Entropy and How can something come from nothing? And some evolution......

[Yinlowang]

Jutsuka, are ya sure it is Matter anti matter pairs? If it is then you actually have energy being created, Anti-matter is postive energy matter, so if it was 1 unit of matter and 1 unit of anti-matter you would end up with 2 units of energy when they anhilate. If that was true, we would see the net energy in the universe increase alot from VPP, we don't. Everything I have ever read on it says that it is a zero energy event. Which means it is a positive particle and a negative paticle that nullify(not anhilate).

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:14 AM Badfish said this in Post #1

Feel free to use the Laws of Thermodynamics (Matter/energy may be altered , but not created nor destroyed and/or reduced to nothingness).

The First Law says that matter/energy cannot spring forth from nothing without cause, nor can it simply vanish.

All the physical laws apply only within the universe. They cannot be used to forbid a universe coming into existence in the first place.

The Second law of Thermodynamics (The law of Entropy) :The entropy function always increases in the presence of internal irreversibilities for an adiabatic, closed system. In the limiting case of an internally reversible, adiabatic process, the entropy will remain constant.

Entropy (disorder) always increases or remains constant in a closed system.

Somewhat correct but not quite. For a system, the total entropy of the systems and its surroundings must increase.

The entropy of an entire closed system can never decrease within that system. Since the universe can be modeled as a closed system the universe is considered to be entropic – that is, running down.

The Law of Entropy, that is, disorder, is a dagger aimed at the heart of Darwinian fundamentalism.

What is "Darwinian fundamentalism"?

And yes, the entropy of the entire universe is increasing.  That increase in entropy allows the local decrease in entropy seen in living organisms.

 In considering the significance of entropy for the universe consider the following quote by eminent evolutionary biologist Sir Julian Huxley:

"Evolution in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and essentially irreversible process occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution – a single process of self-transformation." (Huxley)

No attack on entropy here.  Some hyperbole on Huxley's part.  But I can see how it confused you.  You have taken Huxley's statement "increasingly high level of organization" and "a single process of self-transformation" to mean that evolution is really defined as a uniform, directional process of increased complexity.

First, altho Huxley said this, is it correct?  Your premise is that it is.  But we should examine the premise.  Is the "whole of reality" an increasingly hither level of organization?  As you argue: "no".

So what you have shown is that Huxley is wrong in this quote.  Period.  You haven't shown evoulution to be wrong or that there isn't increasing complexity in biological organisms.  You have shown that Huxley screwed up in making this generalization.

BTW, you should always cite source and page number. I suspect you got your argument off a creationist website, but that only increases your responsibility to tell us the original citation.

Contrary to Huxley’s assertion, all relevant scientific knowledge declares the opposite, that the Second Law is overwhelmingly supported by the data. Change, including biological change, does occur, but the transformation is to increasing levels of disorganization, as evolutionary biologists have now shown. 

Yes, SLOT is supported by the data. But SLOT also allows for local decreases in entropy as long as the total entropy of system and surroundings increase.  The data clearly shows, however, that biological change is to increasing levels of organization. For instance, take photosynthesis or protein synthesis.  In each case you take more disorganized molecules -- CO2 and water for photosynthesis and individual amino acids for protein synthesis -- and convert them to more organized molecules -- sugar and protein.  This is possible because Gibbs free energy allows a decrease in entropy (increase in organization) as long as there is a larger increase in enthalpy. 

So how can something come from nothing?

Quantum fluctuation.  Particles appear (and then disappear) all the time from the vacuum where there are no particles.

If there was something that started our Universe what was it?

There are currently 5 hypotheses I am aware of to answer your question.  In no particular order they are:

1. Quantum fluctuation
2. Ekpyrotic
3. Deity
4, No Boundary
5. Logical and mathematical necessity.

Right now there is insufficient data to choose between them.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 01:40 AM Badfish said this in Post #11


Yeah but scientists that a lot of people put so much trust in are certain that something cannot come from nothing.

If nothing existed in the beginning then there was no energy to borrow from, and since you and some others don't believe in creation, there had to be a start, an Alpha concept isn't a viable option for non creationists, or you would have to concede that you might have been created.

  OK, here we have it again: evolution is atheism. That's what the last phrase means.  Badfish, the discussion on this board is not whether a Creator created, but how.  Evolution is just as much a how of creation as creationism.  It's just that creationism is the wrong how.

