downvote as laws of thermodynamics were recently cited during breakup by my x-gf

>> ^MycroftHomlz:
Come on bitches I am like 5 videos away from my diamond.


lol

I think the funniest part for me was when he mentions the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That is THE law to study when you're a Christian. It's funny how the habit Christians have for quoting specific bible verses/ignoring surrounding bible verses translates to quoting specific scientific data/ignoring surrounding scientific data.

When I was in the 10th grade (1989), I was in a high school science class, and the professor had a drinking bird. He offered some form of extra credit if we could explain how it worked. I quickly went out and bought my own drinking bird, studied it, and had no freaking clue. So I pulled out some encyclopedias (remember those? yes kids, we used to have books of information), did some reading at the library, and 3 months later figured it had to have something to do with Boyle's Law.

I proposed my weakly formed solution completely missing out on the thermodynamics part, and never did get that extra credit.

If only I had google: Heat will not naturally flow from a body of lower temperature to one of higher. It will however, flow in the other direction. So what does all this have to do with our classic drinking bird? The answer: plenty. Couple this law of thermodynamics with Boyle’s law stating the inversely proportional relationship of temperature and pressure relating to volume and you can begin to understand how this magical little bird can seemingly bob up and down forever.

Sorry it took so long to respond, I had a busy weekend.

They are not simple probabilistic events, and they are operating off the same basic principles, that does not mean that systems do not have qualities which their component parts lack.

Does a piston have the capacity to convert petrol into kinetic energy? Does an internal combustion engine have this capacity? Which part of the engine imbues it with this power?

Systems are qualitatively different from their component parts, and some sets of systems, such as systems which decide, are qualitatively different from systems which don't

I'm going to need a definition of "decide" I suppose. It seems like you are dancing around these squishy intuitive concepts instead of having a specific physical distinction to point out. The amoeboid is composed of a lipid bilayer membrane riddled with intricate protein micro-machines that detect changes in the environment, and behaviorally compensate. To discount the intricacy of the mechanisms of genetic expression and chemical signaling that exist even in the simplest of eukaryotic organism is foolish IMHO. Many of the modern models of genetic expression, and compensation for environmental factors look strikingly similar to the connectionist network models of the brain. The computations are similar in the abstract.


You are anthropomorphizing the mold, it does move, this motion increases its chances of finding food, it survives/reproduces. It in no way displays evidence of doing any of this "in order" to accomplish some goal. If you want to suggest that evolution, as a system, displays intelligence, by selecting molds which move in certain ways, I would be willing to acknowledge that intelligence, not a consciousness, but an intelligence.

Well, more likely I'm moldopomorphizing us. What goals do we have that are ultimately distinct from survival, reproduction, and the general continuity of our species? Even something as seemingly unrelated as making music, or art could be cast as some sort of mating ritual. When you somehow separate our behavior from the rest of life on Earth it's as though you want to draw a barrier between us and them. You want to somehow separate us from the natural order. I hate to break it to you, but it just isn't so. We are just demonstrate the spatial heterogeneity of the second law of thermodynamics.


Why is context necessary for experience? What do you experience in infinitesimal time? Why should we posit some sort of experience which is entirely distinct from the type we claim to have?

I experience the moment. In fact, that's all I'm ever experiencing, although my sensation of it may run a little behind. I never experience my memory, I merely compare my experience to memory. Further, what I'm suggesting is not entirely distinct from any experience we claim to have. Some autistic individuals, for instance, report an extremely chaotic existence, in which causal models can't be formed as sensory modalities are not unified in the same way as ours. They are experienced as independent inputs, not reflective of a coherent physical world. Still, they experience it.

Physical laws are not obeyed, they are enforced. electron movements are completely deterministic, like billiard balls, they roll down hill, they don't decide if/when to do so.

Things can not be enforced without an enforcer. Further, as you've conceded the determinism of our brains, again, how are we not passively allowing the laws of nature to push us around? What exactly are we deciding?


I don't believe that you are claiming that electrons have tiny field sensors which feed into a neural network which analyzes them for patterns and then attributes meaning to them by comparing them to earlier similar sensation patterns. Perhaps you can state this more clearly.

No, I believe that by some other physical mechanism, likely involving quarks and particle physics that I admittedly have a poor understanding of, the electron receives information from not immediately proximal locations, and physically displaces itself to a location with more desirable properties given its current energy state. I don't see how that's different than cuddling up to a warm fire.


You seem to be positing that the structure of the universe is not topological, but that it is instead the consequence of 10^80 atoms all working on concert to decide what the laws of the universe are at this moment. If this is your thesis I am inclined to ask on what basis you think it is even vaguely likely that they would came to a consensus, such as they must to allow the functioning of a universe like ours.

Something like that , although I still don't like the word decide. I don't necessarily think they do come to a consensus. It's just that, as with an attractor network, or similar guaranteed convergence dynamical systems, certain macroscopic states are just more likely than others, despite chaos at the subordinate level. The reason I'd rather drop the word decide is because I don't necessarily want to open the door to something like free will. To cast it in a "God" metaphor, I imagine more of an omniscient God, than an omnipotent God.


Please provide some basis to believe that there is a phenomenal experience.

