"Entropy is an index of the second law's predictions about energy,"
http://buff.ly/1qmoLp2

*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*


On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected]
> wrote:

> Soren, List:
>
> Does the concept of heat embody the concept of form?  If so, how?
>
> Entropy, as a component of the logic of thermodynamics, lacks form.
>
> What gives entropy form?
>
> Cheers
>
> jerry
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 28, 2014, at 6:54 AM, Søren Brier wrote:
>
> > Dear Evgenii and list
> >
> > That fact is - as Schrödinger and Prigogine points out - that more and
> more complicated self-organized systems develop feeding on the general
> growth of entropy in the universe. These systems order more and more of
> their surroundings in order to support and prolong their own existence. We
> are already influencing the whole of our planet and is beginning to explore
> other planets in the solar system in order to use them for our own purpose.
> So, Peirce is right that our rationality is influencing the universe. Who
> can say if order or chaos will win in the end?
> >
> > Best
> >                     Søren
> >
> > -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> > Fra: Evgenii Rudnyi [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sendt: 28. juni 2014 09:44
> > Til: [email protected]
> > Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The second law of thermodynamics
> >
> > There is a nice historical book
> >
> > Helge Kragh, Entropic Creation: Religious Contexts of Thermodynamics and
> Cosmology, 2008
> >
> > where the author discusses the heat death debates in 1850-1920. Peirce
> is mentioned there and a quote from the book is below.
> >
> > p. 187-188 "In 1891 he [Peirce] described his hypothesis as follows:
> >
> > 'The state of things in the infinite past is chaos ... the nothingness
> of which consists in the total absence of regularity. The state of things
> in the infinite future is death, the nothingness of which consists in the
> complete triumph of law and absence of all spontaneity.
> > Between these, we have on our side a state of things in which there is
> some absolute spontaneity counter to all law, and some degree of conformity
> to law, ...'
> >
> > This picture, starting from chaos and ending in an ordered and
> symmetrical system, turns the ordinary interpretation of the second law on
> its head. Some years earlier, in a 1884 lecture on 'Design and Chance', he
> declared that the heat death - in which 'there shall be no force but heat
> and the temperature everywhere the same' - was unavoidable. Confusingly,
> the next year he rejected the global heat death scenario, retracting to a
> position similar to that of many other evolutionary progressivists of the
> Victorian era: 'But, on the other hand, we may take it as certain that
> other intellectual races exist on other planets, - if not of our solar
> system, then of others; and also that innumerable new intellectual races
> have yet to be developed; so that on the whole, it may be regarded as most
> certain that intellectual life in the universe will never finally cease.'
> Perhaps he thought, such as he said in his 'Design and Chance', that the
> living universe would be saved by what he called 'chance', an influence he
> considered to be opposite to dissipative forces, of what some later authors
> referred to as 'entropy'."
> >
> > Evgenii
> > --
> > http://blog.rudnyi.ru
> >
> > On 27.06.2014 17:15 Stephen C. Rose said the following:
> >> How fixed is the scientific argument for this law? Certainly in this
> >> century there have been some who have chipped away at the idea of
> >> entropy as a fixed star in an otherwise fallible (subject to
> >> revision) scientific universe. And I am unaware of where Peirce stood
> >> on this matter. Were his notions of continuity and logic uneasy in the
> >> shadow of the assertion that everything falls apart?
> >>
> >> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
> >>
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------
> > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
> [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L
> but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .




Reply via email to