[MD] The Anti-entropic Miopic

[Squonkriff at aol.com]

<snip>
 
Case:
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 02-02-07: Hi Case.
It seems to me this is what you ARE suggesting: Life is reducible to  
chemistry and physics.
Case is chemistry and physics.

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 02-02-07:
How can X co-operate with Y if X = Y?

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 02-02-07:
One who believes in evolution may?
Life evolves and grows in complexity.
If entropy is a measure of a system's tendency to lose complexity then it's  
pretty clear biological evolution is defying entropy by definition.
Chemicals don't spontaneously form Case, they need millions of years to do  
it.
On the other hand, place Case, stark buck bollocks naked out in the Sun  with 
no food or water for a few weeks and he's going to end up whiffing a  bit.

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 02-02-07:
So, Case IS chemistry and physics.

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 02-02-07:
I'm not surprised it makes you uneasy.
You've just replaced all the biologists in class with chemistry and physics  
professors.
"Today kids we're going to talk about this chemical compound," indicates  the 
professor pointing to a vast molecule on the blackboard.
"Excuse me sir"? interjects a tentative voice,
"But isn't that a Lion sir"?
"You won't pass your chemistry exam using short cuts like that  Case," smiles 
the kindly yet weary tutor.
"This molecule is called, Pancarbonichydrogenicoxythermic...."
(30 minutes later)
"...protoacid."
"Pardon sir?"
 
<snip>

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 02-02-07:
When you inform peoples like the beloved Skutvik one that you don't adhere  
to a conventional moq you certainly mean it don't you?
sq patterns are dharmic ethical principles undergoing evolution toward  
higher states of Dynamism.
This includes basic inorganic elements.
The suggestion is this would be so even if there were no life forms.
You appear to be suggesting an existentialist notion that your being is  
prior to value.
As you now confirm:

<snip>

07-02-01: Case:
I have as much value as I can make for and of  myself. 

<snip>

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."
 
Mark 02-02-07:
He must have been a big fan of Immanuel Cant.

Case:
May I recommend Ecclesiastes?
 
Mark 02-02-07:
Thanks. I've tried everything but nothing will shift 'em.
Love,
Mark