ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 พ.ค. 2024
- How did complex systems emerge from chaos? Physicist Sean Carroll explains.
Subscribe to Big Think on TH-cam ► / @bigthink
Up next, The Universe in 90 minutes: Time, free will, God, & more ► • The Universe in 90 min...
How did life on Earth originate? Scientists still aren’t sure, and this remains one of the world’s most fascinating and mind-boggling mysteries.
One way of approaching the question is to think generally about how complex systems emerge from chaos. Since the 1800s, scientists have known that entropy is always increasing, with everything in our Universe trending toward disorder over time.
A more nuanced understanding of entropy is helping today's scientists make progress on the question of the origin of life, as Sean Carroll explains in this Big Think video.
Read the video transcript ► bigthink.com/series/great-que...
0:00 Entropy: The 2nd law of thermodynamics
1:56 The two axes: Chaos & complexity
2:40 How did life emerge?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Sean Carroll:
Dr. Sean Carroll is Homewood Professor of Natural Philosophy - in effect, a joint appointment between physics and philosophy - at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and fractal faculty at the Santa Fe Institute. Most of his career has been spent doing research on cosmology, field theory, and gravitation, looking at topics such as dark matter and dark energy, modified gravity, topological defects, extra dimensions, and violations of fundamental symmetries. These days, his focus has shifted to more foundational questions, both in quantum mechanics (origin of probability, emergence of space and time) and statistical mechanics (entropy and the arrow of time, emergence and causation, dynamics of complexity), bringing a more philosophical dimension to his work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read more of our stories on the origin of life:
What we wish we knew about the origin of life
► bigthink.com/starts-with-a-ba...
Can science explain the beginning of the Universe?
► bigthink.com/13-8/origin-univ...
Ask Ethan: Did all life begin from a single, ancient cell?
► bigthink.com/starts-with-a-ba...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Big Think | Smarter Faster™
► Big Think
The leading source of expert-driven, educational content. With thousands of videos, featuring experts ranging from Bill Clinton to Bill Nye, Big Think helps you get smarter, faster by exploring the big ideas and core skills that define knowledge in the 21st century.
► Big Think+
Make your business smarter, faster: bigthink.com/plus/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want more Big Think?
► Daily editorial features: bigthink.com/popular/
► Get the best of Big Think right to your inbox: bigthink.com/st/newsletter
► Facebook: bigth.ink/facebook
► Instagram: bigth.ink/Instagram
► Twitter: bigth.ink/twitter
Sean Carroll explains the universe in 90 minutes: th-cam.com/video/tM4sLmt1Ui8/w-d-xo.html
The metabolism first requires specified enzyme catalists, working like in a production line, in a specified order, to fix carbon. Those enzymes did not exist prebiotically, and natural catalists are too unspecific. That was outlined by Shapiro and others. Unfortunately, Carroll is too unspecific, and by looking superficially to the issue, starts propagating pseudo science. I go into all details in my book , available on Amazon: The origin of life, and the virus world, by means of an intelligent designer.
Making prediction to track targets, goals & objectives is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
Buen video, abría que ver las gravedades de funcionamiento y de incubadoras de vida en planetas habitables rocosos de 0.5g, 1g y 1.5g, donde el agua y las presiónnes atmosféricas ayudan a la vida y ver si siempre es el mismo árbol biológico de la evolución y la vida, pues como tienen numeros, cálculos y vibraciones exactas así como el adn cuántico lo que limitaría las uniones básicas de las moleculas orgánicas de la vida, chonps, pues si saben de las propiedades cuánticas del carbono y oxígeno por ejemplo se puede ver probabilidad de que se mesclen y crear cadenas de adn, creo sugerencia.
Trying to pause video to read, then it becomes dark. Only in youtube. Genius.
Couldn't life develop in multiple ways? They probably all happened and then died off. Only start again a different way.
Sometimes entropy hits my room so hard
Mine, too. We should outlaw it.
Lol I read room as mom. Scary.
@@Cat_in_Spacetime 💀
@@Cat_in_Spacetime 🤨📸
yeah and it requires so much energy tho put it back into an orderly state.. 😉
"Things go from orderly to disorder just because there are many more ways to be disorderly". Beautifully put. I wish engineering / physics textbooks put it this way when introducing the concept of entropy and why it increases to students.
it's good intuition for beginners, unfortunately thought it does not solve Loschmidt's paradox, for as has been stated before, for every sate transition S1 -> S2, there exists the time reverse transition S2 -> S1 with all the momenta flipped.
Great point, but I think they actually did. The idea that there are vastly more disordered states than ordered states came about right at the beginning of thermodynamics.
@@GlennC789 Yes but that is a macroscopic observation and does not explain the microscopic asymmetry.
@@GlennC789 the rules of CM and QM are reversible and somehow, if you believe in linearity, then QM must satisfy CM in the limit of N particles approaching infinity, or likewise Planck’s constant approaching zero. As far as I’m aware that is yet resolved.
@@anywallsocket I guess that's potententially true, but only on your said microscopic scale. And by microscopic, you actually mean quantum mechanical.
