jlamour wrote:
There's too much of Kant's transcendental idealism permeating Nietzche's philosophy. Nietzsche's works are all about how to transcend this shitty nihilist reality into a better reality but this is only acheived "on pain of death". Sounds like metaphysical dualism to me.

Dude, you're off. Tipcat is a philosophy instructor. I defer to him or her. Tipcat?

Please explain autopoietic(sp?) nature of the universe. Cheers.

I was half-joking when I referred to the universe as "autopoietic." And I don't really know anything about autopoiesis.

My point was that in regard to Nietzsche and Marx you wrote:

My point is these ideas all contradict an idea that the universe is all-inclusive in its identity.

And you were wrong.

It's okay to make mistakes. You've misconstrued the thought of a couple of the most important philosophers of the modern era. The earth will continue to revolve around the sun. I'm not worried.

Cranius wrote:

matthew wrote:

kerble wrote:mmmmmm....delicious Entropy.........

It's good you mention entropy here, Kerble, because in an entropic universe biological macroevolution cannot occur. Entropy entails the winding down of matter/energy, thus how would it be possibly for great, complex things such as organisms to evolve if matter/energy were burning themselves out?

Matthew,

You won't be happy until God is proven, will you? And I thought it was all about FAITH.

[...]

Unfortunately, God has yet to make an appearance.

This is why the God-vs-science debate is worthless.

Look, science is in a perpetual state of knowledge-building and refinement. It does not reach absolutes, unless things are tested and replicated over extended periods of time (in which case they become 'laws') and even then, they stand to be refuted. That's how the system works.

God-speak begins with the existence of God, a priori, and thus requires nothing to be tested or replicated. Furthermore, this allows silly appropriations of scientific conclusions, like attributing scientific models to be "all part of God's plan."

That's a belief question, it's not science, dammit! This thread was supposed to be about science! Why the fuck has it been derailed (again) to God-talk???

Cranius wrote:

matthew wrote:

kerble wrote:mmmmmm....delicious Entropy.........

It's good you mention entropy here, Kerble, because in an entropic universe biological macroevolution cannot occur. Entropy entails the winding down of matter/energy, thus how would it be possibly for great, complex things such as organisms to evolve if matter/energy were burning themselves out?

Organizational complexity is on the boundary of current scientific thinking.

Net disorder in the Universe can still be the case even though there are pockets of order.

In the case of our planet, we get an the influx of energy from our dying sun, which we all feed off of. This gives us the extra energy we need to maintain our energy exchange system. There's a name for this, but I've forgotten it.

Edit: It popped into my head. Dissipative structures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissipative_system

In even smaller matters of order such as our species, we maintain order and grow through creating disorder around us by feeding - until we die and decompose ourselves.

Within that temporary order (80 years?) and cycle of energy, we can have evolution.

It still ends in entropy. We decompose and our sun is burning out.

Andrew L. wrote:

jlamour wrote:
There's too much of Kant's transcendental idealism permeating Nietzche's philosophy. Nietzsche's works are all about how to transcend this shitty nihilist reality into a better reality but this is only acheived "on pain of death". Sounds like metaphysical dualism to me.

Dude, you're off. Tipcat is a philosophy instructor. I defer to him or her. Tipcat?

On my understanding of Fred, way the fuck off. Though it sure is an interesting notion that Nietzsche is a Kantian idealist! Jlamour, would you care to defend this?

Jlamour is correct, however, in asserting that Nietzsche is an anti-nihilist. This is something that the majority of casual readers are incapable of getting. But drop the bit about "transcending reality." (shudder)

And Nietzsche was not a fucking Platonist. He is the consummate anti-Platonist, favoring thinkers such as Empedocles and Heraclitus for their embrace of the concept of becoming. At the present moment I do not have time to elaborate, so perhaps later.

I think Nietzsche is pretty great, until he starts talking about eternal recurrence.

I ask, Friedrich Nietzsche, what the fuck?

bumble wrote:
It still ends in entropy. We decompose and our sun is burning out.

[Nods head solemnly. Adjusts beret. Hides the knives.]


Hi Bumble!

gio wrote:

Cranius wrote:Matthew,

You won't be happy until God is proven, will you? And I thought it was all about FAITH.

[...]

Unfortunately, God has yet to make an appearance.

This is why the God-vs-science debate is worthless.

[...]

