Entropy vs. Anti-Entropy (How DNA Defeats the Blackhole)

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by tonylang, Jan 28, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    That is fine because of course life on earth is an open system. So in this context it is clear there is no anti-entropy or reversal of entropy or negative entropy. We are simply looking at entropy increasing or decreasing in different parts of the cell life cycle due to the continuous input of solar energy in the form of Kcal from food.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    The universe is a closed system. There's no reason why entropy can not decrease locally as long as the overall entropy of the system is increasing.
     
    Doug Coulter likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. tonylang Registered Member

    Messages:
    67
    We too often permit our eyes to deceive us, what most of us see and measure as the universe around us is in reality an emergent group of familiar local phenomena (‘hardware’) each may be more deeply defined by their individual quantum wave functions whose superposition state is collapsed into this universe from a realm (‘metaverse’ if you will or Hilbert space if you won’t) of entangled quantum states (‘software’) that defines nature itself. Not just in our universe but this realm defines all existence. This realm is comprised of many more dimensions than we classically consider and is far more intricate and instrumental to nature than the universe we classically acknowledge.

    Classical laws are never violated but are transformed often in unrecognizable ways as the topography of this underlying realm of existence introduces new rules. For example the prevailing mechanism of this underlying metaverse is a phenomenon with which we are just becoming familiar, Quantum Entanglement (QE). The non-relativistic and non-locality nature of QE permits natures software (QE state) to operate instantaneously everywhere simultaneously. It is here where we can finally begin to complete our empirical understanding of life, how life began and how the ongoing natural process that governs the instantiation of a living being operates as an entity separate and distinct from that beings current species. No doubt this very concept will disturb many probably for very different reasons, but perhaps that is as it should be.

    For some relevant foundation: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.2701v1.pdf
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    I think I will need to wear a crystal necklace, light some incense and sit under a pyramid to fully digest this.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    sideshowbob likes this.
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Exactly. And of course the Earth is continually radiating away low temperature (high entropy) heat into space from its night time side, which balances the solar input of high temperature heat and light (low entropy energy forms) on the day time side. This takes place on a massive scale.

    The local decrease in entropy as living things grow is minute by comparison, and there is ample opportunity for organisms to export waste heat to the environment - and ultimately to space - to drive these processes.
     
  9. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Hmm. Maybe I'm being unfair, but this paper seems to me to be based on misconstruing the first postulate of QM. It is apparently devoted to knocking down the idea that a state vector IS the state of a quantum system.

    QM does not say that it is, though. The first postulate of QM says that the state "can be described by", or alternatively, "is associated with" a state function, which contains all the information that can be known about the system. There is then a second step, not an integral part of this postulate, in which, in one mathematical formalism of QM, though not the only one, the state function is represented as a vector in Hilbert space.

    But in any case, the paper seems to have no bearing whatever on what you are saying. Tony, this is ghastly quantum woo you are spouting. Hilbert Space is just one of many abstract mathematical constructs which has proved a useful tool for modelling reality, which is all we do in science. We do not claim to have exactly defined reality, since our models are almost always shown to be imperfect.

    You conclude with a pair of entirely unjustified assertions, that the multiverse interpretation of QM is, for unexplained reasons, some sort of key to a notion of yours, that you give no evidence at all for, which is that "the process that governs the instantiation [ugh] of a living being operates as an entity separate and distinct from that beings current species". WHY do you make this cod-philosophical assertion? On WHAT evidence?

    Frankly, you are beginning to sound like some sort of Intelligent Design merchant! (I know the ID concept has been in deep trouble for years, but resorting to quantum woo must be an indicator of total desperation. It is not likely to help the cause, not least because the redneck politicians that ID is suppose to appeal to won't understand a word of it.)
     
  10. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    As cells grow they accumulate energy value by storing energy as organic materials within their confines. The wood in a big tree has more heat value than the sapling state of that same tree. In inanimate matter, energy normally goes from higher to lower value; dead wood will oxidize or rot. Life is different in that it is able to cause material energy value to move in the opposite way, within its confines. The material approach to energy allows it to retain energy. This building of potential energy sets a potential used drive cell cycles. Life pushes energy value up an energy hill, to the top, so it can slide down the other side.