As Arikay pointed out, the fact that the universe has a net zero energy makes it possible that the entire universe is a quantum fluctuation.  One of the attractions of String Theory is that spacetime itself can be a quantum fluctuation.  So, by that theory (if it is correct), the matter/energy/spacetime that is the universe are just one quantum fluctuation.

The existence of the universe points to the hypothesis of a deity as a Creator. However, it doesn't compel the necessity of a deity as a Creator.  Do you understand the difference between these two?

 

[wblastyn]

There are currently 5 hypotheses I am aware of to answer your question. In no particular order they are:

1. Quantum fluctuation
2. Ekpyrotic
3. Deity
4, No Boundary
5. Logical and mathematical necessity.

Couldn't you go back further than that and say God could have cause the Quantium fluctuation, etc? So if science one day discovers the First Cause it wouldn't disprove God.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 11:44 AM wblastyn said this in Post #24


Couldn't you go back further than that and say God could have cause the Quantium fluctuation, etc? So if science one day discovers the First Cause it wouldn't disprove God.

Quantum events are uncaused, so the quantum fluctuation would qualify as an Uncaused Cause or First Cause.  All the possibilities I listed are candidates for First Cause.  They seem to be mutually exclusive. 

Now, in all cases IMO you could still maintain an entity/deity that interferred in history and communicates with humans.  It would remove that entity from consideration as Creator, however.

 

[Arikay]

Well, I dont think it would remove the deity for two reasons.

One is the obvious, people would believe what they wanted to believe and just choose to reject the findings (as we have seen with the Heliocentric solar system, round earth and now evolution).

Two, would be that it could easily be said that this was all set up by a diety. Not that the deity caused it to happen but that he basically designed the laws of physics that all of this follows and then let it do its thing.



See, there is always room to squeeze god into.

 

[wblastyn]

Two, would be that it could easily be said that this was all set up by a diety. Not that the deity caused it to happen but that he basically designed the laws of physics that all of this follows and then let it do its thing.

That's what I'm saying, couldn't God have created the laws of physics or whatever needed to allow quantum fluctuations to occur, and let creation create itself?

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 02:28 PM Arikay said this in Post #26

Well, I dont think it would remove the deity for two reasons.

One is the obvious, people would believe what they wanted to believe and just choose to reject the findings (as we have seen with the Heliocentric solar system, round earth and now evolution).

This is equating the idea with the proponents of the idea. The two are separate.  Ideas are falsified whether the proponents agree they are falsified or not.  Just as defendents are convicted whether they admit they committed the crime or not.

Two, would be that it could easily be said that this was all set up by a diety. Not that the deity caused it to happen but that he basically designed the laws of physics that all of this follows and then let it do its thing.

This would be a subset of #3.  In standard #3 deity create the laws of physics along with creating the universe.

What you seem to be proposing is deity behind Logical and mathematical necessity.

Logical and mathematical necessity is where the laws are sufficient unto themselves to make a universe.  IOW, the laws exist and a universe has to form for them to describe.  No deity involved.

See, there is always room to squeeze god into.

But not always legitimately.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 04:38 PM wblastyn said this in Post #27


That's what I'm saying, couldn't God have created the laws of physics or whatever needed to allow quantum fluctuations to occur, and let creation create itself?

So quantum fluctuations become the secondary cause by which God created the universe?  As I said, events at the quantum level are not tied to strict determinism of cause and effect.  It is accepted that God did create a universe such that quantum indeterminancy is a part of it.  However, I'm not sure you can extrapolate that to having an uncaused event create the universe.  How can a totally uncaused universe be considered a creation?

 

[ardipithecus]

I will refer people to the Talk.Origins page on thermodynamics which links to several FAQs as well as to creationist pages and other pages of interest.

 

[Arikay]

Well, I didnt say they were legitimate.

I mean, creationism isnt legitimate when we look at all the info, but its still believed.

Today at 07:24 PM lucaspa said this in Post #28

Today at 02:28 PM Arikay said this in Post #26

Well, I dont think it would remove the deity for two reasons.

One is the obvious, people would believe what they wanted to believe and just choose to reject the findings (as we have seen with the Heliocentric solar system, round earth and now evolution).

This is equating the idea with the proponents of the idea. The two are separate.  Ideas are falsified whether the proponents agree they are falsified or not.  Just as defendents are convicted whether they admit they committed the crime or not.

Two, would be that it could easily be said that this was all set up by a diety. Not that the deity caused it to happen but that he basically designed the laws of physics that all of this follows and then let it do its thing.

This would be a subset of #3.  In standard #3 deity create the laws of physics along with creating the universe.

