Uh-huh… and? What’s happening in stars is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It’s the way the universe works, and thus, here we are.
I can’t tease out where you’re going with this.
Hi, cmyk. My point is that to acknowledge that processes defined as a statistical tendency toward disorder, such as the death and cooling of stars, and mixing, and the manner in which our bodies in effect replace their own brake pads and demonstrate the arrow of time, means that if you view the arrow of time or the finite nature of stars or the eventual proposed heat death out of the context of how they actually also facilitate life, it conveys a perception of evolution as more of a fluke than if you realize that these things we think of as disorder all happen to facilitate life along the way. Ultimately I am amazed that I have never seen anyone acknowledge the role of the heat death in our existence. An awareness of the heat death exists in popular culture, but no one ever bothers to mention that we could not be here without it. I think that is nihilistic, and I consider our existence to be a silver lining to that cloud.
My mind isn’t exactly blown here. Even considering your perspective on entropy’s role in supplying the building blocks and platform for life to exist (which is a well established scientific view), I still don’t see where you’re pointing to and saying, “There! This is why abiogenesis and evolution isn’t a fluke of nature!”
Well it’s interesting that you seem to have given up refuting my observation and now have switched to saying that it’s irrelevant. Reductionism too often seems to lend itself to nihilism. You say, now, that it’s a well established fact. Why does it never bare mentioning? Ever? =)
As far as I can parse your statements (speaking as a grad student in evolutionary biology at an Ivy League university, just to establish credentials), you seem to be saying that the existence of entropy helps life exist. No one would argue with that. That seems to be just a simple observation that has been made many times before.
However, what I’m sensing is that you seem to think that there’s some purpose behind it all - that is, that stars and entropy and all that exist in order to facilitate life. That, I think, you’re going to have a harder time convincing people to get behind.
I actually think people acknowledge this all the time, but using slightly different terms.
First, let’s consider supernovas. Life requires materials and energy. Supernovas provide the materials, but not the energy. Though entropy increases when a supernova explodes, the more important thing for us is the heavy atoms that were produced in the heart of the star being spread all over space. The vast majority of stars will never go supernova or even nova, and so this doesn’t contribute very much to heat death.
What think what DCnDC was trying to get at was to say that life is a process of lowering entropy, which is possible but requires energy, which of course comes from a star. Entropy increases when you consider the entire system. That some of the energy gets intercepted to provide energy for life isn’t very important (except for us) - stars with planets progress to heat death just as fast as stars without planets. While we store energy, turn off the sun and we’ll get close to absolute zero before you can say Jack Frost (neglecting warmth due to radioactive materials in the earth.)
BTW, the reason life as we know it can’t exist in a star is that the energy there is too high to let the structure needed for life survive.
I don’t see any reason someone should get upset by your observation, assuming they understood it.
Essentially; but mostly I was just attempting to boil kaneslatranz’s original statement down to layman’s terms. I think I get it, I just don’t understand the purpose of pointing it out. He seems to be saying either that the existence of heat death will inevitably lead to life, or he’s merely making an simple observation in a roundabout way, while ignoring the significance of the millions of separate events that lead to the existence of life. If it’s the former, I’ll have to take issue with that, as I’m sure many others will, but I don’t think it is. If it’s the latter, he’s correct but I still fail to grasp the significance of his point.
I must say I don’t really understand what point you’re exactly trying to make.
Just a few observations:
Life requires energy. All energy that’s produced reduces the entropy in some way; either by nuclear processes or via chemistry or mechanics. We can extract energy from a waterfall, for example, but if the water wasn’t rained back through the energy from the sun it would run out very quickly.
On the other hand, life and evolution both create “order” out of energy and “chaos”. Overall entropy is still increased, but locally, there’s a decrease in entropy. Life and evolution probably aren’t unique in that respect, either.
But my intuitive interpretation of what you say is that there isn’t a way to get energy without increasing total entropy, and since the process is in the large scale irreversible, and energy is required for life as we know it, it’s trivially true that life depends on the “heat death” of the universe.
In the words of Scooby Doo: “Rorp?!”
- I never refuted anything you said. 2) I never said your observations are irrelevant. 3) This whole time, I’ve just been trying to see your point.
I’m not a reductionist, nor a nihilist. But the laws of thermal dynamics and the workings of stellar fusion in creating heavier elements that make life possible has been known for a while now, and is nothing really new. I’m just trying to see what you’re adding to the thought process.
Your lack of awareness of a discussion is not evidence that the discussion has not occurred.
small correction, I meant “All energy that’s produced increases the entropy in some way”.
Why are creationists mentioned in the OP?
