Jump to content

The Cure For Insomnia


Recommended Posts

Making philosophy out of simple arithmetic? Ha ha...


"You can not obtain the original number (10) by multiplying 3*3.3333 unless you have an infinite number of ...333... after the dot, but you can't have that without the helpof division!"

If we are going to be precise, then you need to put an infinite number of zeros after 10 and 3; otherwise the number implies a level of uncertainty of the last digit ("significant digits"). I.e. you need 10.000000... and 3.0000000... . Exactly contradicting the second part of the sentence.

I notice Observer has trouble with the concept of infinity... :unsure: This "missing a 0.000...0001 somewhere" is postponed indefinitely, so it never occurs.


What makes you tie division to entropy anyway? Making a number smaller? Then multiply by 0.1 .


"Life creates matter out of information, out of nothing virtually."

Life REARRANGES matter based on information in DNA & RNA.

Thus, lowering entropy for the living organism. But, overall entropy still increases; this organism needs sustenance; it creates more entropy in its surroundings than it removes by its presence.
Interesting quotes from wikipedia:
"Current findings in statistical mechanics show that entropy is governed by probability, allowing for a decrease in disorder even in closed systems. Although possible, this event has a small probability, making it unlikely for a decrease to occur; if any were to occur, it would be a transient decrease that would affect a limited number of particles in the system."
"Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences that seems to imply a particular direction for time, sometimes called an arrow of time. As we go "forward" in time, the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system tends to increase or remain the same; it will not decrease. Hence, from one perspective, entropy measurement is thought of as a kind of clock."
"The question of the link between information entropy and thermodynamic entropy is a hotly debated topic. Some authors argue that there is a link between the two, while others will argue that they have absolutely nothing to do with each other."


"But there is more to life than just syntropy. Living beings are complete systems; this means that both syntropy and entropy should happen within same system. And they do. A part of one's life is syntropic, while the other part is entropic. The bridge between the two parts of our lives happens at around 25 years, but depends on the person."
(grammar fixed)

You mean that the [b]balance[/b] is tipped from syntropy to entropy at ~25 years of age.
Fun fact: the human brain finishes its development at ~25.
I believe that with thedevelopment of technology, this tipping point can be postponed indefinitely.


[b]Overall entropy always increases[/b]; this is why I chose the principle in story mode. :)

[quote name='Muratus del Mur' date='07 December 2009 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1260212263' post='49396']
There was a joke, how long is the coast of England..answer was that it depends on the length of the ruler you measure it with. If you divide it in smaller chunks is longer, if thery are bigger chunks the coast appears smaller. Eventualy with an endlessly small ruler, it would be endlessly big :)
[/quote]
Incorrect. It would approach a finite limit; this is the real length.
Fun fact:
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 + ... = 1

It's kinda like that.

Edited by apophys
Link to post
Share on other sites

"There was a joke, how long is the coast of England..answer was that it depends on the length of the ruler you measure it with. If you divide it in smaller chunks is longer, if thery are bigger chunks the coast appears smaller. Eventualy with an endlessly small ruler, it would be endlessly big"

That's known as the Dichotomy Paradox, and is one of Zeno's three paradoxes of motion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#The_Paradoxes_of_Motion

Link to post
Share on other sites

About the broken glass sphere...


Take it to be water instead for simplicity. Imagine there is no gravity. The ball of water is held as a ball by surface tension.

Now split it approximately in half, with no splash. You now have 2 hemispheres, which become spheres due to surface tension if the slicer repels water. Is there more information? Seems to be twice as much.

With a gentle nudge, push the two back together, or just bridge the gap between them, and surface tension + capillarity will do the work. They reform into one sphere.

Overall, you've simply released energy as heat from whatever device you used, i.e. there is greater entropy afterward.
In fact, the method used to separate is more wasteful than that used to recombine. :))


It's even simpler with gas or liquid in a closed container - separation or non-separation is just adding and removing a barrier, at the most efficient. There is an identical amount of energy expended to add/remove the barrier.