I can't other than to refer you to what I presume you to have. I could suggest focussing on your breathing, or what have you. I can point you towards literature showing that people that claim to focus on their consciousness can perform physical feats not previous considered possible (for instance monks rewriting the books on the physical tolerance of the human body to cold). Otherwise, I can't. I will say this, however, I take it to be the atomic element of inductive reason. The natural "laws" you are taking as primary are secondary. There is a simple reason for this as Alfred North Whitehead pointed out. If suddenly we were to observe all bits of matter floating away from one another, and were to confirm we were not hallucinating, and perhaps have the experience corroborated by our colleagues, it would not be the experience which was wrong, it would be the laws of nature. Experience has primacy. Matter is merely the logical consequence of applying induction to our particular set of shared experiences.


And that will persist as long as we are not talking about anything. You say "X exists". I say "What is X?". You say "You can't disprove X". And here we are talking about nothing.

I told you, in the best english I can, what X is. It's the qualia of phenomenal experience. Now I can't provide you with direct evidence for it, but I can tell you that nearly everyone I talk to has some sense of what I mean.


You must be using an alternate form of the word "believe". How can someone believe something, and simultaneously be completely unwilling to assert that it is a fact?

I take the Bayesian sense of the word. All probabilities are subjective degrees of belief. I adopt this degree of belief based on anecdotal experience and generalizations therein. None of this would be accepted as evidence by any reviewer, nor should it, and thus I wouldn't want to risk my credibility by asserting it as fact. I can believe some hypotheses to be more likely than others on the basis of no evidence, and in fact do all the time. That's how I, and all other scientists, decide what experiment to run next. I should not, however, expect you to believe me a priori, as you may operate on different axioms, and draw from different anecdotal experience. Thus, I would not feel compelled to assert my beliefs as fact, other than in so far as they are, in fact, my beliefs.

>> ^gtjwkq:
I'm a bit confused about some things you said. You're using the concept of entropy to define the concept of time. Doesn't entropy require time to be defined? Because that would be problematic.

I don't really understand this topic myself, but here goes:

Loosely speaking, entropy is defined as how ordered a system is. So, water in the form of ice crystals is much more ordered and has lower entropy than water vapor. So you don't need time to define entropy.

The fascinating thing is that on a microscopic scale, processes are symmetric in time, meaning that hypothetically, if you filmed a microscopic event and then played it backwards, both versions of events would be valid. You would not be able to tell which way time is supposed to flow. Entropy however, is the only (?) property of the universe that is NOT time symmetric. On a macroscopic scale, the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy of an isolated system will increase over time. Or you can rephrase the second law as: time flows forward in the direction of increasing entropy.

Check out this wiki page for a better explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time

I like a person that answers the question "do you believe in the afterlife?" with "no... because of thermodynamics"

I would put the second law of thermodynamics at number 1 if only because so many people still don't understand what it says - even people that really should, like most the engineers I've met.

Well, there is one small caveat.

The size of the closed system. If the closed system includes the entire solar system, the second law of thermodynamics does apply. Without massive amounts of hydrogen being added to the sun, it will eventually disappate all of it's energy and either supernova or fade and die. Energy will be disappated and eventually all will fall to decay.

Of course, this is so many billion years in the future that it isn't really relevant to us, but the law still applies.

He does a good job, but I think I can sum it up faster:

Dear idiot: it is the second law of THERMODYNAMICS, not the second law of BIOLOGY, or EVOLUTION.

l2science

Energy is not created or destroyed - First Law of Thermodynamics. Not the third...

>> ^jwray:
Most of the media suck at reporting science.


And most of the people reading it are just as clueless. Such as, for instance, yourself. Your statement regarding abiotic methane betrays a GROSSLY scientifically ignorant idea of the thing. You are obviously unaware of the long term thermodynamic instability of CH4 in the Martian atmosphere as produced by the non-ozone layer shielded high ultraviolet radiation flux on that planet. Further, you are clearly clueless as to the nature of the impossibility of extremely volatile organic compounds in a lithospherically differentiated small rocky planet. In conclusion, stop throwing stones inside your vitreous domicile.

The moving treadmill relative to still air is equivalent to moving air relative to a still road. As they said in the video, it's just easier to do the experiment with a treadmill so the frame of reference is stationary.

It also doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics, so it's not perpetual motion. It just means that the device seems to be able to extract more energy from the wind than a sail would, and turn it into forward motion.

Pretty cool, if you ask me.

So let me see if I got this straight...

I can't PROVE that cause and effect, gravitation, laws of thermodynamics, etc will continue to operate in the future as in the past ad infinitum,

THEREFORE,

Every idiotic claim you make is true....




Hmmm.

I'm not sure I see quite how that works exactly...

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
It seems there is a gap in the causal chain a bit. The sun is a good place for fusion because it is so hot, but it is so hot because of fusion. What is that extra component needed to start the thing?


Crach course in the origin of the solar system:

The whole solar system started off as just a huge gas cloud, which slowly collapsed in on itself due to gravity. When you compress a gas, the temperature rises as explained by the first law of thermodynamics. Thus, when the gas cloud was compressed enough due to gravity, it became hot and dense enough in the center to start off fusion. The immense radiation caused by the nuclear reactions then blew all the matter around the center outwards in the solar system, revealing the Sun in the center. Lighter elements like hydrogen and helium were blown farther away than heavier stuff like metal and rocks. This is why the small rock planets like Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars orbit quite close to the Sun, while the big gas giants Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune orbit further away.