[Fis] FW: Fwd: Entropy, the Second Law, and Life. Order /and/ Disorder
Loet Leydesdorff
loet at leydesdorff.net
Wed Jan 6 07:28:19 CET 2021
Dear Joe,
Interesting questions can be raised about
* redundancy (as opposed to entropy)
* Second law vs the dynamics of anticipation (Rosen, Dubois)
* Culture as a non-living system of communications
Arieh: I enjoyed reading the chapter.
It seems to me that a calculus of redundancy can be juxtaposed to the
Shannon measures of information. It is a methodological challenge to
keep these two theories as compatible as possible. Would you agree?
Best,
Loet.
Loet Leydesdorff
________________________________
Professor emeritus, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
loet en leydesdorff.net <mailto:loet en leydesdorff.net>;
http://www.leydesdorff.net/
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7835-3098;
"The Evolutionary Dynamics of Discursive Knowledge" at
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-030-59951-5
------ Original Message ------
From: "Joseph Brenner" <joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>
To: petitjean.chiral en gmail.com
Cc: "fis" <fis en listas.unizar.es>
Sent: 1/5/2021 10:07:28 PM
Subject: [Fis] FW: Fwd: Entropy, the Second Law, and Life. Order /and/
Disorder
>Dear Michel and All,
>
>I cannot show you a single definition of order or disorder. Perhaps the
>best place to start is with the origin of the English word ‘order’
>(Latin: ordo) which refers to the sequence of threads in the woof of a
>weaving. Different sequences are perfectly clear phenomenologically,
>no? It also seems to me that such an ‘order’ is a quite limited scalar
>quantity.
>
>
>
>I would like to propose that order and disorder cannot in fact be
>defined independently of one another. Any sequence of threads which has
>been changed is a disorder relative to the initial state. The notion of
>change clarifies the problem further, because any non-random change
>requires an operator, who is capable of reversing the process,
>replacing the threads in their initial sequence.
>
>
>
>I conclude, following Michel, that the answers to questions of maximal
>and minimal order defined as a scalar will be the same as those for any
>other scalar quantity.
>
>
>
>However, characterization of a dynamic concept of order, where order is
>not a scalar quantity but can have qualitative properties, is possible
>but requires reference to the evolution of some process, that is, to
>change. One could define regions where the sequences are stable or
>unstable (actually or potentially being changed), but also pleasing or
>displeasing
>
>
>
>We can then expect that the laws of this kind of ‘order’ will follow a
>non-Kolmogorovian probability distribution, be difficult to define and
>impossible to compute. That’s life.
>
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>
>Joseph
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Michel
>Petitjean
>Sent: lundi, 4 janvier 2021 20:48
>To: Arieh Ben-Naim
>Cc: fis
>Subject: Re: [Fis] Fwd: Entropy, the Second Law, and Life
>
>
>
>Dear Arieh,
>
>
>
>Many thanks for your great contribution.
>
>Eisnstein was right, the framework of applicability is the main point.
>
>And it is often neglecetd, about the universe, and about life.
>
>We can find in many books about thermodynamics a definition of entropy.
>
>I don't discuss it, even if there is much to say about it.
>
>An important point is, what is disorder?
>
>Does anybody can show me a definition of disorder?
>
>May be the negation of order.
>
>But what is order ?
>
>Not the mathematical definition in set theory (partial order, total
>
>order), it seems to be something else.
>
>Does anybody can show me a definition of order?
>
>If somebody can tell me what is order or what is disorder
>
>(microstates? randomness? else?), my next question follows.
>
>Is it possible to define what is the maximal order (or minimal
>
>disorder), and conversely, what is the minimal order (or maximal
>
>disorder)?
>
>Once we get clear concepts in simple situations, we may discuss their
>
>application to life.
>
>If the concepts are unclear in simple situations, disussing their
>
>application to life will never end.
>
>
>
>Best regards,
>
>
>
>Michel.
>
>
>
>Michel Petitjean
>
>Université de Paris, BFA, CNRS UMR 8251, INSERM ERL U1133, F-75013
>Paris, France
>
>Phone: +331 5727 8434; Fax: +331 5727 8372
>
>E-mail: petitjean.chiral en gmail.com (preferred),
>
> michel.petitjean en univ-paris-diderot.fr
>
>http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html
>
>
>
>
>
>Le lun. 4 janv. 2021 à 19:03, Arieh Ben-Naim <ariehbennaim en gmail.com> a
>écrit :
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>
> > From: Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.es>
>
> > Date: Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 8:57 PM
>
> > Subject: Entropy, the Second Law, and Life
>
> > To: Arieh Ben-Naim <ariehbennaim en gmail.com>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Dear FIS Discussants,
>
> >
>
> > It is for me a great pleasure to impart this New Year Lecture. I will
>address one of my favorite topics: the numerous and notable
>misunderstandings that historically have accompanied, and continue to
>accompany, the relationship between entropy and life. I have devoted
>many years to the study of entropy and produced quite a few books and
>articles about that (see the references below). It is amazing the
>persistence of so many errors, misunderstandings and blunders around
>that fundamental concept. As a guide to the present discussion, I have
>attached a chapter of my new book on "Entropy: The greatest Blunder in
>the History of Science". In the excerpt that follows herein, I have
>dropped most of the formal arguments, so let me emphasize reading the
>entire chapter --sent in a separate mail (for list-server reasons).
