On Jan 23, 2010, at 7:46:18 PM, Krimel <[email protected]> wrote: [Krimel] I hardly think that Hawking would indorse much of anything in Chapter 11. take this for example:
"If life is strictly a result of the physical and chemical forces of nature then why is life opposed to these same forces in its struggle to survive?" He makes this same kind of statement repeatedly in Chapter 11. It is obviously false. Life arises from these forces. Everything in nature follows the path of least resistance. It can be a convoluted and twisted path but nothing in nature strays from it. It is language like this that empowers the likes of Bo to anthropomorphize everything. Levels in conflict is shear foolishness. Nor would Hawking indorse the whole chemistry professor fiasco: "Chemistry professors are unstable mixtures of predominantly unstable compounds which, in the exclusive presence of the sun's heat, decay irreversibly into simpler organic and inorganic compounds. That's a scientific fact. The question is: Then why does nature reverse this process? What on earth causes the inorganic compounds to go the other way? It isn't the sun's energy. We just saw what the sun's energy did. It has to be something else. What is it?" [Mark] Hi Krimel, I once went to a Hawking lecture when I was studying in London. It was meant for physicists so it went over my head. It was all taped and Hawking sat with us and listened to it. He's a pretty smart guy, but he does have his critics in physics who debate with his models. So, he is not considered to be all knowing. I'm not sure what your background is in thermodynamics, or what education you have in chemistry, so I'll make this simple. The second law states that there is an increase in entropy with time (time's arrow). Life on the other hand decreases entropy locally. So the argument to preserve thermo is that life cannot be treated like a closed system. If one measures the overall entropy (sun and earth/life together) there is a net increase in entropy. Life does represent a local area where entropy decreases with time. Now, the concept of local only works if we think we know what the rest of the universe is. Perhaps our measured universe is a local increase in entropy in a much larger setting which actually decreases in entropy. To be honest, we do not know what is happening at the distant stars, we simply apply our local understanding, limited as it may be. But, I'm fine with this argument since the second law is only meant to apply to what we know. Now, the question is: why does life decrease entropy (we know how) locally? Take for example a simplification of the photosynthetic process. Energy is absorbed by a compound causing an excitation of electrons to a higher level. This energy is therefore converted from light, to chemical energy. That energy is then used to do things like oxidize water to oxygen. OK, so that is a method by which life seemingly harnesses the suns energy. The philosophical question then becomes, why does such an energy absorbing structure exist? Why does matter have the nature where it is capable of absorbing energy and converting it? This is a philosophical question because although one can say "that is just the property of matter", this leaves us humans wanting. If one wants to create a metaphysical system using science, one simply asks why endlessly? By asking why, one can then develop a system which attempts to explain it. I'm not sure what Pirsig's knowledge of physics is, and certainly Lila is not a paper in Physical Reviews; Lila is written for the layman. So Pirsig uses an example in physics which he believes (perhaps wrongly) violates a principle in physics, and asks why. It is no different from asking why is the speed of light constant. The metaphysical answers certainly do not satisfy one who relies on scientism to believe something. But it may satisfy someone who feels it makes sense. Since we really cannot know the underlying reasons for why the universe is the way it is, we create them. And such creations may have predictive value, although that is not essential in metaphysics, only scientism. Such reasons may also be true, depending on how one looks at them. So Pirsig is not a scientist. No need to use more accurate knowledge to dismiss his notion of Quality. It is just an example. Having said that, if one is going to use such an example to create an argument for Quality, one should at least know what they are talking about to get any followers. I am fine to be corrected if I made any serious errors. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
