thermodynamics and evolution

Jim Menegay <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

I happened to run across the following interesting
article. It is the first example I have seen of an
evolutionary law which is a good analog of the second law
of thermodynamics. Unfortunately, it is not very exciting,
but at least it is carried off without handwaving, and it
does suggest some other applications. Linkage equilibrium
is one obvious candidate. The full text of the article is
available online.

pnas.org3491Open ↗

Directionality principles in thermodynamics and evolution

pnas.org3491Open ↗

It seems like a bit of a disaster zone to me.

It starts out:

``Individual birth and death rates are a function of the
physiological state of the organisma property that can be
parametrized by metabolic energy, size, or age. Of these
three variables, age constitutes the most accessible and
reliable index of physiological condition. Accordingly, in
the population models we consider, the state of an
individual in a population will be parametrized in terms of
its age.''

It then defines ``evolutionary entropy'' in terms of
this - saying:

``The expression , which we will also call evolutionary
entropy (the reference to the nondimensional quantity and
the dimensional variable H will be clear from the context)
is a measure of the variability in the age of reproduction.
The function denotes the generation time, the mean age of
parents at the birth of their offspring.''

The whole idea makes me nauseous. If you are going to define
"Evolutionary entropy" - and use it as a measure of
population diversity, ISTM that the most acceptable
domain(s) would be either classical thermodynamics - or a
definition in terms of the genomes of the species in
question (which are at least approximately discrete, and
represent a good deal of the organisms being measured).

Calling definition of entropy in terms of age by the grand
title of "evolutionary entropy" is about as ridiculous as
calling similar definitions in terms of weight, height or
waist size by that name.

As for the supposed increase in the quantity with time, the
author says:

``The theory rests on the following tenets: (i) an increase
in life cycle
complexity and body size in evolution under limited resource
conditions''

Of course it is easy to give examples of this tenet
being violated.

For example, repeated asteroid impacts may systematically
decimate and destroy existing ecosystems - resulting in
devolution, decreased size and complexity.

Proponents of biological analogs of the second law of
thermodynamics need to keep the possibility of such
setbacks in mind.
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove
lock to reply.

"Tim Tyler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jim Menegay <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

I happened to run across the following interesting
article. It is the first example I have seen of an
evolutionary law which is a good analog of the second
law of thermodynamics. Unfortunately, it is not very
exciting, but at least it is carried off without
handwaving, and it does suggest some other applications.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

The whole idea makes me nauseous. [snip]

Calling definition of entropy in terms of age by the grand
title of "evolutionary entropy" is about as ridiculous as
calling similar definitions in terms of weight, height or
waist size by that name.

[snip]

There are two competing visions of what a second law analog
in evolutionary theory should look like.

The conservative realist's vision is that the increase in
"entropy" must be an increase in randomness to some kind of
maximum randomness which is achieved at equilibrium.

The radical optimist's vision foresees the arrow of
evolutionary progress being somehow subsumed in an expanded
arrow of entropy increase, including classical entropy as a
special case.

Progress in achieving the conservative realist vision is
quite likely to be disappointing (and nauseating) to a
radical optimist.

in article [email hidden], Tim Tyler at [email hidden]
wrote on 5/6/04 4:44 PM:

Quoted message said:

Jim Menegay <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

I happened to run across the following interesting
article. It is the first example I have seen of an
evolutionary law which is a good analog of the second law
of thermodynamics. Unfortunately, it is not very
exciting, but at least it is carried off without
handwaving, and it does suggest some other applications.
Linkage equilibrium is one obvious candidate. The full
text of the article is available online.

pnas.org3491Open ↗

Directionality principles in thermodynamics and evolution

pnas.org3491Open ↗

It seems like a bit of a disaster zone to me.

It starts out:

``Individual birth and death rates are a function of the
physiological state of the organisma property that can be
parametrized by metabolic energy, size, or age. Of these
three variables, age constitutes the most accessible and
reliable index of physiological condition. Accordingly, in
the population models we consider, the state of an
individual in a population will be parametrized in terms
of its age.''

It then defines ``evolutionary entropy'' in terms of this
- saying:

``The expression , which we will also call evolutionary
entropy (the reference to the nondimensional quantity and
the dimensional variable H will be clear from the context)
is a measure of the variability in the age of
reproduction. The function denotes the generation time,
the mean age of parents at the birth of their offspring.''

The whole idea makes me nauseous. If you are going to
define "Evolutionary entropy" - and use it as a measure of
population diversity, ISTM that the most acceptable
domain(s) would be either classical thermodynamics - or a
definition in terms of the genomes of the species in
question (which are at least approximately discrete, and
represent a good deal of the organisms being measured).

Calling definition of entropy in terms of age by the grand
title of "evolutionary entropy" is about as ridiculous as
calling similar definitions in terms of weight, height or
waist size by that name.

As for the supposed increase in the quantity with time,
the author says:

``The theory rests on the following tenets: (i) an
increase in life cycle complexity and body size in
evolution under limited resource conditions''

Of course it is easy to give examples of this tenet being
violated.

