Atheism

PS.
creationists
creationist's
creationists'
?
I hate English!

0 Replies

@Thomas,

I am afraid we're making less and less sense and are boring everybody...

For the record, information is associated or equaled to -S or negentropy. Thus your second (?) hypothesis was correct.

Anyway, our discussion started with a simple and true idea of yours: that earth is not a closed system and thus the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to it. Your proposed the solar system as a closed (or isolated or adiabatic) system. And your answer was about comparing 1) the entropy generated in the sun to produce the "free energy" earth get from the sun, with 2) the entropy life (total biomass) exports during that time??? or something of the sort. A complicated calculus in any case. But you were looking for:

Quote:

how I would explain it to someone without a fairly good background in statistical physics (a two-week crash course minimum). Either I am hopelessly incompetent at explaining things, or this is a tough point for our side to prove as well.

I went along with that challenge, for the sake of the argument, though disagreeing in principle because the solar system is wide open. I proposed in essence: tiniest earth does not affect the overall entropy or energetic balance of the humongous solar system in any way shape or form worth even calculating. Rest assured that life on earth does not affect the great cosmic balance of the solar system.

I still stand by that but I now go further: only the universe can be said to be a closed system. Now, I would hope that at the level of the universe, you will grant me that size matters. The great cosmic balance won't mind too much if we scoop up a little entropy out of our bodies here or there in the form of heat and excrement in order to maintain our internal structure, us poor living creatures on this earth. Nor if we siphon an infinitesimal amount of the total energy of the universe to be able to do so. Rest assured it won't affect the entropic balance sheet of the universe.

That's how I would explain it to someone without the two-week crash course in statistical physics.

A point of style: when tapping on a cell phone, I tend to us caps as I would use italics on a computer. On a cell, the MAJCAP button is just easier to reach. All this to say you should read my CAPS as emphasis, not shouting... If you object, I will try and use the i button...

2 Replies

Quote:

Neologist said: But we might assume he [Jesus] did not use Romeo's gutter language.

Jesus lost his temper more than once so he may well have used colourful language to get his point across

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

For the record, information is associated or equaled to -S or negentropy. Thus your second (?) hypothesis was correct.

That was indeed my second hypothesis, but it was incorrect, too. We need to drop the minus sign. That was an especially stupid mistake of mine, because the correct statement is intuitively obvious. A message that goes on "1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . . ." for a million times contains no information, perfect order, and hence minimal entropy.

Olivier5 wrote:

That's how I would explain it to someone without the two-week crash course in statistical physics.

Fair enough. Thanks for the effort.

Olivier5 wrote:

A point of style: when tapping on a cell phone, I tend to us caps as I would use italics on a computer. On a cell, the MAJCAP button is just easier to reach. All this to say you should read my CAPS as emphasis, not shouting... If you object, I will try and use the i button...

No problem for me, and no hard feelings. Just keep in mind that on the internet, all-caps text is almost universally interpreted as yelling, and that your correspondents can't tell if you're on a cell phone or a real computer. Whether you use italics or not, it's best to use all caps sparingly if at all.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I am not qualified to talk about information theory, and I don't know how many bytes the Iliad is worth, but in thermodynamics, it is worth its calorific content.

That is to say (and leaving the Iliad aside): the link between the 0 & 1's of information theory and the ideal gaseous states of thermodynamics is figurative. The word "entropy" in info theory is not used to describe the same thing than in thermodynamics, other than figuratively. You could not add one and the other in the same equation.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

My utility with statistical thermodynamics is somewhat minimal, but I understand Maxwell and Gibbs fairly well. Entropy is thrown around like it is always increasing everywhere--the problem is that this is only true if there is no nearby energy source.

In the chemistry of Maxwell and Gibbs Enthalpy, Entropy, and Temperature are all related, and as long as Gibbs is right things can happen even with increasing entropy.

Wiki wrote:

Free energy-- Free entropy--
Internal energy
U(S,V)

Enthalpy
H(S,p)=U+pV

Helmholtz free energy
A(T,V)=U-TS

Gibbs free energy
G(T,p)=H-TS

If Gibbs says it can go, it can go--it doesn't matter if entropy is increasing --a good Enthalpy covers that bet.

Granted when asked to explain thermodynamics casually I respond.

The first law is "You can't get something from nothing."

The second law is "You won't break even."

To some extent I can see the same it true about information theory--to assign a thermodynamic value to the Iliad, if you took the time to undo the low entropy segregation of the ink and the paper into a melange of high entropy ash it would be an gross recovery of the enthalpy. Unless you consider the inspiration of the Iliad as excitation energy. In that case the real thermodynamic value of the Iliad might well be as a catalyst.

Rap

1 Reply

@raprap,

Quote:

If Gibbs says it can go, it can go--it doesn't matter if entropy is increasing --a good Enthalpy covers that bet.

Yes.

