![[de]](/mwf/flags/de.png "Germany")
You have to earn that. By competence, mostly.
![[py]](/mwf/flags/py.png "Paraguay")
I was asking for the definition of respect as well as what you just said. Also what is your definition of competence?
That was an implicit definition. Also I strive to use my superiority to current computer technology and actually keep a real definition of competence around. Possibly something pretty common sense like not doing things you don't have the slightest clue about.
>Possibly something pretty common sense like not doing things you don't have the slightest clue about.
I agree, but I think I also depends on the person you are trying to get respect from and also what that person or persons view as respectable.
Why is it that peoples beliefs differ?
Can randomness ever create order without the input of order into randomness? :/
No, see second law of thermodynamics.
That does only state something about the total entropy, so it neither applies to the small part of the universe we're observing (because that is not a closed system) nor does its definition match what most people associate with order.
SCNR: Thermondynamics is only a theory.
SCNR: Thermondynamics is only a theory.
The second law is a law which always hold, note that this law has, like any other law, has assumptions.
Indeed it does say nothing about our solar system (apart from the fact that it won't exist forever).
Indeed it does say nothing about our solar system (apart from the fact that it won't exist forever).
To be a law, it always has to hold (and the assumptions are part of the law). I'm saying the assumptions don't hold for any case, hence there can be situation where randomness is replaced by order. (I don't like the implications of the word "create". It implies that the creation has a meaning intended by the creator.)
The law of thermodynamics always holds (it's as much a derivation of the law that there are infinite prime numbers).
Didn't you just say it had assumptions? I guess it would help if we actually stated it…
The formulation I had in mind was:
The entropy of an isolated system that is not in equilibrium tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
So you need an isolated system. Is any system isolated? No. So can we observe systems where the second law doesn't hold? Yes (that doesn't follow directly).
Wikipedia presented me with Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder location to a hotter location. From which it is much harder to make a statement about order, but you get the same thing. You assume that there are only spontaneous actions in the system you observe.
And, I notice that after beginning to work with automatic theorem provers / proof checkers, I really begin to hate this informal way of doing things.
The formulation I had in mind was:
The entropy of an isolated system that is not in equilibrium tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
So you need an isolated system. Is any system isolated? No. So can we observe systems where the second law doesn't hold? Yes (that doesn't follow directly).
Wikipedia presented me with Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder location to a hotter location. From which it is much harder to make a statement about order, but you get the same thing. You assume that there are only spontaneous actions in the system you observe.
And, I notice that after beginning to work with automatic theorem provers / proof checkers, I really begin to hate this informal way of doing things.
That's the same as the fact that the prime number theorem depends on axioms for natural numbers. In nature there are no prime numbers so that law doesn't hold?!
The universe is an isolated system as far as we know. But I leave it to you to figure out why the second law might not hold for the complete universe.
What informal way? The second law is a formal derivation (depending on axioms or assumptions, these are basically the same thing). Why don't people understand that you can't apply Physical law to the real world without assuming some things.
I'd suggest you read some book about this law including a derivation, since that could clarify a bit more than Wikipedia.
The universe is an isolated system as far as we know. But I leave it to you to figure out why the second law might not hold for the complete universe.
What informal way? The second law is a formal derivation (depending on axioms or assumptions, these are basically the same thing). Why don't people understand that you can't apply Physical law to the real world without assuming some things.
I'd suggest you read some book about this law including a derivation, since that could clarify a bit more than Wikipedia.
>What informal way?
The informal way where humans read and think in their predetermined ways. You immediately jump to the conclusion that we are talking about the entire universe. I wanted to observe my cup of coffee for a change, where I draw a neat little picture into the foam. Yes, the law holds for my cup, but it just doesn't make too much of a statement.
>depending on axioms or assumptions, these are basically the same thing
Aaaaaaaaa! *runs away in terror*
Then you should look at your cup of coffee and try to derive laws for that. My initial comment was just setting boundary conditions on the discussion, in an admittedly not so nice manner.