For example, repeated asteroid impacts may systematically
decimate and destroy existing ecosystems - resulting in
devolution, decreased size and complexity.

Proponents of biological analogs of the second law of
thermodynamics need to keep the possibility of such
setbacks in mind.

I had a similar reaction to Tim upon reading this article.
The paradigm that they construct for the concept of
evolutionary entropy seems untenable and not very useful, in
general. I'm sorry that I don't have time to say more at the
moment, but I thought my impression might be of interest,
since I have been a strong proponent of a thermodynamic
perspective on evolution.

Guy

Perplexed in Peoria <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

"Tim Tyler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Jim Menegay <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I happened to run across the following interesting
article. It is the first example I have seen of an
evolutionary law which is a good analog of the second
law of thermodynamics. Unfortunately, it is not very
exciting, but at least it is carried off without
handwaving, and it does suggest some other
applications.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

The whole idea makes me nauseous. [snip]

Calling definition of entropy in terms of age by the
grand title of "evolutionary entropy" is about as
ridiculous as calling similar definitions in terms of
weight, height or waist size by that name.

[snip]

There are two competing visions of what a second law
analog in evolutionary theory should look like.

The conservative realist's vision is that the increase in
"entropy" must be an increase in randomness to some kind
of maximum randomness which is achieved at equilibrium.

The radical optimist's vision foresees the arrow of
evolutionary progress being somehow subsumed in an
expanded arrow of entropy increase, including classical
entropy as a special case.

Progress in achieving the conservative realist vision is
quite likely to be disappointing (and nauseating) to a
radical optimist.

I tried to see where I fitted into your categorisation
scheme.

However - as I may have mentioned - I don't really see
myself as suggesting a second law analog in the first place
:-|

IMO, the thing that most urgently needs doing is:

* Characterising the effect of introducing self-organising
systems (and
evolving systems) on the plain-old thermodynamic entropy
of systems.

This is already done in many respects - introducting a self-
organising system makes entropy increase faster, but - IMO
- the point could do with some further spelling out and
banging home.

There is also the task of characterising evolutionary
progress in thermodynamic terms. This is pretty much the
task Kaufmann set himself. It's also basically the task your
article addressed.

I /also/ think such a characterisation would be fruitful -
and have suggested that self-organising systems and
evolving systems will tend to get better at dissipating
energy gradients - and increasing entropy.

In the case of advanced systems, they will do this by
accumulating technology that can be used to turn energy
sources into order (in the form of copies of genes).

...but even simple systems do something similar - a water
drainige pattern gets more and more effective at dissipating
energy (from rain) during its formation - suggesting that
the case of complex organisms developing technology can be
fruitfully seen as a manifestation of a general phenomenon
in self-organising systems involving accumulating
information about how to dissipate entropy - by creating
local paths aligned with the steepest energy gradients.

This task is interesting - and may even be of importance -
but I'm not sure to what extent the resulting rules should
be seen as being analogs of the second law of
thermodynamics.

As I pointed out, merely bombarding a living system with
enough asteroids has the effect of reversing the trend
towards complexity and technology accumulation.

Thus, any analogy with the second law would be rather
tenuous.

I suppose that *even* the second law can be violated on
small scales.

So - if you /really/ wanted to make the analogy - you would
argue that the universe is *basically* life-friendly - and
that these high-asteroid-impact-frequency scenarios are only
ever likely on small scales - and thus that net overall
progress was practically inevitable.
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove
lock to reply.

"Tim Tyler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

IMO, the thing that most urgently needs doing is:
* Characterising the effect of introducing self-organising
systems (and evolving systems) on the plain-old
thermodynamic entropy of systems.

This is already done in many respects - introducting a
self-organising system makes entropy increase faster,
but - IMO - the point could do with some further
spelling out and banging home.

And, IMO, it does not make entropy increase faster. But lets
not revive that old debate!

Quoted message said:

There is also the task of characterising evolutionary
progress in thermodynamic terms. This is pretty much the
task Kaufmann set himself. It's also basically the task
your article addressed.

I disagree that the article addressed that task.
"Evolutionary entropy" as defined in the article is
definitely NOT thermodynamic entropy. The article tries to
characterize one aspect of evolutionary progress using
concepts that bear a _formal similarity_ to concepts from
thermodynamics. Talking about "evolutionary entropy" is no
more a characterization in terms of thermodynamics than
would talking about gene flow be a characterization in terms
of hydrodynamics.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

As I pointed out, merely bombarding a living system with
enough asteroids has the effect of reversing the trend
towards complexity and technology accumulation.

Thus, any analogy with the second law would be rather
tenuous.

And the reason why the analogy is not as law-like as the
second law is that in this analogy, the "first law" is
conservation of population
(i.e. number of organisms). But the fact that the analogy
does not yield a universal law does not mean that the
analogy is worthless.