>
> >
>
> > Best wishes
>
> >
>
> > Arieh
>
> >
>
> >
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
>
> > Entropy, the Second Law, and Life
>
> >
>
> > Arieh Ben-Naim
>
> >
>
> > Emeritus Professor, Department of Physical Chemistry, The
>HebrewUniversity of Jerusalem
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Introduction
>
> >
>
> > I would like to start this article with a quotation by Albert
>Einstein on thermodynamics:
>
> >
>
> > “It is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am
>convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic
>concepts will never be overthrown.”
>
> >
>
> > Most people who use this quotation, emphasize the last part, namely,
>that Thermodynamics will “never be overthrown.” Of course I agree with
>that part. However, my emphasis, in this article is on the “framework
>of applicability.” My main point is that entropy and the Second Law
>were used far beyond their “framework of applicability.” One such
>application is to living systems, which I will discuss in this article.
>The second is the application of Entropy and the Second Law to the
>entire universe. This is discussed in details in references [1,2].
>
> >
>
> > The application of entropy and the Second Law to a living system is
>based on two erroneous assumptions:
>
> >
>
> > 1. Entropy is a measure of disorder (or disorganization)
>
> >
>
> > Life is understood as a process towards organization and creation of
>order
>
> >
>
> > From these two assumptions it follows, almost naturally that
>life-processes seem to be “a struggle against the Second Law of
>Thermodynamics.”
>
> >
>
> > In this article we shall distinguish between two different questions:
>The first one, the possibility of defining entropy; and the second, the
>applicability of the Second Law to living systems. We shall start with
>the general question on whether one can or cannot describe a living
>system by a few thermodynamic variables such as temperature, pressure
>and composition. This discussion will lead us to conclude that one
>cannot specify the “thermodynamic state” of a living system. It follows
>that entropy is undefinable for any living system. Next, we shall
>discuss the question of the applicability of the Second Law to living
>systems. The answer to this question is a definite, No!
>
> >
>
> > Can entropy be defined for any living system?
>
> >
>
> > This question is part of a more general question: Can physics, as we
>know it today, be used to discuss and explain all aspects of life? In
>particular, those aspects of life we call mental processes such as
>thinking, feeling, consciousness, and the like. This question has been
>discussed by numerous scientists, in particular by Schrödinger [3],
>Penrose [4,5] and many others. Interestingly, some of these scientists
>raised serious doubts about the general question stated above, yet they
>did not shy away from applying entropy and the Second Law to living
>systems.
>
> >
>
> > Everyone knows that life phenomena are the most complex, intricate,
>interesting, wonderful, and whatever one wishes to ascribe to it.
>During the 20th century science had achieved a great amount of
>knowledge and understanding about the many aspects of life, from
>biochemical processes, genetics, molecular biology, to brain functions,
>and many more. There are however many more aspects of life that we do
>not understand. There are also aspects of life that we might never
>understand.
>
> >
>
> > Indeed, during the past century remarkable advances in understanding
>the molecular basis of life have been achieved. A whole new branch of
>biology was created: Molecular Biology. The mechanism of heredity was
>deciphered, the so-called “genetic code” was discovered, the code which
>is responsible for translating the message “written” in the DNA into
>synthesizing proteins which are the so-called molecular robots in our
>cells.
>
> >
>
> > There are many specific processes which have been studied by
>thermodynamics. Examples: Chemical reactions, including metabolism
>where energy stored in some chemical bonds are used to synthesize many
>molecules which are vital to life. Photosynthesis, where energy from
>the sun rays is used to convert carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) to
>high energy sugars. In all of these cases the reactions could be
>studied in vitro, i.e. in a laboratory setting, or in test tubes,
>isolated from the entire complicated environment in the cell (in vivo).
>Clearly, thermodynamics was, and still is, the main tool in
>understanding the energetics of these reactions.
