The Certainty of Improbability

[RestlessSoul]

Have you ever done thermodynamic calculations
of open systems? If so, one finds that entropy
often tends to not increase.

Presumably this is a localised phenomenon. So while refrigeration may cause the entropy of a refrigerated substance to stabilise or reduce, the heat generated by the refrigerator leads to an overall increase in entropy throughout the wider system (open or otherwise).

 

[Revoltingest]

Presumably this is a localised phenomenon. So while refrigeration may cause the entropy of a refrigerated substance to stabilise or reduce, the heat generated by the refrigerator leads to an overall increase in entropy throughout the wider system (open or otherwise).

Correct.
However, this has no bearing
on abiogenesis or evolution.
So I wonder why creationists
regularly cite it?

 

[Alien826]

Entropy is measured as

How many microscale configurations of a system generated the same large scale macro properties of the system. For example, billions of possible configurations of gas molecules give rise to the same value and distribution of macro property like pressure of the gas. These internal micro configurations are called degeneracies of the system. More degenerate a system, higher it's entropy.

Now the 2nd law states that an isolated system (like the universe) is overwhelmingly likely to be at or near its highest degeneracy state (ie highest entropy state) compared to any other lower degeneracy state. But the current universe and it's past observable configurations are nowhere near their highest degeneracy state. In fact the Big Bang state of the universe was near its lowest possible degeneracy state. This is a big open question in physics of why the early states of the universe has such low entropy values.

Now I'm even more confused! Actually, you've interested me enough to do some study on the subject. Thank you.

For the purposes of this discussion, could you explain what the implications are, hopefully in layman's terms? Are you suggesting that there is some other force at work in the universe that we don't know about? Oh, and why should the universe be at its highest entropy, if that's what your second paragraph means? Wouldn't that be a factor of age, among other things?

 

[Heyo]

Now I'm even more confused! Actually, you've interested me enough to do some study on the subject. Thank you.

For the purposes of this discussion, could you explain what the implications are, hopefully in layman's terms? Are you suggesting that there is some other force at work in the universe that we don't know about? Oh, and why should the universe be at its highest entropy, if that's what your second paragraph means? Wouldn't that be a factor of age, among other things?

This is one of the better explanations of entropy on YouTube (by a physics professor and it's his third attempt). Entropy is a very hard to describe concept:

 

[BilliardsBall]

Could you explain how you use the word "entropy"?

Sure! Can you address any of my other points, first?

"While overcoming handed chirality, entropy, hitting zillion-to-1 combinations of acids/proteins, while making theoretical replicating RNA that does not exist now in any species, etc."

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure! Can you address any of my other points, first?

I thought I did.
What did I miss?

"While overcoming handed chirality, entropy, hitting zillion-to-1 combinations of acids/proteins, while making theoretical replicating RNA that does not exist now in any species, etc."

What does this mean?
Especially the idea that entropy is something to overcome?

In an open system, entropy is simply a property with a stable value.
Have you ever studied thermodynamics?

 

[Hawkins]

Probably everyone has seen or heard of the standard six-sided die. When fair (not loaded), each number from one to six has a probability of 1/6 of being the outcome in a throw.

Now imagine a die with a billion faces, or a lottery with billions of participants. The probability of each individual face or ticket becomes extremely small, but in each of these situations, throwing the billion-sided die or drawing a ticket out of the billions in the lottery is guaranteed to yield one of these extremely unlikely outcomes.

When you have a space of individual, discrete outcomes in a situation where a lack of outcome is impossible, you are certain to get one of them even if they number in the trillions. You can't, for instance, throw the hypothetical, fair billion-sided die and have it not land on one of the faces, each of which has a probability of one in a billion of showing up after a throw. You can't randomly pull a ticket from the billions in the lottery and not have a winner on your hands, unless you initially placed some blank tickets in the pool.

Why, then, should one assume that if an event is unlikely or perceived to be so, it must have been caused by an intelligent agent? For example, if wind blows over the billion-sided die and causes it to land on one of its faces, is the extremely unlikely outcome the result of intelligent planning, or is it merely the result of the certainty that a thrown die will yield an outcome when it lands no matter how unlikely said outcome is?

It's moot.

Mostly humans rely on human testimonies to get to a truth of any kind. So if human testimonies said that someone encountered God and the story is reckoned by an authority, then people will believe it, or rejected.

Similarly, it is a form of testimony says the Joe Biden had the majority vote, CNN as an authority broadcast so for you to believe (or reject so). Fox News as another authority says the opposite, but also for you to believe or reject. It's not about possibilities, it's all about humans rely on such testimonies from witnesses to get to truths and whenever a serious testimony exists, humans (at least some of them) will choose to believe.

It's yet another testimony in a form which says that over 1 million US citizens died of covid-19. It is for you to believe so or reject it as a hoax (as some did). Here we are talking about current events, not to mention one happened more than 2000 years ago.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's moot.

Mostly humans rely on human testimonies to get to a truth of any kind. So if human testimonies said that someone encountered God and the story is reckoned by an authority, then people will believe it, or rejected.

Similarly, it is a form of testimony says the Joe Biden had the majority vote, CNN as an authority broadcast so for you to believe (or reject so). Fox News as another authority says the opposite, but also for you to believe or reject. It's not about possibilities, it's all about humans rely on such testimonies from witnesses to get to truths and whenever a serious testimony exists, humans (at least some of them) will choose to believe.

