[Fis] FW: Fwd: Entropy, the Second Law, and Life. Order /and/ Disorder
Loet Leydesdorff
loet at leydesdorff.net
Wed Jan 6 09:35:01 CET 2021
Dear Arjeh,
Let me take the liberty to point you to:
Leydesdorff, L., & Ivanova, I. A. (2014). Mutual Redundancies in
Interhuman Communication Systems: Steps Toward a Calculus of Processing
Meaning. Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology, 65(2), 386-399. doi: 10.1002/asi.22973
Leydesdorff, L., Johnson, M., & Ivanova, I. (2018). Toward a Calculus of
Redundancy: Signification, Codification, and Anticipation in Cultural
Evolution. Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology, 69(10), 1181-1192. doi: 10.1002/asi.24052
Leydesdorff, L., & Ivanova, I. A. (2021; early view). The Measurement of
Interdisciplinarity and Synergy in Scientific and Extra-Scientific
Collaborations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24416
I try to stay close to the Shannon measures of information; for resaons
of parsimony.
Best,
Loet
<https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030599508>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: "Arieh Ben-Naim" <ariehbennaim en gmail.com>
To: "Loet Leydesdorff" <loet en leydesdorff.net>
Cc: "Joseph Brenner" <joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>; "fis"
<fis en listas.unizar.es>
Sent: 1/6/2021 8:50:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] FW: Fwd: Entropy, the Second Law, and Life. Order
/and/ Disorder
>Dear Loet,
>To the best of my knowledge redundancy, as defined by Shannon, is a
>measure of how far the Shannon measure of information (SMI) of a given
>distribution is far from its maximal value. In this sense redundancy is
>not “opposed to entropy”
>Entropy, is related to the maximum SMI defined on the distribution of
>locations and momenta of all particles of the system.
>Thus, I think redundancy is certainly part of information theory,
>whether it can have any relevance to thermodynamics, I do not know.
>Best
>Arieh
>
>On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 at 8:29 Loet Leydesdorff <loet en leydesdorff.net>
>wrote:
>>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.
>>
>><https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030599508>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>
>>>
>>>
>>><#m_919114662348399102_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>--
>Prof. Arieh Ben-Naim
>Department of Physical Chemistry
>The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
>Jerusalem, 91904
>Israel
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20210106/a64caba8/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list