I’m also not really sure I get the point you’re trying to make, kaneslatranz. If you’re claiming that there’s a direct causal link between the heat death (or the process of systems evolving towards states of higher entropy, which I gather you use synonymously) and the emergence of life, then I don’t think you have demonstrated your point well enough – there are innumerable ways for universes to steadily evolve towards states of higher entropy, where none of the complex processes necessary for life as we know it ever occur: think, as a toy universe, of the classic thermodynamic example of a room in which all the gas is concentrated in one corner. It will evolve towards increasing entropy and eventually suffer the heat death of all gas molecules being equidistributed throughout its volume, but for life you’ll search in vain; thus, there must be some other, necessary factor besides the heat death for the emergence of life.
Besides, there is one more complicating factor: in order to enable processes that in some way use energy or perform work, you not only need a universe in which all processes happen such that entropy on the whole always increases, you also need the somewhat contradictory seeming condition that this universe must have started out in a state of low entropy; otherwise, it would not contain any useful energy.
If, on the other hand, you’re merely saying that the same fundamental laws and processes that lead to the heat death being one possible future of the universe – basically, the laws of thermodynamics – are necessary for life, as well, then it’s hard to argue with that; but that’s little different from noting that if the laws of the universe were different, processes within the universe would happen differently, thus processes happen the way they do because the laws are the way they are. Nevertheless, it’s of course worthwhile to explore the precise relationship between these laws and life, and much work has been done on that front, concentrating mostly on the concept of entropy, pretty much since that concept had first been proposed – in fact, Rudolf Clausius, who originated the concept of entropy, also wrote about its relationship to life, and so did some years later another founding father of thermodynamics, Ludwig Boltzman. However, the most well known treatment of the subject is probably contained in Erwin Schrödinger’s work What is Life?.
And besides, a point could be made that despite the fact that processes enabled by the tendency of any system to evolve towards higher states of entropy lead to the creation of raw material necessary for the emergence of life, entropy itself is the single most inimical concept to life – without great expenditure of energy to keep entropy at bay, or rather, to lower its internal entropy (at the cost of, obviously, raising the entropy of the environment), every living thing dies and decays; indeed, the quality of being able to locally reduce entropy has been proposed as a criterion to distinguish between life and non-life.
Also, I think your statement ‘entropy is heat loss’ requires some clarification. Loosely speaking, the entropy of a system gives a measure of how much of its energy can’t be put to useful work and is dissipated to the environment in the form of heat loss, that’s true. But the way you phrase it almost seems like you think something that cools down increases its entropy (apologies if I misread you), when in fact it’s the opposite – a hot item in a cold room reduces its entropy by cooling, though of course the entropy of the system (hot item + room) as a whole increases. Generally, whenever heat is added to something, its entropy increases.
Unbelievable! I’m afraid to look anymore. I have explained the same things clearly that are based on the current views of mainstream science. For the most part I see people disagreeing for the sake of disagreement. Some people will eventually relent and admit that they see what I am spelling out pretty clearly, and then they switch to saying that it’s irrelevant. Or that it’s well established AFTER they have argued themselves blue in the face against it! =)
Show me anywhere other than from myself where anyone says this. If you can find anyone else who sees this or says this you have one up on me.
XD
Hi, Stoneburg. Creationists are mentioned because I have found that if you dare say anything new about entropy and life people assume you are pushing an evangelical agenda, which I am not.
Cmyk. I have spelled it out very, very clearly over and over and over. If you don’t see what my point is you never will.
Oh darn. My loss, I suppose. :rolleyes:
Yeah I suppose it is. You see me saying that stars produce heavier elements. That’s all you see me saying in what I wrote? Did you see any mention of entropy or the arrow of time or the heat death of the universe or apoptosis or evolution or top soil or the fact that things defined as entropy including the proposed eventual death of the universe all also appear to facilitate life? You didn’t catch any of that? Only that stars produce heavier elements? When you do admit to seeing a bit more of what i’m saying you say it’s well established and act as though it’s irrelevant? Where in discussions of the heat death, in print or online, have you ever found mention of the apparent fact the entropy and the finite nature of the cosmos also make life possible? Where? Find me one place where that is mentioned by anyone other than myself.
Oh, but all you see me saying now is that stars form heavier elements. Have fun with that. =)
I’m not saying it’s irrelevant. I’m saying it’s pretty obvious, that it sorta goes without saying if you’re already well familiar with physics or cosmology, even from a laymen level.
How many times have you heard “We are all made of Star Stuff”?
Perhaps the concept you’re looking for is the Anthropic Principle?
ETA: If you’re saying life wouldn’t be possible without the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I’d say, of course… among myriad other aspects and laws of the universe. Why are you fixated on just the one?