tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post486793411231369974..comments2024-03-04T15:09:00.479-08:00Comments on The Scientific Worldview: Critique of TSW Part 16a Univironmental Determinism: The ExpansionGlenn Borchardthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-12971670089802472422014-11-09T17:00:49.558-08:002014-11-09T17:00:49.558-08:00Rick:
You are correct, as usual. In all equilibri...Rick:<br /><br />You are correct, as usual. In all equilibria, both divergence and convergence are operating even though one or the other will dominate temporarily at any one time. The tendency toward univironmental equilibrium is another way of looking at nature from the point of view of Newton's First Law and of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and of the Law of Least Action. For instance, the sodium and chloride ions in salt will diverge when I put a crystal in pure water. The same ions will converge to again form crystals when I boil the salt water. We use the equilibrium concept to predict which direction a reaction will go. What is important is the relation between microcosm and macrocosm.Glenn Borchardthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09394474754821945146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-19146016977386702242014-11-09T14:17:47.626-08:002014-11-09T14:17:47.626-08:00Bill, thanks for your response, after a pretty upp...Bill, thanks for your response, after a pretty uppity commentary from me. <br /><br />I'd like to hear Glenn elaborate on, and put into context, your clip from TSW, "... This evolution, this motion of the microcosm, is in all cases in only one direction, toward univironmental equilibrium." You're right, taken by itself, that assertion seems to conflict with Newton's laws of motion and equilibrium. <br /><br />My guess is that Glenn wouldn't claim that there is never any motion toward dis-equilibrium. After all, Glenn's 6th Assumption is COMPLEMENTARITY. "All bodies are subject to divergence and convergence from other bodies."Rick Doogiehttp://www.rickdoogie.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-21199796487943738782014-11-09T10:42:36.388-08:002014-11-09T10:42:36.388-08:00Good comments from Rick Doogie, but note that I wa...Good comments from Rick Doogie, but note that I was responding to the TSW statement asserting that motion is only in *one direction* ... toward equilibrium.<br /><br />If that were the case, then atomic gold (or any element heavier than hydrogen) wouldn't exist at all. Glenn notes elsewhere(correctly) that convergence (for example, at the center of stars) and divergence (entropy) are concurrent, but this statement says divergence "toward equilibrium" is the only direction.Westmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865166433794584552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-91000871188819765462014-11-09T07:51:34.348-08:002014-11-09T07:51:34.348-08:00Bill says, "A nugget of pure gold in a contai...Bill says, "A nugget of pure gold in a container of liquid water will never reach 'equilibrium' with its environment, even though they are in constant contact." That's precisely correct, but it's a very narrow argument for the assertion "'equilibrium' implies something that isn't always true". Look at the big picture, and you'll see that it's misleading to put it that way.<br /><br />That nugget of gold will move unremittingly toward equilibrium with its environment, but it will no longer be definable as a "gold nugget" as it dissolves into and mixes with the environment. In fact, the action of moving toward equilibrium with its environment will scatter the gold nugget's atoms and eventually reduce them to subatomic particles and smaller. <br /><br />In other words, when the planet Earth is dissolved into its environment, that gold will be long gone, but its original matter will be distributed across an immense expanse of space. The gold nugget doesn't move toward equilibrium, but its atoms most certainly do.<br /><br />Notice that Glenn never said that anything would "reach" equilibrium, because equilibrium is not possible in reality. Like your word "pure", "equilibrium" is an ideal concept that is useful in mathematical formulae and scientific pondering / discussion.<br /><br />Bill is correct when he says, "equilibrium implies something that isn't always true", because there is no such thing as equilibrium. Everything constantly moves toward equilibrium, but nothing can ever reach equilibrium. It's a useful concept.<br /><br />The assertion that "A nugget of pure gold in a container of liquid water will never reach "equilibrium" is just more sad anthropomorphizing; "whatever our instruments cannot measure must not really exist".Rick Doogiehttp://www.rickdoogie.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2202092988208583550.post-23183559034778644792014-07-23T18:42:29.786-07:002014-07-23T18:42:29.786-07:00[GB: In other words, you are a strict neo-Darwinis...[GB: In other words, you are a strict neo-Darwinist, reducing the biological microcosm to genes ...]<br /><br />I think I've made my points on all the other issues, but I'm not "strictly" a NeoDarwinist, in at least one sense:<br /><br />Most NDs assume that all mutations are random effects of radiation. I think there are many different causes for mutation which are not "random". For example, the use of iron cooking utensils vastly increased the energy storage potential of human blood, which modified the operation of enzymes and the characteristics of reproductive cells.<br /><br />I'm also strongly inclined to agree with a novel commentary on the effects of hybridization, which is far from being "random":<br />http://www.macroevolution.net/human-origins.html<br /><br />[GB: ... There will be no group selection for you. This myopic view does not even make sense in the case of biological groups containing members that are non-breeding ...]<br /><br />Groups which share a common genetic map will have the same - or similar - responses to environmental changes. But, even identical twins will be in different environments and "evolve" (in the generic sense of development) differently. <br /><br />[GB: ... For you, worker bees contribute nothing to biological evolution...]<br /><br />It's an interesting case: worker bees have roughly the same genes as Queen Bees, but are subjected to "brood selection" based on pheromones, so they don't get enough food to become fertile:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pheromone_(honeybee)#Brood_recognition_pheromone<br /><br />It seems to me that this is a "natural selection" issue: the brood identifies the strongest and singularly most fertile female to become the Queen. Prior to selection, she is just another worker bee. So, the success of the hive depends on selection of the best worker bee to become Queen. That's as much a part of NeoDarwinism as the genetic configuration itself.<br /><br />BTW: I can understand your sense of "revelation" that there is Generic Evolution of all things. Maybe I wasn't surprised because I was raised Catholic, which doesn't dispute the truth of generic OR BIOLOGICAL evolution, which is rare in religious teachings.Westmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865166433794584552noreply@blogger.com