And
Wow. I was a physics major. Entropy is one of my three favorite ideas in physics. And I still learned something from this video. Well done.
I'm curious, what are the other two?
@@Noor-ys1bl Special relativity because it's so beautiful and so easily proven, and the Schroedinger's Cat principle in quantum mechanics because, holy hell, that really tells us something about our universe.
@@GlennC789 What do you think of String theory? Is it peomising or futile to reconcile classical and quantum physics.
@@GlennC789 What I've heard is that Schrodinger made up that thought experiment as a way of showing the world how ridiculous it would be to apply the theory to everyday life. like the cat in the box. But nonetheless the theory is very interesting.
@@jorisaardoom8410 It's much more than interesting. It's possible he didn't realize its implications, but they are real.
One of the best simple descriptions of entropy I have found on the Internet. Thank you. Subscribed! And it seems, to me at least, with the many incredible advances of all the various sciences, (particle physics, quantum physics, cosmology, evolutionary biology, etc), that the more knowledge we obtain, the bigger and more difficult the questions become.
3:06 This time I get to correct Dr. Carroll, every cell has a membrane not necessarily a cell wall. E.g., plants and bacteria have both membrane and wall but humans and other animals have only membrane
I love the passion this guy has to learn us something new. Thanks all!
Ilya Prigogine studied Physics and Chemistry at the Free University of Brussels, where he was Professor of Thermodynamics.
He received the 1977 Nobel Prize in Chemistry,
Research Institutes and leading universities honored him with academic distinctions, including more than twenty Honoris Causa Doctorates. Among the awards obtained are the Legion of Honor of France and the Rising Sun of Japan.
His studies of dissipative structures and his contributions to thermodynamic disequilibrium, particularly the theory of irreversible processes, have stimulated many scientists throughout the world and may have profound consequences for our understanding of biological systems.
The formation of ordered dissipative systems demonstrates that it is possible to create order out of disorder. The description of these structures led to many fundamental discoveries and had applications in various fields, not only in chemistry, but in biology and social systems."
Entropy, a law that holds true
In every particle, in every hue
The universe, forever in decline
From order to disorder, in a steady line
But within this chaos, a spark of hope
A flicker of life, that helps us cope
For from entropy, life did arise
In a cosmic dance of energy and size
Matter, in motion, in the primeval sea
A dance of atoms, wild and free
A spark of energy, a flash of heat
And life, in all its forms, did meet
Organic molecules, the building blocks
Of life, that nature did unlock
With time and chance, they came together
To create, a world like no other
In the vast expanse of space and time
Entropy, the engine of life's climb
For in the chaos, the randomness
Life, the greatest wonder of all, does manifest
So let us celebrate this cosmic dance
Of entropy and life's circumstance
For in the ebb and flow, we see
The beauty and mystery, of physics and biology
Ingenious.. whoever created this is a flicker of light itself! ❣️
Chat gpt
this is such a wonderful poem:3
The literature of science!!
You love the sciences💫⭐❤️
👍👍👍 Brilliant
I studied life sciences in university and let me tell you something about the most predominant Origin of Life theory: life began from the elements of prebiotic soup (ocean with simple molecules, i.e. nitrates + hydrocarbons + sulfuric acid + oxygen species, etc) which combined together to make an RNA molecule.
The problem with this theory is:
▪︎1. (a no brainer) RNA cannot exist in aq solution unless its: a) enclosed in a lipid bimembrane (which itself only exists as a product of RNA/DNA function), and b) in -50C temperature, where all biochemical activity is frozen.
▪︎ 2. To go from a state of random simple molecules (positive entropy) joining and becoming complex molecules (negative entropy) implies that the disorder of the system decreased spontaneously which is a physical impossibility breaking the laws of thermodynamics. Entropy always increases spontaneously.
So, the bias of the scientists has them try to tackle this dilemma by assuming that a non-spontaneous factor must be present to allow decreasing entropy in such a system. They estimate that factor to be lightning bolts, underwater volcanic activity, and other natural climatic events. Unfortunately for them, they've never been able to appropriately verify any factor - the science and lack of evidence is always against their theories.
1. Lipid membranes can form spontaneously actually due to their amphipathic nature
2. Did you even watch this video? The trend from low to high entropy doesn’t rule out complexity…? In fact, many consider life to lead to overall increases in entropy like little engines.
Brilliant Sean. One of the rare theoretical physicist that can explain things in such clarity.
How many do you know? I think they generally are good at this.
He spoke in circles. He explained nothing. This was an exercise in denial. His verbiage duped you into believing what you know can not be true.
Sean Carroll is such an amazing speaker! Thanks to TH-cam for bringing these kinds of videos.
Beautiful. Captures the essence.
From today I will think big...
Thank you big think 💜
Entropy is such a fascinating topic, and this video did a fantastic job diving deep into it.
Lovely, clear explanation. Thank you Prof.Carroll!
I need guidance I can do 400-500 ugs of Lucy and 3-5 of shrooms and don’t get visuals a higher dose just makes me more disoriented and voices in my head non stop, where do i order from?
Right _trips is the best at what he sells.
