Is there evidence of " Cleverness " in Nature and it's processes ?

[tar]

And since it is nothing but highy organized carbon chains of protein, sugar, fat and chocolate, filled with organized concentrated energy put together in quite an organized way, I would imagine it would score high on the non-entropic scale of yours, as well as being creamy and delicious and good.

A human being could probably live on vitimin pills, water and Peanut Butter Cups.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

And since it is nothing but highy organized carbon chains of protein, sugar, fat and chocolate, filled with organized concentrated energy put together in quite an organized way, I would imagine it would score high on the non-entropic scale of yours, as well as being creamy and delicious and good.A human being could probably live on vitimin pills, water and Peanut Butter Cups.

Now I get it! But I am still down in a cavern well underground and rising . Soon to be , measuring worms, slime, basalt, and roots. I will have to see which side of the pond I surface and see what the locals are feasting on ? If it's peanut butter mixed with chocolate all rolling around in ecstasy , I will know I am in the U.S of A .

 

Mike

[tar]

Mike,

 

Entropy and life's stance against it, is central to the only event in my life that I would characterize as an Epiphany.

 

It was about 1980 or so and I was in the U.S. Army in a communication battalion on a hill top in Germany on a month long field problem. I had a lot of time to muse. I would routinely leave the large tent we all slept in to lay on the field that with such a low horizon and such distance from cities, afforded a quite wonderful star gazing opportunity. I got to know Cygnus very well as it was directly overhead, and I had a fine pair of binoculars I had taken from another soldier, offered as payment of a debt. Saw the Northern lights one night. Anyway, one day, sitting alone, in a period between obligations, musing on the different species of trees, and the length of time each species had retained its particular form and structure, and passed it along through its seed, I understood treeness, and life, and how life on Earth, and the Earth, had grabbed form and structure from a universe headed toward entropy, and the whole story of the particular species of tree on Earth, that I was contemplating, was but a glimpse, a mere moment in the expanse of space and time. I just say the words now. At the time, I knew what they meant. I had the Epiphany, and understood treeness, and life on Earth. And in retrospect life on Earth has EVERYTHING to do with not being Entropic. Clever thing, to grab form and structure such as us, at least for the moment.

 

Regards, TAR

and if not clever, still a victory

Edited March 1, 2014 by tar

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mike,Entropy and life's stance against it, is central to the only event in my life that I would characterize as an Epiphany.?.......................t. Anyway, one day, sitting alone, in a period between obligations, musing on the different species of trees, and the length of time each species had retained its particular form and structure, and passed it along through its seed, I understood treeness, and life, and how life on Earth, and the Earth, had grabbed form and structure from a universe headed toward entropy, and the whole story of the particular species of tree on Earth, that I was contemplating, was but a glimpse, a mere moment in the expanse of space and time. I just say the words now. At the time, I knew what they meant. I had the Epiphany, and understood treeness, and life on Earth. And in retrospect life on Earth has EVERYTHING to do with not being Entropic. Clever thing, to grab form and structure such as us, at least for the moment.Regards, TARand if not clever, still a victory

I had to leave the cafe with the dog to where trees grow prolifically .......

I had not read your post until I was in the park .

It moved me to take this picture of. ..treeness....

 

..my ability to upload pictures seems to have come to an abrupt halt. Reported to Dave ..May be server .

 

Such a good post tar. I am rather thrown .

I will re-group . Try and sort this matter , and take it up again soon.

 

Mike

Edited March 1, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

So, nature is clever if it reduces entropy? Then, overall, nature is not clever. Any local decrease must have an increase elsewhere that is greater. Total entropy doesn't decrease. An internal combustion engine is not clever, because it causes entropy to increase.

 

Either your hypothesis is falsified, or your metric is badly flawed (or both)

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

So, nature is clever if it reduces entropy? Then, overall, nature is not clever. Any local decrease must have an increase elsewhere that is greater. Total entropy doesn't decrease. An internal combustion engine is not clever, because it causes entropy to increase.

Either your hypothesis is falsified, or your metric is badly flawed (or both)

The definitions of entropy are many and varied depending on their specific use : however an ever growing popularity is that of Entropy being a measure of DISORDER as opposed to ORDER .

 

LINK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(order_and_disorder) follow index to

 

ENTROPY ( order and disorder ) then to THE ENTROPY OF THE UNIVERSE TENDS TO A MAXIMUM.