At the heart of this paper is the simple observation that an
"entropy" can be defined for any conservative Markov
process, coupled with the observation that a population-
structure transition diagram is a definition of a Markov
process. There are a lot of other processes in biology that
can be structured as Markov processes, and an entropy can be
defined for each of them. In fact, as I look back at Brooks
and Wiley, I can see that that is what they were doing,
though they were not very clear about it. Whether any
insight about evolution can be gained by constructing and
examining these analogies remains to be seen, but it is
frequently the case that looking at old facts in a new way
is enlightening. So, I am happy that I ran across this
paper, even though it told me nothing about changes in
population age structure that I didn't already know.

Perplexed in Peoria <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

"Tim Tyler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

IMO, the thing that most urgently needs doing is:
* Characterising the effect of introducing self-
organising systems (and evolving systems) on the plain-
old thermodynamic entropy of systems.

This is already done in many respects - introducting a
self-organising system makes entropy increase faster,
but - IMO - the point could do with some further
spelling out and banging home.

And, IMO, it does not make entropy increase faster. But
lets not revive that old debate!

In some respects, that's the bit I'm most interested in -
and I'm not sure I'm aware of your views on the subject.

My view is that - where there are specific examples of
systems where complex systems can be introduced with little
other change to the environment, then entropy starts
increasing more rapidly.

Some of my favourite examples are:

* Introducing a vortex into an emptying bottle (which
increases the rate of fluid flow out of the bottle);

* Introducting a crystal seed into a super-saturated
solution;

* Introducting seeds of a living system to a new
environment;

Living systems mine down into the planet's surface for
resources. They extend photocapture machinery to capture the
sun's rays - and in so doing they make entire planets more
closely approximate black bodies. They create nuclear
reactors to free energy locked inside atoms. They are potent
energy dissipators.

Complex systems are not called "dissipative structures"
for no good reason - they *really* do what their name
suggests ;-)

While I think there is a general rule here, I *do*
acknowledge the existence of a few possible exceptions. If
the complex system in question is intelligent, can predict
the future, and can forsee an impending resource shortage,
then it may *deliberately* ration its energy usage - in
order to survive until the end of the resource shortage and
live to reproduce another day.

By doing so, it might take steps to reduce the rate at
which entropy increases locally - perhaps by eliminating
other SOS from the environment and severely curtailing its
own numbers.

The result of such behaviour might (conceivably) be a
net decrease in the rate of energy utilisation and
entropy increase.

I discuss this exception in some detail on my page about
the issue:

originoflife.netbright lightOpen ↗
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove
lock to reply.

Tim Tyler <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Perplexed in Peoria <[email hidden]> wrote
or quoted:

Quoted message said:

"Tim Tyler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

IMO, the thing that most urgently needs doing is:
* Characterising the effect of introducing self-
organising systems (and evolving systems) on the plain-
old thermodynamic entropy of systems.

This is already done in many respects - introducting
a self-organising system makes entropy increase
faster, but - IMO - the point could do with some
further spelling out and banging home.

And, IMO, it does not make entropy increase faster. But
lets not revive that old debate!

In some respects, that's the bit I'm most interested in -
and I'm not sure I'm aware of your views on the subject.

My view is that your hypothesis is not framed clearly enough
that an opinion can be formed as to its validity.
1. Your notion of what constitutes a self-organizing system
is non-standard and probably incoherent.
2. What does "introduce" mean in this context? My
understanding is that self-organizing systems don't need
to be introduced - they arise spontaneously when the
conditions are right.
3. You might also clarify what you mean by "entropy
increasing faster". Are you talking about (dS/dt),
(d_sub_i S/dt), d_sub_e S/dt), or something else?

Quoted message said:

My view is that - where there are specific examples of
systems where complex systems can be introduced with
little other change to the environment, then entropy
starts increasing more rapidly.

Some of my favourite examples are:

* Introducing a vortex into an emptying bottle (which
increases the rate of fluid flow out of the bottle);

This example is silly, IMO. You get a similar increase in
the rate flow by punching an air hole in the bottom of the
bottle. Or, if you had started with a pressurized bottle,
the vortex would slow the water flow, by permitting gas flow
reducing the pressure.

Quoted message said:

* Introducting a crystal seed into a super-saturated
solution;

Few people consider crystal growth to be an example of self-
organization in the sense that Prigogine meant. Besides, if
you want to see a really dramatic increase in entropy
production, drop a speck of incandescent metal into a beaker
of nitroglycerin. Is this self- organization?

Quoted message said:

* Introducting seeds of a living system to a new
environment;

This may increase or decrease the rate of entropy
generation. Look at Daisyworld. If the white daisies
predominate, the planet's albedo is increased over the
level of a dead planet - thus slowing the universe's
increase in entropy.

In any case, I refuse to accept life as an example of a
thermodynamic self-organizing system. Systems constructed by
natural selection are self-organizing in a sense completely
different from and orthogonal to the thermodynamic variety
of self-organization. Prigogine and his school are dead
wrong on this point IMO.

So, now you are aware of my views. Subject closed AFAIAC. I
really find this subject uninteresting, at least as it is
typically discussed in this newsgroup. And, if that seems
harsh and ungracious, so be it.

Jim and Tim,

in article [email hidden], Jim Menegay at
[email hidden] wrote on 5/10/04 8:25 PM:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My view is that - where there are specific examples of
systems where complex systems can be introduced with
little other change to the environment, then entropy
starts increasing more rapidly.