    Entropy normally increases in nature, but life allows entropy to decrease within its zone of the open system. For example, the more mobile amino acids, get locked down into polymers; protein. These proteins will fold into exact folds. We go from the greater freedom of movement, of many small units, into a fixed block anchored in the cell. Energy storage as polymers, like starch, is a two for one, in that energy will accumulate in a way that also lowers the entropy relative to the monomer units. This dual potential is also used to drive cell cycles. The energy eventually needs to lower and the entropy needs to increase; cells pushes up two hills, so it can coast down like a dual roller coaster.

    The earliest cell cycle trial balloons could be driven by accumulating energy within lowering entropy form. Early protein will still fold perfectly in water and thereby become confined. This violates the normal direction of energy and entropy relative to the inanimate background. The pre-cell pushes up two hills, setting a potential for reversal; system will roller coast down to the bottom. Going from one mother cell to two daughter cells increases the global entropy while getting rid of energy. Each daughter cell then begins it push up the double track to the top.

    The value of water as the co-partner of life, is water is one of the final products of organic oxidation. This results in CO2 and H2O. Water exists at the bottom of the energy hill. The accumulation of organic energy value is relative to water at the bottom. If you used another solvent, the potential is much smaller, since ammonia, methane or alcohol all burn and set a potential with water. The roller coaster can't go as fast or as far with other solvents.

    Water and oil don't mix as well as organic with other organic solvents. Water creates the highest push by which organics need to separate phase and lower entropy. This is useful because once the entropy roller coaster starts to descend, the water-oil effect does not allow entropy to go as far as other solvents. What will remain will retain clearer identity.

    An organic solvent roller coaster does not goes as fast and far down the energy hill. But it will have a stronger entropy drive. The result will be more variation in each cell cycle. Maybe the assumption that all solvents are the same have created the logical inference that higher entropy change is the rule; trial and error and mutations. Water is unique in that it allows more energy potential, while maintaining better entropy stability.
     
  11. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    So the bottom line of that mish-mash is that life inefficiently stores energy. No argument there. The inefficiency is expressed as an increase in the entropy of the universe.
     
  12. tonylang Registered Member

    Messages:
    67

    Intelligent Design? Let me involk Darwin : “I have no need for that hypothesis.”

    Heisenberg : “The history of physics is not only a sequence of experimental discoveries and observations, followed by their mathematical description; it is also a history of concepts. For an understanding of the phenomena the first condition is the introduction of adequate concepts. Only with the help of correct concepts can we really know what has been observed.”


    The corner that many well intentioned practitioners of science become hopelessly jammed in is the corner where the pages of the textbook meet. The equations and bits of understanding that we gather need context. Practitioners of science should choose a topic or phenomenon of nature that interest them and with their best scientific understanding, and logic and powers of rational deduction, and most importantly a steely objectivity, set out to conceive of how nature may implement that phenomena.

    Before Darwin any suggestion that life had anything to do with cells and undiscovered molecules (DNA/RNA) in the cell which dictated all that you are would have been scientific, what’s the word ‘woo’. Perhaps we are a bit more enlightened today. Unfortunately today it continues to be just as difficult to see nature form here as it ever has been in the past. I came to realize that at least where life is concerned we continue to be steeped in ignorance, mysticism, ideology, and denial despite the pivotally important course correction we acquired from Darwin’s insights. I came to see that any individual’s experience of life, of being, is as much part of nature as your species is and one is necessarily abstracted from the other.

    You are not your cells or molecules or your atoms, in fact you shouldn't even call them yours. I came to see that the only life that exists is the cell in all of its forms and that the natural processes that implement life are the same for the cell as it is for bacteria as it is for a fruit fly as for a human being. It is folly for us to think we could only experience life in this very temporary, randomly emerged bipedal primate form. Further, your cells and molecules come and go continuously over the course of your lifetime but nonetheless you remain you. Then there are the other trillions of living individuals in million of different forms all around us coming into being and going out of life continuously. I realized that the only form we need consider in this regard is the single living cell. The answers that are true for the cell are the answers that apply to all life. Further, you and I and your pet octopus and every living cell are instances of life, each a temporary instantiation of some very natural, empirically definable phenomena of nature. This instantiating phenomenon must have the non-relativistic reach to establish individual life (you), biological or perhaps otherwise, on any planet orbiting any star or indeed in any viable environment in the cosmos or in existence where viable hosts may emerge. It is a tragic mistake to feel that this describes something that could not possibly be natural but must be supernatural. While, as usual, nature’s genius is a practical and ubiquitous, even if a bit unfamiliar implementation. There is a phenomenon known to science for some time that meets all of these requirements: Quantum Entanglement (QE). Einstein called it spooky action at a distance. Today we play with it in the lab as a mere tech curiosity. It is the most likely candidate for the life-force.