 

A particular part of this Wikipedia discussion says concerning the general run down of the universe to disorder and the apparent ordering by natural selection :-

 

Quote "

 

THE ENTROPY OF THE UNIVERSE TENDS TO A MAXIMUM.

 

Thus, if entropy is associated with disorder and if the entropy of the universe is headed towards maximal entropy, then many are often puzzled as to the nature of the "ordering" process and operation of evolution in relation to Clausius' most famous version of the second law, which states that the universe is headed towards maximal disorder. In the recent 2003 book SYNC the Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order by Steven Strogatz, for example, we find Scientists have often been baffled by the existence of spontaneous order in the universe. The laws of thermodynamics seem to dictate the opposite, that nature should inexorably degenerate toward a state of greater disorder, greater entropy. Yet all around us we see magnificent structuresgalaxies, cells, ecosystems, human beingsthat have all somehow managed to assemble themselves. [14]

The common argument used to explain this is that, locally, entropy can be lowered by external action, e.g. solar heating action, and that this applies to machines, such as a refrigerator, where the entropy in the cold chamber is being reduced, to growing crystals, and to living organisms.[2] This local increase in order is, however, only possible at the expense of an entropy increase in the surroundings; here more disorder must be created.[2][15] The conditioner of this statement suffices that living systems are open systems in which both heat, mass, and or work may transfer into or out of the system. Unlike temperature, the putative entropy of a living system would drastically change if the organism were thermodynamically isolated. If an organism was in this type of isolated situation, its entropy would increase markedly as the once-living components of the organism decayed to an unrecognizable mass.[11]

 

". Unquote

 

Clearly from these last two paragraphs , the discussion goes on. But to allow for the project to hand to be conducted we could define simply

 

Things moving toward a state of disorder as having an increase in Entropy.

And

Things moving toward a state of order as having a decrease in Entropy.

 

If we then establish a bell curve or a slewed bell curve , we can debate the significance of this particular definition and it's indications or implications.

 

Mike

 

Ps as regards your comments in your introductory box. The first half is repeated in the Wikipedia paragraph quoted , where confusion exists to many scientists. The second half I believe ( whether accidental) or is Sounding the wrong way round . However this is all ' jumping the gun '

Edited March 1, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Wikipedia is wikipedia. The "bafflement" of scientist is overstated here, and your description (not definition) in terms of order or disorder has no impact on your definition of clever being a reduction in entropy.

[Endy0816]

I'm not sure "clever" is the word I'd use, but I've always found the pro-entropy Universe bringing about Life which increases the amount of entropy, to be thought provoking.

Edited March 2, 2014 by Endy0816

[Unity+]

The definitions of entropy are many and varied depending on their specific use : however an ever growing popularity is that of Entropy being a measure of DISORDER as opposed to ORDER .

 

LINK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(order_and_disorder) follow index to

 

ENTROPY ( order and disorder ) then to THE ENTROPY OF THE UNIVERSE TENDS TO A MAXIMUM.

 

A particular part of this Wikipedia discussion says concerning the general run down of the universe to disorder and the apparent ordering by natural selection :-

 

Quote "

 

THE ENTROPY OF THE UNIVERSE TENDS TO A MAXIMUM.

 

Thus, if entropy is associated with disorder and if the entropy of the universe is headed towards maximal entropy, then many are often puzzled as to the nature of the "ordering" process and operation of evolution in relation to Clausius' most famous version of the second law, which states that the universe is headed towards maximal disorder. In the recent 2003 book SYNC the Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order by Steven Strogatz, for example, we find Scientists have often been baffled by the existence of spontaneous order in the universe. The laws of thermodynamics seem to dictate the opposite, that nature should inexorably degenerate toward a state of greater disorder, greater entropy. Yet all around us we see magnificent structuresgalaxies, cells, ecosystems, human beingsthat have all somehow managed to assemble themselves. [14]

The common argument used to explain this is that, locally, entropy can be lowered by external action, e.g. solar heating action, and that this applies to machines, such as a refrigerator, where the entropy in the cold chamber is being reduced, to growing crystals, and to living organisms.[2] This local increase in order is, however, only possible at the expense of an entropy increase in the surroundings; here more disorder must be created.[2][15] The conditioner of this statement suffices that living systems are open systems in which both heat, mass, and or work may transfer into or out of the system. Unlike temperature, the putative entropy of a living system would drastically change if the organism were thermodynamically isolated. If an organism was in this type of isolated situation, its entropy would increase markedly as the once-living components of the organism decayed to an unrecognizable mass.[11]

 

". Unquote

 

Clearly from these last two paragraphs , the discussion goes on. But to allow for the project to hand to be conducted we could define simply

 

Things moving toward a state of disorder as having an increase in Entropy.