Some of my favourite examples are:

* Introducing a vortex into an emptying bottle (which
increases the rate of fluid flow out of the bottle);

This example is silly, IMO. You get a similar increase in
the rate flow by punching an air hole in the bottom of the
bottle. Or, if you had started with a pressurized bottle,
the vortex would slow the water flow, by permitting gas
flow reducing the pressure.

Like Jim, I don't like the suggestion that the structures of
self-organization are "introduced", but I will assume for
the moment that this is semantically equivalent to
suggesting that they "arise." In this case, I disagree with
Jim that this is a "silly" example, and equating the self-
organization of a vortex to "punching an air hole in the
bottom of the bottle" entirely misses the point. I agree
that the rate of entropy gain increases either way. The
system finds its own way to increasing the rate of entropy
gain through vortex formation in one case, and you (outside
of the system) had to do physical work to breach the spatial
bounds of the system, or to change the internal conditions
of the system, in the other case.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

* Introducting a crystal seed into a super-saturated
solution;

Few people consider crystal growth to be an example of self-
organization in the sense that Prigogine meant.

The process of solid crystallization is dissipative, and
consistent with Prigogine's notion of self-organization.
However, it is a "dead-end" process, like the formation of
the structure of a particular molecule, because once the
structure has crystallized it is no longer able to process
the fuel it used during crystal formation. The formed
crystal is, indeed, not a dissipating structure. On the
other hand, I think that liquid crystals, which are always
in the dynamic process of formation/disintegration, might be
perfectly good dissipative systems sensu Prigogine.

Quoted message said:

Besides, if you want to see a really dramatic increase in
entropy production, drop a speck of incandescent metal
into a beaker of nitroglycerin. Is this self-
organization?

An explosion exhibits positive feedback, which is an
essential component of self-organization, but it lacks or
overwhelms the constraints that prevent it from quickly
exhausting its fuel supply. This severely limits the
opportunity for structural self-organization during the
explosion process, but I suspect that explosions are tending
toward self-organization. Consider the forms of cosmological
explosions that are far less constrained in terms of time
and fuel supply than the example you offered.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

* Introducting seeds of a living system to a new
environment;

This may increase or decrease the rate of entropy
generation. Look at Daisyworld. If the white daisies
predominate, the planet's albedo is increased over the
level of a dead planet - thus slowing the universe's
increase in entropy.

Your conclusion is false. Reflection has no effect on the
level of universal entropy. Energy absorption leady to the
doing of work (e.g., the energy processing of living
systems), so even a world covered with white daisies
increases the rate of universal entropy gain compared with
a dead earth. I don't know of anybody EVER claiming that
more rapidly dissipating systems generally win out over
less rapidly dissipating systems. This is not what is meant
by the claim that self-organization is underpinned by a
thermodynamic imperative to maximize the rate of universal
entropy gain. Complex dynamical systems can only emerge in
forms that contingently work in their particular
environment. For example, the intensity of the heat
gradient between the earths surface and the upper
atmosphere may be sufficient to generate a convection cell,
but not a vortex, which is a structure requiring a more
rapid flow, and which increases universal entropy more
rapidly than does a convection cell. Phase transitions
become possible at the interfaces between conditions (e.g.,
potential rates of fuel supply) favorable for less rapidly
dissipating structures and those potentiating more rapidly
dissipating structures. If the rate of fuel supply
increases on a hot day in Oklahoma to a point sufficient to
build a tornado, there will almost certainly already be
convection cells manifested in the area and dissipating the
surface heat as fast as they can.

Quoted message said:

In any case, I refuse to accept life as an example of a
thermodynamic self-organizing system.

That doesn't sound terribly open minded.

Quoted message said:

Systems constructed by natural selection are self-
organizing in a sense completely different from and
orthogonal to the thermodynamic variety of self-
organization. Prigogine and his school are dead wrong on
this point IMO.

As my response above should clearly indicate, I think you
have arrived at a false conclusion because you have not
understood the argument for the relationship between
thermodynamics and natural selection.

Quoted message said:

So, now you are aware of my views. Subject closed AFAIAC.
I really find this subject uninteresting, at least as it
is typically discussed in this newsgroup. And, if that
seems harsh and ungracious, so be it.

You clarity is good, and I have not felt offended by
anything you wrote.

Cheers,

Guy

Jim Menegay <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

Tim Tyler <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Perplexed in Peoria <[email hidden]> wrote or
quoted:

Quoted message said:

"Tim Tyler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> IMO, the thing that most urgently needs doing is:
> * Characterising the effect of introducing self-
> organising systems (and evolving systems) on the
> plain-old thermodynamic entropy of systems.
>
> This is already done in many respects -
> introducting a self-organising system makes
> entropy increase faster, but - IMO - the point
> could do with some further spelling out and
> banging home.

And, IMO, it does not make entropy increase faster.
But lets not revive that old debate!

In some respects, that's the bit I'm most interested in
- and I'm not sure I'm aware of your views on the
subject.

