--- 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.

Of course not! Randomness is not a rigorous concept! But if you
substitute "entropy", the equation is correct! Entropy of the
universe does increase with time! As such, the modified equation is
still the same example that I invented for the purpose of
illustrating how an increasing quantity can always be positive no
matter how far back in the past the independent quantity happens to
be! The fact that increased entropy can be associated with the less
rigorous: increase in "randomness": is just a simple consequence, and
uses a concept more acceptable to the layman, in spite of its
vagueness! Anyway, this poses no problem for an everlasting
universe! With BB boundary conditions in space/time at negative
infinite time! It is a singularity, then!

Charles


> 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.