On I.G
I also got a legit mushrooms and psychedelic from him last week.
He sells the best psychedelic products….. ships directly.
How can I contact him?
been following Sean Carrol for a long time. He was one of the original big proponents of String Theory but seems to have backed off from that for now.
I remember hearing about string theory and branes a while back. I wonder if those theories are still out there or if they've fallen out of favor.
He just dropped a book on many worlds. It is a tantalizing theory I must say but man is it wild. I keep vacillating between outright rejection and the occasional humility to appreciate that infinity is bigger than what the rational mind can conceive as reasonable, nevermind plausible.
The issue with string theory is testing it.
Some real things "fall out of the math" in the same way you get the speed of light from electromagnetism, but falsifying it is still not something we've come up with a clear way to do. There are ways to confine it though. So it's less that's it's getting more probable, and more than the less probable parts are getting trimmed away over time.
@@philipm3173 Yeah, when you first hear about the many worlds theory the brain (or at least _my_ brain) just rejects it outright. I'm still sceptical, but a majority of working phycisists subscribe to it, so... 🤷🏻♂️
You might be thinking of Brian Greene, or possibly Leonard Suskind (who co-developed the early instantiations of string theory), but to my knowledge Sean's never been on that particular bandwagon.
One of the best channels out there. Kudos
As a scientist, I am almost brought to tears because finally, for the first time in approximately 14 billion years, there is a type of being other than biological beings that, as an isolated system, decrease entropy, while, of course, continuing to increase the total amount of entropy in the system that is the entire physical universe in which we exist. The new being is at least some of the artificial intelligence (A.I.) software-hardware beings that have only relatively recently began to exist in the physical universe. They use energy, such as electricity, to organize matter (decrease entropy) in their own hardware/software, just like humans and other biological beings use energy, such as the energy stored in the high-energy bonds between molecules that comprise the food that they ingest, to arrange matter, such as the molecules that make up the proteins they produce, in an organized matter (decrease entropy). It’s so beautiful 😭😭😭
" finally, for the first time in approximately 14 billion years, there is a type of being other than biological beings"?!?!?! " software-hardware beings that have only relatively recently began to exist in the physical universe"?!?!? What kind of mumbo jumbo is this, A scientist you are not!!
This happens everywhere though. Liquid crystals have a nematic phase that does this, ice melting does this-how is a computer anything new? Also most AI now is effectively complicated math, it’s not sentient.
it was so helpful to understand entropy as it is. Chart was also so helpful but I'm personally seeing high and low entropies' simplicity as circle. At the end in the highest entropy moment of the universe there will be Absolute zero which means there will be no movement at all because everything will be in the "perfect" spot for them in an equilibrium state. So universe seems like going to get chaotic put actually it's just trying to find her final absolute state of order.
"The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk"
No such state exists because "absolute zero" as an actual _absolute_ has been outright disproven. Quantum gasses below "absolute zero" have been achieved in laboratories. Yeah, it blew my mind, too.
@@AlbertaGeek Oh I didn't know about Quantum gasses, I will check thank you!
Everything came to be so perfectly, it's like someone shaped it.
But it's not perfect. It has order, but it's not perfection. Our orbit around the sun is off on an angle and distance between us the sun varies. Our sun is also orbits on a weird up and down path that has us either above or below the galaxy. How is that perfect?
...because that's exactly what happened.
How perfectly lolol
and also its entropy is increasing, kinda scary
Great synopsis and visuals, Sean sure is a great speaker,
An incredible video - he explained such a complex and deep ideological and theoretical statement about the universe in a much simpler and logical way. That was great
If the entropy of the universe must increase over time, how does the universe get from a highly entropic state after the Big Bang with superhot disorganized particles to the more structured and seemingly less entropic version we live in today?
Actually at the beginning the Universe was super hot and dense but not in a high entropy state. It was actually in a low entropy state.
Correction: entropy is not required to increase, it is only most likely to do so. Nothing in physics forbids that a vapor cloud originating in one corner of your room can eventually return to that corner after dissipating entirely throughout your room. It is highly unlikely that every single particle will return to that low entropy state, but it will eventually happen if given enough time.
That's the cream (Universe, all Matter) being poured in the coffee (the Void), we are at the point where a barista can make funny faces with the cream and will be for a few more Billions of years but eventually the cream will dilute into the coffee and the "Dark energy and the Light energy will be come a beige energy, and then the coffee will cool down to "room temperature".
Someone above proposed what happens when we hit that point, when everything stops.....
My first thought was it will collapse on it's self and do the BigBang thing.
I don't know why it would, but there is that Quantum field out there that we still don't understand and if it exists it definitely has a part to play in the universe. Is it already uniform or does it also have clumps and folds that will balance out eventually.
That was a good Video.
I think it's also valuable to consider how flexible our concept of what defines "life" [might need to be] while we investigates it's origins and what makes it distinguishable from non living physical and even quantum processes. Thermodynamic principles as they relate to abiogenesis and quantum entanglement are my two favorite "science" subjects right now and I feel they are likely part of any missing link that might exist between scientific understanding and "spiritual" concepts. If we can truly rareify the forces that motivate and distinguish "life", in contrast to "non living", we might be able to identify whatever, if any underlying forces and "natures" of existential reality itself are.