It's yet another testimony in a form which says that over 1 million US citizens died of covid-19. It is for you to believe so or reject it as a hoax (as some did). Here we are talking about current events, not to mention one happened more than 2000 years ago.

Fortunately, we needn't rely on "human testimony"
for matters we can each investigate, eg, probability,
thermodynamics.

 

[Hawkins]

Fortunately, we needn't rely on "human testimony"
for matters we can each investigate, eg, probability,
thermodynamics.

No, science only apples to a repeatable phenomenon. Daily death toll won't repeat itself for you to apply science. That's why you rely on the so-called daily news to get to the truth, while they are just a form of human testimony for you to believe with faith. That is, you always have the privilege to reject it by calling it a hoax.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, science only apples to a repeatable phenomenon. Daily death toll won't repeat itself for you to apply science. That's why you rely on the so-called daily news to get to the truth, while they are just a form of human testimony for you to believe with faith. That is, you always have the privilege to reject it by calling it a hoax.

Did you not notice that I limited it to
things we can individually investigate?
These allow us to discern flaws in
arguments presented by others.

 

[Heyo]

No, science only apples to a repeatable phenomenon.

Maths applies to abstract concepts. You can verify the validity of probability calculus just by yourself (assuming your IQ is above your body temperature).

 

[Revoltingest]

Maths applies to abstract concepts. You can verify the validity of probability calculus just by yourself (assuming your IQ is above your body temperature).

It's easier to spot errors in probability calculations,
eg, significant factors ignored, math error. This is
useful for us sub-room-temp types.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I thought I did.
What did I miss?

What does this mean?
Especially the idea that entropy is something to overcome?

In an open system, entropy is simply a property with a stable value.
Have you ever studied thermodynamics?

I want to avoid a lengthy argument but things tend toward disorder, not random occurences that cause the correct 40 out of 200 proteins or randomnly solve the issue of chirality, etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

I want to avoid a lengthy argument but things tend toward disorder, not random occurences that cause the correct 40 out of 200 proteins or randomnly solve the issue of chirality, etc.

I'm happy with short answers.
But it seems that entropy doesn't function the way you think
it does. It's no impediment to abiogenesis or evolution.
There's plenty of availability (ie, potential energy) in the
open system we call Earth.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm happy with short answers.
But it seems that entropy doesn't function the way you think
it does. It's no impediment to abiogenesis or evolution.
There's plenty of availability (ie, potential energy) in the
open system we call Earth.

You seem to be focused on entropy, when you or I can come up with 50-100 issues that speak against the likelihood of abiogenesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem to be focused on entropy, when you or I can come up with 50-100 issues that speak against the likelihood of abiogenesis.

Really? What is your best one?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I want to avoid a lengthy argument but things tend toward disorder, not random occurences that cause the correct 40 out of 200 proteins or randomnly solve the issue of chirality, etc.

No, this is the typical creationist misunderstanding of entropy, By your argument your development from a single celled fertilized ovum to a full grown adult is "highly improbable". Plus you do not know enough about biochemistry to properly apply statistics to the process. For example one very very common mistake of those trying to "calculate the odds" is to focus on one protein. There are at least two problems with this approach (and I am sure than an expert in the field could find many more). First off there are limitations on how proteins can form. In other words those calculating the odds always tend to grossly overestimate possibilities just by assuming that all structures are equally possible. Second there are multiple proteins that can do almost any job. So focusing on the odds of one protein is wrong from the start and one would need to somehow calculate the odds of a protein that works. Ooh! One more example. When it comes to evolution of simple life there are probably trillions of cells living at any one time. That means every time they split there are trillions of new experiments. Evolution is not linear process even with simple life since there are such things as gene transfers between bacteria.

I know, creationists hate the fact of evolution so any argument is thought to be a good one.

 

[Revoltingest]

You seem to be focused on entropy...

You kept bringing it up,
so I responded.

...when you or I can come up with 50-100 issues that speak against the likelihood of abiogenesis.

The entropy issue fails.
What else ya got?

 

[Quagmire]

"God does not roll dice"
--- Albert Einstein

Sorry, I know that doesn't actually answer anything but I had to throw it in there.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, this is the typic"al creationist misunderstanding of entropy, By your argument your development from a single celled fertilized ovum to a full grown adult is "highly improbable". Plus you do not know enough about biochemistry to properly apply statistics to the process. For example one very very common mistake of those trying to "calculate the odds" is to focus on one protein. There are at least two problems with this approach (and I am sure than an expert in the field could find many more). First off there are limitations on how proteins can form. In other words those calculating the odds always tend to grossly overestimate possibilities just by assuming that all structures are equally possible. Second there are multiple proteins that can do almost any job. So focusing on the odds of one protein is wrong from the start and one would need to somehow calculate the odds of a protein that works. Ooh! One more example. When it comes to evolution of simple life there are probably trillions of cells living at any one time. That means every time they split there are trillions of new experiments. Evolution is not linear process even with simple life since there are such things as gene transfers between bacteria.

I know, creationists hate the fact of evolution so any argument is thought to be a good one.

I wrote "I want to avoid a lengthy argument but things tend toward disorder, not random occurences that cause the correct 40 out of 200 proteins or randomnly solve the issue of chirality, etc."

All of which has NOTHING to do with entropy. Why not smoke a joint, relax? You seem very uptight this week.