Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2002 :: May ::
Re: Issues
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1382  Tuesday, 21 May 2002

[1]     From:   R.A. Cantrell <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 May 2002 11:08:59 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1369 Re: Issues

[2]     From:   David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 21 May 2002 20:33:19 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1340 Re: Issues

[3]     From:   Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Wednesday, 22 May 2002 11:29:24 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1369 Re: Issues


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R.A. Cantrell <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 21 May 2002 11:08:59 -0500
Subject: 13.1369 Re: Issues
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1369 Re: Issues

> I have only one comment to offer on thermodynamics and entropy.

Promise?

All the best,
R.A. Cantrell

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 21 May 2002 20:33:19 -0400
Subject: 13.1340 Re: Issues
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1340 Re: Issues

>But there are many examples of individual
>evolutionary developments that result in less complexity.

Some close at hand involve appendices (the kind that sometimes produce
literal tummy aches) and wisdom teeth, both of which humans increasingly
do without.  Could we add *The Tempest*?

David Evett

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Wednesday, 22 May 2002 11:29:24 +0100
Subject: 13.1369 Re: Issues
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1369 Re: Issues

Clifford Stetner responded to me:

GIE> No, it's more orderly in the objective sense of requiring
GIE> more energy to make it. That's why Marcus introduced
GIE> the apparent problem of the second law of thermodynamics.

CS> But that would make a garbage dumb more orderly than
CS> a human eye.

I think you are confusing the energy that goes into a particular dump
with the energy required to make a dump. If one wants the bits 'just so'
(as indeed Samuel Beckett might if the dump formed a stage set for one
of his plays) then it might well take a great deal of energy. But to
qualify as a dump any old pile of rubbish will do, the order is not
important. One would not need to expend energy getting it 'just so'. An
alternative (and not entirely satisfactory) way of expressing this is
that there are many ways for matter to be a dump but few ways for matter
to be an working eye.

CS> An eye is more orderly because it is more structurally
CS> complex...

Defining complexity (or orderliness) was the problem to be solved.

CS> . . . evolution requires no intentionality and does not
CS> contradict Newton's law, but, as was pointed out by
CS> Prof. Steward and again by Dave Kathman, entropy
CS> is merely reversed locally by borrowing energy from
CS> outside the system

It was Larry Weiss and Dave Kathman, and on 18 May. They were repeating
Gabriel Egan, who on 10 May wrote:

GIE> The earth is not a closed thermal system--a prerequisite
GIE> for application of the second law--but rather is constantly
GIE> irradiated by an external source of energy, the sun. Entropy
GIE> can drop locally at the expense of a rise elsewhere.

Hardy resent one of my messages, so I'm guessing not everybody got the
postings in the correct order.

Gabriel Egan

[Editor

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.