My view is that your hypothesis is not framed clearly
enough that an opinion can be formed as to its validity.

:-(

I promise to put some energy into trying harder on that
front at some point.

In the mean time, please bear with me, while I deal with
what do seem to be a few misconceptions:

Quoted message said:

1. Your notion of what constitutes a self-organizing
system is non-standard and probably incoherent.

!?! Certainly not. This is a conventional term - I use it in
!a
conventional sense. I'm not sure what has given you this
impression.

Quoted message said:

2. What does "introduce" mean in this context? My
understanding is that self-organizing systems don't
need to be introduced - they arise spontaneously when
the conditions are right.

Self-organizing systems don't *need* to be introduced - they
*can* arise spontaneously when the conditions are right.

However they can also be introduced. Usually this involves a
"small" perturbation of the system - which does not alter
any gross variables significantly - but creates a small
version of the self-organising system in the target
environment, without any significant impact on the entropy
of the system. I went on to give some examples: a seed
crystal in a super-saturated solution; enough of a twist to
a bottle to allow a vortex to form.

Quoted message said:

3. You might also clarify what you mean by "entropy
increasing faster". Are you talking about (dS/dt),
(d_sub_i S/dt), d_sub_e S/dt), or something else?

An increase in dS/dt - where S = system entropy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My view is that - where there are specific examples of
systems where complex systems can be introduced with
little other change to the environment, then entropy
starts increasing more rapidly.

Some of my favourite examples are:

* Introducing a vortex into an emptying bottle (which
increases the rate of fluid flow out of the bottle);

This example is silly, IMO. You get a similar increase in
the rate flow by punching an air hole in the bottom of
the bottle.

The example is intended to illustrate the effect on entropy
of introducing a self-organising system into an environment.

That's what the thesis at hand is about - it suggests
doing this can trigger an increase in the rate of
entropy increase.

The effect of other interventions not involving self-
organising systems is not a factor here.

Quoted message said:

Or, if you had started with a pressurized bottle, the
vortex would slow the water flow, by permitting gas flow
reducing the pressure.

I don't believe you. Can you demonstrate this somehow? Try
creating a vortex in a bottle containing water under
substantial pressure from air using a small perturbation of
the initial conditions. My prediction is that no vortex will
form. You would need an *immense* perturbation to create
such a vortex - so large that the entropy of the initial
state would be greatly disturbed - rendering any entropy
comparisons invalid.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

* Introducting a crystal seed into a super-saturated
solution;

Few people consider crystal growth to be an example of self-
organization in the sense that Prigogine meant. [...]

?

Crystal growth is a classic example of self-organization
in physics.

It's listed as an example on en.wikipedia.orgSelfOpen ↗
organization

Quoted message said:

Besides, if you want to see a really dramatic increase in
entropy production, drop a speck of incandescent metal
into a beaker of nitroglycerin. Is this self-organization?

I was trying to characterise the effect of self-organising
systems in thermodynamic terms.

The thermodynamic behaviour of other non-self-organising
systems rather seems irrelevant to that goal.

The spark would be a permitted small perturbation and your
bomb would be an allowed set of initial conditions - but I
can't see much sign of any self-organising system.

Is this example relevant to my attempt to characterise the
effect on entropy of self-organising systems?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

* Introducting seeds of a living system to a new
environment;

This may increase or decrease the rate of entropy
generation. Look at Daisyworld. If the white daisies
predominate, the planet's albedo is increased over the
level of a dead planet - thus slowing the universe's
increase in entropy.

The actual example of life we have shows fairly effective
utilisation of solar resources by the planetary surface.

You are suggesting a theoretical model of a single
species with white petals that conver a significant area
- and no leaves?

What is the energy source of these organsims - if they do
not seem to use the Sun's rays for fuel. There is where you
should look for the entropy increase their existence is
likely to create.

In practice I expect the dasies would have leaves - and
would absorb a fair bit of energy from the sun - much more
than a dead planet would.

Quoted message said:

In any case, I refuse to accept life as an example of a
thermodynamic self-organizing system.

"Thermodynamic self-organizing system" appears to be your
own term. It is not someting I have mentioned - AFAICR. I'm
only talking about "self-organizing systems" - where life
clearly qualifies:

``The concept of self-organization is central to the
description of
biological systems, from the subcellular to the
ecosystem level.''

- en.wikipedia.orgSelf organizationOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Systems constructed by natural selection are self-
organizing in a sense completely different from and
orthogonal to the thermodynamic variety of self-
organization. Prigogine and his school are dead wrong on
this point IMO.

It seems it is you who have the unconventional definition of
"self-organizing" :-|

Living things are self-organising systems - just as other
sorts are.

They are well-placed on an continuum with other self-
organising systems -
IMO.

If asked to characterise all such systems by a single
scalar, I would choose "persistent information". Biological
systems often have a lot of this. Simple, thermodynamic, SOS
often have not very much.

That is probably the main significant difference
between them.

I hope that understanding the continuum that exists between
other self-organising systems and life should help throw
some light on life's origin.

