by ballistic 4 Replies latest jw friends
some people here seem pretty clued up on science, so can anyone explain:
Does the fact that disorder increases with time (the entropy thermodynamic law), contradict the fact that there is order in chaos (the fact that an underlying order can be found in seemingly chaotic systems).
What Goes Up Must Come Down
Sorry to bring this to the first page, but as I didnt get a reply, and I realise it's kind of in the wrong forum, does anyone know of a scientific based message board?
What Goes Up Must Come Down
Does the fact that disorder increases with time (the entropy thermodynamic law), contradict the fact that there is order in chaos (the fact that an underlying order can be found in seemingly chaotic systems).
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is often misinterpreted, especially by creationists. It is important to remember that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed systems only. As far as I know we have no means of establishing whether the universe is a closed system.
Although I know some astronomically knowledgable JWs who might agree with parts of Big-Bang theory --- arguing that it could be (part of) the instruments god chose to create the universe --- they generally contend also that the universe is by no means a closed system.
God, as a source of dynamic energy injects energy into the universe; I've often heard this argument used in discussions about the moment when our Sun would have burnt all its fuel and might turn into a supernova that would likely destroy our solar system, and how this conflicts with the scenario of everlasting life on Earth.
Where this viewpoint originates is not clear to me. It might me buried somewhere in the literature. I never made the effort to dig it out. Maybe AlanF has a pointer?
Anyway, please find below a reference to some more explanations:
As will be shown later on, it is only the over-all entropy of a complete, or closed system that must increase when spontaneous change occurs. In the case of spontaneously interacting sub-systems of a closed system, some may gain entropy, while others may lose entropy. For example, it is a fundamental axiom of thermodynamics that when heat flows from subsystem A to subsystem B, the entropy of A decreases and the entropy of B increases. The statement that an increase in order can only occur as the result of a directional mechanism, program, or code is misleading. Any process that can be demonstrated to take place with an increase in order/decrease in entropy is arbitrarily deemed to be the consequence of an undefined "directional mechanism."
You can find this and more at:
ballistic
Although you suggest there is "order" in chaos there is less "order" than in a complex system such as a brain.
It is probably more accurate to say there are patterns in chaos but these are less complex than patterns of a multipart interrelated system.
Remember the second law of thermodynamics is not a law such as gravity or electromagnetism.
With the law of gravity objects will be attracted to each other because there is a force making it happen.
The second law of thermodynamics is a observation of what happens to objects when the real laws of nature effect them.
So the forces that result in things decaying and being less "ordered" are the four real forces of gravity , electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces.
i think its a little difficult to compare the 'types' of laws, like gravity and entropy. one thing with entropy i find is that it is poorly understood. what it seems to say in laymans terms is that everything gets disorganized if left alone. what it means clinically is a bit more precise than that. after all, how do you measure the 'orderliness' or 'disorganization' of a system? altho it seems like kind of a subjective measurement, it is actually very strictly defined. i wont try going into it myself here. and the idea of what is a closed system is also a very specific concept that determines how this 'law' applies.
if you read that talk.origins article you'll see how complicated the subject can be. i actually had thought of posting it too when i first read your question ballistic, but changed my mind thinking that it was probably way more technical an article than you were looking for.
mox