>
> >
>
> > There are other processes such as muscle contraction (i.e. converting
>chemical energy into mechanical work) or “firing” of electrical signals
>along the nerves’ axons which were studied thoroughly by thermodynamics
>and statistical mechanics. In all of these specific processes one can
>isolate the process and study it in well-defined environments and apply
>all the tools of thermodynamics successfully. However, with all these
>remarkable achievements which fill up countless textbooks on molecular
>biology, biochemistry, energy transduction, neural networks and more,
>there is still one phenomenon that was, and still is, inaccessible to
>study with the tools of thermodynamics in particular, and in physics,
>in general. This is life itself.
>
> >
>
> > In fact, we still do not know how to define “life” or life related
>phenomena such as consciousness, awareness, the mechanism underlying
>our thinking, our feelings, and our ability to make decisions or create
>arts. Notwithstanding the difficulty of defining “life,” it is clear
>that a living system is far from equilibrium. As such the concept of
>entropy cannot be applied. Simply because entropy is a state function.
>This means that entropy is definable for a well-defined thermodynamic
>system at equilibrium.
>
>
> >
>
> > We can easily describe the “state” of person sitting in a room. But
>this is not a thermodynamic description which requires just a few
>thermodynamic parameters. However, even if we could describe the
>physical state of the body, there is still the question of how to
>describe the state of the mind of the person? The last question brings
>us to the classical question about the nature of the mind. It is
>possible that within some future extensions of physical theories all
>mental activities could be discussed. However, at this point in time it
>is appropriate to be cautious and refer to this possibility as a
>“hypothesis.” In my view, statements such as Crick’s “Astonishing
>Hypothesis” is very much a hypothesis, and it will remain a hypothesis
>for a long time. If and when this hypothesis will be proven to be
>correct, then it will be an enormously astonishing achievement,
>particularly to all those who subscribe to the concept of dualism.
>
> >
>
> > To conclude, we do not know whether or not living systems can be
>described as purely material objects on which all the physical laws are
>applicable. But even if such a description becomes feasible, one could
>not claim that living systems are well-defined thermodynamic systems,
>i.e. macro-systems describable by a few thermodynamic variables.
>Therefore, entropy may not be applied to such systems. This conclusion
>very clearly follows from any definition of entropy See Ben-Naim
>[1,2,8-10].
>
> >
>
> > The history of application of Entropy and the Second Law to living
>systems
>
> >
>
> > Perhaps the oldest association of Second Law with life is due to
>Boltzmann. On May 29, 1886, Ludwig Boltzmann presented a talk at the
>Festive Session of the Imperial Academy of Sciences in Vienna where he
>discussed “The Second Law of Thermodynamics” with special emphasis on
>its application in relation to Charles Darwin's 1859 theory of
>evolution [16].
>
> >
>
> > The most-quoted passage from this lecture is that life is a struggle
>for entropy:
>
> >
>
> > “The general struggle for existence of animate beings is not struggle
>for raw materials, these, for organisms, are air, water and soil, all
>abundantly available, nor for energy, which exists in plenty in anybody
>in the form of heat Q, but of a struggle for entropy, which becomes
>available through the transition of energy from the hot sun to the cold
>earth.”
>
> >
>
> > As we have discussed above (see attached Chapter), Boltzmann believed
>that a system proceeds from a low to a high probability, also he stated
>that systems proceed from ordered to disordered states. Since living
>systems are considered to proceed from disorganized to more organized
>he has used essentially the argent in the abstract to conclude that
>life is a “struggle for entropy”
>
> >
>
> > However, the most influential physicist who propagated the erroneous
>ideas about entropy and life was Erwin Schrödinger. In his book “What
>is Life?” published in (1944) [3], he discussed in greater detail the
>role of entropy in living systems. We will provide some quotations from
>this book in the next section.
>
> >
>
> > Schrödinger’s book: What is life?
>
> >
>
> > On the question: “What is life? one cannot avoid starting with the
>most famous book written by Schrödinger [3].
>
> >
>
> > This book is based on lectures delivered by Schrödinger in Dublin in
>1943. This book was most influential for a long time and probably laid
>the cornerstone for the creation of the whole field of molecular
>biology. It also has encouraged many physicists to apply the methods of
>physics to biology. In this section we shall present only a few
>comments about some of Schrödinger’s statement regarding entropy, more
>details may be found in reference [2].
>
> >
>
> > In Chapter 1 of his book, Schrödinger correctly pointed out that “the
>physicist’s most dreaded weapon, mathematical deduction, would hardly
>be utilized. The reason for this was not that the subject was simple
>enough to be explained without mathematics, but rather it was too much
>involved to be fully accessible to mathematics. As I noted above, it is
>not clear at all which kind of mathematics or physics one would need to
>describe life. Then Schrödinger outlines the plan of his lectures as
>follows:
>
> >
>
> > “The large and important and very much discussed question is: How can
>the events in space and time which take place within the spatial
>boundary of a living organism be accounted for by physics and
>chemistry?”
