I thought Adam Gottshalk's reply was pretty thorough. My interpretation is that the second law of thermodynamics does not explain the existence of a continuous creation. In fact several good theorists believe that the 'heat death' of the universe is likey impossible. Rather the universe will sometime begin to contract, and perhaps collapse again, resulting in a new creation replacing the existing one. 

This 'new creation' would support the corrollary to entropy, which is enthalpy, the building up of potential energy, much like Kierkegard's 'love buildith up' (cf. Works of Love). 

If we were completely satisfied with purely mechanistic viewpoints on creation, then we would never be satisfied anyway with a view of things created as being anything but material entities. Thus 'autopoesis' would never be acceptable to the proponent of a purely mechanistic viewpoint since there is no observable form of causality that can be deduced or inferred. 

It is however very clear to myself that if we just thing for a moment about the importance of some idea, then we can easily abandon the 'mechanistic/materialistic' viewpoint. Take the existence of a triangle. A triangle does not exist in nature. A triangle exists only in the minds of humans as a symbol, and as a geometric and pure relationship. There is no one triangle in nature, but there are triangles in our conceptual understanding, and symbolic triangles to boot. 

The 'holistic' perspective actually is one other such pure idea with a corresponding 'intuitive' or sensitive object, eg a landscape, a feeling like family, etc., or the year, cycle of the moon,s stars. Aristotle divides thinking into the 'sensitive' and the 'calculative' parts of the soul. 

The second law of thermodynamics is an example of the 'calculative' capacity of the soul, rather than the sensitive. When ecologist's refer to the holistic perspective, they do so by referrring to a 'feeling' or 'intuition' and possibly something like the 'intuitus mysticus' of Eckhardt wherein he postulates two forms of creation: (a) creation and (b) generation. In particular, the things that are created are a product of self-regeneration assuming that we live within the idea of a living G-d. Which is to say that the work that goes on in creation is our work, our deed. In deed the word 'deed' is G-d. So to make it impossible or to infringe apon the co-evolving work of 'G-d', seen as the Deed, is to no abandon the work. The idea of 'self-regeneration' refers to the work of all creation, all is good because it was created by G-d.

The 'holistic' perspective is quite apparent. When any political, religious or other community of interest expresses itself, it has an holistic perspective, it 'feels' for all, and when there is no one there to feel for all, then it is sick, or has taken sick. This perspective if what operates as a 'sensitive' feature of human being, and animal value, and so on. It is not calculative, but D'lambert's principle explaining the mass centroid, or the mass centroid of the galaxy and how it rotates is not 'holistic' but is an expression of the 'calculative' part of the soul. 

Whether 'autopoesis' can be proved or not is not dependent on the strict domain of empirical science, nor of anthropology and psychology, or theology, really. It is perhaps too obvious to prove with the blunt instruments of science, creation - if God is in deed working with his creation - operative universally.  

The first instance of the moon was discovered purely by intuition (as an unknown object of the sense of sight), a sensible object, one of the night. If the moon was explained to me as simply rock, then what difference would it make to me regarding the first instance of seeing the moon? It makes no difference to me if is rock, dust, or cheese. My first impression will be the same as my last. As a real moon in the night, which it is occassioned by, it is itself (albedo ipsum, albedo eternale). 

chao,

john foster










On Mon, 30 October 2000, "Steven Bissell" wrote:

