My older step-cousin just got sentenced
Collapse
X
-
Re: My older step-cousin just got sentenced
I laughed.
Wow, someone payed attention to my post within the clusterfuck of whatever is happening in this thread. Thanks for acknowledging my thought process here.Comment
-
Re: My older step-cousin just got sentenced
Really lol. Seems like fojar googled "2nd law of thermodynamics" and listed the main properties of equilibrium thermo.
mfw this thread turns into an "evolution has no direction" thread. Too much stress is being put on genetic evolution and not enough on a larger scale. The "evolution" of the universe is driven by the thermodynamic principle that entropy is always increasing.
Biology in general is a product of this, since:
Although I'd like to see a source for that^ it makes sense to me.
So since the whole concept of biological survival is pertinent to fulfilling the 2nd law of thermo, evolution is directed after all.Comment
-
Re: My older step-cousin just got sentenced
the problem is that the second law doesnt prefer anything. the second law is just a law.Really lol. Seems like fojar googled "2nd law of thermodynamics" and listed the main properties of equilibrium thermo.
mfw this thread turns into an "evolution has no direction" thread. Too much stress is being put on genetic evolution and not enough on a larger scale. The "evolution" of the universe is driven by the thermodynamic principle that entropy is always increasing.
Biology in general is a product of this, since:
Although I'd like to see a source for that^ it makes sense to me.
So since the whole concept of biological survival is pertinent to fulfilling the 2nd law of thermo, evolution is directed after all.
just because something is better at increasing entropy doesnt mean that that thing will be preferred. the second law says nothing about how entropy is increased. in fact it doesnt even say that it necessarily will be, only that it cannot be decreased
Comment
-
Re: My older step-cousin just got sentenced
the idea that the second law somehow chooses things based on how they effect the overall entropy of the universe is ridiculous. all it says is that it is impossible to go from a less ordered state to a more ordered state without external intervention.
Comment
-
Re: My older step-cousin just got sentenced
I admit, it gets foggy and seemingly less directed the more you condense the funnel of this law to more complex things like biology...until you reach sub-atomic scale where it is just a mess of unpredictability. It's not that the 2nd law 'chooses' things, but going from a state of higher entropy increase (biological organisms) to a lower state seems like the resistor to keep survival a preference so to speak.Comment
-
Re: My older step-cousin just got sentenced
The problem is that the whole "evolution has a direction" argument is that it's too broad to mean anything. EVERYTHING has a direction if you wish to be super pedantic about it: Heat death.Really lol. Seems like fojar googled "2nd law of thermodynamics" and listed the main properties of equilibrium thermo.
mfw this thread turns into an "evolution has no direction" thread. Too much stress is being put on genetic evolution and not enough on a larger scale. The "evolution" of the universe is driven by the thermodynamic principle that entropy is always increasing.
Biology in general is a product of this, since:
Although I'd like to see a source for that^ it makes sense to me.
So since the whole concept of biological survival is pertinent to fulfilling the 2nd law of thermo, evolution is directed after all.
We could also take a similarly silly view in reverse: The "cause" of absolutely anything? The Big Bang. Why did your noodles get overcooked when you were making dinner? Because Big Bang. It provided the logical/physical framework that generated the fundamental elements that forged the galaxies, which whipped together the stars that provided the fuel for planetary accretion, which provided the planet that gave rise to the civilization that invented the fucking stove that just burned your shit. Thanks, Obama.
It's silly -- just as silly as saying "evolution has a direction: increasing entropy" or what have you. You could argue that *anything*'s "direction" is increasing entropy, as that's just an inherent attribute of our physical universe.
So yes, you have to reduce the scope unless you're cool with meaningless broad-strokes. Evolution doesn't have a "goal" in the sense that it's just a physical process that's taking place like any other chemical/physical process in our universe.
Does a body of water have a predetermined goal? Does a rock? Does a gust of wind? These are all emergent properties -- much like evolution -- and arguably the universe itself. "Purpose" is something that is human-defined.Last edited by Reincarnate; 12-5-2013, 10:26 AM.Comment
-
-
Re: My older step-cousin just got sentenced
everything guidoes everythingComment
-
Re: My older step-cousin just got sentenced
I was going to form a reply to this from a "choice is a fallacy" perspective, but you brought up the whole "electroweak symmetry breaking" point, so given that events can be authentically random, it overturns my thinking that the Big Bang is what started this inevitable sequence of events leading me to wanting Double Pepperoni from Pizza Hut.The problem is that the whole "evolution has a direction" argument is that it's too broad to mean anything. EVERYTHING has a direction if you wish to be super pedantic about it: Heat death.
We could also take a similarly silly view in reverse: The "cause" of absolutely anything? The Big Bang. Why did your noodles get overcooked when you were making dinner? Because Big Bang. It provided the logical/physical framework that generated the fundamental elements that forged the galaxies, which whipped together the stars that provided the fuel for planetary accretion, which provided the planet that gave rise to the civilization that invented the fucking stove that just burned your shit. Thanks, Obama.
It's silly -- just as silly as saying "evolution has a direction: increasing entropy" or what have you. You could argue that *anything*'s "direction" is increasing entropy, as that's just an inherent attribute of our physical universe.
So yes, you have to reduce the scope unless you're cool with meaningless broad-strokes. Evolution doesn't have a "goal" in the sense that it's just a physical process that's taking place like any other chemical/physical process in our universe.
Does a body of water have a predetermined goal? Does a rock? Does a gust of wind? These are all emergent properties -- much like evolution -- and arguably the universe itself. "Purpose" is something that is human-defined.
I like to be pragmatic in these kind of things, helps me see how far I can take an idea before having to try a different perspective. Thanks for that
*awaits Guido to change my mind*Last edited by Dynam0; 12-5-2013, 10:38 AM.Comment

Comment