Dear Evgenii, List We are looking at different chapters of the same book. My primary interests are in the mathematics and biochemistry of biology and medicine. My inquiry on this particular topic, which has been ongoing since my graduate level course in statistical thermodynamics, includes the question, what can thermodynamic relationships tell us about life?
The foundational ideas/equations for thermodynamics are the ideal gas laws. (Plural, not singular.) This is an historical fact as established by precedence in time. Gibbs sought to integrate several concepts, including energy into some general rules (grammar) for the behavior of nature. Gibbs's effort was and is successful for simple relations among heat-related quantities. The long standing and open question is the relationships between heat and life, or thermodynamics and life. > The ideal gas law as such has nothing to do with the foundational logic in > thermodynamics. ??? The symbol "R", the ideal gas constant is intrinsic to the scientific calculations for thermodynamic equations. Why try to exclude it with such an assertion. The history of science is richer than you imagine. Evgenii, you write: > > As for chemical reaction, the chemical variable solves perfectly the problem > you describe. Chemical reactions are successfully treated in chemical > thermodynamics for ages. Please just open for example Peter Atkins, Physical > Chemistry. > As you point out, the tern d(n_i) is used for the symbolic representation of the stoichiometry for all possible chemical /biological reactions. d(n_i) only counts the Daltonian ratios for a reaction or set of reactions. It DOES NOT incorporate the chemical structures. d(n_i) DOES NOT represent the causal electrical relations among the electrical particles composing biological cells. In living systems, third order cybernetic systems, the stoichiometry of chemical processes are NOT constants, they vary with the feedforward and feedback relations in metabolic regulation. These facts underscore the greatest strength and weakness of Thermodynamics as a scientific theory. Its great strength is that it does not require the identity of matter, just a term for mass. Its great weakness is that it does not require the identity of matter, it cannot distinguish life from non-life. (BTW, I have Peter Atkin's book, A very brief Introduction to Thermodynamics (OUP) on my desk as I write this.) Evgenii concludes with: > > By the way, above I am not talking about philosophy of science. I disagree. Clearly, one of your philosophies of science is your belief in the origins of thermodynamics and its meaning, as you have artfully demonstrated in your posts. > I am talking about thermodynamics as it is employed in science. > Is your view of thermodynamics such that your view of science is restricted to physical theories or do you also accept an integral view of science that includes procreation? A vast quantity of pragmatic evidence is available from scientific observations on living systems and particularly biomedical studies and practices. My general conclusion from my study of this evidence is that the intricacies of the life vastly exceed the simple-minded notions of logic, mathematics and theories of physics, although these mental constructs can be sublated in biomedical theories as amply demonstrated by clinical practice. The scientific sublations from the simple to the perplex necessary require a change of basis with respect to symbol systems and their interpretation. Cheers Jerry On Jun 29, 2014, at 2:34 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > Dear Jerry, > > The foundational logic of thermodynamics (see Josiah Willard Gibbs "On the > Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances", 1875–1878) does not depend on > equation of state at all. The ideal gas law as such has nothing to do with > the foundational logic in thermodynamics. > > As for chemical reaction, the chemical variable solves perfectly the problem > you describe. Chemical reactions are successfully treated in chemical > thermodynamics for ages. Please just open for example Peter Atkins, Physical > Chemistry. > > By the way, above I am not talking about philosophy of science. I am talking > about thermodynamics as it is employed in science. > > Best wishes, > > Evgenii > > > > On 28.06.2014 20:11 Jerry LR Chandler said the following: >> >> Evgenii, List: >> >> On Jun 28, 2014, at 3:01 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: >> >>> On 27.06.2014 19:26 Jerry LR Chandler said the following: >>>> The concept of entropy as a scientific concept is a rigorous >>>> mathematic concept. It is an abstract concept, strictly