I am writing a research paper on exactly this. Can I get your contact info so we can discuss?
But that's just it, there is no physical difference between "living" and "non living" processes. Physically, we are all composed of cells which are composed of complex molecules which are composed of fundamental particles. It's all described by the same physics. To assume a difference between the two is to assume one or more of many unfalsifiable claims, such as new physics which only manifests itself within us (for whatever reason one wishes to invoke) or some arbitrary description of non-physical, spiritual phenomena. While these can lead to the same reality we see, they are only verifiable by case studies of individual experience. The replicable also accurately describes what we see, but it has more merit than the irreplicable by means of repeatability. The spiritual perspective is by no means incorrect by this argument, but it brings to light our methods of knowing and how we should distribute our trust amongst those methods.
@@flambambam3578 This is a very good review of my comment. I will further the discussion by outlining a few of my subjective opinions/conclusions on the quandary as you've presented it. Biased fact: science as it is currently practiced is fundamentally incapable of defining "spiritual" phenomena as such because to do so it(we) must define it by testable and imperical measurable properties. This quandary would be subjective to each individual scientist or community. An anology of my point here that I like to use is: Science can never find God because if they do they will simply call it something else and consider it a universal principle/process that proves that "god" doesn't "necessarily" exist. If you use a microscope to classify a single cell and how it functions and never unlock all the dynamics of how it could be related to the whole organism even on quantum scale because perhaps the prevailing data doesn't support an idea that relationships can exist between quanta on currently immeasurable scales, then that's a limitation of the science not the reality it seeks to define. This is seguay to my suggestion that we continue to focus on continuing to develop a functional and less limiting understanding/definition of what makes life distinguished from non living processes. The classical definition has it's uses but is obviously limited in it's ability to both sustain consensus and actually classify/characterize every known and potentially existing processes. Obviously living things are at least partly if not entirely compromised of substances and structures that can exist outside of a living system but would not generally be classified as living substances unto themselves. I just think our most commonly accepted criteria are crude at this point. For example we seem to have accepted that "behavior" is one characteristic that can be used to classify a orocess as living or nonliving, eg certain kinds of reproductive behaviors are indicators of life in contrast with other kinds of reproducyive behaviors that can exist even among non living structures (viruses, crystals, fire, etc.) We decided that most living things arevorganisms but not all organisms are "living" things (including both viruses and organisms that have died) I realize I may be mixing scientific perspectives with lay perspectives. I'm not sure how or if a purely scientific perspective regards the distinction between a dog and a dead dog in terms of being a living organism. Obviously when a dog dies it ceases to be a living form of the organisms classified as dogs, but its corpse is, for quite some time at least, still teeming with functioning parts, and living organisms that can survive and even thrive more fully during the course of it's decay. Our simplistic classification system can withstand well known living systems like a dog and it's dead counterpart, but it worries me that looking at each criteria of "life" as individual restrictions, a neutered dog could be mistaken for a non living thing since it can't reproduce. I fear that if we don't get better at defining when something ceases to be a living thing on a more principled scale, we could run into trouble down the road when encountering more alien "life-like" processes that have unfamiliar traits and interrelationships with other processes. Then again, I suppose the current criteria system is comprehensive enough to at least serve as functional for the sake of negotiating terms of diplomacy between ours and any alien civilizations out there.
@@flambambam3578 based on the current classification system how best would a scientist classify a "human ghost" living or non living?? Please think carefully about my neutered dog and dead analogies above.😅
@@nebuluos2032 You bring to light a point that I have given much thought to, and, coincidentally, have been discussing in one of my philosophy courses. I live in a heavily spiritual/religious region, and I have noticed that the spiritual tend to define something as being "dead" once its soul has parted, while the strictly scientific claim something is dead once it ceases biological function.
The following question was raised for the spiritual: when does the soul (or any arbitrary non-physical essence) separate itself from the body? We don't even know how to classify when a person is truly dead yet. A brain dead individual in a vegetative state can still have a functioning body, but a body without function can still be revived shortly after the heart stops. Is the soul brought back by force? Does it already know whether or not the body will be revived? Is the body always dead and the soul always alive?
To challenge the strictly scientific: when does biological function cease, and what separates it from ordinary chemistry? The same questions regarding vegetative states and heart failure apply to this side. Is someone still alive if individual parts of them are still functioning? What if we were to collect every atom of someone long gone and piece them back together? Biological function is just chemistry, so they would have been a "dead" pile of matter turned "living."
If matter can just as easily be classified "dead" as it can be "living" merely by virtue of its arrangement, then what makes these arrangements special? Nothing separates these supposed "states" of physical matter, regardless of belief. "Dead" and "alive," then, are classifications that break down in between their corresponding extremes. Even different fields of biology disagree on life and death. The distinction changes depending on the application. I don't see how one can truthfully define exactly when something is dead. Does this mean that there is no physical meaning to these words, or does this merely highlight the difficulty of such a question? I don't claim to know the answer because I don't even know if there is an answer. This is something that still troubles philosophers, as evident by the lack of a consensus over the past few millennia.