What you seem to be proposing is deity behind Logical and mathematical necessity.

Logical and mathematical necessity is where the laws are sufficient unto themselves to make a universe.  IOW, the laws exist and a universe has to form for them to describe.  No deity involved.

See, there is always room to squeeze god into.

But not always legitimately.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I decided to repost this on this thread which is probably where it belongs. I hope that is OK

Badfish wrote 

The Law of Entropy (disorder) demands that we view the universe as "devolving" not "evolving."

 

There is no "law of entropy" but I assume you mean the second law of thermodynamics. There are several ways to state the second law. The one that I think is relevant here is that no process can exist with the sole effect of transfering heat from a cooler body to a hotter body.  Since the universe is theorized to have been hundreds of billion or even a few trillions of degrees at the instant of the big bang it would seem that the second law is not violated in subsequent processes. The cooling  to the 2.7 K microwave backgound results in tremendous entropy production.  The entropy of the universe has increased since the moment of the big bang as required by the second law. This is a bit oversimplified but the thermodynamics of the big bang are more than a little hairy. Here is one of least difficult presentations I have found.

http://astro.uni-tuebingen.de/~wilm.../cosmochap7.pdf

You can find the entropy expression on page 9. 

Did you really think that the physicists working on the big bang had never thought of the second law? Here is another reference on big bang thermodynamics.

http://astro.uwaterloo.ca/~mjhudson...7/chapter04.pdf

Here's an abstract describing a recent approach using a statistical fluctuation in a generalized Dirac sea as the source of the big bang.  It didn't necessarily come from nothing. It may have come from something we don't quite understand yet and may never quite understand.
http://lbl.confex.com/lbl/2001/prog...stract_1584.htm

If it is the result of a massive statistical fluctuation, who is to say that God did not initiate it?  On the other hand maybe our universe is just one of those things that pops up from time to time.


The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Today at 03:34 AM ardipithecus said this in Post #30

I will refer people to the Talk.Origins page on thermodynamics which links to several FAQs as well as to creationist pages and other pages of interest.

Thanks, they have upgraded the FAQ quite a bit since I last looked at it. I particularly like John Pieper's page which makes a point about the non equivalence of entropy and macroscopic disorder that I have tried to make many times but perhaps without much success.  I see they also have a link to Alan Harvey's page which is one of my favorites.

Those who follow these debates should note that creationist arguments about 2 LoT and biological evolution are all very general and nebulous about generation of order or increasing complexity being prevented.    These arguments are simply not valid.

Unless some step in a process can be shown to violate the second law the overall process can not be shown to violate the second law.  The challenge that I have never seen a creationist meet is to identify any specific step required for evolution that can be shown to violate the second law each and every time it might occur. 

I have seen this challenge raised many times but have never seen a creationist even make a serious attempt at a specific answer.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[OldBadfish]

Where's your missing evidence? When will evolution become more than a theory? It is just as flawed as the evidence for creation, the only difference being that a whole lot more scientists have been spending a lot more time trying to find answers to the elusive missing data regarding evolution, than do creationists.

The Cosmos, the earth, plants, animals, humans all have the look and feel of intelligent design.

No one can even come close to proving that the cosmos or humanity originated from a singularity. Of course even if a singular event were theorized, where did the singularity come from? It had to have had all the ingredients to enable itself to disperse into such a wide and complex diversity.

Are you going to say that you are not open minded to the possibility of a designer? That would make more sense than speculating on never to be found singularities and scientific theories and assumptions.

Do you really dismiss the concept of intelligent design and/or creation 100%?

 

[Arikay]

You are right, Evolution will never become more than a scientific theory. Because thats as high on the list as it can go. Its reached the top.

Dont forget that there is a difference between evolution and how the cosmos started.

Actually they all have the look and feel because you want them too.

(the cosmos, the plants, and animals etc.) They all grew up together, so just like a puppy and a kitten, they learned to get alone and adapted to each other as they grew up and now they go against their supposed nature and dont chase or kill one another.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

No one can even come close to proving that the cosmos or humanity originated from a singularity. Of course even if a singular event were theorized, where did the singularity come from? It had to have had all the ingredients to enable itself to disperse into such a wide and complex diversity.

For proof go to math or wiskey. You can't really prove a scientific theory.   You examine the evidence to see if it is consistent with the theory and you try to falsify the theory. If you can't falsify the theory you accept it as the best current explanation for the observations.  So far neither biological evolution or the big bang has been falsified. 