limited >>>> to the flow of HEAT (not matter) in a closed system AT >>>> EQUILIBRIUM. >>> >>> I would not agree. >> >> Then, you do not accept the foundational logic of thermodynamics, >> which is derived and "validated" by the so-called "perfect gas >> laws". >> >> The foundational equation is: >> >> Pressure x Volume is equal to a number x constant x temperature >> >> (where the term number refers to any positive real number, "constant" >> is called the Ideal Gas Constant (a fixed value) and the symbol x >> represents the mathematical concept of multiplication.) >> >> In the symbol system of real numbers and variables, the same equation >> is expressed with a different set of symbols: >> >> PV=nRT. >> >> It is critical to note that the critical notion behind this equation >> is that with a changes in volume, pressure often result in the >> changes of temperature. The concept of time is introduced as a >> continuous variable of differentiation in the relating the >> relationships among temperature, volume and pressure. The temperature >> changes are mathematically related to energy changes and and a new >> concept, entropy, is introduced as relation between heat and >> temperature. Essentially, the concept of entropy is much like the >> notion of a very complicated parameter that is a property of the >> closed system in its totality. (A crude way of stating that the >> thermodynamic variables form a "bilinear group.") >> >> While the mathematics of thermodynamics is well established, the >> application of the mathematical system is severely bounded by the >> concept of the ideality of gases being treated as point particles >> (aka Aristotelian atoms.) In fact, atoms of a gas condense to form a >> finite volume of liquid, that is, pragmatically, real gases are not >> ideal gases. (Invisible steam can be condensed into drinking >> water!) >> >> You write: >>> First, I would place 'entropy' at the same shelf with for example >>> 'gravitational force'. >> >> >> Based, in part, on the above discussion, I would argue that entropy >> is, at best, a third order and highly ARTIFICIAL concept, that plays >> a unique scientific role in relating the symbols of mathematics to >> the symbolic representation of ideal gases as physical particles. >> >> The logical symbol system of chemistry and changes in chemical >> bonding are not expressed in this frame work of continuous >> mathematics. Atomic numbers ( as representamen of electrical >> particles) are NOT real numbers and are not part of the systems of >> differential equations. >> >> You write: >> >>> The change of the number of moles (dn_i) is in any textbook on >>> thermodynamics. >> >> I agree. But what does it mean? The mathematical term, "d(n-i)" >> merely expresses a change in number, NOT a chemical change which must >> be expressed in terms of the chemical symbol system. Thus the term >> d(n_i) is chemically meaningless except that the concept of mole >> expresses an approximate number. It does NOT express the quantity of >> electricity as in atomic numbers. >> >> In fact, this discussion has far deeper scientific origins than you >> might suspect. That is, the "System International" which grounds the >> relationships among representamen of physics, excludes the >> representation of chemical symbols. >> >> So, Evgenii, I understand your arguments and the metaphysics which >> motivate them. I disagree for many reasons which can be summarized as >> follows: >> >> Pragmatic application of thermodynamic equations to life (and >> chemistry) require the creation of unique relations among five >> different symbol systems - ordinary rhetoric, mathematics, physic (SI >> units), chemistry and genetics. >> >> The broad pragmatic utility of the thermodynamics discipline is not a >> basis for generalization to universal meanings in all systems at all >> times and all places. The scientific relations among multiple symbol >> systems is an open problem. >> >> Many if not most philosophers of science will find my views as >> heretical. So be it, but it is simply not so! I accept the >> pragmatic utility of the discipline and its sound mathematical >> principles. The simple question wrt to the meaning of thermodynamic >> "Laws" is a pragmatic one. When are thermodynamic laws useful and >> when are they pragmatically virtually useless? >> >> Cheers >> >> Jerry >> >> >> (Please note that it has required nearly two hours to draft this >> email. It is an expensive undertaking from a temporal perspective, >> one that I can seldom afford.) >> >> >> >>> >>> Evgenii >>> >>> ----------------------------- 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 .