And

Things moving toward a state of order as having a decrease in Entropy.

 

If we then establish a bell curve or a slewed bell curve , we can debate the significance of this particular definition and it's indications or implications.

 

Mike

 

Ps as regards your comments in your introductory box. The first half is repeated in the Wikipedia paragraph quoted , where confusion exists to many scientists. The second half I believe ( whether accidental) or is Sounding the wrong way round . However this is all ' jumping the gun '

I think there needs to be consideration of what disorder and order are defined by in the idea of natural cleverness.

 

Cleverness is simply being able to understand and apply an idea quickly to achieve a result that is desired. Therefore, both order or disorder could be the goal and entropy has a different meaning in such a context. There would have to be a different approach similar to entropy.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I'm not sure "clever" is the word I'd use, but I've always found the pro-entropy Universe bringing about Life which increases the amount of entropy, to be thought provoking.

Yes, well I agreed to use a moderated expression for "clever "

 

Post #90. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81894-is-there-evidence-of-cleverness-in-nature-and-its-processes/page-5#entry793840

 

The relevant piece being "

Quote

. .Mike

 

-------------------- ---------------- --------------- --------------------///

A definition of "cleverness" to make measurements. :

. Now

. " INNATE PROGRESSIVE CHANGE"

A discrete system will be referred to as :-

. Clever ( INNATE PROGRESSIVE CHANGE) if it has reducing entropy .

Moving from a state of disorder to a state of more order. 5 To. 0

 

A discrete system will be referred to as :-

without Cleverness ( without INNATE PROGRESSIVE CHANGE) , if it has static or increasing entropy.

Moving from a state of order to a state of more disorder. 5 To. 10

 

------------ -------------- ------------------ ----------------- ------------------///

Unquote "

 

 

Thus not pre supposing a result , for the time being just testing for :-

 

What proportion , or distribution of

moving to 0 entropy. Order .

Or

Moving to max entropy . Disorder

 

Do we actually have across the universe ( across space and time ) ?

 

Once having got a reasonable feeling for the distribution of each , we can then begin to discuss any possible implications !

 

Clearly Wikipedia quotes " In the recent 2003 book SYNC the Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order by Steven Strogatz, for example, we find Scientists have often been baffled by the existence of spontaneous order in the universe. The laws of thermodynamics seem to dictate the opposite, that nature should inexorably degenerate toward a state of greater disorder, greater entropy. Yet all around us we see magnificent structuresgalaxies, cells, ecosystems, human beingsthat have all somehow managed to assemble themselves. [14]

"

 

Similarly , based on any reasoning , we are still free to make our own choice, as to the implications.

But that should possibly come after the survey which I proposed , above . Looking across space and time with a simplified view of entropy , for. ' innate progressive order ' and/or / both 'innate move to disorder '.

 

Mike

Wikipedia is wikipedia. The "bafflement" of scientist is overstated here, and your description (not definition) in terms of order or disorder has no impact on your definition of clever being a reduction in entropy.

As reasoned above . And reply to unity+ below .

 

Mike

Mike,Entropy and life's stance against it, is central to the only event in my life that I would characterize as an Epiphany.It was about 1980 or so and I was in the U.S. Army in a communication battalion on a hill top in Germany on a month long field problem. I had a lot of time to muse. I would routinely leave the large tent we all slept in to lay on the field that with such a low horizon and such distance from cities, afforded a quite wonderful star gazing opportunity. I got to know Cygnus very well as it was directly overhead, and I had a fine pair of binoculars I had taken from another soldier, offered as payment of a debt. Saw the Northern lights one night. Anyway, one day, sitting alone, in a period between obligations, musing on the different species of trees, and the length of time each species had retained its particular form and structure, and passed it along through its seed, I understood treeness, and life, and how life on Earth, and the Earth, had grabbed form and structure from a universe headed toward entropy, and the whole story of the particular species of tree on Earth, that I was contemplating, was but a glimpse, a mere moment in the expanse of space and time. I just say the words now. At the time, I knew what they meant. I had the Epiphany, and understood treeness, and life on Earth. And in retrospect life on Earth has EVERYTHING to do with not being Entropic. Clever thing, to grab form and structure such as us, at least for the moment.Regards, TARand if not clever, still a victory

 

Hey I have done it ! Finally uploaded the trees I saw immediately after receiving your lovely post yesterday , while walking my friend , the dog !

