is largely based on statistical mechanics, and there are no statistics as such without statistical fluctuations also. Accordingly, there are very rigorous thermodynamic transient fluctuation theorems available these days for calculating some of the effects of such fluctuations. One of the best such theorems is given by Evans and Searles; see D. J. Evans and D. J. Searles, "Equilibrium microstates which generate second law violating steady states," Phys. Rev. E, Vol. 50, 1994, p. 1645-1648. That paper advances the transient fluctuation theorem which predicts appreciable and measurable violations of the second law of thermodynamics for small systems over short time scales. The theorem relates the relative probability of delivering negative versus positive work to an experimental vessel. The theorem applies to systems in a constant-temperature environment and initially at equilibrium. This theorem has also been fairly widely applied to other areas and found to hold and be very useful. "

Source

Finally a nice quote from Maxwell:

"The truth of the second law is … a statistical, not a mathematical, truth, for it depends on the fact that the bodies we deal with consist of millions of molecules… Hence the second law of thermodynamics is continually being violated, and that to a considerable extent, in any sufficiently small group of molecules belonging to a real body."

The truth of the matter is energy can be extracted from the zeropoint energy field to do useful work and ordering. This is a good example of decreasing entropy.

Those are all very nice... but they still follow the second law of thermo dynamics. See, when me and Kelvena say "the entropy of a system always increases with time"... its not exactly what we mean. The full explicit version would be something more like: "the odds are favorable that the entropy of any given system will increase with time. The larger the system, the more likely." Entropy is a tricky subject to grasp, but I think this fun anology can show what I mean:

Suppose you have a book with 2000 pages. Each page has been torn out of the book, and are in order from 1 to 2000. If you throw them in the air, then get on your knees and pick them up 1 by 1, they can be in 2000! different arrangements (note that 2000! is the factorial of 2000, which is equivalent to 1*2*3*4*5*...*1998*1999*2000, a gigantic number). Seeming you didn't look at the page numbers when you picked them up, and you tossed them without knowing where any of them were going to land, each of these orders is as likely as the next to be found once you pick them all up. The odds of them being in order from 1 to 2000 is 1/(2000!), while the odds of them being in any other order is 1-1/(2000!). From this description, we can understand why entropy would always increase. Because a disordered outcome is just so much more likely. Suppose now you start with the pages in a random wrong order (high entropy), and you throw them up. After you pick them back up, odds are they will be in a different, but as random/meaningless order... however, no matter how unlikely it is, its possible that they are ordered from 1 to 2000. Or maybe, ordered from 1 to 2000, with only 50 pages out of place, or some other semi-ordered combination much more ordered than our starting conditions. In other words, its possible the entropy decreased. How odd! Suppose I have a trillion pages, we will definitely minize the odds of this happening in our system (our system being just the order of the pages). Lets say we have a trillion trillion trillions. Or even better, lets suppose instead of pages, that our system is all the particles in the universe and their respective properties! (This particular anology idea I took from a book by Brian Greene).

Can the universe spontaneously jump to systematic lower-entropy configurations? Yes, it can! Is it likely? Just as likely as all your atoms spontaneously quantum tunneling to some planet habitable by humans in the adromeda galaxy and your body left unharmed by the process, albeit extremely confused. We are talking about astronomical numbers that even our most powerful of computers could not hold in their memories.

At extremely small scales, it is possible to observe net decreases in entropy. Does this change anything at all in this whole argument? Not a single thing. Statistically, there are so many more particles taking the high-entropy road, that the observed effect on the macroscopic scale remains an unresisting net increase in entropy. No matter what we do, odds are that the universe's net entropy will keep fluctuating extremely minimally and overall increase with time.

Is it possible for a splattered egg on your kitchen floor will reform itself intactly, jump up, roll, and come to a quiet halt on the middle of your table counter? YES. Is it likely? NO.

Physicists like to say that the entropy of a closed system always increases with time, because the odds of the oppisite happening are small (even on time scales astronomicaly larger than our universe's current age). The odds of anyone in the next billion years of finding a macroscopic experiment where the net entropy change was negative, is less likely than a single person winning the lottery for the rest of their lives for the next billion years, let alone living that long!!

anyways, I think one of the only things I forgot to quote that I ment to was "fizzles," which you ment as "Spread thin, so thin, there is no more structure." This will never happen. All the particles spread thin = LOW ENTROPY configuration. This might seem counter-intuitive, but its absolutely correct. In a universe where gravity DOES NOT exist, crystalline 0 Kelvin material = MIN entropy; thinely spread particles are MAX. In a universe where gravity DOES exist, MIN = I'm not sure (something resembling evenly spread particles at 0K); MAX = super black holes.