A solid example? Hmm... how about putty or dough.

Slice the ball in half. You can roll the two halves back together, but this is wasteful as it deforms parts of the ball unaffected by the split. If you could microscopically work on the divide to put together the initial state, there would be no waste to deform the rest of the ball, and it would exactly match the energy needed to separate them. I do not know of a better solid example, and this one isn't stellar, but it gets the point across.

For glass, the methods we need to use to put it back together are EXTREMELY wasteful, actually requiring that it melts and then solidifies back. This clouds the fact that the energy required to break it is exactly the same as the energy required to put it back together. If you could somehow take back all the heat used for melting it after it has reformed, you would see so.



As far as I know, ALL processes are reversible with exactly the same energy, however wasteful the methods to reverse them may be, and however long it may take.
The lone exception I know of is the release of energy as heat. It is only partly reversible, due to there being no perfectly efficient device possible to construct, and due to the second law of thermodynamics (this is related to entropy).



One by one, I will dismantle your arguments, Mur, and you won't ever prove anything. >:]
(jk)

Thank you for putting this topic up and on the newslog; debate is very refreshing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sephirah Caelum
sick and healthy has nothing to do with entropy tendency of the body as i said. You can be a child in full syntropy process , growing and all, and die of sickness. Ifthe degrading process is stronger than the regenerating process, you lose.

@apophys
(im not sure if you talk in support of what i said or against it, because your arguments are actualy very helpful:))


[quote]
Making philosophy out of simple arithmetic? Ha ha...
[/quote]

If you dont see philosophy in anything then you don't see anything.

[quote]
If we are going to be precise, then you need to put an infinite number of zeros after 10 and 3; otherwise the number implies a level of uncertainty of the last digit ("significant digits"). I.e. you need 10.000000... and 3.0000000... . Exactly contradicting the second part of the sentence.
[/quote]

Im sory, but maybe because of the lack of sleep, but i dont get your point here at all. What is contradicting?


[quote]
What makes you tie division to entropy anyway? Making a number smaller? Then multiply by 0.1 .
[/quote]

Division means to splitt something yes. before turning to math tricks try to remember where all this comes from. Multiply 5 apples with 0.1 if you can. 0.1 is 1 DIVIDED by 10. And that is again an example in favor of entropy/division. Mutliplication just amplifies effects of division, it will not recover it if faced directly with it. (you can find also good examples in medicine about that)


[quote]

"Life creates matter out of information, out of nothing virtually."

Life REARRANGES matter based on information in DNA & RNA.
[/quote]

You are right, it doesn't create it, that was stupid to say. It rearranges it. I was thinking that it creates ORDER, and that its syntropy.
The quote from wikipedia, its kind of fighting both ways, if its like its said, then its one way, but the rest of the quote sais even if its so its very unlikely so its the other way. It sais "entropy is governed by probability, allowing for a decrease in disorder even in closed systems". Decrease in disorder means order (negating negation), but it continues by saying it will not happen actualy. funny i could add.


[quote]
You mean that the balance is tipped from syntropy to entropy at ~25 years of age.
Fun fact: the human brain finishes its development at ~25.
I believe that with thedevelopment of technology, this tipping point can be postponed indefinitely.
[/quote]

25 years is a raw estimate, for some its at 22, for others at 27, but in that range anyway. The development of the brain has of course to do with syntropy as a principle. It DEVELOPS, thats means syntropy, as opposed to DECAY (or whats the word). Many other functions stagnate at that age then start to go down. There are also crucial changes in the energetic behaviour of a person that fit with this timeframe, but its pointless to go into that when there are so many other things to give as example.


[quote]
Incorrect. It would approach a finite limit; this is the real length.
Fun fact:
1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 + ... = 1
It's kinda like that.
[/quote]

From what i know, some such fractions, will cause this process to cap at a given value, some will cause it to expand indefenetly, but i dont know for sure or examples. Afterall, the coast of England has to be limited or it would be the biggest in the world :D. Anyway i hope you noticed the smiley at the end of that paradox, and see that if measured in big chunks it would be indeed smaller. Its all about the error you allow. You can say that something is 2-3km, if you use km as a measuring distance, or its 2800-2900m if you use meters (smaller intervals, better precision). Like rounding up numbers. To contradict me on the coast of Englad issue it is enough to give as example as streight line, the math example might fail.