 

 

Mike

I think there needs to be consideration of what disorder and order are defined by in the idea of natural cleverness.

 

Cleverness is simply being able to understand and apply an idea quickly to achieve a result that is desired. Therefore, both order or disorder could be the goal and entropy has a different meaning in such a context. There would have to be a different approach similar to entropy.

I am , like with swansont 's comment . Not trying to evade the remarks about cleverness, but postpone the meaning until later , after we / I have , established better the proportions and slew or no slew , in the relative Order to disorder ratio. Then based on the ratio we might better be poised to discuss the implications of the results, meanings of words like clever, and choices of acceptance or otherwise. If that makes any sense. . .?

 

Ps. Thinking about what you said ... And my redefinition previously ... It could be called defined as

 

INNATE CHANGE TOWARDS ORDER for less entropy

 

INNATE CHANGE TOWARDS DISORDER For more entropy

 

Then whether we think , what about either or both is later something for discussion .

 

Eg Towards order MAKES the universe what it is or becomes

Towards disorder is the ENERGY by which the universe makes things happen

 

Mike

 

Edited March 2, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

>100 posts in to a so-called science discussion and there still isn't any science being discussed.

 

Changing the name has the same effect as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Simply repeating an argument in response to criticism has even less of an impact.

[StringJunky]

>100 posts in to a so-called science discussion and there still isn't any science being discussed.

 

Changing the name has the same effect as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Simply repeating an argument in response to criticism has even less of an impact.

My thoughts as well ..the question was reasonably answered in the negative long ago. To argue otherwise would be a teleological one and that is the domain of religion.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

>100 posts in to a so-called science discussion and there still isn't any science being discussed.

 

Changing the name has the same effect as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Simply repeating an argument in response to criticism has even less of an impact.

Certainly it is science . It is possibly the biggest scientific challenge you are likely to face in your lifetime What are you going to do if/when you find that 50 % of the scientific universe is marching to a different tune, than you imagined , than you thought !

 

mike

My thoughts as well ..the question was reasonably answered in the negative long ago. To argue otherwise would be a teleological one and that is the domain of religion.

As with Comment to Swansont. I have spent the last page or two of posts adapting to the current language of science , in order to reason things out in a current scientific technique. Carry out Tests Produce 30 -100 measurements . Plot, look for peaks, slews and deviations. Make conclusions , discuss with scientific colleagues and publicise. If you say this is not science then this is more like a bit of a hasty decision on your part .

 

 

Now , To the Science in progress:- Observation 2. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2. BASALT The second region to look at is a very common Rock in and under the surface of the Earth

Courtesy of Geology.com Link http://geology.com/

What Is Basalt, How Does It Form and How Is It Used?

 

Basalt is a dark-colored, fine-grained, igneous rock composed mainly of plagioclase and pyroxene minerals. It most commonly forms as an extrusive rock, such as a lava flow, but can also form in small intrusive bodies, such as an igneous dike or a thin sill. It has a composition similar to gabbro. The difference between basalt and gabbro is that basalt is a fine-grained rock while gabbro is a coarse-grained rock.

 

Earth's Most Abundant Bedrock

 

Basalt underlies more of Earth's surface than any other rock type. Most areas within Earth's ocean basins are underlain by basalt. Although basalt is much less common on continents, lava flows and flood basalts underlie several percent of Earth's land surface. Basalt is a very important rock.

 

Consists mainly of Plagioclase Feldspar and Pyroxine minerals.

 

Basalt-Forming Environments: This map shows the location of oceanic divergent boundaries and hotspots. These are locations were large volumes of basalt have been formed. Map copyright by Geology.com and MapResources. Locations generalized after United States Geological Survey, Geologic Investigations Map I-2800: This Dynamic Planet.