PS; none of ur sources are workin btw.. but its not rly important, seeming the only sources Id really like to see are the ones about harnassing usable energy from a zero field while dimishing the entropy of the universe, and the sentence you stated about magnetic fields.

PS2; nvm, only the first link is inactive, the second one works.

Edited by SpeedOfDark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the conversation laws don't exist then your example is valid. However, when I wrote this I took the conservation laws into consideration.

Another question, how is the extra-matter (from the collisions) generated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the conversation laws don't exist then your example is valid. However, when I wrote this I took the conservation laws into consideration.

Another question, how is the extra-matter (from the collisions) generated?

It doesnt matter how its generated. It was a hypothetical Universe where conservation laws do not exist, only logically linked events.

Just pretend my examples dont exist... and tell me wether you believe this statement is true or false:

IF AND ONLY IF the Universe is deterministic and all conservation laws are true, then entropy must increase with time.

Its an if and only statement, so its either true or false. What you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then good sir, I'd have to say yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a misconception. The observer effect refers to "anything that interacts with the particle," it does not require conciousness at all. There is no evidence that suggests conciousness has anything to do with QM. And there will most likely never be.

If all things in the unvierse have conciousness than conciousness is alwasy interacting with everything, even conciousness itslef.

Theres plenty of evidence to suggest conciousness has lots to do with QM, in fact it may entirely be QM based.

Russel Targ, has done some phemonmenal work on the subject. As has Hal Puthoff, and many other researchers. Rupert Sheldrake, with morphogenetic fields may also be applicable. David Bohm's later work also has implications. Im to lazy to cite specific examples, when I have more time Ill try to put together a more conclusive report.

First of all, no such thing. Something has to be generating the magnetic field. If you find me an article where poeple have managed to decrease the entropy of a system steadily with time, then I want a link plz. Surely such a research paper would be ground breaking. It would enable us to do ridiculously uselful things such as perpetual motion machines and infinite energy supplies.

Check out STEORN. Also this may be of relevance.

MEG

Those are all very nice... but they still follow the second law of thermo dynamics. See, when me and Kelvena say "the entropy of a system always increases with time"... its not exactly what we mean. The full explicit version would be something more like: "the odds are favorable that the entropy of any given system will increase with time. The larger the system, the more likely." Entropy is a tricky subject to grasp, but I think this fun anology can show what I mean:

Suppose you have a book with 2000 pages. Each page has been torn out of the book, and are in order from 1 to 2000. If you throw them in the air, then get on your knees and pick them up 1 by 1, they can be in 2000! different arrangements (note that 2000! is the factorial of 2000, which is equivalent to 1*2*3*4*5*...*1998*1999*2000, a gigantic number). Seeming you didn't look at the page numbers when you picked them up, and you tossed them without knowing where any of them were going to land, each of these orders is as likely as the next to be found once you pick them all up. The odds of them being in order from 1 to 2000 is 1/(2000!), while the odds of them being in any other order is 1-1/(2000!). From this description, we can understand why entropy would always increase. Because a disordered outcome is just so much more likely. Suppose now you start with the pages in a random wrong order (high entropy), and you throw them up. After you pick them back up, odds are they will be in a different, but as random/meaningless order... however, no matter how unlikely it is, its possible that they are ordered from 1 to 2000. Or maybe, ordered from 1 to 2000, with only 50 pages out of place, or some other semi-ordered combination much more ordered than our starting conditions. In other words, its possible the entropy decreased. How odd! Suppose I have a trillion pages, we will definitely minize the odds of this happening in our system (our system being just the order of the pages). Lets say we have a trillion trillion trillions. Or even better, lets suppose instead of pages, that our system is all the particles in the universe and their respective properties! (This particular anology idea I took from a book by Brian Greene).

Can the universe spontaneously jump to systematic lower-entropy configurations? Yes, it can! Is it likely? Just as likely as all your atoms spontaneously quantum tunneling to some planet habitable by humans in the adromeda galaxy and your body left unharmed by the process, albeit extremely confused. We are talking about astronomical numbers that even our most powerful of computers could not hold in their memories.

At extremely small scales, it is possible to observe net decreases in entropy. Does this change anything at all in this whole argument? Not a single thing. Statistically, there are so many more particles taking the high-entropy road, that the observed effect on the macroscopic scale remains an unresisting net increase in entropy. No matter what we do, odds are that the universe's net entropy will keep fluctuating extremely minimally and overall increase with time.

Thanks for the explanation it does help clarify the subject quite a bit. One thing I dont like about the analogy though, is that the given entropy with the book and the pages, is always in refrence to its original form. The thing is things can go from order to disorder, and then abck to order again, but with a different shape. Mayby the pages are dissentegrated and its molecules used to construct something else.