>
> >
>
> > His preliminary answer to this question:
>
> >
>
> > “The preliminary answer which this little book will endeavor to
>expound and establish can be summarized as follows: The obvious
>inability of present-day physics and chemistry to account for such
>events is no reason at all for doubting that they can be accounted for
>by those sciences.”
>
> >
>
> > Schrödinger attempts to explain the source of difficulty of applying
>the methods of physics and chemistry to living systems. The fundamental
>difference between a living system and any piece of matter that
>physicists and chemists have ever handled is in the structure, or the
>arrangement of atoms and molecules in the organism differs
>fundamentally from that of a system dealt with physics and chemistry.
>It seems to me that Schrödinger, at least in this stage of the book
>believed that once physicists enter into biology and apply their
>powerful arsenal of physical methods and theories, they shall be able
>to answer the question posed in the book.
>
> >
>
> > On page 10 Schrödinger provides some hints about his intention to use
>the Second Law:
>
> >
>
> > “The reason for this is, that what we call thought (1) is itself an
>orderly thing, and (2) can only be applied to material, i.e. to
>perception or experiences, which have a certain degree of orderliness…
>Therefore, the physical interactions between our system and others
>must, as a rule, themselves possess a certain degree of physical
>orderliness, that is to say, they too must obey strict physical laws to
>a certain degree of accuracy.”
>
> >
>
> > My impression is that Schrödinger used the terms “orderly thing,”
>“orderliness,” “physical organization,” “well ordered organization,”
>and similar terms in anticipation of his usage of entropy and the
>Second Law of thermodynamics in later chapters.
>
> >
>
> > Chapter 6, of his book is titled: “Order, disorder and entropy.” He
>starts with the common and erroneous statement of the Second Law in
>terms of the “order” and “disorder.”
>
> >
>
> > “It has been explained in Chapter 1 that the laws of physics, as we
>know them, are statistical laws. They have a lot to do with the natural
>tendency of things to go over into disorder.”
>
> >
>
> > There is of course, no such “natural tendency,” except in the minds
>of those who have a distorted view of the Second Law. Then, he makes
>another typical statement about life:
>
> >
>
> > Life seems to be orderly and lawful behavior of matter, not based
>exclusively on its tendency to go over from order to disorder, but
>bases partly on existing order that is kept up.
>
> >
>
> > The idea that life somehow withstands the “natural tendency to go
>from order to disorder” is quite frequently found in the literature;”
>“life withstands the ravages of entropy,” “life disobeyed the Second
>Law” and so on. Unfortunately, all these statements are meaningless;
>there exists no tendency of going from order to disorder in the first
>place. The tendency of entropy to increase applies to some specific
>processes in isolated systems, and not to a living system which is an
>open system, far from equilibrium. It is only on page 74 that he
>explicitly relates the Second Law with the behavior of living systems.
>
> >
>
> > “The general principle involved is the famous Second Law of
>Thermodynamics (entropy principle) and its equally famous statistical
>foundation.”
>
> >
>
> > His main claim is that “living matter evades the decay to
>equilibrium.”
>
> >
>
> > “It is avoiding the rapid decay into the inert state of
>‘equilibrium’ that an organism appears to be enigmatic; so much so,
>that from the earliest times of human thought some special non-physical
>or supernatural force (vis viva, entelechy) was claimed to be operative
>in the organism, and in some quarters is still claimed.”
>
> >
>
> > Then he asks:
>
> >
>
> > “How does the living organism avoid decay? The obvious answer is: By
>eating, drinking, breathing and (in the case of plants) assimilating.
>The technical term is metabolism.”
>
> >
>
> > I believe that the book’s highlight is reflected on page 76:
>
> >
>
> > “What then is that precious something contained in our food which
>keeps us from death? That is easily answered. Every process, event,
>happening – call it what you will; in a word, everything that is going
>on in Nature means an increase of the entropy of the part of the world
>where it is going on. Thus, a living organism continually increases its
>entropy – or, as you may say, produces positive entropy – and thus
>tends to approach the dangerous state of maximum entropy, which is
>death. It can only keep aloof from it, i.e. alive, by continually
>drawing from its environment negative entropy – which is something very
>positive as we shall immediately see. What an organism feeds upon is
>negative entropy. Or, to put it less paradoxically, the essential thing
>in metabolism is that organism succeeds in freeing itself from all the
>entropy it cannot help producing while alive.”
>
> >
>
> > First, I certainly do not agree that everything that goes on in
>Nature means an “increase of the entropy,” second, that living things
>“produce positive entropy,” and finally that the only way it can keep
>alive is by drawing negative entropy from its environment. I, of course
>realize that such assertions have been made by numerous scientists.