 

Most of the basalt found on Earth was produced in just three rock-forming environments: 1) oceanic divergent boundaries, 2) oceanic hotspots, and 3) mantle plumes and hotspots beneath continents.

 

 

Columbia River Flood Basalts: The Columbia River Flood Basalts are an extensive sequence of stacked lava flows that reach a cumulative thickness of up to 6000 feet. The outcrops in the foreground and in the distance of this photo all are made up of layered basalt flows. Although basalt is typically a dark black rock it often weathers to a yellow-brown color similar to the rocks shown here. Public domain image by Williamborg.

Uses of Basalt

Basalt is used for a wide variety of purposes. It is most commonly crushed for use as an aggregate in construction projects. Crushed basalt is used for road base, concrete aggregate, asphalt pavement aggregate, railroad ballast, filter stone in drain fields and may other purposes. Basalt is also cut into dimension stone. Thin slabs of basalt are cut and sometimes polished for use as floor tiles, building veneer, monuments and other stone objects.

Contributor: Hobart King

 

Taking just one of the main ingredients of Basalt namely Plagioclase feldspar . Its chemical content is

 

Chemical Composition NaAlSi₃O₈ CaAl₂Si₂O₈ which means there is sodium, aluminium, silicon, oxygen calcium as its elements constituents . Gabbro and Basalt are Related

Gabbros are equivalent in composition to basalts. The difference between the two rock types is their grain size. Basalts are extrusive igneous rocks that cool quickly and have fine-grained crystals. Gabbros are intrusive igneous rocks that cool slowly and have coarse-grained crystals. Gabbro is composed mainly of calcium-rich plagioclase feldspar (usually labradorite or bytownite) and clinopyroxene (augite). Minor amounts of olivine and orthopyroxene might also be present in the rock.

 

Then there is the Pyroxine mineral content. Olivine, Amphibole, Garnet

 

 

One can imagine the tracing of all the distributed, elements, molecules and fragmented minerals that came together out of the dust clouds of the infant solar system , Then the Heaving furnace of the original molten Earth. Finally the crystalisation of the above mentioned minerals, under the heat and pressure of the earths mantle . All this to show itself ultimately as a Basalt Flow or Basalt Pillars .

 

Can we say this is movement to innate order or is movement to innate disorder ?

 

I reason at the moment , that although it has had an ordering period from dust in outer space to basalt . As well as a little to and fro with plate tectonics , volcanism , and uplift. My sample is fairly static at the moment so this result is STATIC EQUILIBRIUM =. 5 + or - 0.5

 

2. Is. STATIC equilibrium = 5 + or - 0.5

 

 

Mike

Edited March 3, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

 

 

Certainly it is science . It is possibly the biggest scientific challenge you are likely to face in your lifetime What are you going to do if/when you find that 50 % of the scientific universe is marching to a different tune, than you imagined , than you thought !

 

 

No, it is undoubtedly not. Just as with my suggestion that the universe is foofy, to which you responded, and rather ironically. "Foofy" is not adequately defined. But neither is "clever". To the extent you have defined it, the hypothesis is falsified, and yet you continue to defend the conjecture. Holding something true in spite of evidence against it and/or without scientific evidence for it is not science. That's ideology.

[Ringer]

How can you define clever by saying something is innate. If it is innate it just does its thing, no thought or 'cleverness' about it. So your definition is basically "something does something natural".

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

No, it is undoubtedly not. Just as with my suggestion that the universe is foofy, to which you responded, and rather ironically. "Foofy" is not adequately defined. But neither is "clever". To the extent you have defined it, the hypothesis is falsified, and yet you continue to defend the conjecture. Holding something true in spite of evidence against it and/or without scientific evidence for it is not science. That's ideology.

No at this juncture I have not defined " clever" I have said that I would use "innate progress toward order " and " innate progress toward disorder" as the two options. With degrees (5 to 0 ) in the case of order , or (5 to 10) in the case of disorder.

 

So far I have two results : What it all means is for later. You cannot falsify anything at this stage, that is very very premature!

 

Result. 1 was a movement toward ORDER ( 5 to 4) = 4

Result. 2. Was a state of. STATIC. Equilibrium ____= 5 + or - 0.5

 

OR in view of a conversation with Ringer over the next 2 posts

 

Result. 2. Was a state of. STATIC. Equilibrium ____= 0 to + or - 10 [ large future or large past ]

 

Mike

How can you define clever by saying something is innate. If it is innate it just does its thing, no thought or 'cleverness' about it. So your definition is basically "something does something natural".