> 
> Thank you for your condescending reply. I realize that the word "entropy"
> has been applied to all sorts of things, including economics, sociology,
> even as a critique of evolution from the creationists. All that does not
> change the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics. If you want to look up something, try
> the difference between a law, a theory, a hypothesis, an idea, and so forth.
> Kepler would be a start.
> sb
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Adam Gottschalk
> Sent: Friday, January 01, 1904 6:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Entropy as a moral foundation (was Autopoesis)
> 
> 
> 
> I specialize in energy efficiency for engines and alternative fuels, among
> other things. Please note that all the folks you mention below are from the
> last century. Since Kelvin and, more importantly, Clausius, there have been
> many re-formulations and re-interpretations, many of them faulty. Boltzmann,
> for example, started thinking about entropy at the microscopic level, even
> though the very notion is macroscopic. It represents a loss, a degradation,
> a change in quality that is only observable at the macroscopic level. [A
> quote from a paper of mine: "As to the first mistake, he notes, ³There is a
> blatant circularity here since microscopic equations of motion are
> invariably inferred from, or guessed to fit, macroscopic experiences. Those
> familiar with the process are only painfully aware that a moment comes in
> the calculations where the principle of satisficing takes over² (p. 107),
> adding that, ³All theoretical constructs originate from the images of
> macroscopic phenomena while all microscopic phenomena can only be inferred
> but never directly observed‹through macroscopic effects² (p. 105)."]
> (Macrakis)
> 
> Yes, the original formulations of the 2nd law had strictly to do with power
> machines. I'm not here to give you a lesson in physics (though from the
> sound of it, the laws of thermodynamics are something you might benefit from
> looking into, especially the interpretation of it in _this_ century). The
> Thermodynamic Revolution is a revolution that has radically changed the face
> of all sciences, though many scientists remain oblivious or recalcitrant--to
> a great extent, the 2nd law's (Einstein's so-called "supreme law") can be
> very tough to swallow.
> 
> It does _not_ have only to do with fuel going in and work coming out of an
> engine, God no. It is directly related to every single process at work at
> once in the universe, no exaggeration at all. It is because of entropy that
> we have our very sense of the passage of time. I would highly recommend that
> you check out some up-to-date readings to get a clearer idea of the very
> real and apparent relationship between entropy and ecological degradation
> (and economics, etc.)
> 
> In particular, you should look at the book, the premiere book on the
> subject, "The Entropy Law and the Economic Process" by Nicholas
> Georgescu-Roegen, 1971, Harvard U. Press. (One of the most difficult books
> ever...but also one of the most insightful and rewarding; you will probably
> need, as I did, several different dictionaries to make your way through it).
> Also, Scarcity's Way: the Origins of Capital by Michael S. Macrakis, 1997,
> Kluwen Academic Publishers. In addition, you should look at Beyond Growth:
> the Economics of Sustainable Development, by Herman Daly, 1996, Beacon
> Press. There are countless other "smaller" works, by the likes of Kenneth
> Boulding, that offer their own particular takes.
> 
> Georgescu-Roegen in particular does a phenomenal job at pointing out how the
> revelations of Kelvin and Clausius have very serious implications (for all
> realms of science, including biology, etc.) that have not been headed well
> enough by those "in power," which is in part why we see so much ecological
> degradation around us.
> 
> Physics defines entropy as simply the loss, the difference between the
> amount of energy moving from hot to cold minus the work gotten out of that
> transition. If all the energy moving from hot could be turned into work,
> that would be 100% efficient. That is never and will never be the case.
> Entropy then is seen to be a measure of inefficiency, it is a measure of the
> amount of energy no longer (not ever again) available to do work. Though
> this amount can be measured in a macroscopic sense, the fact that the
> entropic loss is qualitative is tough for many to grasp.
> 
> _All_ the waste from an engine, the energy put in that is not used, the
> inefficiency, is entropic. If you know of anyone using unburned
> hydrocarbons, etc., from an engine and recirculating them as usable fuel,
> you just let me know; then I'll tell you about my friend with the perpetual
> motion machine. Using process heat from the engine itself is different.
> Entropy does not simply represent that a paltry 10-13% of the potential
> power of energy put into an engine is usable; it also represents that 87-90%
> of the fuel input can never be used again, i.e., a highly ordered usable
> form of matter-energy (gasoline) is turned into a) some amount of work and
> b) the remainder which is a totally unusable form of M-E (pollution).
> Improvements in engines over the last 100 years have involved: a) getting a
> more complete burn and b) controlling/stifling the toxic output. No one has
> been able to overcome the qualitative change that entropy represents. I
> insist that if you look hard you will find that interpretations of the 2nd
> law in _this_ century have made it clear that entropy has implications