I see that your arguments improve :)
What I wanted to say, which I also discussed somewhere with PeterW, is that what in Mathematics are axioms are assumptions in Physics. Usually we need more, but the correctness of a physical law only depends on the correctness of its assumptions. Like the correctness of a theorem only depends on the correctness of its axioms. Nothing wrong with that I would say.
>Aaaaaaaaa! *runs away in terror*
I see that your arguments improve :)
What I wanted to say, which I also discussed somewhere with PeterW, is that what in Mathematics are axioms are assumptions in Physics. Usually we need more, but the correctness of a physical law only depends on the correctness of its assumptions. Like the correctness of a theorem only depends on the correctness of its axioms. Nothing wrong with that I would say.
But I once threw three dice and they landed in a row and each showed a higher number than the previous one! That's pretty ordered already!Note that a physicist's notion of "order" might differ a lot from that of "normal" people ;)
And how is that relevant, there is the truth of independent observations contrasted with the ignorance of what some people think :)
We're having a discussion on an internet board. And you're asking how that is releveant?
That you negate a question that was probably targeted at a whole different definition of "order" with a reference to the second law of thermodynamics?That looks as productive for me as answering to the question "Do you have the time?" with "Yes, I indeed do." and walking away - while there might be nothing wrong with the statement, without further explanation it neither helps the askee nor the conversation in any way.
![[gb]](/mwf/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
Reminds me of a joke. A man in a hot-air-balloon calls down to someone on the ground "Excuse me! I'm lost! Could you tell me where I am?" And the man on the ground says "You're in a balloon!". The first man says "You must be a bloody mathematician!" "I am, how did you know?" "You gave me an answer that was totally correct and totally useless!" and the man on the ground says "Well you must be a business manager!" "I am, how did you know?" "You're stuck in a stupid situation that's your own fault, and you're acting as if I'm the one causing your problems!"
My original answer shows that order may come from randomness, but only if you are not in a strictly closed system. Nothing more nothing less, that should just put a constraint on the actual discussion.
But if you'd rather have a meta discussion about order vs. entropy, I am out of the discussion :)
But if you'd rather have a meta discussion about order vs. entropy, I am out of the discussion :)
Hm, what are those assumptions exactly? In my mind these laws always had a "until we get good enough at nanotechnology to construct Maxwell's demon" footnote.
Well, thermodynamics obviously is only valid in classical mechanics (I am not an expert on the quantum mechanical derivations.) Special relativity for example does not need such assumptions. Still there might be an error in the proof of the law, but that's the same for any theorem.
Well, you probably still know more about it than me. Is it likely that quantum mechanics is still going to uphold thermodynamics? It always struck me as a quite statistical law - like saying that a pig is very unlikely to fly. Which is of course only true until someone figures out how to put a jetpack on that poor thing.
This question sounds interesting, I'd like to discuss it a bit. Note that I've only ever learned about randomness on a very basic level, usually associated with information technology security and I'm trying find some arguments based on personal knowledge and intuition - just for fun!>the input of order into randomness
This statement implies to me that randomness is possible either with ordered input, random input, or no input at all.
As far as I am aware, true randomness can only be achieved by either using true random input or no input at all. If you only use ordered input to create something "random" it is ordered - and for me, not truly random.
>Can randomness ever create order without the input of order into randomness?
Therefore, your question for me boils down to "Can randomness ever create order?", implying that we're talking about true randomness here. So, does it?
Ok, creating randomness. What does that mean? Intuitively I'd say "Can we find order in (true) randomness?" which leads to the question "Can we distinguish order from randomness?". I think the answer here is yes, usually we are able to distinguish the two, because there is no pattern, no order we can find when looking at the output. Therefore, usually randomness is not able to create any kind of order.
But if we do it often enough, sometimes something we interpret as order appears. If order were not able to appear as output of random data, then the data is not truly random - since it would imply that we specifically exclude something that we interpret as order from the randomness.