 

The whole point of this thread is in fact . Is nature, "which IS doing what nature does", just on automatic wind down, which although releasing or redistributing energy in a disordering process, is nonetheless blind, yet works .

 

Or is there in addition an ordering system ,that is coming up with some/many solutions that have an elevated character and beg an explanation . .

 

It is the purpose of this thread ,is to find out the character of this innate capability.

 

mike

Edited March 3, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ringer]

No at this juncture I have not defined " clever" I have said that I would use "innate progress toward order " and " innate progress toward disorder" as the two options. With degrees (5 to 0 ) in the case of order , or (5 to 10) in the case of disorder.

 

 

The whole point of this thread is in fact . Is nature, "which IS doing what nature does", just on automatic wind down, which although releasing or redistributing energy in a disordering process, is nonetheless blind, yet works .

 

Or is there in addition an ordering system ,that is coming up with some/many solutions that have an elevated character and beg an explanation . .

 

It is the purpose of this thread ,is to find out the character of this innate capability.

 

mike

 

So if I have 20 d20 (20 sided dice) and I roll them until the result is 20,19,18,17,. . . I can then assume the dice are clever because that arrangement is more ordered? Or an explanation that doesn't need a huge assumption could be that with enough energy input (me rolling multiple times) a statistically unlikely event (an ordered system) can occur solely due to the amount of tries. That doesn't need cleverness in any way to explain it.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

So if I have 20 d20 (20 sided dice) and I roll them until the result is 20,19,18,17,. . . I can then assume the dice are clever because that arrangement is more ordered? Or an explanation that doesn't need a huge assumption could be that with enough energy input (me rolling multiple times) a statistically unlikely event (an ordered system) can occur solely due to the amount of tries. That doesn't need cleverness in any way to explain it.

 

I have been thinking about what you have said. and I tried to think of it in context about what I have just been thinking about with regard to my lump of Basalt Rock .

 

It has made me think about how time has a major role in all this. My Basalt and your 20 sided Dice resting on the table or in the ground are in a static equilibrium state. However they have come from somewhere in a different state, and are likely going somewhere in a different state. ( Time Wise & State wise ) . Yours [ the dice ] will be random ( 1-20) in both directions of time , one assumes. My [ Basalt ] will be max disordered back in time ( value of disorder max 10 ) , static peek order now , as Basalt ( Value 0 ) going onwards into the future when the sun blows up into a red giant and earth gets vapourised. My rock of basalt will be back in Disorder floating around in bits in outer space with ( value of disorder max 10 ). Both of these oscillate about the present. Depending on the results will give an interpretation as to whether or not there is some innate propendancy for ORDER or DISORDER .

 

Without making judgements too hastily, I would suspect my Basalt has an innate drive to order, whereas the Dice have a lack of such Drive and so will tend to disorder at all places in the cycle.( if indeed there is a central point at all. ) Thus the difference .

 

mike

 

[ PS] I suspect this will arise on many of the 100 samples on my survey. Which in itself is a very interesting phenomenon .Things oscillating about a mean or central point of stability and order . Which already infers an innate quality of ORDER .This alone is quite a , 'dare I say it at this early juncture ' , interesting principle . [ an Intrinsic mechanism towards order out of chaos. a strange attractor again, Complexity theory ]

Edited March 3, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ophiolite]

I have had a small insight, too small to be called an epiphany, but perhaps both relevant to this thread and independently interesting.

 

Humans have an innate ability for original thought. Only persons much more intellectually gifted than I should succumb to the temptation to explore that ability.

[swansont]

No at this juncture I have not defined " clever" I have said that I would use "innate progress toward order " and " innate progress toward disorder" as the two options. With degrees (5 to 0 ) in the case of order , or (5 to 10) in the case of disorder.

 

So far I have two results : What it all means is for later. You cannot falsify anything at this stage, that is very very premature!

 

Result. 1 was a movement toward ORDER ( 5 to 4) = 4

Result. 2. Was a state of. STATIC. Equilibrium ____= 5 + or - 0.5

 

OR in view of a conversation with Ringer over the next 2 posts

 

Result. 2. Was a state of. STATIC. Equilibrium ____= 0 to + or - 10 [ large future or large past ]

 

As I said, re-naming changes nothing.