    So how might this work? Upon understanding this we would have turned the page in the book of life that Darwin began and the eventual effect upon global enlightenment and religions everywhere would be profound. Imagine for the first time you could tell your young children generally, or eventually, specifically how the life cycle works minus the mysticism and ideology because at that point, it would just be science.
     
  13. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    You apparently did not have much of an education for you to write something like this.

    That is exactly what is done now. Do you not know how higher education works?

    When you say 'we', you are talking about yourself and who else? I don't know any biologist who fiits that description!

    So you do not understand quantum entanglement so it must be a candidate for the 'life-force' (whatever that is)?
    This is really getting wooier and wooier.
     
  14. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    The most likely candidate for the life force is chemistry.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  15. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Agreed. Just like the most likely candidate for crystal-force is chemistry. Don't get me wrong as a member of the living community, I think life is wonderful and astounding, but we shouldn't be so impressed that we need to invoke magic, or crazy tangent notions.
     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Your technique, when challenged, seems to be to ignore the questions people raise and simply churn out more verbiage. Are you unable to engage in discussion or argument?

    Because, if you cannot do that, you do not meet the criteria for ANY intellectual pursuit, scientific or otherwise.

    I asked you two questions in responding to your previous post - after taking the trouble to read the reference you liked to. But you have not addressed either of them.
     
  17. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    I noticed that, heck he seems to have abandoned the entropy aspect completely, which I thought was the point of the thread.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. tonylang Registered Member

    Messages:
    67
    On WHAT evidence? For being there can be only one exhibit, for you the evidence is: You, for me the evidence is: Me

    WHY do you make this cod-philosophical assertion? Investigation always begins with some amount of philosophy…

    Here is the reasoning:

    Postulate: Any natural phenomenon that can occur may by definition also reoccur and therefore there must exist some natural mechanism or process, understood or not, that describes its natural implementation. As far as life (Being) of the individual (regardless of species) goes there is one of two possibilities:

    Scenario one: In nature (in this universe) each individual instance of life, each living being (you) are a singleton, a one-off occurrence unique in eternity both prior and future to ones current life. If this is indeed the case then there isn’t much more to be said on the topic. (This scenario violates the stated postulate.)

    Scenario two: In nature an individual’s being (you) are not a one-off singular occurrence but is a current instance of some naturally definable process or mechanism that may repeat given adequate circumstances. If this is indeed the case then the conversation ensues. Describe the natural implementation of the repeatable individual experience of being regardless of species, of life.

    The second scenario is the axiom upon which these insights are based.

    Further, the subject of this post is one observation within this context. The post speaks to the role life has in nature, and every phenomenon in nature has some definable role(s). (role: Comparative influence within nature.)
     
  19. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    Okay.

    So what on earth does that have to do with "anti-entropy"?
     
  20. tonylang Registered Member

    Messages:
    67
    This amazingly flexible and pivotal process which initiated and subsequently instantiates every living being may be the consummate, if not the only example of an anti-entropic process in this universe. A hypothesis that describes this natural process would be no less than a scientific definition of how an individual life inhabits this universe , how you arrive in whatever form, in whatever environment you find yourself anywhere in existence. If this sounds strange…it should, invasive revelations of nature usually do.

    Further, a hypothesis that details how such a process may operate, even a plausible one, would be one of the panicle revelations in human history, for at the very least it would provide scientist for the first time the opportunity to attempt to empirically prove or disprove aspects of the working hypothesis and this is how knowledge begins.
     
  21. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    We already have one. In fact, we have well-tested and confirmed theories that explain life pretty well. The idea of "anti-entropy" is thoroughly redundant (as well as being mostly gibberish).
     
  22. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    The problem is that life is not anti-entropic, it is an example of a good old fashion entropic process.
     
  23. Star Larvae Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    The standard line is that living things grow in complexity as they develop, but that this process is strictly local. The universe as a whole continues to increase in entropy. At least that's the standard line.

    But where's the evidence? No one says that the early universe was full of complex structures and processes and that ever since then its features have become, on average, less and less complex. The scientific model points to just the opposite: The early universe was diffuse, lacking interesting structures. As time went on, the features of the universe--atoms, stars, galaxies and galactic clusters, and creatures and societies and industrial civilizations--grew in complexity. The pattern seems to be that the universe as a whole is becoming less and less entropic. That is, the universe behaves like a creature.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page