---

A second look at the second law

http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf

"Of course the whole idea of compensation, whether by distant or nearby events,
makes no sense logically: an extremely improbable event is not rendered less
improbable simply by the occurrence of ''compensating'' events elsewhere.
According to this reasoning, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from
reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the
next room are rusting into scrap metal-and the door is open.1 (Or the thermal
entropy in the next room is increasing, though I am not sure how fast it has to
increase to compensate computer construction!)"

---

On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:22:11 +0200, KL wrote:

> A second look at the second law
>
> http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf
>
> "Of course the whole idea of compensation, whether by distant or nearby
> events, makes no sense logically: an extremely improbable event is not
> rendered less improbable simply by the occurrence of ''compensating''
> events elsewhere. According to this reasoning, the second law does not
> prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one
> room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap
> metal-and the door is open.1 (Or the thermal entropy in the next room is
> increasing, though I am not sure how fast it has to increase to
> compensate computer construction!)"

Sewell er en mærkelig fætter; han har skrevet et par bøger om
digital løsning af partielle differentialligninger - hvilket jeg
selv beskæftiger mig med til dagligt - men han tror på ID, som jeg
anser som irrationel.

Jeg læser forresten lige nu romanen "Possession" af Antonia Byatt,
hendes bedste efter min mening. PÃ¥ s.214 funderer en digter om
naturen, og skriver i et brev "It is hard indeed, Ellen, not to
imagine that some Intelligence did not design and construct these
.... creatures". Bogen blev udgivet i 1990, så har ID-folk taget
Byatts ord til sig? Jeg har svært ved at tro, at de læser Byatt.
Forresten tror digteren ikke på hvad han skriver der, han er
rationalist.

--
Dieter Britz

---

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 14:49:08 +0000 (UTC), Dieter Britz
<dieterhansbritz@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:22:11 +0200, KL wrote:
>
>> A second look at the second law
>>
>> http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf
>>
>> "Of course the whole idea of compensation, whether by distant or nearby
>> events, makes no sense logically: an extremely improbable event is not
>> rendered less improbable simply by the occurrence of ''compensating''
>> events elsewhere. According to this reasoning, the second law does not
>> prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one
>> room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap
>> metal-and the door is open.1 (Or the thermal entropy in the next room is
>> increasing, though I am not sure how fast it has to increase to
>> compensate computer construction!)"
>
>Sewell er en mærkelig fætter; han har skrevet et par bøger om
>digital løsning af partielle differentialligninger - hvilket jeg
>selv beskæftiger mig med til dagligt - men han tror på ID, som jeg
>anser som irrationel.

Intelligensen er da netop rationaliten i egen høje person. Grundlaget
for ID er jo dermed så rationelt som noget kan være. Intelligens kan
med absolut sikkerhed løse ethver problem der kan løses, og hurtigere
end nogen anden alternativ metode. Hvis der eller findes nogen
alternativ naturlig proces der kan imitere intelligens hvad jeg ikke
mener der gør.

Hvis noget er irrationelt er det evolutionsteorien, der postulerer en
evolutionær proces totalt blottet for rationel intelligens.

En af de sjove ting er netop at vi netop er i stand til at forstå og
beskrive verden - eller i alt fald visse aspekter ad den - rationelt.
Ville vi kunne det hvis ikke den var rationelt - dvs. intelligent -
designet?

Godtnok rummer ID også et irrationelt aspekt. Intelligens alene gør
det ikke - ligesom når vi mennesker designer så ligger der altid et
motiv bag når noget i naturen er designet, og motiver er grundlæggende
irrationelle. Og det er motivet bag tingene som religionerne primært
beskæftiger sig med. Men det intelligensmæssige aspekt af ID er så
afgjort så rationelt og videnskabeligt som noget kan være, i sig selv.


--
Rado

"Materialism is the philosophy of the subject that forgets
to take account of itself." - Arthur Schopenhauer

---

"Dieter Britz" <dieterhansbritz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:j819h4$l28$3@dont-email.me...
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:22:11 +0200, KL wrote:
>
>> A second look at the second law
>>
>> http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf
>>
>> "Of course the whole idea of compensation, whether by distant or nearby
>> events, makes no sense logically: an extremely improbable event is not
>> rendered less improbable simply by the occurrence of ''compensating''
>> events elsewhere. According to this reasoning, the second law does not
>> prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one
>> room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap
>> metal-and the door is open.1 (Or the thermal entropy in the next room is
>> increasing, though I am not sure how fast it has to increase to
>> compensate computer construction!)"
>
> Sewell er en mærkelig fætter; han har skrevet et par bøger om
> digital løsning af partielle differentialligninger - hvilket jeg
> selv beskæftiger mig med til dagligt - men han tror på ID, som jeg
> anser som irrationel.
>
ok.

> Jeg læser forresten lige nu romanen "Possession" af Antonia Byatt,
> hendes bedste efter min mening. PÃ¥ s.214 funderer en digter om
> naturen, og skriver i et brev "It is hard indeed, Ellen, not to
> imagine that some Intelligence did not design and construct these
> ... creatures". Bogen blev udgivet i 1990, så har ID-folk taget
> Byatts ord til sig? Jeg har svært ved at tro, at de læser Byatt.
> Forresten tror digteren ikke på hvad han skriver der, han er
> rationalist.
>
> --
> Dieter Britz

---

On 21-10-2011 16:22, KL wrote:
>
> A second look at the second law
>
> http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf
>
> "Of course the whole idea of compensation, whether by distant or nearby
> events, makes no sense logically: an extremely improbable event is not
> rendered less improbable simply by the occurrence of ''compensating''
> events elsewhere. According to this reasoning, the second law does not
> prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one
> room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap
> metal-and the door is open.1 (Or the thermal entropy in the next room is
> increasing, though I am not sure how fast it has to increase to
> compensate computer construction!)"
>
Ok, var det ment som et oplæg til debat, et spørgsmål, eller mente du
citatet havde nyhedsværdi?

Nå men, så antager jeg der her menes at evolution (ikke nævnt i citatet)
"alligevel" falder for termodynamikkens anden lov fordi det er
"urealistisk" at orden kan opstå ét sted, selvom systemet (liv på
Jorden), rent energimæssigt, er åbent.

Det er forfatteren selvfølgelig velkommen til at mene. Men det er en
indrømmelse af at argumentet ikke holder logisk og i stedet erstatter
det med et argument ud fra personlig uvidenhed.

For så vidt termodynamikkens anden lov vedrører, så er evolution ikke
mere "extremely improbable" end, og evolution giver lige så god "sense
logically" som, det at en fryser kan fremstille isterninger.

Mvh. Martin

---

On 25-10-2011 23:16, Martin Andersen wrote:
> On 21-10-2011 16:22, KL wrote:
>>
>> A second look at the second law
>>
>> http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/AML_3497.pdf
>>
>> "Of course the whole idea of compensation, whether by distant or nearby
>> events, makes no sense logically: an extremely improbable event is not
>> rendered less improbable simply by the occurrence of ''compensating''
>> events elsewhere. According to this reasoning, the second law does not
>> prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one
>> room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap
>> metal-and the door is open.1 (Or the thermal entropy in the next room is
>> increasing, though I am not sure how fast it has to increase to
>> compensate computer construction!)"
>>
> Ok, var det ment som et oplæg til debat, et spørgsmål, eller mente du
> citatet havde nyhedsværdi?
>
> [...]

Ah, kan se du har postet samme løsrevne citat i talk.origins. Så behøver
man vist ikke gætte sig til konteksten længere.