Regrading the topic of this thread, the laws of thermodynamics do not falsify either modern cosmology or biological evolution. They do falsify every creationist flood model that I have ever analyzed but that's another story and is being discussed on other threads.

Are you going to say that you are not open minded to the possibility of a designer? That would make more sense than speculating on never to be found singularities and scientific theories and assumptions.

Science tries to find natural explanations for natural phenomona. So far it has worked pretty well. Both the big bang and biological evolution lead to predictions that can be tested. Supernatural explanation do not really lead to concrete predictions since miracles can accomdate any finding.

Do you really dismiss the concept of intelligent design and/or creation 100%?

100%, certainly not. Unlike creationism science is never 100% certain of existing theories.  Some rejected theories can be rejected with virtually 100% certainty when better explanations are found. Examples would be phlogiston as the source of combustion and the worldwide flood as source of world's geology and the fossil record.  Science has rejected both with virtual certainty for a long time.  

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 04:18 AM Badfish said this in Post #34

Where's your missing evidence?

I see you've changed your argument.  You are now dropping the SLOT argument. 

What missing evidence?  Speciation by natural selection has been observed. Transitional sequences of individuals linking taxa up to class (between one class and another, and mammals are a class) have been found.  I can post those references again if you want.  There is a transitional series of individuals connecting H. sapiens (us) back thru H. erectus and H. habilis to A. afarensis.  So what missing evidence are you referring to?

When will evolution become more than a theory?

Ah, the old "theory is just a guess" argument.  I hate to tell you, but gravity is a theory.  So is heliocentrism. So is round earth. All of them have so much evidence in favor of them that it is perverse to withold provisional acceptance and regard them as true.  The same applies to descent with modification (evolution).

It is just as flawed as the evidence for creation, the only difference being that a whole lot more scientists have been spending a lot more time trying to find answers to the elusive missing data regarding evolution, than do creationists.

Creation and creationism are two different things.  Evolution is not opposed to creation.  For Christians, evolution is simply how God created.  Creationism, OTOH, has been falsified.  It's not that the evidence "for" is flawed, but that there is evidence that simply can't be there if creationism were true.  Therefore, since true statements can't have false evidence, creationism is false.

The Cosmos, the earth, plants, animals, humans all have the look and feel of intelligent design.

For plants, animals, and humans, the "designer" is natural selection.  As naturalists discovered in the early 19th century, plants, animals, and humans have the look and feel of non-intelligent design.  Which is why Christian theologians so quickly abandoned intelligent design for evolution.

No one can even come close to proving that the cosmos or humanity originated from a singularity.

You mean Big Bang.  They are way past "come close".  The latest COMB mapping nails it to a T.  See the March 7 issue of Science. 

 Of course even if a singular event were theorized, where did the singularity come from?

That's where my list of five hypotheses come in a few posts back. Didn't you read it? 

Are you going to say that you are not open minded to the possibility of a designer?

Sure I'm open minded.  It's just that whenever the hypothesis of an intelligent designer manufacturing entities in present form is tested, it is falsified.

Now, is there a deity that uses the "natural" processes discovered by science to create? Totally different question and one science can't answer.  Science is agnostic, Badfish, not atheistic.

Do you really dismiss the concept of intelligent design and/or creation 100%?

ID yes.  Creation, no.  The two are not linked.  ID makes very definite statements how a Creator created.  The evidence shows that that how is false.  But could there be a Creator that created by evolution?  Sure there could.

 

[DNAunion]

[original poster]: Entropy (disorder) always increases or remains constant in a closed system.

Lucaspa: Somewhat correct but not quite. For a system, the total entropy of the systems and its surroundings must increase.

DNAunion: Nope, the original poster was correct. Total entropy always increases or remains constant in a closed (isolated) system: the surroundings are irrelevant here.

 

[Jase]

Lucaspa, how have they proven the Big Bang and that the universe came from a singular point? Because the universe is expanding? That doesn't mean it came from a singular point. God could have easily created the universe and set it in expanding motion. That also doesn't account for the massive gaps all over the universe which shouldn't be there if it all started at a singular point.

Matter also doesn't "spring" forth from nothing. The same amount of matter exists today as it did at the creation of the universe. Its a constant amount, only changing forms. The claims that the universe has always existed is rediculous. Atoms formed from somewhere, and had the universe always existed, the energy would have disappated long ago. Humans will NEVER prove any scientifc theory to a "T", you can only make educated guesses at what you perceive to be true, not what actually is. No human was present at the universes creation/singularity, however, God was.

 

[Arikay]

Of course God was, only as long as you believe he was.