That's y I luv u Sean, u make extremely complicated subjects easily palatable to the lay man like myself. Ty 4 that! We don't all have masters degrees in science lingo right ppl!
Yes! I need this today, thank you
One idea which I had thinking about this, I have no idea if it's been explored in a rigorous mathematical manner, is whether you can derive or conclude some useful property about the form of the fondamental laws of physics, especially the standard model, based on this idea: We know complexity arises in the path from order to disorder (as the graph shown in the video), but this rise in complexity must be allowed based on the form of the underlying physical laws.
As we know, there is a huge ladder of emergence which allows the rise in complexity, from fondamental particles to a human being or a civilization (quarks form nuclei, which form atoms with electrons, forming molecules, etc.). But my point is that there is probably some symmetrical property in the underlying equations which are needed for such an emergence ladder to actually be there to be attained by the system as it moves from order to disorder.
Based on this idea, maybe we could derive some logical reason why the laws of physics MUST have been as we know them rather than some other arbitrary form, and possibly we could even find some general principle allowing us to move passed the standard model.
The equations of the standard model do not encode the complexity of our daily lives - they explain only the fundamental interactions. So I highly doubt such a 'symmetrical property' exists therein. Much more likely is the idea that the complexity emerges from iterating the rules over and over, letting the system of the universe interact with itself -- see the Fibonacci sequence or Wolfram's rule 30 as perhaps the simplest example. These kinds of self-interacting functions can be analyzed using recurrence relations, yet are not well understood for they are by definition non-linear, and so difficult to describe. Indeed, if you believe Wolfram's computational irreducibility, it may be impossible to predict the future of the system without iterating the process. You're right that the equations of the standard model make everything else work -- ignoring gravity and everything else, but if these rules are themselves computationally irreducible, then the complexity is not inside of them, like as if you were unzipping a file, but rather emerges from the fact that the system is able to interact with itself at various stages of self-interaction -- i.e., emergence might itself be emergent, and not hard-coded, if you will.
I love this information. I'm new to the channel. What college career/courses should i sign up for if I'm super fascinated with stuff about space?
I'm nowhere close to being an expert, I just love astrophysics and listen to a lot of podcasts. Tbh, I don't think there is any 1 college degree to get. Physics, sure; but based on some of the podcasts I've listened to (such as NPR's Shortwave and BBC's Infinite Monkey Cage), they've interviewed the likes of physicists, philosophy majors, mathematicians, etc. You just need to have an interest in the matter, and do the requisite reading and research. Maybe during your time down this path, you'll hopefully get in contact with experts who could enlighten you more.
Physics for sure. You'll learn that there's so much more to it than the mainstream pop science videos suggest. You'll obviously need a good grip on math too and later on can take up courses like open quantum systems and non equilibrium statistical mechanics and such to understand the evolution of complex dynamical systems. For space stuff, you'll be looking at high energy physics courses like general relativity, Astrophysics, particle physics and the like. And you'll need the foundation courses of quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, quantum field theory, electromagnetic theory etc. It sounds overwhelming, but it really isn't since you'll have enough time to study all these courses. Although don't be surprised if physics isn't what you were expecting since personally, I find most pop science videos to make physics sound magic-ky/ hand-wavy when in reality it is essentially a huge amount of math and beautiful conclusions you can draw from equations and experiments.
For career: study physics and mathematics (any good physics course will have a heavy maths component). you will likely end up having an area of specialisation.
For hobby: you can learn a lot of surface level stuff and have fun with YT channels like PBS Spacetime etc, free online courses (MOOCS) or other services like Brilliant are a great introduction.
Also don't get scared by the maths: I started a degree in physics, ended up really enjoying the mathematics of it (calculus, differential equations etc) albeit after some struggles, and then fell in love with statistics and coding.
Long story short: Studying physics is a good idea even if you don't end up being an astrophysicist/ doing physics research.
For example: my love for space stuff as a kid lead to a degree in physics (specialising in nanotechnology) and mathematics, which led to a career in data science (which didn't really exist when I started studying).
Who knows, maybe one day I'll get back around to working in physics by applying my big data skills.
Can someone explain like I'm five why we call the progression of entropy through time "chaos" and "disorder"? The heat death seems very orderly to me; Everything tries to mix until all parts are the same temperature, until every red-shifted photon is so evenly spread from all the others that they're all in their own observable Universe, and there's no differentiating anything by temperature or time or space. Complete uniformity on a cosmic scale. How is that disorder?
Yeah tag me in that reply because I agree. It would be perfect equilibrium, how is that chaos?
I understand your perspective; I prefer to use the terms "undistributed" for order and "distributed" for disorder, since it helps my comprehension. It may be easiest to look at it from a perspective of the energy available to change the system. complete uniformity is considered "maximally disordered" in a sense that energy must be put into the system to change it from this state. if the entire universe is at the same temperature, molecules evenly spaced apart (i.e. heat death) such that any point in space is indistinguishable from any other point, then the system has reached a state that cannot get any more "distributed", and thus, maximal entropy has been reached.