> farther reaching than any other "law" (hence, Einstein's statement).
> 
> Georgescu-Roegen and Daly do a good job at showing how enviro degradation is
> related by way of faulty economics. Now economics claims to be a science (it
> is not), but as a science it is one of the last to embrace the reality of
> universal entropy penalties for all transactions. This is very much to our
> detriment: for example, basic economics textbooks portray the economy as a
> self-sustaining circular system between producers and consumers. No where in
> the portrayals does it account for the essential low-entropy input to the
> system and the high-entropy output; as GR pointed out this is equivalent to
> ignoring the entire digestive tract in the study of an animal.
> 
> Daly says: "Circulation of blood is to circulation of money as the digestive
> tract is to...(what?)...(GR) filled in the blank with the analogous concept:
> the one-way flow beginning with natural resources and ending with waste. To
> this concept he gave the name ³entropic flow.²  (p. 193)"
> 
> All I can say is, Steven, if you take the time to look into it more closely,
> you will find that there can be no more sound basis for an environmental
> ethic than the recognition of the entropic flow, a flow that has to do with
> much, much more than just internal-combustion engines. Most important of
> all, I think, is GR's idea that the real output of the economy and of all
> activities for which matter-energy is transformed, is life experience and
> life enjoyment:
> 
> "Were we to set the balance sheet of value on the basis of these inputs and
> outputs , we would arrive at the absurd conclusion that the value of the
> low-entropy flow on which the maintenance of life itself depends is equal to
> the value of the flow of waste, that is, zero. The apparent paradox vanishes
> if we acknowledge the fact that the true ³product² of the economic process
> is not of material flow, but of psychic flux‹the enjoyment of life by every
> member of the population. It is this psychic flux which, as Frank Fetter and
> Irving Fisher insisted, constitutes the pertinent notion of income in
> economic analysis." (Georgescu-Roegen, 1971, p. 284)
> 
> My own radical eyes see that the "psychic flux" is not peculiar to humans,
> and that the insane usury-based economy is blindly, greedily eroding our
> earthly sources of low-entropy and all the "natural systems" (eco-systems)
> on which our lives depend. Again, if you look into it more, you will start
> to understand that soil erosion, removal of biomass on a grand scale, water
> pollution, etc. are all related directly to the entropic flow. Recognition
> of that flow and the fact that we allow it to proceed far too rapidly is the
> source of our soundest defense of the ecology on which we depend. We _do
> not_ live in a closed system. Using our only income (the sun) directly is
> one of the only ways we can work against local (earthly) high-entropy
> creation.
> 
> Adam
> 
> on 10/29/00 15:41, Steven Bissell at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> 
> > SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
> > elements in a closed system tend to seek their most probable distribution;
> > in a closed system entropy always increases. The paraphrases below were
> > compiled by Heinz Von Foerster.
> > l. Clausius (l822-l888) It is impossible that, at the end of a cycle of
> > changes, heat has been transferred from a colder to a hotter body without
> at
> > the same time converting a certain amount of work into heat.
> >
> > 2. Lord Kelvin (l824-l907) In a cycle of processes, it is impossible to
> > transfer heat from a heat reservoir and convert it all into work, without
> at
> > the same time transferring a certain amount of heat from a hotter to a
> > colder body.
> >
> > 3. Ludwig Boltzmann (l844-l906) For an adiabatically enclosed system, the
> > entropy can never decrease. Therefore, a high level of organization is
> very
> > improbable.
> >
> > 4. Max Plank (l858-l947) A perpetual motion machine of the second kind is
> > impossible.
> >
> > 5. Caratheodory (l885-l955) Arbitrarily near to any given state there
> exist
> > states which cannot be reached by means of adiabatic processes.
> >
> > (From Sears and Zemansky): 100% conversion of heat into mechanical work is
> > not possible by any form of engine. (p. 342) There is a tendency in nature
> > to proceed toward a state of greater molecular disorder. This
> one-sidedness
> > of nature produces irreversible processes. (p. 347)
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ----
> > The law of the necessary degradation of energy or the entropy law (see
> > thermodynamics). (Krippendorff)
> >
> > I pulled this off the Web. I see no definition of entropy which can be
> > considered the same as inefficiency. An inefficiency can result in energy
> > which is still available to do work; such as the unburned gas in
> automobile
> > exhausts. Very little of the energy loss in an automobile engine is
> > entropic, some, but very little.
> >
> > At any rate, my real point was that entropy is a poor basis for ethics and
> > inefficiency is no basis at all.
> >
> > As to whether or not ecology is or is not an empirical science, that is
> not
> > a matter of opinion. There is a right or wrong answer, I just don't know
> > what it is.
> >


_______________________________________________________________________

Free Unlimited Internet Access! Try it now! 
http://www.zdnet.com/downloads/altavista/index.html

_______________________________________________________________________



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%