So, answering your question: Yes, I do think that occasionally, very occasionally true randomness (without any ordered input) gives us something that we are able to interpret as order. But there is no garantuee if and when this should happen, it may happen.
As an analogy: If we sort all numbers from 1 to 100 in true random fashion, over and over again, the chance is there that sometimes we are able to manage an ascending row from 1 to 100 - which we would interpret as some kind of order, derived from randomness.
[Edit] Reading a bit more might be confusing randomness for unpredictability - I just don't know a whole lot about this topic.
>So, answering your question: Yes, I do think that occasionally, very occasionally true randomness (without any ordered input) gives us something that we are able to interpret as order. But there is no garantuee if and when this should happen, it may happen.
>As an analogy: If we sort all numbers from 1 to 100 in true random fashion, over and over again, the chance is there that sometimes we are able to manage an ascending row from 1 to 100 - which we would interpret as some kind of order, derived from randomness.
Ah! But you see you are giving randomness parameters. Numbers are a form of orderly data that can be deciphered by an intelligent creature. You have put randomness into an orderly box of data (numbers) you have put randomness into order that is the same as putting order into randomness.
Also some of the other guys were saying that the 2 law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system well then the question is, is our universe a closed system if so everything within the universe is tending toward a state of entropy in that case evolution would not be possible animals and humans would be getting worse not better over time our life span would shorten and the complete reverse of evolution would happen "devolution." Cancer rates would start to increase hart-attacks would happen more often peoples immune-systems would degrade and eventually life would not be possible. If this were true then in the past people were "better" they would live longer they would have better immune-systems less cancer less hart-attacks maybe even bigger bodies this would also be true for the animals and plants. Hmm... Very interesting is it not?
>Ah! But you see you are giving randomness parameters. Numbers are a form of orderly data that can be deciphered by an intelligent creature. You have put randomness into an orderly box of data (numbers) you have put randomness into order that is the same as putting order into randomness.
Scatter some dust in the wind. It is unlikely, but theoretically possible, that the dust will land somewhere and form the shape "5". Order from randomness.
>Also some of the other guys were saying that the 2 law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system well then the question is, is our universe a closed system if so everything within the universe
A thermodynamic system refers to a specific part of the universe. The universe itself is a perfect closed system, the only one we know to exist, in fact. However, it contains other open systems, for example, the planet Earth. Everything else you said is nonsense.
>Scatter some dust in the wind. It is unlikely, but theoretically possible, that the dust will land somewhere and form the shape "5". Order from randomness.
If you want to get technical then dust is orderly the atomic structure of a dust particle is orderly if it was not the dust particle would not be able to hold together.
And even IF dust was not orderly the wind would have to be an orderly wind to create the 5 shape so again we have order applied to randomness.
So the real question is can absolute randomness create mater (order) from absolutely nothing?
>A thermodynamic system refers to a specific part of the universe. The universe itself is a perfect closed system, the only one we know to exist, in fact. However, it contains other open systems, for example, the planet Earth. Everything else you said is nonsense.
The universe is a closed system you said and the earth is in that closed system so even if the earth is an open system it is only open within the universe so all laws that apply to the universe will also apply to the earth so entropy will also apply to the earth so again evolution would not be possible.
>If you want to get technical then dust is orderly the atomic structure of a dust particle is orderly if it was not the dust particle would not be able to hold together.
Yes, but if we have look at truly random distributions of atomic structures and collections of elements, one of the possibly outcomes is what we call "dust" (it must be - it seems orderly to us, but it might as well be this way because it is a random outcome).
>If you want to get technical then dust is orderly the atomic structure of a dust particle is orderly if it was not the dust particle would not be able to hold together.
Wind can blow randomly to shape a five - of course, if we look at it from outcome to reason, then the wind seems orderly to us - but until the 5 has shaped we have no way of saying if its ordered or not. Its just one of many possibly outcomes; it could have been a 6, a 8, or something which bears no resemblance at all. But it randomly formed an exact 5, because it must be one of the possible outcomes.
>If you want to get technical then dust is orderly the atomic structure of a dust particle is orderly if it was not the dust particle would not be able to hold together.
In a collection of dust particles, each particle is itself an ordered collection of elementary particles. The collection of dust particles, however, is not ordered.
>And even IF dust was not orderly the wind would have to be an orderly wind to create the 5 shape
You can't just make a statement like that without giving any reason for it. You're saying this sentence is true but there's no logic supporting it.
>So the real question is can absolute randomness create mater (order) from absolutely nothing?
Now hold on, you can't just change the subject like that. We've been talking about order being created from and by randomness. No-one said anything about creating order/matter from nothing.
>The universe is a closed system you said and the earth is in that closed system so even if the earth is an open system it is only open within the universe so all laws that apply to the universe will also apply to the earth so entropy will also apply to the earth so again evolution would not be possible.
If that were true, all of Thermodynamics would be pointless, as there'd be no such thing as an open system. The Earth receives energy from the Sun. Therefore, the Earth is not a closed system. Facts that apply to a closed system only do not apply to the Earth. The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, therefore it does not apply to the Earth. It may apply to closed systems on the Earth, but not the Earth itself.
Incidentally, J.J., may I recommend you give this game a try? It'll teach you a thing or two about logic.
>In a collection of dust particles, each particle is itself an ordered collection of elementary particles. The collection of dust particles, however, is not ordered.
>You can't just make a statement like that without giving any reason for it. You're saying this sentence is true but there's no logic supporting it.
Ok. I admit I might have been arguing out of thin air there, but I also think I have a different view on what I see as order. But the fact remains that it would be almost impossible for that ever to happen (the dust and wind thing forming a 5).
>Now hold on, you can't just change the subject like that. We've been talking about order being created from and by randomness. No-one said anything about creating order/matter from nothing.
I was asking another question not changing the subject.
>If that were true, all of Thermodynamics would be pointless, as there'd be no such thing as an open system. The Earth receives energy from the Sun. Therefore, the Earth is not a closed system. Facts that apply to a closed system only do not apply to the Earth. The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, therefore it does not apply to the Earth. It may apply to closed systems on the Earth, but not the Earth itself.
>Incidentally, J.J., may I recommend you give this game a try? It'll teach you a thing or two about logic.
Just because the earth is getting energy from the sun dose not make it a open system the sun is just an energy source within the closed system of the universe. How would having Thermodynamics apply to all of the universe including all that is within the universe make it pointless? Incidentally games are not always based on reality so they are often illogical, but I might look at. :)
>Blablabla dust particles
Okay, tell me how a collection of dust particles can have order.
>But the fact remains that it would be almost impossible for that ever to happen
Irrelevant. The fact remains that it can happen, and if the trial were performed an infinite number of times, it would happen. "Randomess cannot create order" and "Randomess cannot created order very often" are two very different things.
>I was asking another question not changing the subject.
You said it was "The real question" which it was not.
>Just because the earth is getting energy from the sun dose not make it a open system
Yes it does. That's exactly what it makes it.
>The sun is just an energy source within the closed system of the universe.
Correct. It also inputs energy into the open system of the Earth. The two are not mutually exclusive.
>How would having Thermodynamics apply to all of the universe including all that is within the universe make it pointless?
Not what I said. I said, if the rules that applied to a closed system applied to every system in the universe, there'd be no point in having rules for an open system, because there would be no open systems. There are open systems, of which the Earth is one, and you cannot apply rules to a closed system to the Earth because the Earth is not a closed system. The Earth is in a closed system, but it itself is an open system, so if you apply the rules for a closed system to the Earth you will get an incorrect result, because the rules for a closed system do not apply to an open system because if they did we wouldn't have rules for an open system.
>Ah! But you see you are giving randomness parameters. Numbers are a form of orderly data that can be deciphered by an intelligent creature. You have put randomness into an orderly box of data (numbers) you have put randomness into order that is the same as putting order into randomness.
Well yes. I'm looking at true randomness in the context of our universe, as in observable by us. If we're not able to observe it, because it might be in its own universe, it is neither ordered nor truly random for us, since we are not able to check it. Maybe within the uncertain state is something which is able to interpret other things it can observer as order - but we don't know.
Well perhaps true randomness could come from another universe (if there really are other universes).So I have a question that will cause a lot of controversy, but is a very important question: What created our universe?
Two different universes cannot interact with each other in any way at all ever. If they did, they wouldn't be two different universes, they'd both be parts of the same universe.
If I had to guess, I'd say quantum physics. It seems to do anything these days. To be more serious, why are you assuming anything did?
I swear Stephen Hawking could roll into my kitchen and say to me "You are Chinese." And I'd start to say "No I'm-" "I can prove it with quantum physics." "...Oh. Okay then. Nihao".
>What created our universe?
If I had to guess, I'd say quantum physics. It seems to do anything these days. To be more serious, why are you assuming anything did?
I swear Stephen Hawking could roll into my kitchen and say to me "You are Chinese." And I'd start to say "No I'm-" "I can prove it with quantum physics." "...Oh. Okay then. Nihao".
>I swear Stephen Hawking could roll into my kitchen and say to me "You are Chinese." And I'd start to say "No I'm-" "I can prove it with quantum physics." "...Oh. Okay then. Nihao".
WHAT???!!!???? Are you saying that if this Stephen Hawking guy says false = true and true = false you would believe him?!?
He probably uses a smarter set of axioms.
A different set of axioms or maybe even false axioms, but "smarter" would not be the word for any axiom perhaps a more or less logical axiom, but "smarter" would not be a correct word to describe an axiom.
You've got it exactly the wrong way. Axioms can't be false. They're axioms. You can never prove or disprove them, it's more like "Let these be true, now I can prove something from them." How much you can prove and how many paradoxes arise from them shows how smart your choice of axioms was. (Of course, the axioms itself are not sentient, so they're not smart, but I think that's obvious.)
On a side note: I think this Stephen Hawking thing may be a Fairly OddParents "reenactment" where they get him to prove 2+2=5, and the teacher has to grade the test with A. (He later says: "Stephen, I checked it, it's 6.")
On a side note: I think this Stephen Hawking thing may be a Fairly OddParents "reenactment" where they get him to prove 2+2=5, and the teacher has to grade the test with A. (He later says: "Stephen, I checked it, it's 6.")
I was more thinking of the whole quantum superposition hoohaa were something can be both true and false at the same time.
Yup.
Are you saying yup to this: WHAT???!!!???? Are you saying that if this Stephen Hawking guy says false = true and true = false you would believe him?!? Or this:A different set of axioms or maybe even false axioms, but "smarter" would not be the word for any axiom perhaps a more or less logical axiom, but "smarter" would not be a correct word to describe an axiom.
Yup.
The first one, that is.
The first one, that is.
You flipped the situation. Nice one.
So order can't create randomness, but randomness can create order. I could ask some questions; mainly related to the the observer of the order, and why he thinks about 1…100 in a special way, but instead, I'll just love this!
So order can't create randomness, but randomness can create order. I could ask some questions; mainly related to the the observer of the order, and why he thinks about 1…100 in a special way, but instead, I'll just love this!
Well, that's why I said "something we interpret as order" - it depends on the observer whether it qualifies as order or not; it's still the outcome of true randomness.
Also, I'm gonna drop this quote from Stephen Hawking off here. Seems appropriate.
"There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking 1988: 129)"
"There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking 1988: 129)"
1. All the laws of the universe apply to everything within the universe including earth even IF earth is an open system.2. Natural selection does not prove evolution and is not evolution. Natural selection is a fact and happens, evolution on the other hand is not proven to be fact even tho some people say it is.
3. An example of natural selection would be: Say you have 10 cats and 5 of the cats have short hair and the other 5 have long hair if you breed a one of the long hair cats with one of the short hair cats you would may get a long haired kitten or a short haired kitten or a medium haired kitten and if you breed a long haired cat with another long haired cat you would get a long haired kitten not a short haired kitten or even a medium haired kitten. Lets say you put all 10 cats in the a very cold environment the 5 short haired cats would probably die and most of the long haired cats would live and if you put the 10 cats in a very hot environment the 5 long haired cats would probably die and the 5 short haired cats would probably live. That would be natural selection. Natural selection does not prove evolution and is not even related to evolution.
4. Evolution is the changing of one animal kind into another animal kind or a non-living thing turning into a living thing over millions and billions of years.
5. Natural selection is observable and provable evolution is not.
6. These are my views and may or may not reflect the views of others. :)
>1. All the laws of the universe apply to everything within the universe including earth even IF earth is an open system.
The laws that apply to a closed system are not "laws of the universe". If the laws that applied to an open system didn't apply to an open system in a closed system, we wouldn't have laws for an open system. I've lost of count of how many times I've said that.
>2. Natural selection does not prove evolution.
No, but it does very strongly suggest it.
>3 bla
Say you have some cats. They have medium-length hair. The place they live in is warm in the summer, and cold in the winter. One day, one of the cats gives birth to a kitten who grows longer hair the others. Another cat gives birth to a kitten who grows barely any fur at all. Their genes just happened to mutate that way.
The winter comes. The cat with almost no fur dies. The one with long fur keeps warmer than the others, and needs less food. It's easier for it to survive the winter than the others, and it does so. It lives to reproduce, and some of its kittens have long fur. Though the cats originally all had medium length-fur, some of them now have long fur.
One day, the climate begins to change. It gets colder. Even in the Summer, it's very cold. Eventually, the shorter-haired cats begin to leave to search for warmer places, or die, as they can't catch enough food anymore, or they live, but the longer-haired cats are able to mate more, and they out-breed them. The longer-haired ones however, don't have such a problem. In fact, now that the other cats are leaving or dying, there's more food left over for them.
We now have two seperate groups of cats. The cats in the cold area adapt further. Their fur gets thicker (by natural selection). The animals they eat gain thicker fur and thicker skin in response to the cold (again, natural selection), so the cats with bigger and stronger teeth gain an advantage in hunting (natural selection)
Meanwhile, in the warm place, the cats go the other way. Any long-haired cats that went here struggled with the excess heat, and were out-competed by the other cats. The heat selects cats with shorter, finer fur. The higher temperatures means there's more food around that in the colder place, so these cats are more able to form packs to hunt the herds of food.
As time passes, the differences between the cats grow more pronounced. Evenutally, in the cold place, we have sabre-toothed tigers. In the warm place, we have lions. One species of cat has evolved into two new species, via natural selection. Like how miacids in one place were gradually re-placed by the members of the species who developed dog-like traits, and by ones who developed cat-like traits in another. Some miacids became cat-like, by natural selection, others became dogs. After enough time, there were no more miacids, only cats and dogs.
>4. Evolution is the changing of one animal kind into another animal kind or a non-living thing turning into a living thing over millions and billions of years.
Please stop using the word "kind". It makes it hard to see what you mean.
>5. Natural selection is observable and provable evolution is not.
On the other hand, evidence that different species share common ancestors is abundant. 75% of the DNA of humans and mice is identical, for example.
I guess we have a difference of opinions here and I don't think we are going to change each others minds so lets just be friends and respect each others beliefs.Thank you for the discussion it helped me to understand more of what you believe and helped me to grow. :)
Powered by mwForum 2.29.7 © 1999-2015 Markus Wichitill
