--- In ontheoriginofspecies@y..., this_science_guy <no_reply@y...>
wrote:
> > How do you mean "re-consideration of the 2nd law"? If you are
> > concerned with there continuing to be order in spite of an
infinity
> > of elapsed time, then let me share with you how I see it! Think
> > about assigning an increasing number, R, to the amount of
randomness
> > in the universe at any one time, T! Give it the value R = 1 at
the
> > present time; T = 0! When T =1, R =2! When T =2, R = 4! When T
=
> > 3, R = 8! For any given T, R = 2^T; that is, 2 raised to the
power
> > T! At any time in the future R, increases as T increases! For
any
> > time in the past, it is clear that as T increases "negatively", R
> > decreases! So, for example, if T = -5, then R = 1/32! Clearly,
> > there is some randomness at any time in the past, as well as in
the
> > future, only the randomness in the past is always less as we go
> > backwards in time! Maybe this exercise clarifies your concern!
> >
> > Charles
>
> I have pored over my thermodynamics texts and can't find any of the
> above mentioned equations with regard to Entropy or the 2nd Law.
For
> that matter, I couldn't find a version of the 2nd Law that stated
that
> "randomness" was increasing with time: it's mostly about tendencies
> toward thermal equilibrium and expanding chemical states.
>
> That aside, I think the "Design" people have, at best, a poor
> understanding of randomness, insofar as they often contrast it with
> order. Anyone whose watched a lottery drawing can tell you that
order
> is as much a part of randomness as disorder, to the point that
getting
> a completely disordered result from a drawing - no consecutive
numbers;
> no groupings - is less likely than getting a result with some
order.
> By definition, for a process to be random, it must be able to
produce
> order at some finite probability. If the universe is truly random,
it
> must be able to produce order - preventing order from arising out
of
> randomness requires as much "Design" as the ID folks place on order.

I'm way over my head here, but are you disputing that the universe
does NOT appear to be becoming increasingly disordered over time and
that I might expect Hawking's broken coffee cup to self repair
(become ordered)in time but without the reversal of entropy he
referenced as a criterion? I had thought that indications implied a
highly ordered (and more simplistic) initial state for the universe
which state deteriorated as the universe aged. I do agree that at
this stage order can result from randomness and understand there is
no discernable "law" which forbids such association as you reference.
Otherwise the probabilities associated with randomness would be as
limited as they are with order. However, it would seem that such
associations (order from randomness) are, for want of better
terminology, coincidental, and in themselves transient.