If it is possible to extract energy from the quantum zero point energy field, one could effectively decrease entropy. Will it ever outdo, the positive entropy of the universe?? Who knows. If the human population keeps expanding infinitly and the universe is a set size negative entropy would overcoem positive entropy. If the universe is infite in size, then no. Also if there is infinite energy, then all logic seemingly breaks down. It does seem the net entropy must be positive. But, in big bang theory with fixed utilizable energy, the universe went from postive entropy to more negative entropy in the last suppsed 15 billion years.....

Net entropy is negative in the current most prevalent model of the universe...

The universe and its energy supply would have to be infinite in scope, for there to be positive net entropy seemingly.

Does my logic make sense?? Math and physics arent exactly my forte. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all things in the unvierse have conciousness than conciousness is alwasy interacting with everything, even conciousness itslef.

Theres plenty of evidence to suggest conciousness has lots to do with QM, in fact it may entirely be QM based.

Russel Targ, has done some phemonmenal work on the subject. As has Hal Puthoff, and many other researchers. Rupert Sheldrake, with morphogenetic fields may also be applicable. David Bohm's later work also has implications. Im to lazy to cite specific examples, when I have more time Ill try to put together a more conclusive report.

Check out STEORN. Also this may be of relevance.

MEG

Thanks for the explanation it does help clarify the subject quite a bit. One thing I dont like about the analogy though, is that the given entropy with the book and the pages, is always in refrence to its original form. The thing is things can go from order to disorder, and then abck to order again, but with a different shape. Mayby the pages are dissentegrated and its molecules used to construct something else.

If it is possible to extract energy from the quantum zero point energy field, one could effectively decrease entropy. Will it ever outdo, the positive entropy of the universe?? Who knows. If the human population keeps expanding infinitly and the universe is a set size negative entropy would overcoem positive entropy. If the universe is infite in size, then no. Also if there is infinite energy, then all logic seemingly breaks down. It does seem the net entropy must be positive. But, in big bang theory with fixed utilizable energy, the universe went from postive entropy to more negative entropy in the last suppsed 15 billion years.....

Net entropy is negative in the current most prevalent model of the universe...

The universe and its energy supply would have to be infinite in scope, for there to be positive net entropy seemingly.

Does my logic make sense?? Math and physics arent exactly my forte. :P

Hehe well... I hate to be blunt, but no. :P

Ofc the conciousness is QM based, because its made of atoms just like a rock, and atoms function by QM, everything in the universe does. Conciousness has nothing to do with explaining anything in QM or how QM works.

There is actualy no flaw in the page analogy, and thats the beauty of it.

"is that the given entropy with the book and the pages, is always in refrence to its original form."

That's how entropy works and EVERYTHING else in science/the universe. Statements about what is are irrelevant, immesurable and at best, an exercise in metaphysics. Statements about a controlled change, can be extremely conclusive (science).

"The thing is things can go from order to disorder, and then abck to order again, but with a different shape. Mayby the pages are dissentegrated and its molecules used to construct something else."

No. Conservation laws forbid this. Although its not that obvious the way you state it, such a statement is as far fetched as claiming that one can create energy out of nowheres. Stuff in the universe does not change, only rearranges, just like the pages in our scenario.

@your largest paragraph:

You said like 5 things here that don't make sense :P

First of all, pick a convention and stick to it. We can only speak of the change in entropy. First you said decrese/increase, and now you are talking about positive and negative. Is positive increasing and negative decreasing? As for the size of the Universe, it has nothing to do with this debate at all... that is not really how an infinite universe works... but I dont feel like going farther on that. Point is, Universe size/shape does not effect entropy.

" the universe went from postive entropy to more negative entropy in the last suppsed 15 billion years..... Net entropy is negative in the current most prevalent model of the universe..."

Once again with positive/negative entropy... this makes no sense. :P

The entropy of the universe has started at some unknown arbitrary value and it has INCREASED WITHOUT EVER STOPPING FOR A SECOND for 15 billion years. Thats what all the theories/evidence say.

The point is:

Humans arent special, life isnt special, conciousness isnt special, they are all part of the Universe, and follow the eternal increasing of the universe's entropy. Not ONE macroscopic process has EVER been found to decrease in entropy in the past 100 years, and there (most likely, to keep the accuracy of the statement as explicit as possible) never will be.

I dont want to argue entropy further. Im a physics/mathematics student. Ive done my reading, and I am in a thermodynamics class. Im pretty confident I have an acceptable intuitve grasp on general science and entropy. In my opinion, some of the things you state actualy make no sense, and those that do, have 0 evidence to support them.

Edited by SpeedOfDark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then good sir, I'd have to say yes.

Thank you madam, and highfive to that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.