[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.
[Krimel] I once listened to a whole set of lectures by Hawking read by the author. I have a text to speech program that has more lifelike voices. He needs an upgrade but then he would sound like someone else. [Mark] 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. [Krimel] I think arguments from authority suck; especially, those used here. I would say the Bible contains lots of truth. But it is truth because it is true not because it is in the Bible. [Mark] 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. [Krimel] No. Life produces entropy locally. The constant influx of energy from the sun means that this doesn't matter. There is more energy being input into the system than entropy can suck up. On Earth there is a surplus of energy. Life is a way of dissipating energy that is not simply reflected into space. [Mark again] I believe you are mistaken here Krimel. A number of years ago I read Schrodinger's "What is Life?". I just went to our favorite Wiki to refresh my memory. Life is disorder to order, which is negative entropy. The only way to rectify this is to make life part of a larger system. [Mark] 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. [Krimel] Life could not occur in a closed system; in all probability. The fact that the Earth is not a closed system is what allows life to be here in the first place. [Mark again] What I mean by a closed system is to just look at life and ignore the energy coming in. It is simply a thought experiment. Don't take it literally. [Mark] Life does represent a local area where entropy decreases with time. [Krimel] Life seems to be a very rare and, I would say, precious commodity in the universe. It does not cause any decrease in entropy at all. It increases entropy just like everything else in nature. But in our case the sun provides more energy than we can dissipate. As a result, order increases. This, in fact, is how, here in the Goldilocks Zone, order emerges from chaos. [Mark again] Again Krimel, review your thermodynamics, you are mistaken. [Mark] 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. [Krimel] There may indeed be other places were the local influx of energy and the right combination of elements makes increases in order possible. It doesn't even have to be stellar radiation. It could be heat from increased molecular motion or plasma resulting from the gravitational density of stars or gas giants like Jupiter or Saturn. When it comes to "life' we have a sample size of 1. That makes generalization problematic. [Mark again] I have no idea what you are talking about here. Heat from increased molecular motion is an increase in entropy. My point was that this scientific system could be a closed system. [Mark] 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? [Krimel] While the 2nd Law is generalization based on what we observe here, it is not at all meant to be confined to "here". I believe most physicists would say that the Law of Thermodynamics are so well established as to be among the last ideas in science likely to be over turned. [Mark again] To state that our understanding of the universe through thermodynamics is somehow absolute is just the arrogance of the human race. All this science will change, we know so very little and are not Gods. [Mark] 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? [Krimel] Pirsig makes the same kind of point claiming to Baggini that scientists don't seem to know the difference between questions of why and questions of how. I have lost what little patience I ever had with this and would suggest that the difference is between a meaningful and a meaningless question. Endless "Whys" are the purview of two year olds, who are sincere, and 50-something scientists, who are going through what a professor of mine used to call philosopho-pause. [Mark again] Well, Krimel, if you have lost the magic of a two year old, and no longer ask why, that is your loss. Asking why is part of my job as a scientist. What in your estimation is a meaningful question? "What am I going to have for lunch?" [Mark] 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. [Krimel] Wanting what? [Mark again' An answer they feel comfortable with. [Mark] 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. [Krimel] I am all about writings for the layman. I agree with Pirsig wholeheartedly, any idea worth having should be explainable to a 5th grader. That is one of the many reasons I think people like John should watch NOVA. And it is programs and books like NOVA which give me hope that such a thing is possible. But I don't think this is an excuse for people like Pirsig screwing up the job. [Mark again] Try reading Science Magazine (put out by AAAS) or Nature sometime. You will see that science is not as cut and dried as Nova will have you believe. There is a little bit more to it than what you watch on TV. This is how science is abused. We are led to believe that many things are actually known and agreed on by everybody. [Mark] 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. [Krimel] I am not in the least interested in pursuing your dark fantasies about "scientism". You seem to believe that everyone who appreciates the beauty of science does so, on faith and is incapable of thinking it through and appreciating the beauty and elegance of this form of knowing. Well speak for yourself, mother fucker. [Mark again] I apologize if I offended your religion, but your unwavering belief needs challenging. Thinking it through? You mean blindly following, blithering sheep. [Mark] 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. [Krimel] No, Pirsig is not a scientist. He isn't a philosopher either. He is a great writer. He is a schizophrenic. Still I love the guy. But that doesn't mean he gets a pass when he is wrong. He completely missed the boat (big ferry boat or little ferry boat, take your pick) on the critical issues of Evolution and Randomness. The MoQ could have made major contributions in these areas. It could have been what Pirsig pointed toward, a metaphysics to replace SOM. But, it is a fringe idea attractive to new agers and almost no one else because Pirsig did not quite see what he was pointing at. [Mark again] Well, from your lofty viewpoint nobody is a scientist or philosopher since they can't match your prowess. It must be lonely at the top. I haven't seen you on the Mensa list, must be beneath you. Too bad, you are missing out on Asia Carrera. Based on your knowledge of thermodynamics, I am wondering what you know about evolution and randomness. Quality is a crappy term Pirsig used for Tao. Dynamic Quality is a crappy term he used for chaos. Static Quality is... Well, it is a pretty good term he used for Order. [Mark again] IMHO, your understanding of MoQ is somewhat limited. Perhaps you should ask why more often. I'm sure your knowledge of Tao is unsurpassable. 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/ 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/
