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

[Krimel]

[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. 

[Krimel]
I once listened to a whole set of lectures by Hawking read by the author. I
have a text to speech program that has more lifelike voices. He needs an
upgrade but then he would sound like someone else.

[Mark]
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.

[Krimel]
I think arguments from authority suck; especially, those used here. I would
say the Bible contains lots of truth. But it is truth because it is true not
because it is in the Bible.

[Mark]
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.  

[Krimel]
No.
Life produces entropy locally. The constant influx of energy from the sun
means that this doesn't matter. There is more energy being input into the
system than entropy can suck up. On Earth there is a surplus of energy. Life
is a way of dissipating energy that is not simply reflected into space.

[Mark]
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.

[Krimel]
Life could not occur in a closed system; in all probability. The fact that
the Earth is not a closed system is what allows life to be here in the first
place.

[Mark]
Life does represent a local area where entropy decreases with time.  

[Krimel]
Life seems to be a very rare and, I would say, precious commodity in the
universe. It does not cause any decrease in entropy at all. It increases
entropy just like everything else in nature. But in our case the sun
provides more energy than we can dissipate. As a result, order increases.
This, in fact, is how, here in the Goldilocks Zone, order emerges from
chaos.

[Mark]
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.

[Krimel]
There may indeed be other places were the local influx of energy and the
right combination of elements makes increases in order possible. It doesn't
even have to be stellar radiation. It could be heat from increased molecular
motion or plasma resulting from the gravitational density of stars or gas
giants like Jupiter or Saturn. When it comes to "life' we have a sample size
of 1. That makes generalization problematic.

[Mark]
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?  

[Krimel]
While the 2nd Law is generalization based on what we observe here, it is not
at all meant to be confined to "here". I believe most physicists would say
that the Law of Thermodynamics are so well established as to be among the
last ideas in science likely to be over turned. 

[Mark]
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?

[Krimel]
Pirsig makes the same kind of point claiming to Baggini that scientists
don't seem to know the difference between questions of why and questions of
how. I have lost what little patience I ever had with this and would suggest
that the difference is between a meaningful and a meaningless question.

Endless "Whys" are the purview of two year olds, who are sincere, and
50-something scientists, who are going through what a professor of mine used
to call philosopho-pause. 

[Mark]
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. 

[Krimel]
Wanting what?

[Mark]
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.

[Krimel]
I am all about writings for the layman. I agree with Pirsig wholeheartedly,
any idea worth having should be explainable to a 5th grader. That is one of
the many reasons I think people like John should watch NOVA. And it is
programs and books like NOVA which give me hope that such a thing is
possible.

But I don't think this is an excuse for people like Pirsig screwing up the
job.

[Mark]
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.

[Krimel]
I am not in the least interested in pursuing your dark fantasies about
"scientism". You seem to believe that everyone who appreciates the beauty of
science does so, on faith and is incapable of thinking it through and
appreciating the beauty and elegance of this form of knowing. Well speak for
yourself, mother fucker.

[Mark]
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.

[Krimel]
No, Pirsig is not a scientist. He isn't a philosopher either. He is a great
writer. He is a schizophrenic. Still I love the guy. But that doesn't mean
he gets a pass when he is wrong. He completely missed the boat (big ferry
boat or little ferry boat, take your pick) on the critical issues of
Evolution and Randomness. The MoQ could have made major contributions in
these areas. It could have been what Pirsig pointed toward, a metaphysics to
replace SOM. But, it is a fringe idea attractive to new agers and almost no
one else because Pirsig did not quite see what he was pointing at.

Quality is a crappy term Pirsig used for Tao. 

Dynamic Quality is a crappy term he used for chaos. 

Static Quality is... Well, it is a pretty good term he used for Order.