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.
>



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