God-speak begins with the existence of God, a priori, and thus requires nothing to be tested or replicated. Furthermore, this allows silly appropriations of scientific conclusions, like attributing scientific models to be "all part of God's plan."

That's a belief question, it's not science, dammit! This thread was supposed to be about science! Why the fuck has it been derailed (again) to God-talk???

Gio, it's only because the God-botherers have an agenda that they play any part in scientific debate. Otherwise their opinions on the scientific matters are totally redundant. Matthew's only sticking his religious oar in, because he sees a shortfall in scientific knowledge in an area that concerns the creation of life. Unfortunately, he believes that every hole in our knowledge is God-shaped. It's desperate opportunism. In the end science will discover new laws of nature that support current theories.

Okay, back to science.

bumble wrote:In even smaller matters of order such as our species, we maintain order and grow through creating disorder around us by feeding - until we die and decompose ourselves.

Within that temporary order (80 years?) and cycle of energy, we can have evolution.

It still ends in entropy. We decompose and our sun is burning out.

Thanks Bumble, thats the important point I forgot to mention: higher levels of order(such as found those in living organisms) ultimately cause higher levels of disorder and entropy. This is in keeping with the laws of thermodynamics. So the anomaly is self-correcting once you look a little further into it.

Physics literally rules!

Cranius wrote:Thanks Bumble, thats the important point I forgot to mention: higher levels of order(such as found those in living organisms) ultimately cause higher levels of disorder and entropy. This is in keeping with the laws of thermodynamics. So the anomaly is self-correcting once you look a little further into it.

I wouldn't even call it an anomaly; something I had hammered into my skull when I studied the Second Law was that every single physical action is accompanied by an increase in entropy. It's a hugely powerful law, it's the arrow that time follows.

Sorry, the subject was a little hobby horse of mine... Geek science rocks!

sparky wrote:

Cranius wrote:...higher levels of order(such as found those in living organisms) ultimately cause higher levels of disorder and entropy. This is in keeping with the laws of thermodynamics. So the anomaly is self-correcting once you look a little further into it.

...something I had hammered into my skull when I studied the Second Law was that every single physical action is accompanied by an increase in entropy. It's a hugely powerful law, it's the arrow that time follows.

I don't know much about this, but I thought I'd bring it up. I was thinking that the open system part is the important piece when it comes to our planet and our ability to have speciation (sp?)/species generation and evolution. (Oops, I mean, "Thanks, Brahma/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Jehovah/Ra!")

What about the idea that disorder can actually decrease when you're having an influx of energy into a system, even though the rest of the Universe is still experiencing an increase in disorder?

On earth we've had order build up over many years. I mean, the sun's going to burn out eventually, anyway, so entropy is going to win in the end. But until then, I think we've had negative entropy of a sort because we've fed off of the energy from the sun.

Thoughts? Actual Physicists out there?

(Hi, FMajcinek! [Hides beer money])

bumble wrote:I don't know much about this, but I thought I'd bring it up. I was thinking that the open system part is the important piece when it comes to our planet and our ability to have speciation (sp?)/species generation and evolution. (Oops, I mean, "Thanks, Brahma/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Jehovah/Ra!")

What about the idea that disorder can actually decrease when you're having an influx of energy into a system, even though the rest of the Universe is still experiencing an increase in disorder?

Good question... I think! The fact that ever single action involves an overall increase in entropy still holds. I'd be careful framing it in terms of energy moving from one area to another, as it is a different thing, I think. Usually, I would associate energy flowing into an area with an increase in entropy in the receiving area (say heat applied to ice).

On earth we've had order build up over many years. I mean, the sun's going to burn out eventually, anyway, so entropy is going to win in the end. But until then, I think we've had negative entropy of a sort because we've fed off of the energy from the sun.

If there is a way of measuring the earth's entropy as a closed system, I would be pretty sure it would show an increase since the bulk of the constituent elements were thrown out and glued together. To use an obscenely crude example, if you think about the decrease in order from carbon in a natural elemental form (graphite or diamond) and to the myriad of different combinations it is found in now, I think the direction in this system (earth) is clear.

I just think that given that every one of the unimaginable number of microscopic reactions that have brought us from state:lump of carbon to state:human/plant etc must be accompanied by an increase in entropy, the overall change for the planet alone must be towards disorder.

But I would be very happy for someone to jump in and say otherwise. As I've said elsewhere, I was a poor student. I haven't thought much about the entropic effect of all the heat radiating off the planet and dissipate into space and vacuum.