Not to mention that Maxwell (and Gibbs any less?) computations are only valid for an ideal gazeous state... Any interaction between the elements of the whole other than random, any mechanical movement for instance, or any form or structure in the "system" is totally precluded for the equations to work well... In other words, it's a statistical model of the crudest form to try and understand the physical world, let alone biology or Greek literature.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Maxwell and Gibbs are used to analyze state, changes of state, surface phenomena, solution and mixtures (heterogeneous and homogeneous).

Rap

1 Reply

@raprap,

Maxwell, no. The mathematics are about perfect gazes. It has been expanded later maybe...

0 Replies

1 Reply

Reminds me of Bella Dea, who once wrote: "I found Jesus! He was behind the sofa the whole time!"

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I am afraid we're making less and less sense and are boring everybody...

That's a paradox Olivier.

0 Replies

@Wilso,

Quote:

The creationists argument doesn't require physics for the purpose of rebuttal. It only requires sanity.

It is the same with the happily married man's argument Wilso.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Reminds me of Bella Dea, who once wrote: "I found Jesus! He was behind the sofa the whole time!"

Have seen a few variations of that one. They all make the same valid point

0 Replies

Wilso posted:

Romeo replies-
1- If your wife or child was seriously ill, wouldn't you want somebody to pray for them?
2- God has already revealed himself by creating the universe and life on earth, or do you think it just decided to create itself?
3- If somebody prays without meaning it, God will refuse to accept the call.
4- Jesus already told us what The Truth is.
5- If somebody rejects Jesus they're morally bankrupt
6- God gives every human exactly the same chance, but many don't take it.
7- Shouting "there's no God" won't make him disappear
8- Jesus said there is a God so who shall we believe, him or atheists?
9- We all go through stages in our lives, for example years ago I went through a brief 'atheist stage' but it didn't last long because i felt stupid.
10 - Atheists don't believe satan exists, therefore they've got no defence against him and he has them for breakfast.. Smile

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:

10 - Atheists don't believe satan exists, therefore they've got no defence against him and he has them for breakfast.

Too true Romeo. Up to the upper-lip in debt and get the poor to do the purgatory for them.

Which is tempting up to the point when riots break out. Past a certain point, not too far fetched a one, it is truly Satanic.

0 Replies

@Wilso,

Yhe good thing with atheists is they are never condescending...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

True.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
I meant that you criticize the critics not the process.

There are no critics here IB. There are blundering know-alls who not only know nothing but would need a brain-clean to get back to the position of maybe learning something if they could forget about the sophistries spinning off from their dick-work.

InfraBlue wrote:
The wars, oppression and discrimination that have been perpetrated on account of those delusions are not stories.

It is not agreed among experts what exactly causes those things. You can take it as read that I am against them just as much as you are. There is no need to wrap the flag of virtue and compassion around yourself as if it is an exclusive privilege. I am sure we are all against them.

Just as I am against filling the car up with gas, servicing the damn thing and obeying all the bloody regulations I am supposed to do. But I have the car and I do those tiresome exercises on a calculus of pain and pleasure.

Evolution is the death dealer isn't it? And we are by no means dead. Paganism is or at least it's in endangered species mode. Survivals here and there being mainly, for legal reasons, affectations of the attention seeking variety. Not that there is anything wrong with that. At least it keeps the idea alive in case its time comes again. Which is about all the bourgeois practitioners of the schtick can manage.

World Cup cricket tournament in Bangladesh with Afghanistan one of the teams and all the stadium announcements in English and not a player interviewed who wasn't fluent in our Mother Tongue. And a fantastic storm to watch live sat on the sofa with a nice cuppa.

We ain't dead. We have only just got into our stride.

I have to go.

You’re doubting--because your experts are in disagreement--that the decidedly not nice things in the world are attributable to the delusions, but unquestioningly accept the assertion (or is it that your experts generally agree?) that ice cream cones, cricket games announced in English and the other nice things in the world are attributable to the delusions. You’re wanting to have your cake and eat it too, Spendi. Sorry old boy, but it doesn’t work that way.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I'm not convinced that ""all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds" is tautological. I think only people who complain about the price of gas might think it so. Or their wife's spending prowess.

InfraBlue wrote:
The idea of "love thy neighbor" does not collapse by pointing out the unnecessariness of those delusions.

The idea has already collapsed. The flags, the banners, the parades, the ceremonies, and the ringing tones of "the greatest country in the world" are proof of that. And what about the bankers? And the chap next door whose dog barks half the night.

So, the idea has already collapsed in light of the fact that most people hold to the delusions. Or is it that your experts aren’t in agreement as to what exactly has caused that collapse? And all of this in light of your previous assertions that, "we ain't dead. We have only just got into our stride. "

You’re like the mystic who can’t keep up with half of the bovine manure he spreads, Spendi. Take a moment and let your brain catch up with your mouth.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know