Quoted message said:

So, now you are aware of my views. Subject closed AFAIAC.
I really find this subject uninteresting, at least as it
is typically discussed in this newsgroup. And, if that
seems harsh and ungracious, so be it.

OK - thanks very much for your input.

It's helpful to me to see what others think about the
subject area.
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove
lock to reply.

Guy Hoelzer <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote on 5/10/04 8:25 PM:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My view is that - where there are specific examples of
systems where complex systems can be introduced with
little other change to the environment, then entropy
starts increasing more rapidly.

Some of my favourite examples are:

* Introducing a vortex into an emptying bottle (which
increases the rate of fluid flow out of the bottle);

This example is silly, IMO. You get a similar increase
in the rate flow by punching an air hole in the bottom
of the bottle. Or, if you had started with a pressurized
bottle, the vortex would slow the water flow, by
permitting gas flow reducing the pressure.

Like Jim, I don't like the suggestion that the structures
of self-organization are "introduced", but I will assume
for the moment that this is semantically equivalent to
suggesting that they "arise."

No, no - that's not what I meant.

I am talking about comparing two systems - one with a SOS
and the other without.

To make such a comparison it is not terribly realistic to
allow the SOS to arise naturally. The simplest thing is to
have two identical environments - and add to one the "seed"
of a SOS - and then compare their temporal evolution.

If you could have two very similar systems (with almost the
same configuration and entropy) and have one develop a SOS -
and the other not - then that would be great - but that
would rule out testing most advanced biological systems, and
it is usually experimentally difficult to execute.

Conseqently, I'm inclined to stick to my notion of
"introducing" a SOS - using a small perturbation of
the system.

Quoted message said:

The process of solid crystallization is dissipative, and
consistent with Prigogine's notion of self-organization.
However, it is a "dead-end" process, like the formation of
the structure of a particular molecule, because once the
structure has crystallized it is no longer able to process
the fuel it used during crystal formation.

That's true of any SOS: once they exhaust the available
energy reserves they grind to a halt.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Besides, if you want to see a really dramatic increase
in entropy production, drop a speck of incandescent
metal into a beaker of nitroglycerin. Is this self-
organization?

An explosion exhibits positive feedback, which is an
essential component of self-organization, but it lacks or
overwhelms the constraints that prevent it from quickly
exhausting its fuel supply. This severely limits the
opportunity for structural self-organization during the
explosion process, but I suspect that explosions are
tending toward self-organization. Consider the forms of
cosmological explosions that are far less constrained in
terms of time and fuel supply than the example you
offered.

Explosions are dissipative structiures OK - but I can't see
much sign of them increasing any sort of organization.

In the case of stellar structures it is primarily gravity -
rather than explosive forces - that cause the self-
organisation to arise.
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove
lock to reply.

"Tim Tyler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jim Menegay <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

Few people consider crystal growth to be an example
of self-organization in the sense that Prigogine
meant. [...]

? Crystal growth is a classic example of self-organization
in physics. It's listed as an example on

en.wikipedia.orgSelf organizationOpen ↗

Hmmm. Though I was technically correct in what I wrote, the
real question between us is the one you addressed - whether
the term is widely used to cover crystal growth. And, it
appears that you are more right than I would have expected
a few days ago. The Principia Cybernetica web site also
agrees with you.

However, I think that it is an exageration to say "Crystal
growth is a classic example of self-organization in
physics." Many physicists and chemists would disagree. Even
the web site that you provide admits that including first
order phase transitions as examples of self organization is
controversial. In fact, it is a little interesting to trace
the history of that Wilkipedia article and see how the
example originated, and how the disclaimer of "standardness"
has been slowly watered down by successive editors.

It seems to me that the phrase "self organized" has been
extended to mean so many different things that it would be a
miracle if they all could be fit into a single thermodynamic
law. We have:
1. The Prigogine "dissipative system" which includes
Turing's ideas as well.
2. Per Bak's self organized criticality.
3. First order phase transitions such as crystalization and
magnetic transitions.

What little I know of thermodynamics says that these are
three very different phenomena. If there are new laws of
thermodynamics to be found in these - and it is quite
possible that there are - then there will probably be
different laws that apply to each of the three different
cases IMO.

Now add in living systems and artificial cybernetic
systems, and the likelihood that a single new law, like the
one that you propose, can cover all of the cases seems very
tiny to me.

"Guy Hoelzer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in article [email hidden], Jim Menegay
at [email hidden] wrote on 5/10/04 8:25 PM:

[Tim's examples of self organization?]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

* Introducing seeds of a living system to a new
environment;

This may increase or decrease the rate of entropy
generation. Look at Daisyworld. If the white daisies
predominate, the planet's albedo is increased over the
level of a dead planet - thus slowing the universe's
increase in entropy.

Your conclusion is false. Reflection has no effect on the
level of universal entropy.

I agree with what you say about reflection and entropy, but
I think you have misunderstood the example. Lovelock's
Daisyworld was gray in the lifeless state. It absorbed half
of the incident radiation and reflected half. But if
Daisyworld has a lot of white daisies, the planet,
including its flora, absorbs a smaller fraction of the
radiation and reflects a larger fraction. Hence, as
compared to the dead gray world, this living world will
transform less light to heat.

Of course, you can add a little realism by making the
daisies off-white so that they can absorb a fraction of the
sunlight for their own growth needs. In this case, the flora
does generate entropy, whereas the nonexistent flora on a
dead planet would not. But the planet as a whole generates
less entropy. Tim's answer to my dS/dt question makes it
clear that he is talking about the planet, not the biota.

Perplexed in Peoria <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

"Tim Tyler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jim Menegay <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

Few people consider crystal growth to be an example of
self-organization in the sense that Prigogine meant.
[...]

? Crystal growth is a classic example of self-
organization in physics. It's listed as an example on

en.wikipedia.orgSelf organizationOpen ↗

Hmmm. Though I was technically correct in what I wrote,
the real question between us is the one you addressed -
whether the term is widely used to cover crystal growth.
And, it appears that you are more right than I would have
expected a few days ago. The Principia Cybernetica web
site also agrees with you.

However, I think that it is an exageration to say "Crystal
growth is a classic example of self-organization in
physics." Many physicists and chemists would disagree.
Even the web site that you provide admits that including
first order phase transitions as examples of self
organization is controversial. In fact, it is a little
interesting to trace the history of that Wilkipedia
article and see how the example originated, and how the
disclaimer of "standardness" has been slowly watered down
by successive editors.

It seems to me that the phrase "self organized" has been
extended to mean so many different things that it would be
a miracle if they all could be fit into a single
thermodynamic law. We have:
1. The Prigogine "dissipative system" which includes
Turing's ideas as well.
2. Per Bak's self organized criticality.
3. First order phase transitions such as crystalization
and magnetic transitions.

My understaning is that a "self-organisating" system
must produce order - on some level - where none
previously existed.

So:

1 is a superset:

Dissipative structures include self-organising structures -
but they also include systems that *just* dissipate - and
are wholly destructive.

I suppose you could argue that "even" a forest fire produces
a level plain out of what was once a variegated plain - and
so has produced order on some level - but I reckon this is
pushing the definition a bit.

2 is - rather clearly - a subset of "self-organisating
systems";

3 is similarly a subset of "self-organisating systems".

Quoted message said:

What little I know of thermodynamics says that these are
three very different phenomena. If there are new laws of
thermodynamics to be found in these - and it is quite
possible that there are - then there will probably be
different laws that apply to each of the three different
cases IMO.

Now add in living systems and artificial cybernetic
systems, and the likelihood that a single new law, like
the one that you propose, can cover all of the cases seems
very tiny to me.

They are all covered by the second law of thermodynamics are
they not? ;-)

The "dissipative structures" is practically bound to make
entropy rise faster. That's practically its definition.

Cases 2, 3 and "life" are all "dissipative structres. Seen
from that perspective my suggestion should not seem terribly
contraversial.
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove
lock to reply.

Perplexed in Peoria <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

"Guy Hoelzer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote on 5/10/04 8:25 PM:

[examples of self organization]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> * Introducing seeds of a living system to a new
> environment;

This may increase or decrease the rate of entropy
generation. Look at Daisyworld. If the white daisies
predominate, the planet's albedo is increased over the
level of a dead planet - thus slowing the universe's
increase in entropy.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Lovelock's Daisyworld was gray in the lifeless state. It
absorbed half of the incident radiation and reflected
half. But if Daisyworld has a lot of white daisies, the
planet, including its flora, absorbs a smaller fraction of
the radiation and reflects a larger fraction. Hence, as
compared to the dead gray world, this living world will
transform less light to heat.

Of course, you can add a little realism by making the
daisies off-white so that they can absorb a fraction of
the sunlight for their own growth needs. In this case, the
flora does generate entropy, whereas the nonexistent flora
on a dead planet would not. But the planet as a whole
generates less entropy.

Normally, plants lower the temperature locally not by using
reflective surfaces - but by using opaque ones. Opaque
surfaces placed some distance from the ground are also very
effective at preventing solar ratiation reaching the ground
- since they create shade.

The plant can still re-radiate the resulting heat
preferentially upwards - if it sees fit - by silvering (or
whitening) the downward-facing surfaces of the leaves.

Such an approach has the advantage of allowing the plant to
utilise a temperature gradient to generate resources for
itself at the same time.

Could you engineer some whitish plants and put them on a
blackish planet and make it lighter? Yes, you could.

However, in next-to-no-time these plants would have been
wiped out by superior organisms with a better design that
properly utilised the temperature gradient represented by
the solar influx - rather than merely reflecting it back
into space without making it do any work in the interim.

What about the general idea that organisms might attempt to
slow down natural processes that dissipate entropy - in
order to preserve the energy to fuel their own growth and
reproduction?

It's not impossible - but biology is ultimately a more
powerful energy dissipation device than *anything* else
in nature.

It represents the ultimate explosion, the biggest bomb -
the hottest supernova (indeed - if not now then in the
future, many supernovae will represent the results of
organisms farming suns in stellar nurseries - and then
"harvesting" them).

When it comes to burning bright, mere natural forces can
only compete with living systems in the very short term.

So: if organisms preserve anything so they can better
utilise its resources later, then at breakfast the following
day, they are likely to decimate those resources compeletely
and utterly.
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove
lock to reply.

in article [email hidden], Perplexed in Peoria at
[email hidden] wrote on 5/13/04 9:54 AM:

Quoted message said:

"Guy Hoelzer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in article [email hidden], Jim Menegay
at [email hidden] wrote on 5/10/04 8:25 PM:

[Tim's examples of self organization?]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> * Introducing seeds of a living system to a new
> environment;

This may increase or decrease the rate of entropy
generation. Look at Daisyworld. If the white daisies
predominate, the planet's albedo is increased over the
level of a dead planet - thus slowing the universe's
increase in entropy.

Your conclusion is false. Reflection has no effect on the
level of universal entropy.

I agree with what you say about reflection and entropy,
but I think you have misunderstood the example. Lovelock's
Daisyworld was gray in the lifeless state. It absorbed
half of the incident radiation and reflected half. But if
Daisyworld has a lot of white daisies, the planet,
including its flora, absorbs a smaller fraction of the
radiation and reflects a larger fraction. Hence, as
compared to the dead gray world, this living world will
transform less light to heat.

It has been a while since I have read up on daisyworld, so I
will take your word for it that these are the assumptions
and outcomes of that model. Of course photosynthetic
organisms always increase the absorption/reflection ratio on
the real earth.

Quoted message said:

Of course, you can add a little realism by making the
daisies off-white so that they can absorb a fraction of
the sunlight for their own growth needs. In this case, the
flora does generate entropy, whereas the nonexistent flora
on a dead planet would not. But the planet as a whole
generates less entropy. Tim's answer to my dS/dt question
makes it clear that he is talking about the planet, not
the biota.

The geological earth dissipates a different sort of gradient
and is not part of daisyworld. I will predict that if you
introduce a competing plant species in daisyworld, which
more rapidly generates entropy than the daisies, it will
drive the daisies to extinction (all else being equal).

Cheers,

Guy

in article [email hidden], Tim Tyler at [email hidden]
wrote on 5/13/04 9:54 AM:

Quoted message said:

Guy Hoelzer <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote on 5/10/04 8:25 PM:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

An explosion exhibits positive feedback, which is an
essential component of self-organization, but it lacks or
overwhelms the constraints that prevent it from quickly
exhausting its fuel supply. This severely limits the
opportunity for structural self-organization during the
explosion process, but I suspect that explosions are
tending toward self-organization. Consider the forms of
cosmological explosions that are far less constrained in
terms of time and fuel supply than the example you
offered.

Explosions are dissipative structiures OK - but I can't
see much sign of them increasing any sort of organization.

In the case of stellar structures it is primarily gravity
- rather than explosive forces - that cause the self-
organisation to arise.

I think the self-organization of stellar structures depends
critically on both explosive and gravitational forces. Their
structures are the result of a balance between the two. When
gravity overcomes explosion you get a black hole.

Guy

"Tim Tyler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]... [snip]

Quoted message said:

My understaning is that a "self-organisating" system must
produce order - on some level - where none previously
existed.

[snip]

Quoted message said:

2 is - rather clearly - a subset of "self-organisating
systems";

3 is similarly a subset of "self-organisating systems".

PLEASE! Tell me that "self-organisating" arose through the
founder effect and that it is not intended as an adaptation.

Perplexed in Peoria <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

"Tim Tyler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My understaning is that a "self-organisating" system
must produce order - on some level - where none
previously existed.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2 is - rather clearly - a subset of "self-organisating
systems";

3 is similarly a subset of "self-organisating systems".

PLEASE! Tell me that "self-organisating" arose through the
founder effect and that it is not intended as an
adaptation.

Oops - yes.

The founder effect at work - via copy and paste ;-)
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove
lock to reply.

Guy Hoelzer <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

in article [email hidden], Tim Tyler at
[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Guy Hoelzer <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote on 5/10/04 8:25 PM:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

An explosion exhibits positive feedback, which is an
essential component of self-organization, but it lacks
or overwhelms the constraints that prevent it from
quickly exhausting its fuel supply. This severely
limits the opportunity for structural self-organization
during the explosion process, but I suspect that
explosions are tending toward self-organization.
Consider the forms of cosmological explosions that are
far less constrained in terms of time and fuel supply
than the example you offered.

Explosions are dissipative structiures OK - but I can't
see much sign of them increasing any sort of
organization.

In the case of stellar structures it is primarily
gravity - rather than explosive forces - that cause the
self-organisation to arise.

I think the self-organization of stellar structures
depends critically on both explosive and gravitational
forces. Their structures are the result of a balance
between the two. When gravity overcomes explosion you get
a black hole.

A black hole would represent the *ultimate* creation of
order by gravity - reducing a whole previously-complex
region of space to a mere handful of observable quantities -
mass, charge and spin.

Gravity is the mother of all self-organisation -
cosmologically speaking ;-)
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove
lock to reply.