--- In ontheoriginofspecies@y..., chafihar <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- 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.
>
> I am not familiar with what you claim! I did not know that "a
> necessity for there to be order at some finite time in the future"
is
> part of the definition of randomness! I can understand it, though,
> as there are many types of probability processes that are, in
simple
> language, irregular! I will look into it and see what's up!
>
> Charles
>
>
> > 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.
Yup- I tried to imply this in a previous post