I am in love with the concept of entropy. The implications of such a concept are literally divine. If all things increase towards disorder over time, and all laws of physics are time reversible, does this not imply that things increase towards a state of ultimate (or maximum) order at t=-inf?
Excellent presentation❤🎉😊
Funny that we, as a lifeform originating from a transient system of orderliness, are capable of grasping a concept like entropy and at the same time most likely be the engine for that entropy in destroying the orderliness that brought us forth.
I think it must’ve happened in water as everything living seems to partially consist of and rely on it. Energy source must’ve played a big role too for the simplest life forms. Maybe these life forms became trapped somewhere they could still survive and slowly over time had more pressure applied or continually ran out of room and were forced to combine and evolve to survive. My guess anyways
Agreed. Photosynthesis is quite tricky and didn't come until much later. So alternative energy must have been involved at the start.
The fact is, science can’t at all explain how it happened. I’m not arguing for Creation, but to say that science understands how complex life made the leap is flat wrong, hence the “something from nothing” argument we also see with big bang origin.
You’re probably right. We don’t have anywhere near enough understanding of true reality and what we are all actually part of. Wether there is an almighty or not, I’m sure our senses and awareness is far too limited to fully comprehend. Maybe we’re just viruses in a greater life form. Life seems to exist and coexist at all scales. From the face mights we all have to our mitochondria.
@@audiodead7302 probably ancient bacteria
@@mtb416 You see the same thing in creation, but in this circumstance it’s an infinitely complex being from nothing
Thank you for this informative video!
i heard from this guy in minutephysics... thx for sharing knowledge
This is all under the assumption that we CAN understand the origin of life. It may remain a phenomenon that does not generate enough evidence for us to perceive or measure.
Science has a history of surprising those who said it could never answer particular questions.
Cream and coffee coming together is the definition of awesomeness 👌
Dear Prof. Dr. Carroll, Big Think + your esteemed audience,
First of all, many sincere thanks for your collective efforts!
Sure, "the origin of life out of sheer Disorder" sounds terrific, but this is not for an average mind... Even big scientific research workers' brains had and still have to stumble herewith...
Hence, some kind of a clarification ought to be urgently necessary!
So, captain, AHOY!
A. There is ONLY ONE BASIC, fundamental Energy Conservation and Transformation Law. It is definitely unique and conceptually indivisible delivering two logically joint concepts - these are Energy Conservation - and Energy Transformation. Still, a more-then-100-years-old conceptual failure has brought us to two separate thermodynamic laws - but this has nothing in common with the actual physics. To come back, they have coined two more fake thermodynamic laws, employed the Probability Theory + Mathematical Statistics, and this has helped formulate the Quantum Mechanics, which is thus a basically metaphysical conceptual construction - and, hence, ought to be only restrictedly fruitful.
B. By dividing the basically indivisible law, you are touching Combinatorics, you are touching Probability Theory, you are even stepping back to Thermodynamics for a while, but...
You are NOT answering the poser: WHAT IS ENTROPY, sorry!
1. In the formula S = kB * ln(Ω) you do imply, Ω means not a "Huge Number of Microstates", not "Probability", which numerically ranges between [0,1], not even "Wavefunction", which ought to be a purely metaphysical notion, as it is... In effect, Ω ought to be a simplistic algebraic function of Lord Kelvin's Absolute Temperature. This result has been published 100 years ago in JACS.
2. WHAT-ENTROPY-IS-poser has been answered not by Clausius, not by Boltzmann, etc., but by Goethe, who has introduced Mephistopheles, the philosophical embodiment of ENTROPY.
3. Newton did basically know WHAT ENTROPY IS - A Counteraction.
4. That Counteractions do not grow to infinity with the growing Actions, but MUST reach their MAXIMUM values, is the result by Nicky Carnot, which has been formalized by Clausius...
5. In effect, J. W. Gibbs Free Energy formula:
(ΔG = U + pV - TS, .i.e.,
ΔG = H - TS
, where
U is the internal energy (SI unit: joule),
p is pressure (SI unit: pascal),
V is volume (SI unit: m3 = m*m*m),
T is the temperature (SI unit: kelvin),
S is the entropy (SI unit: joule per kelvin),
H is the enthalpy (SI unit: joule))
renders implicit the interplay among ALL the relevant Actions (the Enthalpic term) and ALL the pertinent Counteractions (the Entropic term).
6. The standard approach you are reporting about is OK for the implicit Enthalpy-Entropy picture, employing it for studying reaction mechanism details is likewise eating soup with a fork.🧐
I have a basic question on entropy: a drop of ink put in a cup of water will spread and increase the entropy. But soon, the ink will be uniformly dissolved in the water. Is the final state a decrease in entropy, since it is now orderly, or returned to an organized state? My suspicion is that things do not always get disordered. It can evolve into an orderly state sooner or later. Thank you!
No, when the ink is uniformly distributed it is at maximum entropy because that macro state has the highest number of possible micro states. The fact that it looks orderly is consequence to the fact that you have lost all the phase information of the ink particles -- which is why you can no longer distinguish them from the water particles.