>Unfortunately, none of these can be justified in terms of the entropy
>and the Second Law. Such statements, in my opinion are meaningless.
>Entropy, by definition, is a positive quantity. There is no negative
>entropy, as there is no negative volume, negative mass or negative
>time.
>
> >
>
> > Did Schrödinger have a bad slip of the tongue in this statement? It
>seems to me that Schrödinger did believe in what he said. It is
>unfortunate however, that many others, scientists as well as
>non-scientists fell into the pitfall created by Schrödinger’s negative
>entropy. On page 78 Schrödinger concludes that “organization is
>maintained by extracting order from the environment.”
>
> >
>
> > “Living organism… delays the decay into thermodynamic equilibrium
>(death), by feeding upon negative entropy, attracting a stream of
>negative entropy upon itself… and to maintain itself on a stationary
>and fairly low entropy level.”
>
> >
>
> > Since there is no way of measuring or calculating the “entropy level”
>of a living system, all these impressive statements are outright
>meaningless. They certainly do not answer the question posed in the
>title of Schrödinger’s book.
>
> >
>
> > In concluding, Schrödinger’s book was no doubt a very influential one
>especially in encouraging many physicists to look into biology. Most
>people praised the book, but some expressed their doubts about its
>content.
>
> >
>
> > Perhaps, the most famous skeptic of Schrödinger’s contribution to
>understanding of life, was Linus Pauling. In Hager’s (1995) biography
>of Linus Pauling, he wrote about Pauling’s view about Schrödinger’s
>book [17].
>
> >
>
> > “Pauling thought the book was hogwash. No one had ever demonstrated
>the existence of anything like “negative entropy… Schrödinger’s
>discussion of thermodynamics is vague and superficial… Schrödinger made
>no contribution to our understanding of life.”
>
> >
>
> > I fully agree!
>
> >
>
> > Likewise, Perutz had a similar criticism of Schrodinger’s book, in
>1987) [18]:
>
> >
>
> > “When I was invited to review the influence of What is Life? I
>accepted with the intention of doing honor to Schrodinger's memory. To
>my disappointment, a close study of his book and of the related
>literature has shown me that what was true in his book was not
>original, and most of what was original was known not to be true even
>when it was written.”
>
> >
>
> > In conclusion, in my view both comments by Pauling and Perutz were
>quite mild. Regarding the involvement of entropy and the Second Law, I
>feel that Schrödinger has miserably gone astray. In general, I was
>disappointed with his book. My main reason is not because Schrödinger
>did not offer an answer to the question posed in the title of the book,
>but because whatever partial answers he offered are at best
>unconvincing and perhaps even meaningless.
>
> >
>
> > I should also add one personal comment about the very idea of
>invoking entropy and the Second Law in connection with life phenomena.
>Personally, I believe that if ever a “complete theory of life” will be
>available, it will involve neither entropy nor the Second Law of
>thermodynamics. In light of this belief, I think that Schrödinger’s
>book has unintentionally encouraged people in making a lot of
>meaningless statements associating entropy and the Second Law with life
>phenomena.
>
> >
>
> > More on Entropy, the Second Law and life
>
> >
>
> > Open any book discussing the question of “What is Life?” and you are
>likely to read grandiose statements ranging from “life violates the
>Second Law of Thermodynamics,” to “life emerges from the Second Law,”
>and that the Second Law explains many aspects of life, perhaps life
>itself.
>
> >
>
> > The involvement of the Second Law in life is based on the
>misconstrued (I would even say, perverted) interpretation of entropy as
>a measure of disorder, on one hand, and the view that life is a process
>towards more order, more structure, more organization, etc. on the
>other hand.
>
> >
>
> > Combining these two erroneous views inevitably leads us to the
>association of life phenomena with a decrease in entropy. This in turn
>leads to the erroneous (perhaps meaningless) conclusion that life is a
>“struggle” against the Second Law. I should add that even if the two
>assumptions were correct, the conclusion will still be wrong! The fact
>is that entropy cannot be defined forany living system, and the Second
>Law, in its entropy formulation does not apply to living systems.
>
> >
>
> > Here is an example from Katchalsky[19] in (1963):
>
> >
>
> > “Life is a constant struggle against the tendency to produce entropy
>by irreversible process. The synthesis of large and
>information-rich-macromolecules…all these are powerful anti-entropic
>force…living organism choose the least evil. They produce entropy at a
>minimal rate by maintaining a steady state.”
>
> >
>
> > This is a beautiful statement but devoid of any meaning. No one knows
>how to define the entropy of a living system, and how much entropy is
>produced by a living organism.
