[MD] The difference between a Monet and a finger painting

[markhsmit]

On Jan 23, 2010, at 7:46:18 PM, Krimel <Krimel at Krimel.com> wrote:
[Krimel]
I hardly think that Hawking would indorse much of anything in Chapter 11.
take this for example:

"If life is strictly a result of the physical and chemical forces of nature
then why is life opposed to these same forces in its struggle to survive?"

He makes this same kind of statement repeatedly in Chapter 11. It is
obviously false. Life arises from these forces. Everything in nature follows
the path of least resistance. It can be a convoluted and twisted path but
nothing in nature strays from it. It is language like this that empowers the
likes of Bo to anthropomorphize everything. Levels in conflict is shear
foolishness.

Nor would Hawking indorse the whole chemistry professor fiasco:

"Chemistry professors are unstable mixtures of predominantly unstable
compounds which, in the exclusive presence of the sun's heat, decay
irreversibly into simpler organic and inorganic compounds. That's a
scientific fact.
The question is: Then why does nature reverse this process? What on earth
causes the inorganic compounds to go the other way? It isn't the sun's
energy. We just saw what the sun's energy did. It has to be something else.
What is it?"
[Mark]
Hi Krimel,  I once went to a Hawking lecture when I was studying in London.  It was meant for
physicists so it went over my head.  It was all taped and Hawking sat with us and listened
to it.  He's a pretty smart guy, but he does have his critics in physics who debate with
his models.  So, he is not considered to be all knowing.

I'm not sure what your background is in thermodynamics, or what education you have in
chemistry, so I'll make this simple.  The second law states that there is an increase in
entropy with time (time's arrow).  Life on the other hand decreases entropy locally.  So the
argument to preserve thermo is that life cannot be treated like a closed system.  If one measures
the overall entropy (sun and earth/life together) there is a net increase in entropy.
Life does represent a local area where entropy decreases with time.  Now, the concept of
local only works if we think we know what the rest of the universe is.  Perhaps our
measured universe is a local increase in entropy in a much larger setting which
actually decreases in entropy.  To be honest, we do not know what is happening at
the distant stars, we simply apply our local understanding, limited as it may be.

But, I'm fine with this argument since the second law is only meant to apply to what
we know.  Now, the question is: why does life decrease entropy (we know how)
locally?  Take for example a simplification of the photosynthetic process.
Energy is absorbed by a compound causing an excitation of electrons
to a higher level.  This energy is therefore converted from light, to chemical energy.
That energy is then used to do things like oxidize water to oxygen.  OK, so that is
a method by which life seemingly harnesses the suns energy.  The philosophical
question then becomes, why does such an energy absorbing structure exist?
Why does matter have the nature where it is capable of absorbing energy and
converting it?  This is a philosophical question because although one can say
"that is just the property of matter", this leaves us humans wanting. 

If one wants to create a metaphysical system using science, one simply asks
why endlessly?  By asking why, one can then develop a system which attempts to explain
it.  I'm not sure what Pirsig's knowledge of physics is, and certainly Lila is
not a paper in Physical Reviews; Lila is written for the layman.  So Pirsig
uses an example in physics which he believes (perhaps wrongly)
violates a principle in physics, and asks why.  It is no different from
asking why is the speed of light constant.

The metaphysical answers certainly do not satisfy one who relies on
scientism to believe something.  But it may satisfy someone who
feels it makes sense.  Since we really cannot know the underlying
reasons for why the universe is the way it is, we create them.  And
such creations may have predictive value, although that is not
essential in metaphysics, only scientism.  Such reasons may
also be true, depending on how one looks at them.

So Pirsig is not a scientist.  No need to use more accurate
knowledge to dismiss his notion of Quality.  It is just an example.
Having said that, if one is going to use such an example
to create an argument for Quality, one should at least 
know what they are talking about to get any followers.

I am fine to be corrected if I made any serious errors.