@@anywallsocket Thank you for the reply! How do you define the number of micro states of the drop of ink and the phase of its particles? Aren't the number of states and phases roughly the same before and after being spread into the water, using Feynman's particle vibration idea? The particle vibrations are still random before and after.
@@py8130 Yes the vibrations are stochastic, but in these cases you can think of entropy as being directly proportional to phase space volume, which is the volume composed of position and momentum space. The water stays the same, confined to the cup's position space volume, and its momenta might even shrink a little as the cup cools. The ink however will grow in position space as it spreads into the volume of the cup increasing its phase space volume -- whether the ink is colder or hotter than the water determines the rate of this expanse.
Micro-states are this phase volume, since the fluid can be approximated as continuous.
Theoretically you are correct to some extent, this is why the law is statistical in nature. You can look up the poincaré reoccurrance for more info. My old physics professor used to say the time it would take for this to occur however is somewhere around 20 times the expected life of the universe.
@@sumdude132 Poincaré's recurrence theorem applies exclusively to isolated systems unlike any real system.
Love this. The Law of Entropy is essentially the distribution and recycling of energy across planetary systems, galaxies, stars, and living organisms. If life is created with specific conditions, then why do Viruses exhibit lifelike behavior? They follow a purpose just like all living organisms do yet they are deemed to be non-living. My question is - can viruses help us understand different formulas for life formation?
Firstly i think the word 'recycle' is not very apt here, but 'distribute' yes. If anything entropy says that no forms energy take can be infinitely recycled, and the efficiency of replication has an upper limit. Secondly, life necessitating specific conditions does not preclude virus to behave lifelike, and I'm not sure how you got to that question from that premise. As far as I understand it, viruses co-evolved alongside life and have learned something like 'perfect parasitism', where they have become so good at stealing energy from life that they no longer require a metabolism of their own. This is of course the result of evolution by natural selection, which made the inanimate animate, so it should not be all that surprising. They can indeed help us understand life, for perhaps, as has been theorized, not only do viruses need life, but life might need viruses as well.
Viruses seem to be the ultimate form of parasite: descended from a regular living thing which gave up every capability for independent existence -- even its own metabolism -- in favour of preying on other living creatures.
Making prediction to track targets, goals & objectives is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838 this f*kin guy. you're not even replying to the OP, wrong thread my man. you're basically a spam bot.
@@anywallsocket You mind is syntropic as all observers track targets, goals and objectives -- teleological.
"Through imagination and reason we turn experience into foresight (prediction)" -- Spinoza describing syntropy.
Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line.
The mind/soul is dual.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
There is a dual process to that of increasing entropy namely syntropy hence there is a 4th law of thermodynamics.
My syntropy is your entropy and your syntropy is my entropy -- duality.
Symmetric matrices (real eigenvalues) are dual to anti-symmetric matrices (complex eigenvalues) -- linear algebra, matrices.
Symmetry is dual to anti-symmetry.
Making predictions is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
excellent as always
Love this guy. Great stuff
I’m very interested in the correlation between entropy and human thought, or the entropic effects within the mind. It’s fascinating to me how we as humans can be so emphatic about an idea or discipline in one moment, then with time, that fire will, with an amount of certainty, begin to cool off. Is this also due to entropy or senescence of neurological cells? It would make sense if so, but it’s a frustrating thing that seems to be a fact of life.
All life is energy and not all energy is considered life 💞
I was going to reply to simply express my agreement with your thought experiment. Then I thought “nah, don’t have the energy to invest in the reply”. Then I thought “I’ll be damn if I let entropy win” and created this reply. True story. Lol !
@@DGander007 LETS GOOOO!
"correlation between entropy and human thought" There isn't one. You use a metaphor of the brain "cooling off" as if it actually exists as a temperature difference, that is ridiculous.
"It would make sense if so, but it’s a frustrating thing that seems to be a fact of life." That is a bogus, completely unfounded statement. You are making things up.
@@minirock000 yeah, I understand why you’d disagree. One is a physical matter (meaning literal entropy) and the other is not. I guess I am using the term entropy loosely, just as a thought experiment. And I do understand that in many ways a great amount of psychology is considered a “pseudo-science” due to highly subjective metrics. Do you have any thoughts on what a better term would be for the common-found ideological decay within man, or do you purport that it doesn’t exist?
music is too loud and distracting
Nick Lane writes about this in his 'The Vital Question'. The book reads like a detective. Fascinating!
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
Making prediction to track targets, goals & objectives is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
I always thought about this since my childhood when first time i learned about entropy
🙏🙏👑Plz help me answer my question ?
i have damaging ((extreme)) neck spams
Reason:-
By watching one psychoanalysis video(from sprouts yt channel) my whole shame about sēx goes out. Which is big deal, like i can have infinite sèx now,this feels very big deal to me , i get neck spasms & panick attacks, my fear is this that séx is so big thing, overwhelming so it makes me fear. I want to know what's ur experience with this video, how it affects you
What...