>
> >
>
> > Volkenstein [20], comments on the “anti-entropic” by saying:
>
> >
>
> > “At least we understand that life is not “antientropic,” a word
>bereft of meaning. On the contrary, life exists because there is
>entropy, the export of which supports biological processes…”
>
> >
>
> > Indeed “anti-entropic” is as meaningless as “anti-volume,” (see also
>reference [2]). Unfortunately, Volkenstein’s statement is far more
>meaningless than the concept of “anti-entropic.”
>
> >
>
> > Here is another outstanding example:
>
> >
>
> > In Atkins’ (1984) introduction to his book [11] he writes:
>
> >
>
> > “In Chapter 8 we also saw how the Second Law accounts for the
>emergence of the intricately ordered forms characteristic of life.”
>
> >
>
> > Of course, this is an unfulfilled promise. No one has ever shown that
>the Second Law accounts for the emergence of… life! At the end of
>Chapter 7, Atkins writes:
>
> >
>
> > “We shall see how chaos can run apparently against Nature, and
>achieve that most unnatural of ends, life itself.”
>
> >
>
> > Finally, after discussing some aspects of processes in a living
>organism, Atkins concludes his book:
>
> >
>
> > “We are the children of chaos, and the deep structure of change is
>decay. At root, there is only corruption, and the unstemmable tide of
>chaos… This is the bleakness we have to accept as we peer deeply and
>dispassionately into the heart of the universe.
>
> >
>
> > Yet, when we look around and see beauty, when we look within and
>experience consciousness, and when we participate in the delights of
>life, we know in our hearts that the heart of the universe is richer by
>far.”
>
> >
>
> > So beautiful and so empty combination of words!
>
> >
>
> > Do we feed on negative entropy?
>
> >
>
> > Brillouin [21], “feeding on the negative entropy” ideas pronounced by
>Schrödinger, goes even further and claims that:
>
> >
>
> > “If living organism needs food, it is only for the negentropy it can
>get from it, and which is needed to make up for the losses due to
>mechanical work done, or simple degradation processes in living
>systems. Energy contained in food does not really matter: Since energy
>is conserved and never gets lost, but negentropy is the important
>factor.”
>
> >
>
> > This is quite strange. If this is the case, why do all food products
>reflect caloric value on their labels? The food manufacturers should
>instead print the “important factor” of negentropy in units of calories
>per degree or perhaps in bits, on their labels. Thus, next time you
>look at the labels on food products you can ignore the “energy value”
>as they are not important. What matters and the only important
>information to watch out for is the meaningless negentropy!
>
> >
>
> > While I am still baffled with the concept of negative entropy, or its
>shorter version negentropy, I was greatly relieved to read Hoffmann’s
>[22] explanation:
>
> >
>
> > “Life uses a low-entropy source of energy (food or sunlight) and
>locally decreases entropy (created order by growing) at the cost of
>creating a lot of high-entropy “waste energy (heat and chemical
>waste).”
>
> >
>
> > In more modern books the meaningless notion of negative entropy (or
>neg-entropy) is replaced by the more meaningful term of low entropy.
>
> >
>
> > Is it meaningful to claim that we, living organisms feed on low
>entropy food?
>
> >
>
> > If you are convinced that feeding on low entropy food is the thing
>that keeps you alive you should take your soup (as well as your coffee
>and tea) as cold as possible. This will assure you of feeding on the
>lowest possible liquid food. As for solid food, you should try to eat
>frozen food (but be careful not to put anything at very low
>temperatures into your mouth, that’s going to be very dangerous). As we
>have noted before, the entropy of a living system is not defined – not
>yet, or perhaps never. The main reason is that we do not know how to
>define the state of a living system.
>
> >
>
> > In a recent book by Rovelli [23], the nonsensical idea that “entropy
>is more important than energy is elevated to highest peak. You will
>find there a statement written in all capital letters:
>
> >
>
> > “IT IS ENTROPY, NOT ENERGY THAT DRIVES THE WORLD”
>
> >
>
> > This very sentence has been praised by some of Rovelli’s reviewers.
>Here, I will briefly say that the entropy of the universe (or the
>world) is not definable. Therefore, entropy does not, and cannot drive
>the universe. In fact, (yes, it is a fact) entropy does not drive
>anything, not even processes in systems for which the entropy is
>defined.
>
> >
>
> > Besides this nonsensical statement, Rovelli goes on to discuss the
>idea of living beings feeding on low entropy. In another copycat
>statement which is attributed to Schrödinger, he suggests something
>which I think is deceiving, irresponsible and dangerous. On page 164 he
>writes:
>
> >
>
> > “If all we needed was energy rather than entropy, we would head for
>the heat of the Sahara rather than toward our meal.”