[quote]
Take it to be water instead for simplicity. Imagine there is no gravity. The ball of water is held as a ball by surface tension.

Now split it approximately in half, with no splash. You now have 2 hemispheres, which become spheres due to surface tension if the slicer repels water. Is there more information? Seems to be twice as much.

With a gentle nudge, push the two back together, or just bridge the gap between them, and surface tension + capillarity will do the work. They reform into one sphere.

Overall, you've simply released energy as heat from whatever device you used, i.e. there is greater entropy afterward.
In fact, the method used to separate is more wasteful than that used to recombine. :P
[/quote]


You are fundamentaly wrong. In your example you did not "break" the water sphere. In the gas chamber example you did not "break" the gas. There is no entropy process in either of your example, they are both actualy ways of placing more energy into those things at best. Your half water spheres are not actualy there, in reality they will just be two deformed spheres. The energy you put into deforming that sphere up to the point it becomes two spheres, will be used , as a spring, to take the two halfes back into a sphere shape and because of the distance they will unite in one. Take the two halfs far away one from the other and they will turn to two separated SPHERES. The sphere they are forming is not the original one, its the most low energy and information "consuming" shape in the universe. So no entropy there, no syntropy, just isolation of systems.


[quote]
As far as I know, ALL processes are reversible with exactly the same energy
[/quote]

THEORETICALLY - not practically. You can give me endless examples of processes that will waste more energy to build than to destroy, but except syntropic processes like life, none to go the other way back. If you still argue that theory == or != practice, then please consider i talk theory vs reality and not only tehnologic capabilities. You need a lot of "IFs" to make theory in this field actualy work, allto cover up for the imperfection that is allaround. Theories are made for perfect conditions. Of course i speak generaly now, but anyone can see with naked eye that things will more likely destroy than build themselves. In theory entropy equals syntropy, in reality its not so....now how can you put theory vs reality face to face and still say entropy equals syntropy in the universe?



----

i am sory i didnt answered to each post, but i am reading all. Unfortunatly i cant be here as active as you are and reply to each one all the time. As you probably noticed i was away from many things lately. I will answer in "bulk" like now, from time to time, but please do as you say and

[quote]
One by one, I will dismantle your arguments, Mur, and you won't ever prove anything. >:]
(jk)
[/quote]

its indeed refreshing :), i will shop your head of slowly, with proof :D
(jk)


@malaikat, thnks for links i was looking for that one

Link to post
Share on other sites

[b]"(im not sure if you talk in support of what i said or against it, because your arguments are actualy very helpful:))"[/b]

Both. :P

In this post I'll deal with math only. There's just far too much to be said at once.


[b]From what i know, some such fractions, will cause this process to cap at a given value, some will cause it to expand indefenetly, but i dont know for sure or examples. [/b]

Yes. This is an "infinite series." It's calculus.
My example is the sum of terms 1/(2^n) , 1 <= n < infinity
An example that has an infinite sum is the sum of terms 1/n , 2 <= n < infinity


[b]"Im sory, but maybe because of the lack of sleep, but i dont get your point here at all. What is contradicting?"[/b]

You said that you can't get infinite length without division. I said you can get it just by being infinitely precise, which you need to be to get infinite length through division anyway.
See it this way: all numbers have an infinite amount of information.

Now on to the good part.

[b]"Division means to splitt something yes. before turning to math tricks try to remember where all this comes from. Multiply 5 apples with 0.1 if you can. 0.1 is 1 DIVIDED by 10. And that is again an example in favor of entropy/division. Mutliplication just amplifies effects of division, it will not recover it if faced directly with it. (you can find also good examples in medicine about that)"[/b]

I see now what you mean (it wasn't very clear). If you start with whole numbers, you cannot get numbers in between without division.

