|
 DividedQuantum
Outer Head
 
Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,858
|
 negative entropy 
#19590382 - 02/19/14 03:15 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The "theory" of evolution can't be any more clearly and obviously correct. I feel, though, that science has yet to deal with the subtleties of the complexifying process which leads to more orderly, better adapted species. I don't think it's purely a roll of the dice, although that too plays a large part. The term of art for what I am talking about is negative entropy or negentropy. This process is indubitably real, and as yet almost wholly unaccounted for and unexplained.
What are your thoughts on negentropy as it pertains to evolution, or to other areas?
--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,169
|
|
evolution is not a process, although it is a historically observable ongoing phenomenon.
the phenomenon is a side effect of selection and mutation.
if it were a process, then you could imagine that it would be powered, and since there appears to be accretion of complexity, you might want to invoke something like negative entropy.
but that approach is as wrong as intelligent design.
the complexity is more as a result of comensual encrustation than an intended approach to selective superiority;
and the sheer number of unsuccessful births, infant mortalities, and deformities, speaks to the insanity of a mutation selection process with negative entropy
--------------------
 _  🧠 _ 
|
hTx
(:
Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
all life and lifes affairs are a negentropic process, something which is wholly unaccounted for but which has risen eyebrows of quite a few scientists whom have taken the step back to see the negative entropy that happens when life comes into play.
Its why the current reigning theory of evolution (darwinism) is only one part of the entire process, imo, secondary to the evolution of consciousness (lifes awareness).
Going deeper we may see that since life and consciousness, especially a free-willed consciousness, literally saves the universe from death by entropy, that the universe is itself conscious, and living, and that life isn't a random, machine-like, soul-less occurrence with no purpose as most 'biologists' claim, but that life as a whole serves at least some sort of function to the entirety of the universe and has a purpose and direction.
--------------------
zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes
Light up the darkness.
Edited by hTx (02/19/14 04:10 PM)
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head
Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,858
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
evolution is not a process, although it is a historically observable ongoing phenomenon.
the phenomenon is a side effect of selection and mutation.
if it were a process, then you could imagine that it would be powered, and since there appears to be accretion of complexity, you might want to invoke something like negative entropy.
but that approach is as wrong as intelligent design.
the complexity is more as a result of comensual encrustation than an intended approach to selective superiority;
and the sheer number of unsuccessful births, infant mortalities, and deformities, speaks to the insanity of a mutation selection process with negative entropy
I see and understand your point. Perhaps "process" was a poor word choice. I understand mutation and environmentally constrained selection. Respectfully, I disagree with the accepted biological textbook theory-as-such, as I implied in the original post.
Here is a link for an article published last year in Scientific American exploring "how organisms can evolve elaborate structures without Darwinian selection":
The Surprising Origins of Evolutionary Complexity
I was somewhat disappointed in how conservative the article was (it was, after all, in Scientific American). But it suggests that there are factors at play besides just mutation and selection in determining the complexification of species over time -- which I observe to be the case.
from the article:
...recently some scientists and philosophers have suggested that complexity can arise through other routes. Some argue that life has a built-in tendency to become more complex over time. Others maintain that as random mutations arise, complexity emerges as a side effect, even without natural selection to help it along. Complexity, they say, is not purely the result of millions of years of fine-tuning through natural selection—the process that Richard Dawkins famously dubbed “the blind watchmaker.” To some extent, it just happens.
--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Quote:
The "theory" of evolution can't be any more clearly and obviously correct.
Why put an ordinary "word", used as it should be, in scare quotes?
--------------------
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,169
|
|
i give up
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
You just want me to say bad "things" about another poster and get banned. Not going there.
--------------------
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
What are your thoughts on negentropy as it pertains to evolution, or to other areas?
Its a silly made up word that is fun for a second but not useful or enlightening in the least.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: negative entropy [Re: DieCommie] 2
#19591017 - 02/19/14 05:49 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
It makes as much sense as the phrase 'divided quantum' as a quanta is the smallest packet of energy possible, therefore indivisible.
Welcome to the fantasy forum, DC.
--------------------
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head
Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,858
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
The "theory" of evolution can't be any more clearly and obviously correct.
Why put an ordinary "word", used as it should be, in scare quotes?
My point? I consider it a law, even though it is still technically in theory stage. Just a bit of stylism, I'm sorry it didn't go understood.
Maybe a quantum can't be divided but my usernname -- of which there are many silly ones -- is my prerogative. Again, the irony was lost.
--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Scientific theories never become law... Thats not how it works. A theory contains laws, and laws are mathematical.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head
Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,858
|
Re: negative entropy [Re: DieCommie]
#19592242 - 02/19/14 09:46 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
What about Newton's Three Laws of Motion?
--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
Those are all a subset of the theory of classical mechanics. Its confusing because the philosophy of science uses the words with specific meanings that are not the same as the general definitions. Its like this because science was not always well developed and defined as it is now and in the transition words end up with special meanings.
Newton's three laws are mathematical statements that are always true under the axioms they are derived. The hypothesis is that these laws predict and describe our observations is tentatively validated per observational evidence and is incorporated into the larger, umbrella concept of the theory. In this case, the theory of classical mechanics.
Wikipedia has a nice little paragraph on it;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Theories_and_laws
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head
Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,858
|
Re: negative entropy [Re: DieCommie]
#19593614 - 02/20/14 08:17 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I meant it in this sense:
A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven.
My point was that evolution seems such a basic element of life on Earth that to suggest it can meaningfully be disproven is an error and a misunderstanding.
Although you are totally right, "theory" is not somehow a weaker term than "law." A theory can clearly be accepted as a scientific fact, as the wiki article points out.
--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
DieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
|
What? That makes no sense with respect to your previous posts.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head
Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,858
|
Re: negative entropy [Re: DieCommie]
#19593805 - 02/20/14 09:32 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
You were right and I was wrong that, as the wiki article says, theories don't graduate to laws (although in some of my science courses I was taught that they did). So I stand corrected on that one.
But I did also mean that laws are considered to be a type of axiomatic principle that is not open to developmental disproof in the way that a theory is, and that evolution, in this sense, ought to be considered a law rather than a theory. I do realize that a theory can contain many laws as part of its purview, but I think that a law is more fundamental (although admittedly not as broad in scope).
--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,169
|
|
that all of us here on the planet including the dung beetles and penguins have evolved is true without being a law.
evolution describes the history of speciation and inheritance.
it is scientific, because science is used to get the parts of the story right, such as geologic and carbon dating, morphology, genetics, ecology, etc.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
|
I want my scientific inheritance! $$$ 
--------------------
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head
Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,858
|
|
I agree completely. All I was originally doing was briefly suggesting that the theory of evolution has stood up to so many definitive tests and conclusive evidentiary proofs that to call it a theory is selling it short. There was disagreement about "theory" being on any less of a solid footing than "law," and I admitted my mistake. It was just terminological ambiguity. I'm not pressing any sort of central important point here.
--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,169
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
I want my scientific inheritance! $$$
I will be disgusting that with your mother
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
trendal
OneWhoHasSeen
snakefinder
aelephant
SkorpivoMusterion
TameMe
Diploid