>
> >
>
> > First, I think it is unfair (to say the least) to say “if all we
>needed was energy.” No one needs only energy. We need energy, for
>certain, but we also need some minerals, vitamins, and more than
>anything, water is essential for our general well-being. For the sake
>of argument, suppose that we already have everything, and all the rest
>we need is energy. But then, the author suggests that one should head
>for the heat of the Sahara.
>
> >
>
> > This comment is dangerous because the energy that we need is energy
>stored in some chemical compounds, not the “heat of the Sahara.” If one
>were to believe that energy is important (and assuming that all other
>things including water, are available) then going to the Sahara instead
>of having the next meal, will kill you, so better not to heed the
>Rovelli’s advice.
>
> >
>
> > Besides, the danger of the author’s suggestion is also an absurd one.
>As I wrote above if you believe that entropy is more important than the
>energy of food, then you should drink water as cold as possible
>(preferably iced) which has a lower entropy than hot water. To
>paraphrase the author’s suggestion (not to be taken seriously), I would
>say that if all we need is entropy rather than energy, we should head
>for the cold arctic rather than towards our next meal. I repeat that
>this is just to paraphrase the author’s statement. I am not really
>suggesting that you do it.
>
> >
>
> > If you swallow a cube of ice at 0 , or drink the equivalent amount of
>liquid water at 0 , you will get the same benefit from the water
>molecules. If you have a choice between the two options I recommend
>drinking water (with a higher entropy) rather than the ice (with the
>lower entropy), not because of the entropy difference between the two,
>but simply because the latter might get stuck in your throat.
>
> >
>
> > To conclude this section, it should be stressed that my objection to
>the usage of entropy and the Second Law applies to the entire living
>system and the whole life phenomena. There is no objection to studying
>specific chemical, mechanical, or electrical processes occurring within
>a living system. However, phenomena involving mental or conscious
>activities cannot be included in such process.
>
> >
>
> > Some concluding remarks on Entropy, the Second Law and Life
>
> >
>
> > A great deal of knowledge (or information) has been accumulated on
>many aspects of life. Yet, there is one aspect of life which is elusive
>and that is, life itself. We do not know how to define life, how life
>was created and whether or not life succumbs to the laws of physics.
>Specifically, we do not know how to describe the state of being
>“alive,” for any living organism. We can tell when something is alive
>or not alive, but we cannot specify these states in any of the
>available physical terms. Therefore, there is no point of applying the
>concept of entropy, or of the Second Law to a living system.
>
> >
>
> > We can still apply the concept of information both in its colloquial
>sense, and in its informational theoretical sense. In spite of many
>claims in the literature, the information we have about life is in
>general, not measurable. On the other hand, we can use the Shannon
>Measure of information (SMI) to many probability distributions
>associated with living systems. We can define the probability
>distribution of compounds in a cell, in an organ, or in the entire
>organism. We can assign distribution to the letters in the DNA or the
>letters of proteins, and so on. To each of these distributions we can
>define the corresponding SMI. All these SMI are well-defined quantities
>but they are not entropy. Entropy, when viewed as a particular case of
>a SMI is defined for a specific distribution at a specific state of
>equilibrium. We know that a living system is not an equilibrium state.
>We do not know whether a living system tends to an equilibrium state,
>and whether it will ever reach an equilibrium state. Therefore, as long
>as a living system is alive, it is meaningless to apply to it the
>concept of entropy, nor the Second Law of thermodynamics. It also
>follows that life does not violate the Second Law, nor does it emerge
>from the Second Law. The Second Law does not apply to a living system.
>
> >
>
> > At this stage of our knowledge of life we can be satisfied with
>applying the SMI to well specified distribution functions associated
>with a living system.
>
> >
>
> > Unfortunately, we do not know whether or not the SMI or information
>theory can be applied to life itself. Certainly, it cannot be applied
>to explain aspects of life that are far from being understood such as
>consciousness, thoughts, feelings, creativity, etc. Yet again,
>statements claiming that information theory can help us with the
>comprehension of these aspects of life abound in the literature. These
>statements are no doubt very impressive, but unfortunately they are far
>from being true.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > References
>
> >
>
> > 1. Ben-Naim, A. (2016), Entropy the Truth the Whole Truth and Nothing
>but the Truth, World Scientific Publishing, Singapore
>
> >
>
> > 2. Ben-Naim, A. (2020), The Greatest Blunder in the History of
>Science, involving Entropy, Time, Life and the Universe. Independently
>Publisher, Amazon.