I've slept on it, and I have come to an interesting conclusion: Division is more "powerful" than multiplication, and subtraction is similarly more "powerful" than addition. However, this is just a strange manifestation of them being exact inverse operations, and the effect observed is the result of a sort of double negation.


To begin, let's analyze a simplified situation. Let's say you start with a domain of only the number 2, and let the range be all numbers. By multiplication, you can only get larger numbers: 4, 8, 16, ... With division, you can get smaller numbers: 1, 1/2, 1/4, ... , but you can also get: 1 / (1/2) =2, 2 / (1/2) =4, 4 / (1/2) =8, ...

Here's how: 2 / ((2 / 2) / 2) = 2 * 2 . Division mimics multiplication.

Similarly, we can say to start with a domain of only the number 0.5, and let the range be all numbers. By multiplication, you can only get smaller numbers: 0.25, 0.125, 0.625, ... With division, you can get larger numbers: .5/.5 =1, (.5/.5)/.5 =2, ... , but you can also get: (1/.5) = 2, 4 / (1/2) = 8, ...
.5 / ((.5/.5) /.5) = .5 * .5

Now consider addition and subtraction. Start with a domain of only the number 1. Addition gives all larger whole numbers. Subtraction gives all smaller whole numbers, but also can mimic addition: 1 - (-1) = 2 .
1 - ((1 - 1) - 1) = 1 + 1
Looks familiar?

With a domain of only the number -1, addition gives all smaller whole numbers. Subtraction gives all larger whole numbers, but also all smaller ones.
-1 - ((-1 - -1) - -1) = -1 + -1

Most general statement:
X / ((Y / Y) / Z) = X * Z
X - ((Y - Y) - Z) = X + Z

So, X / (1 / Z) = X * Z and X - (0 - Z) = X + Z. Pretty much a double negation.



Note that division and multiplication do not follow the exact same rules. For example,
X * Y == Y * X (commutative property)
X / Y != Y / X
(X * Y) * Z == X * (Y * Z) (associative property)
(X / Y) / Z != X / (Y / Z)

Similarly,
X + Y == Y + X
X - Y != Y - X
(X + Y) + Z == X + (Y + Z)
(X - Y) - Z != X - (Y - Z)



Do I get a cookie? :3
A drach meat cookie? xD

Edited by apophys
Link to post
Share on other sites

awsome :))
now i have the explanation about substraction too, i was almost convinced (-) and (+) might be equal, seems they are also not.

Its realy hard to see the influences on the system from WITHIN it, but once you do, it gives you a better perspective on whats going on.

Now to get back to my obsession with circles, i will give this example .. think that a virtual man is walking on a circle, from his perspective he walks a line, an endless line (considering there is no landscapen to see its repeating). If he only knew from outside that he is walking a circle, he could do so many things, like jumping in a different place on the circle, or predicting what will come next. Its same situation with us. We are INSIDE this ystem we call universe and from within its hard to see how things are affected , like multiplication, division, and so on. Thats why someone could learn something about the universe just by analizing ANY of its details. Science, Art, Religion, any could provide essential clues to understand the entire "system" as good as a child play would. Once you can isolate some of its rules you can use them, and by using them it means you can start to see them in places where they are not yet visible.

imagine you look at a brand new house .. you do realise it will look tottaly "broke" (sry cant find my words) if existing at all, in lets say 300years. You can predict entropy because you learned it from different sources, but the same with entropy you could predict other principles and see ahead of what will be, or better understand what is going on.

These are very unusual and un-scientific tools to understand the world around us, because, science alone, is a flat shape in a 3d world.

Returning to the man walking on the circle, i think i found a better model for this, and thats what made for me the connection between all the theories that i had so far. but this is a very long topic so i stop here.