 

Order and disorder with an arbitrary, undefined scale, means very little. What's the difference between "5 to 3" and "5 to 4"?

 

Also, not being able to falsify it means that it is not in compliance with the first rule of speculations. No true model and no way to test it.

 

The whole point of this thread is in fact . Is nature, "which IS doing what nature does", just on automatic wind down, which although releasing or redistributing energy in a disordering process, is nonetheless blind, yet works .

 

Or is there in addition an ordering system ,that is coming up with some/many solutions that have an elevated character and beg an explanation . .

 

It is the purpose of this thread ,is to find out the character of this innate capability.

Does this mean you are abandoning the idea that there is some kind of intelligence behind it?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

A) As I said, re-naming changes nothing.

B) Order and disorder with an arbitrary, undefined scale, means very little. What's the difference between "5 to 3" and "5 to 4"?

 

C) Also, not being able to falsify it means that it is not in compliance with the first rule of speculations. No true model and no way to test it.

 

 

D) Does this mean you are abandoning the idea that there is some kind of intelligence behind it?

Answering your points one by one , which I am happy to do but would sooner discuss the depths of the project subject matter itself. However:-

A ) renaming was caused by some of the replies ( including your good self ) to not liking " clever" as a descriptor , as it immediately infers intelligence , which was not my immediate motive.( see starting health warning ) (See also (d) ) as an engineer I have often said , when seeing some mechanism " that's clever " . I feel that all the time I see things in nature. However , for the very sensitive I am using " innate move to order " , as it picks up a little of the entropy idea without launching full throttle into thermo dynamics, Carnot and closed and open systems etc. KISS I was told ' keep it simple stupid ' .

B) defined scale. I thought I had covered this. One of the replies, in an encouragement to scientise the project suggested

< this figure so and so

> this other figure different so and so , on a scale 0 to 10 .

So that is what I have done . One end of the scale 0 = complete order 10 = complete disorder ( in keeping with upside down style of entropy.) clearly. 5 is neither order nor disorder ,neutral. To move in one direction or the other 5 to 4, 5 to 3, 5 to 2 5 to 1 give four options at a grade like , very.... ,much....., some ...., little ... Similarly 5 to the higher figures ( eg. a little move to disorder 5 to 6 )

C) I was not saying you should not attempt to falsify the theory, I merely said it was premature, as we had hardly laid out the project , as I am still doing in this post. I had previously stated it was falsifiable.

D) I have been very sensitive to every bodies soft spot on " what or who is behind this ? "

In the case of this project , any discussion about how well designed, or functional or clever something appears , invariably raises questions as to its origin. I was rather hoping people could make up their own minds , on that. I have never hidden that I think something rather super human ( above human capability ) , more than nothing and ordinary-ness, is behind the origin of the whole shebang. But I have listed the choices on many occasions, including nothing is behind it. It is every bodies free choice.

 

Mike

Edited March 3, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

defined scale. I thought I had covered this. One of the replies, in an encouragement to scientise the project suggested

< this figure so and so

> this other figure different so and so , on a scale 0 to 10 .

So that is what I have done . One end of the scale 0 = complete order 10 = complete disorder ( in keeping with upside down style of entropy.) clearly. 5 is neither order nor disorder ,neutral. To move in one direction or the other 5 to 4, 5 to 3, 5 to 2 5 to 1 give four options at a grade like , very.... ,much....., some ...., little ... Similarly 5 to the higher figures ( eg. a little move to disorder 5 to 6 )

 

 

If you're discussing entropy, why not just discuss entropy? (KISS, remember?) Is the root question why entropy can decrease for parts of a system while it increases overall?

 

At this point I have no clue what "theory" you are proposing.

[Bignose]

No at this juncture I have not defined " clever" I have said that I would use "innate progress toward order "

But this definition lacks a fair amount too.

 

Take for instance Benard convection cells in a fluid that is heated uniformly from below. The shape of these cells form perfect hexagons.

 

 

This is clearly ordered. But most assuredly entropy is increasing in this situation -- despite what appears to be increased 'order'. This is the difficulty in applying human aesthetics like 'order' to what is inherently a mathematical concept like entropy. And ultimately shows that this concept doesn't fit too well for defining 'cleverness' either.