>
> >
>
> > 3. Schrödinger (1944), What Is Life? : The Physical Aspect of the
>Living Cell, Based on lectures delivered under the auspices of the
>Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies at Trinity College, Dublin, in
>February 1943
>
> >
>
> > 4. Penrose, R. (1989), The Emperor’s Mind. Concerning Computers,
>Minds and the Law of Physics, Penguin Books, New York
>
> >
>
> > 5. Penrose, R. (1994)Penrose, R. (1994), Shadows of the Mind: An
>Approach to the Missing Science of Consciousness, OxfordUniversity
>Press, Oxford
>
> >
>
> > 6. Crick, F. (1994), “The Astonishing Hypothesis,” The Scientific
>Search For the Soul,” Touchstone, Simon and Shuster, New York
>
> >
>
> > 7. Dennett, D. (2017), “From Bacteria to Bach and Back,” The
>Evolution of Minds,” W. W. Norton, Inc. USA, Henry Holt and Co., New
>York (2018)
>
> >
>
> > 8. Ben-Naim, A. (2017), The Four Laws that do not drive the Universe,
>World Scientific Publishing, Singapore
>
> >
>
> > 9. Ben-Naim A. and Casadei D. (2017), Modern Thermodynamics, World
>Scientific Publishing, Singapore
>
> >
>
> > 10. Ben-Naim, A. (2018), Time’s Arrow?The Timeless Nature of Entropy
>and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Lulu Publishing Services
>
> >
>
> > 11. Atkins, P. (1984),The Second Law, Scientific American Books, W.
>H. Freeman and Co., New York
>
> >
>
> > 12. Atkins, P. (2007), Four Laws That Drive The Universe,
>OxfordUniversity Press
>
> >
>
> > 13. Brush, S. G. (1976), The Kind of Motion We Call Heat. A History
>of the Kinetic Theory of Gases in The 19th Century, Book 2: Statistical
>Physics and Irreversible Processes. North-Holland Publishing Company
>
> >
>
> > 14. Brush, S. G. (1983), Statistical Physics and the Atomic Theory of
>Matter, from Boyle and Newton to Landau and Onsager.
>PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton.
>
> >
>
> > 15. Ben-Naim, A. (2020),Time for Everyone and Time for Everything,
>Independent Publisher, Amazon
>
> >
>
> > 16. Boltzmann, L. (1877), ViennaAcademy. 42, “Gesammelte Werke” p.
>193.
>
> >
>
> > 17. Hager, T. (1995), Forces of Nature, the Life of Linus Pauling,
>Simon and Schuster, New York
>
> >
>
> > 18. Perutz, M.F. (1987),Physics and the riddle of life, Nature, 326,
>555–558
>
> >
>
> > 19. Katchalsky, A. (1963), Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics, Int. Sci.
>Technol, 43
>
> >
>
> > 20. Volkenstein, M. V. (2009), Entropy and Information, translated by
>A. Shenitzer and A. G. Burns, Birkhauser, Berlin
>
> >
>
> > 21. Brillouin, L. (1962), Science and Information Theory, Academic
>Press, New York
>
> >
>
> > 22. Hoffman, P.M. (2012), Life’s Ratchet, How Molecular Machines
>Extract Order from Chaos, Basic Books, New York
>
> >
>
> > 23. Rovelli, C. (2018) The Order of Time, Riverhead books, New York
>
> >
>
> > 24. Styer, D.F. (2008), Entropy and Evolution, Am. Journal of
>Physics, 76, 1031
>
> >
>
> > 25. Sanford, J. C. (2005), Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the
>Genome, Ivan Press, a division of Elim Publishin
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > -------------------------------------------------
>
> > Pedro C. Marijuán
>
> > Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
>
> >
>
> > pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.es
>
> > http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
>
> > -------------------------------------------------
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > Prof. Arieh Ben-Naim
>
> > Department of Physical Chemistry
>
> > The HebrewUniversity of Jerusalem
>
> > Jerusalem, 91904
>
> > Israel
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > Fis mailing list
>
> > Fis en listas.unizar.es
>
> > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
> > ----------
>
> > INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> >
>
> > Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo
>gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>
> > Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en
>el siguiente enlace:
>https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>
> > Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse
>de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>
> > http://listas.unizar.es
>
> > ----------
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>Fis mailing list
>
>Fis en listas.unizar.es
>
>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>----------
>
>INFORMACIN SOBRE PROTECCIN DE DATOS DE CARCTER PERSONAL
>
>
>
>Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada
>por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>
>Puede encontrar toda la informacin sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
>siguiente enlace:
>https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>
>Recuerde que si est suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
>baja desde la propia aplicacin en el momento en que lo desee.
>
>http://listas.unizar.es
>
>----------
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Avast logo
><https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
> L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par
>le logiciel antivirus Avast.
>www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>
>
><#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20210106/7f67df6e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list