Thnks again for sharing the substraction example, i will use it :P


[quote]
You said that you can't get infinite length without division. I said you can get it just by being infinitely precise, which you need to be to get infinite length through division anyway.
See it this way: all numbers have an infinite amount of information.
[/quote]

infinitely precise is a requirement fulfilled from the start. What you say is only valid in a virtual world, where there is no 1, there is only 1.00000O(infinity), but in reality we say ONE apple, assuming all that the apple means. Now before you reply to this i will throw in your best argument :D There is a connection between the "virtual" number 1.0000 and the "one" apple. In reality there is no clear border between the apple and the surroundings. At atomic level i mean. You can say with precision the apple ends here and air or plate starts here. Who will claim all the layers of dust and dirt between them ? :)
So, i guess we are both right in a way.

You say numbers contain an infinite amount of information.... you have no idea how well it fits that with my ongoing theories, but said just like that , its false.

I will be a bit methaforical here because i dont want to say this yet ... u make the connection alone ...
..how do you define an empty space, how do you say "this" is an empty space? by refering to what is not empty, by pointing out the suroundings of that empty space. Same with infinite information in each number, i dare to say, in each thing.


Note: I can't reward you for "being right with me", even if you deserve a reward for the math stuff, its not ethical. Sorry. :)

Edited by Muratus del Mur
added note
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Muratus del Mur' date='14 December 2009 - 01:19 PM' timestamp='1260793171' post='49873']
infinitely precise is a requirement fulfilled from the start. What you say is only valid in a virtual world, where there is no 1, there is only 1.00000O(infinity), but in reality we say ONE apple, assuming all that the apple means. Now before you reply to this i will throw in your best argument :( There is a connection between the "virtual" number 1.0000 and the "one" apple. In reality there is no clear border between the apple and the surroundings. At atomic level i mean. You can say with precision the apple ends here and air or plate starts here. Who will claim all the layers of dust and dirt between them ? :(
So, i guess we are both right in a way.
[/quote]
If you wish to invoke the finite precision of measurements or rely on de broglie wavelengths, then your original division example fails as well. Imagine a pie, slice it in 3 equal pieces. Same as your apple there is no 0.33333(infinity) slice. With platonic numbers 1 must equal 1.0000(infinity) for it is the perfect one and thus .3333(infinity) is not special. Without Plato you could claim 1 is not exactly 1.0000(infinity) but the same can be done for 0.33333(infinity). Either way you are playing with representations and choosing the one that suits you most. As I said before, if you do that, then I too will always choose the representation that is most convenient for me (and in light of having a nice debate that would be the representation that least agrees with your theories; no fun in agreeing.)

Now that we are considering numbers: there is a fun fact about complex numbers and multiplication:
First consider pairs (0,0) (1,0) (0,1) etc. With multiplication you can never stray from axis you are on in R2.
Complex numbers are often represented as pairs (a, [img]http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/public/style_emoticons//cool.gif[/img] with z = a + bi. However if you multiply (0,1) with itself, you get (-1, 0).
Not certain if you can do anything with it though?

[quote]
Note: I can't reward you for "being right with me", even if you deserve a reward for the math stuff, its not ethical. Sorry. :P
[/quote]
How expensive would it be to airmail a cookie? afaik cookies are the standard reward for nice posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

airmail a cookie LOL, i might do that :()

now, serious. you can't have 0.333(infinity) in real world because 0.3 is a convention. Same as 1. BUT...but...1 is agreed by all, anyone can say there is ONE apple, but 0.3 , because of its imprecise roots in math maybe, will be subject to interpretation so to say. Split an apple in 3 parts to 3 people, they might agree that it is a fair split, but split one gold kg to 3 people and see if they all accept 0.3 of it :(.

Its all about borders and where we decide the border is. If go out of the math realm, additional factors come in. The example above is not extreme because "outside" math, the human opinion factor is as valid as any other. Bottom line, you can have "full" 1 but you must agree in a more interpretable way to a third part of that "one". In a way its same as in math ..zero point "enough threes" is a third of a "full" even for computers. Even so, its a less "full" than a "full" one.

Do i make any sense or its the wine speaking? lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that Mur may have stumbled on to something that I often consider in philosophical and religious debates, being the subjective application of mathematics. To my knowledge, empiricists have failed to express logic in terms of pure mathematics. Godel showed in his [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems"]Two Incompleteness Theorems[/url] that math is not robust enough to validate its own truths, let alone the absolute truths beyond it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Malaikat Maut' date='15 December 2009 - 03:48 PM' timestamp='1260888497' post='50086']
I believe that Mur may have stumbled on to something that I often consider in philosophical and religious debates, being the subjective application of mathematics. To my knowledge, empiricists have failed to express logic in terms of pure mathematics. Godel showed in his [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems"]Two Incompleteness Theorems[/url] that math is not robust enough to validate its own truths, let alone the absolute truths beyond it.
[/quote]
Mathematics is a logic system. It doesn't make much sense to express logic in terms of maths. The status of maths in society is due to it being the first logic that was axiomatized and has for a long time been the most extensively studied one.

Godel proved that for each non trivial set of math axioms (yes there are mutliple sets and thus multiple mathematics) there are mathematical truths you cannot prove in a finite amount of time. Proving anything beyond what is true in a logic is by definition impossible: if you cab prove it with the set of axioms then it is true in the logic.

Philosophy has difficulties beyond this because there is less consensus on which set of axioms is valid.


@Mur: it makes sense, but it doesn't convince me. My 'problem' is not that there are different representations but that you choose the ones you like. Apples (before beingn cut) looked upon as discrete objects and in discrete numbers 1 is decided upon. Gold however is quantified with continuous numbers. If you were to ask people what 1.001 apples is, they'll have a puzzled look on their face, if you ask them what 1.001 kg Gold is, they will know that it is 1 g of gold more than 1 kg Gold and if they are ecnonomists, they might even be able to say how many euros that difference is.
Extending upon that desired precision is public opinion and looking at one type of object only (thus one precision), I could even argue that multiplication and addition are the most powerfull in terms of digit generation. No matter how large the number, the precision is fixed and thus the number of digits after the comma are always the same, but by multiplying or adding, you can increase the number of digits before the comma.
If we stick to apples I can say that substraction does not give any meaningful numbers: what is -5 apples?

Baseline: for something to be true, it has to be true in all representations. I see no reason to drop that premise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Very nice, Kafuuka.


[quote name='Kafuuka' date='14 December 2009 - 04:19 PM' timestamp='1260829154' post='49936']
How expensive would it be to airmail a cookie?
[/quote]

I was thinking more along the lines of getting an item called "Meat Cookie" with the description "Contains drachorn flesh." Disturbing, eh? :))
Reference: [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD5Ey9yYl_M"]Lolly - "Meat Cookies"[/url]. (I heard the song on the [url="http://drdemento.com/"]Dr. Demento radio show[/url]).

But if not, that's OK. xP
Back ontopic.





[b]"(you can also find good examples in medicine about that)"[/b]

Please show me examples in medicine.


[b]"The quote from wikipedia is kind of fighting both ways; if it's like it said, then it's one way, but the rest of the quote says even if it's so, it's very unlikely, so it's the other way. It says "entropy is governed by probability, allowing for a decrease in disorder, even in closed systems". Decrease in disorder means order (negating negation), but it continues by saying it will not happen actually. Funny, I could add."[/b]

It means the possibility is so small, and the effect so small, that it can be ignored in the larger scale of things, because the opposite is FAR stronger and can't be controlled. It's just notable because it is odd, and may be important in very small scales.
Kind of like quantum tunneling. You don't see a baseball passing through a catcher's glove, but it's technically possible.

It's not "going both ways", it's just clarifying. ;)


[b]"You are fundamentally wrong. In your example, you did not "break" the water sphere. [...] Take the two halves far away one from the other and they will turn to two separated SPHERES. The sphere they are forming is not the original one, its the most low energy and information "consuming" shape in the universe. So no entropy there, no syntropy, just isolation of systems."[/b]

Yes, I was meaning to take them a certain distance apart (not too far), where they can become two separated spheres.
2 spheres = twice the information of one? Idk... bad example.
Total entropy does increase because I'm wasting energy to no effect. But yes, that has nothing to do with the sphere. :D


I'll try to go through an example of an ice cube, THEORETICALLY.
Take a cube of pure ice, and crack it. The energy you put in breaks the crystal lattice and makes a little heat. Melt it, and refreeze in the original shape, at the temperature before breaking.
Refreezing takes out the same amount of energy as put in by you, plus melting.
At every stage the total entropy of you, the ice, the freezer, and the room you're in increases. Also count in power consumption by the freezer.

What do you disagree with, and what evidence do you have to support your view?


[b]"THEORETICALLY - not practically. You can give me endless examples of processes that will waste more energy to build than to destroy, but except syntropic processes like life, none to go the other way back. If you still argue that theory == or != practice, then please consider i talk theory vs reality and not only technological capabilities. You need a lot of "IFs" to make theory in this field actually work, all to cover up for the imperfection that is all around. Theories are made for perfect conditions. Of course i speak generally now, but anyone can see with naked eye that things will more likely destroy than build themselves. In theory entropy equals syntropy, in reality its not so....now how can you put theory vs reality face to face and still say entropy equals syntropy in the universe?"[/b]

True; theory is generally not perfect. It's the best we have so far; if you can improve something, you are very welcome to.
Have I said that creation and destruction are balanced? No. I said that what is destroyed can be recreated for the same energy, PLUS WASTE. There is always waste, and this is inescapable. Usually waste is very large. But it is always accounted for; nothing disappears.
I simply rephrased and clarified your assertion here (I think).

Life creates more disorder in its surroundings than the order it creates in itself. The fact that it does create order is remarkable, though.

Some things will more likely create themselves than be destroyed. Such as (I think) impact craters on large asteroids or dead rocky planets. This comes at the cost of near-total pulverizing of the impactor. The energy of destruction of the crater is certainly not larger than creation, but usually the processes to do so are lacking.
Another example is the accumulation of mass due to gravity, into stars and planets. However, I think that black holes with nothing to feed on slowly diminish by Hawking radiation, eventually disappearing in a gamma ray burst, so total entropy may still increase here. Not sure.


Now I'll create new topics of discussion.

[b]"The universe itself is expanding; it stretches at incomprehensible speed. This causes entropy to be the ruler of events."
"Entropy, caused by the expansion of the universe, has unbelievable consequences."[/b]

The expansion of the universe is accelerating. :D

Entropy is not caused by the expansion of the universe.
If an ice cube melts in a warm room, the total entropy of the cube and room increases. This has nothing to do with the universe.


[b]"The energy you will use will get converted into Heat, heat will dissipate, and so on. On a large scale, even if it's converted into something else, that energy will eventually vanish, because the universe is endlessly big and it's growing/expanding. Any amount divided by infinity will tend towards zero. So you lose that energy, [...]"[/b]

A. The universe is not infinitely big, and will never be.
The energy does not vanish. It spreads out and becomes unusable to do work (on a large scale, this is called the "heat death of the universe").
B. Large scale predictions are difficult...
From wikipedia's entry on entropy:

"Recent work has cast some doubt on the heat death hypothesis and the applicability of any simple thermodynamic model to the universe in general. Although entropy does increase in the model of an expanding universe, [b]the maximum possible entropy rises[/b] much more rapidly, moving the universe further from the heat death with time, not closer. This results in an "entropy gap" pushing the system further away from the posited heat death equilibrium."

That's very good news for the inhabitants of the universe. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

there are many things i want to reply to here, but i will reply for now just to this . Entropy in the universe IS caused by the expansion of the universe, and i say this not based on scientific research, it is just my own theory. I "bet" that if the universe was contracting and not expanding, the universe would be governed by syntropy not entropy and the ice cube in your example would require less energy to assamble back in place than to be destroyed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Forum Statistics

    16,483
    Total Topics
    177,990
    Total Posts
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
  • Recent Event Reviews

×
×
  • Create New...