[Ringer]

 

I have been thinking about what you have said. and I tried to think of it in context about what I have just been thinking about with regard to my lump of Basalt Rock .

 

It has made me think about how time has a major role in all this. My Basalt and your 20 sided Dice resting on the table or in the ground are in a static equilibrium state. However they have come from somewhere in a different state, and are likely going somewhere in a different state. ( Time Wise & State wise ) . Yours [ the dice ] will be random ( 1-20) in both directions of time , one assumes. My [ Basalt ] will be max disordered back in time ( value of disorder max 10 ) , static peek order now , as Basalt ( Value 0 ) going onwards into the future when the sun blows up into a red giant and earth gets vapourised. My rock of basalt will be back in Disorder floating around in bits in outer space with ( value of disorder max 10 ). Both of these oscillate about the present. Depending on the results will give an interpretation as to whether or not there is some innate propendancy for ORDER or DISORDER .

 

Without making judgements too hastily, I would suspect my Basalt has an innate drive to order, whereas the Dice have a lack of such Drive and so will tend to disorder at all places in the cycle.( if indeed there is a central point at all. ) Thus the difference .

 

mike

 

[ PS] I suspect this will arise on many of the 100 samples on my survey. Which in itself is a very interesting phenomenon .Things oscillating about a mean or central point of stability and order . Which already infers an innate quality of ORDER .This alone is quite a , 'dare I say it at this early juncture ' , interesting principle . [ an Intrinsic mechanism towards order out of chaos. a strange attractor again, Complexity theory ]

 

 

So you suspect there is something different about basalt therefore cleverness? You're not even making an argument, you're just repeating that you think there is some mysterious drive toward an ordered system.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

So you suspect there is something different about basalt therefore cleverness? You're not even making an argument, you're just repeating that you think there is some mysterious drive toward an ordered system.

I want to prove it first by observation . , then make an argument around the results. Which could contradict my inclination of course. ,! Although I doubt it , otherwise I would not be setting out to try to prove it.

 

Unfortunately entropy is a negative concept, concentrating on what is unusable, wasted, chaotic, spread out. It is a pity there is not a word for the positive version of entropy.

 

Eg useful energy, ordered, pattern, brought together to achieve etc the nearest I have got is

 

" Innate progressive change ". And " clever " , there must be a better word to express ' innate progressive change ' ?

 

Thesaurus for

useful= advantageous!effective!fruitful!helpful!practical! valuable !worthwhile ,

Order= pattern! arrangement !plan, symmetry !align, catalogue! manage! marshal!systemise! tabulate.

 

How about :-

{ patterns of systemised, practical, effectiveness } Or { systemised increase in effective order }

 

As the opposite of entropy ?

 

Then if I can prove

a bell curve either symmetrical or slewed to the left { systemised increase in effective order} we can argue the case! Yes ?

 

Mike

But this definition lacks a fair amount too.Take for instance Benard convection cells in a fluid that is heated uniformly from below. The shape of these cells form perfect hexagons.This is clearly ordered. But most assuredly entropy is increasing in this situation -- despite what appears to be increased 'order'. This is the difficulty in applying human aesthetics like 'order' to what is inherently a mathematical concept like entropy. And ultimately shows that this concept doesn't fit too well for defining 'cleverness' either.

Yes but that is if you take the thermodynamics route of entropy. I wish to take the formal definition of entropy as being

:- a decrease in entropy , providing useful order as opposed to useless disorder .

 

Mike

If you're discussing entropy, why not just discuss entropy? (KISS, remember?) Is the root question why entropy can decrease for parts of a system while it increases overall?

 

At this point I have no clue what "theory" you are proposing.

I am trying to make a THEORY. that :-

 

Rather than concentrating on the thermodynamics aspect of entropy , with its concentration on useless energy distribution, I wish to concentrate on the opposite concept of usefull, patterns of effective and practical systems of order that [i believe ] are being generated in the universe in equal quantities as the usefull energy is being lost by entropy.

I believe we may have on our hands a universe which is in fact a balanced system between on the one hand movement to order and on the other hand movement to disorder .. In equal measure and therefore balance.

 

" How clever is that ? " if proved ? Not me clever but the system clever.

 

MIKE

Edited March 3, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos