Entropy always increase...

[uncledote]

How does the second law of thermodynamics relate to the nature of Ultimate Reality?

[cousinbasil]

How does the second law of thermodynamics relate to the nature of Ultimate Reality?

To which "Ultimate Reality" are you referring?

If you have read the writing of David Quinn - and to a lesser extent, that of Solway and Rowden - you will have noticed a certain disdain for scientific principles. This is ostensibly because philosophy deals with the truth as opposed to theories about nature.

A physicist, chemist, or engineer will tell you Ultimate Reality must conform to the Second Law. This is not really a "theory" in the sense that General Relativity is a theory. While GR had to be substantiated before it was accepted - and it is by no means universally accepted even today - the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLT) has never been known to fail. It is more of an observation than a theory. It has the status of physical Law.

It is instructive to read Kevin's take on the phenomenon of life. In essence, he sees no intrinsic difference between living matter and nonliving matter, as if the distinction were more or less arbitrary. Search his posts for examples of this line of thought. I think you'll find that Kevin sees nothing particularly physically remarkable about the phenomenon of life.

In my mind, this view lacks a firm grasp of the true power of SLT and what it implies. That nature adheres to the Second Law without exception is the very basis for the method cosmologists use to estimate the age of the Universe. Since this cannot be independently confirmed, I tend to view it with some skepticism, although perhaps not the level of skepticism a philosopher might.

What is undeniable, however, is that inanimate (nonliving) nature tends toward disorder, and life tends toward higher and higher levels of organization. Not only does living matter at the level of the organism organize itself at the expense of increased disorder in its environment, but so does the species, and so does all life by means of evolution attain more and more organization.

This co-opting of inanimate matter, which obeys the Second Law, for use by living matter, which often violates it, has been ongoing for millions of years. When a species fails, others rise to take its place and perpetuate this self organization being accomplished by Life. The entire phenomenon of Life and evolution seems to be driven from within.

I suggest the nature of "Ultimate Reality" cannot be comprehended without taking this dichotomy into account, without ascertaining how and why it began and what it is that drives it, since any sentience contemplating this "Ultimate Reality" depends on this ongoing self-ordering of that which is living in the midst of the sea of that which is not.

It should not be forgotten that the Second Law is not violated by life, since the local self-ordering of life is always at the expense of its environment.

[uncledote]

How does the second law of thermodynamics relate to the nature of Ultimate Reality?

To which "Ultimate Reality" are you referring?

If you have read the writing of David Quinn - and to a lesser extent, that of Solway and Rowden - you will have noticed a certain disdain for scientific principles. This is ostensibly because philosophy deals with the truth as opposed to theories about nature.

A physicist, chemist, or engineer will tell you Ultimate Reality must conform to the Second Law. This is not really a "theory" in the sense that General Relativity is a theory. While GR had to be substantiated before it was accepted - and it is by no means universally accepted even today - the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLT) has never been known to fail. It is more of an observation than a theory. It has the status of physical Law.

It is instructive to read Kevin's take on the phenomenon of life. In essence, he sees no intrinsic difference between living matter and nonliving matter, as if the distinction were more or less arbitrary. Search his posts for examples of this line of thought. I think you'll find that Kevin sees nothing particularly physically remarkable about the phenomenon of life.

In my mind, this view lacks a firm grasp of the true power of SLT and what it implies. That nature adheres to the Second Law without exception is the very basis for the method cosmologists use to estimate the age of the Universe. Since this cannot be independently confirmed, I tend to view it with some skepticism, although perhaps not the level of skepticism a philosopher might.

What is undeniable, however, is that inanimate (nonliving) nature tends toward disorder, and life tends toward higher and higher levels of organization. Not only does living matter at the level of the organism organize itself at the expense of increased disorder in its environment, but so does the species, and so does all life by means of evolution attain more and more organization.

This co-opting of inanimate matter, which obeys the Second Law, for use by living matter, which often violates it, has been ongoing for millions of years. When a species fails, others rise to take its place and perpetuate this self organization being accomplished by Life. The entire phenomenon of Life and evolution seems to be driven from within.

I suggest the nature of "Ultimate Reality" cannot be comprehended without taking this dichotomy into account, without ascertaining how and why it began and what it is that drives it, since any sentience contemplating this "Ultimate Reality" depends on this ongoing self-ordering of that which is living in the midst of the sea of that which is not.

It should not be forgotten that the Second Law is not violated by life, since the local self-ordering of life is always at the expense of its environment.

Very good answer, thanks.

[Animus]

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=6351