[MD] The Anti-entropic Miopic

[Case]

[Case]
Life does not use entropy. It uses  energy waylaying it, and transforming it
as it moves toward  dissipation.
 
Mark 01a-02-07: Casey Case!
Hope for the best, expect the worst, and take what comes ey?
I see we're still on this entropy kick, as you American folks will insist  
upon having it.
I thought by now it was, 'in back of view?'
I shall regret it, i know i will. But the task must be brought to a
fruitful 
conclusion.
 
07-2-1: Case:
Imagine that! Try as we may we just can't kick it. Much as we would like it
to go away it's "The Thing That Wouldn't Leave". Entropy's like that. Yes,
she is.

Here is why:
Mark: 1. Entropy is a law like measure of inorganic matters' tendancy* to
disorder.
Case: 1c. More or less.

Mark: 2. The moq claims biological life is not reducible to inorganic
matter.
Case: 2c. Pirsig said this, yes. But it is simplistic. Of course life is not
a chemistry lesson. 

Mark: 3. The moq further claims that biological life resists inorganic laws.
Case: 3c. One could also say biological life finds incredible ways to
cooperate with inorganic laws. 

Mark: 4. Therefore, biological life does not obey entropy.
Case: 4c. Find me a serious biologist who claims that biology violates any
of the laws of thermodynamics. 

Mark: * Tendency, because quantum indeterminism does not rule out extremely

improbable reverses of this law.
Case: *c Perhaps we should deal with extreme improbabilities in proportion
to their increase in probability. In the mean time don't hold your breath
waiting for a reversal.

Mark: 01-02-07?:
If energy may be said to be evolving, then it is evolving into structured  
states which resist entropy. But that's what life is, (thanks to Carbon  
chemistry) and it's what distinguishes it from the inorganic.

07-02-01: Case:
Energy does not evolve it changes form. Light hits the Rock Bound Chem Prof
(RBCP) and is either reflected as light or absorbed as heat. Light energy is
converted to heat energy. Carbon and carbon molecules can convert light
energy into chemical energy. Chemical energy can produce electrical energy.
Each time it changes form some energy is converted to heat.

In some of its transformations energy is stored as chemical or potential
energies. Positive and negative ions become unevenly distributed in the
atmosphere and spark to create equilibrium. If you want to call any of this
"resistance" I suppose you can but the term seems problematic to me. 

Mark 01a-02-07: Resistance is futile.

07-02-01: Case: As noted above.

Mark 01a-02-07:
In other words, the structure of the whirlpool surfs in the flow of energy.
If you examine the degree of intricacy of inorganic open systems you observe
them to be fleeting structures at best, or Planet sized Jupiter like Red
spots at worst.
The case may be different with regard to biological life?
In this case, the fidelity of the transmitted structure is:
1. Exceptionally intricate (think of your own body)
2. Becoming increasingly intricate through millions of years of  evolution.
Is the Red spot evolving?
Does a whirlpool evolve and transmit its structure with high  fidelity?
No. Only Carbon based biological life can do this, as far as we know.
I grant that computer software may be able to do a similar thing.

07-02-01: Case:
Stabile patterns of energy and matter exist in many forms here from
snowflakes to sequoias. That is what makes Earth Dynamic. From sparks to
seasons all manner of chemical, electrical fluid and nuclear interactions
are possible. Carbon based systems are among the most complex and the most
interesting.

Mark 01a-02-07:
What you are saying is this:
The whole biological repertoire, from its inception to now, may be
considered to be one whole dissipative system. Further, it is a continuation
of the inorganic repertoire which existed prior to the inception of the
biological repertoire.
In other words, it's all one huge whirlpool, to be a bit analogous.
Congratulations Case, you've just demolished the moq.

07-02-01: Case:
The giant whirlpool part makes me uneasy but most or less. However, I do not
see how this contradicts the moq.

Mark 01a-02-07:
Does the moq have a come back?
I rather think it does. Compare a Lion to the most sophisticated Inorganic
dissipative system? Are you seriously going to insist these are on a par?
"They are the same," you ejaculate, "you just said so."
Not so, what you have explored are the conditions for describing and
categorising the inorganic from the biological: The biological is better.
That is to say, it has more value; it is more moral.

07-02-01: Case:
Or you could say that biological systems are more complex, more energetic,
more Dynamic. They are open to more and different relationships. There is a
spectrum of organic forms laid before us from hydrocarbons to blue whales. 

I agree that is it "better". I certainly believe this. But "better" is a
statement about my particular relationship to life. It is a term "best" used
in with particular contexts.

But why does the moq need to have a "come back"? 

Mark 01a-02-07:
The inorganic can generate dissipative systems of a very low order.
Biological systems are so far above these in scope, sophistication and value
they may be regarded in new descriptions and awarded a category of their
own. 

07-02-01: Case:
Some organic structures are of low order. A bone, a chunk of coal, smoke and
ash are not terribly sophisticated. Biological systems are distinguished by
their complexity. They are of such complexity that they allow for new
patterns of relationships; cells collecting in interacting clumps; animals
exploiting mobility; plants exploiting stability in their environment.
Biology is a science in its own right because of all these new sets of
possibilities that arising within biological systems.

Mark 01a-02-07:
For if you don't, one possible consequence is that all inorganic and
biological patterns are one dissipative system: You have no more value than
a piece of shit (atoms are dissipative systems too and shit is made of
atoms, which is no shit).

07-02-01: Case:
I have as much value as I can make for and of myself. I hear that there are
many with self esteem issues who actually can not discriminate themselves
from a piece of shit. I can see some commonality between myself and a piece
of shit. We are both matter. We are both on the biological level. I don't
think I am willing to generalize much farther.

But have it your way, if it suits you.

[Case]
But entropy is never overcome it is simply overwhelmed.

Mark 01a-02-07:
This has to be one of the most nihilistic statements i've ever read.
May i suggest Kierkegaard or Sartre?
If you don't really go in for God avoid Kierkegaard.

07-02-01: Case:
Have you seen Allen Ginsberg summary of the Laws of Thermodynamics:

First law: "You can't win." 
Second law: "You can't break even." 
Third law: "You can't quit." 

May I recommend Ecclesiastes?