Crystals are formed through the maximization of disorder. Designer materials: Entropy (*Entropy* is the thermodynamic property toward quilibrium/average/homogenization/dissipation) can lead to order, paving the route to nanostructures.
Entropy is a consequence of the expansion of the universe. http://phys.org/news/2012-07-entropy-paving-route-nanostructures.html Glotzer explains that this isn't really disorder creating order—entropy needs its image updated. Instead, she describes it as a measure of possibilities. If you could turn off gravity and empty a bag full of dice into a jar, the floating dice would point every which way. However, if you keep adding dice, eventually space becomes so limited that the dice have more options to align face-to-face. The same thing happens to the nanoparticles, which are so small that they feel entropy's influence more strongly than gravity's. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > ** > The formation of crystals with the apparent increase in information is a > process governed by chemical laws - the polar bonding laws governing the > formation of ice crystals. While the crystals appear to have more > information, the crystal formation itself is a random application of > chemical bonding laws and contains no more information than another crystal > formation. To illustrate my point, ask yourself this: "Does one crystal, > like a snow flake, tell you more information about its process of > formation, that you can not get from another snow flake?" In the end, the > crystals itself are all products randomly created. > > There is a concept called "Specified Complexity" wherein one has a > mathematical criteria to judge whether one has something that is created by > an Intelligence or something that is created by Random chance and physical > laws. For example, when you walk down a beach and find scribblings on the > beach sand, and it is shaped like an "I". You can not immediately say that > this scribbling was written by a man. That scribbling has no "specified > complexity". The information is not complex and specified enough. > However, when you see "I love Lucy" written on the beach sand, you can > immediately say that that writting is from an intelligent being. Why? > because the complexity is huge, the chance is low and the information of > the writting is specified - that is, it contains knowledge from a known > source, the human language. Hence, using the criteria of specified > complexity, one can say that "I love Lucy" is specified complex while the > letter "I" while it contains information, is complex but not specified > complex. Specified Complexity is a property that allows us to judge > whether something has its origins from an intelligence or something from > random processes. > > Whenever we see something like DNA that contains both information and is > specified complex and its random formation impossible, we can conclude is > was designed by an Intelligence. > > > But once again, I am getting ahead of myself. We will discuss specified > complexity in a later post. > > > Jojo > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Friday, August 03, 2012 11:05 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic > Definitions > > Jojo I think that your statement that no random process can increase the > information content of a system is too broad. The formation of a crystal > from a vat of molten material seems to be a system that takes the random > motion of the hot atoms as its input and then a directing force leads to > the final crystal structure. Entropy is increased for the overall system > by the release of heat of fusion, but the local region becomes less random. > > With this type of process in mind, I think that the choice of system > boundaries become critical. > > Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Fri, Aug 3, 2012 8:55 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions > > Yes, That is why I say Darwinian Evolution is dead, a totally discredited > and fallacious idea. Darwin did not know about DNA, genes, cell > structures, RNA and others. > > Had he known the structure of DNA for instance, he would have concluded that > slow random mutation can not explain the existence of DNA. Why, because > random mutation can not explain the existence of "Information" within our > DNA. There is no random process that will result in an arrangement that > increases the Information Content of a system. Random processes results in > entrophy, and entrophy is the opposite of Information and order. > > But I am getting ahead of myself. I will discuss DNA information in a > future post. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Terry Blanton" <hohlr...@gmail.com> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 8:45 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions > > > > Recent discoveries show that Darwin's ideas were an over > > simplification of genetics: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics > > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/ghostgenes.shtml > > > > T > > > > > > >