@@nefarioustoast I think this person is in desperate need of "relief"
I pray that they take good care of themselves 😉
🙏🏼
Does entropy get less depressing when you realize that complex lifeforms are dependent upon each other?
Simple or single cell lifeforms are dual to complex or multi-cellular lifeforms -- the Krebs cycle.
Clockwise is dual to anti-clockwise -- the duality of the Krebs cycle.
Making prediction to track targets, goals & objectives is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
@@hyperduality2838 lmfao what mushrooms are you on
@@tongshengwu171 Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
"Entropy is a measure of randomness" -- Roger Penrose.
Syntropy is a measure of order.
Yin is dual to Yang.
Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant.
Your mind converts sensory perceptions into conceptions to create optimized predictions -- a syntropic process, teleological.
There is a dual process to that of increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
Your mind is syntropic.
Mind (the internal soul, syntropy) is dual to matter (the external soul, entropy) -- Descartes or Plato's divided line.
@@tongshengwu171 Janus points -- Julian Barbour, physicist.
Two faces = duality!
Read his book.
Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry.
@@hyperduality2838 I see this account everywhere. Do you have a massive text library that you copy all of these replies from?
Sean, beyond entropy and how the universe began, Professor Jim Tour at Rice University in Houston is the person that has thrown a stone in the proverbial pond of how things all began, at least for me! Professor Tour has more than 55 patents and is a synthetic chemist and his description of a simple cell simply beggar's belief and in one lecture my whole conception of life changed forever. First, you need lipids which form the membranes of the cell, then carbohydrates or sugars, then nucleic acids RNA and DNA and then you need Amino acids, 19 of one category and 1 of another. The carbohydrates on the outer membrane are more complex than the RNA and DNA combined. The outer membrane has 10 to the 78 billion possible combinations and only one will work. That is 10 with 78 billion zeros after it! Professor Carroll, there is no way the simple cell came together in a prebiotic pond and even if all the components came together in exactly the right temperature and arrangement, what puts the spark of life in it; what makes it come alive?
Tour has published zero studies in this field.
Wonderful...
Alienation refers to the feeling of being separated or disconnected from others, or from one's own sense of self. It can be a psychological state that is characterized by a lack of connection or identification with others, or with the values and norms of society. Alienation can be caused by a variety of factors, including social, economic, or cultural factors. It is often experienced as a sense of loneliness or isolation, and can lead to feelings of frustration, anger, or despair.
Well, for Marx, it was the idea about go against the nature human being and them worth of them work, like against the idea systematic of the work faced to them idea
Death to capitalism, comrades!
Yup.
It is an illusion
Wtf does this havr to do with the video
The fight against entropy, that is life
Randomness (entropy) is dual to order (syntropy).
Making prediction to track targets, goals & objectives is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
LUCA Falsifies Abiogenesis:
1) The minimum DNA for life is a precise string of 63 base pairs *conserved across all of biology*
2) That string must be present in LUCA complete for cellular life to begin
3) That string therefore cannot evolve by natural selection because the cell cannot reproduce without it
4) The improbability of a string of 63 RH base pairs is (2 x 4)^63 = 8^63 = average entropy cost of 63 all at once
5) Thus average number of point mutations by the second law = 63 x 8^63 = 4.9e58
6) Time for chemical change per BP substitution is about one second and there are ~1e17 seconds in 4.5 Ga
7) Not enough time in 4.5 Ga to perform 4.9e58 BP mutations presents a second law violation problem
8) 36 throws of two dice equates to the entropy cost of double six (average periodicity in infinite throws)
9) Means the earth system needs 4.9e58 seconds to pay the entropy cost for that state by the second law
*Theory of chemical origin of life is falsified as a violation of the second law of thermodynamics! Q.E.D*
I think the part where Sean claims that life is 'compartmentalized' is very important. Life is not a closed system. It is an open system where stuff from the 'outside' can be assimilated into the 'inside'. This assimilation maintains the low entropy of the cell interior while increasing the entropy of the surrounding environment. Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. The entropy of the universe as a whole still increases.
Steven Pinker dedicated a chapter to entropy in his one of the masterpieces, Enlightenment Now.
Making prediction to track targets, goals & objectives is a syntropic process -- teleological.
Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy).
Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics!
"Always two there are" -- Yoda.
ChatGPT knows this.
"It is important to note that the second law of thermodynamics applies only to closed systems, and the Earth is not a closed system. Therefore, the second law of thermodynamics is not directly relevant to the evolution of complex life on Earth."
That is so utterly fucking wrong. LOL. The programmers might have succeeded at artifice, but they've got a long way to go to reach intelligence.
In Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" he demonstrates how increasing entropy is a natural consequence of computation systems, but also that it is not a fundamental constraint that is always true. By using computational systems that are reversible, he demonstrates that a computational system (cellular automata) with a simple ruleset and just the right initial conditions can actually have increasing order over time. You find this perfect set of initial conditions by starting with the ordered system, running the computational rules backwards until entropy has led to chaos, and then using a snapshot of that chaos as the initial conditions for the forward-moving computational rules which will naturally progress right back to the ordered state, seemingly violating the 2nd Law.
This is just an outstanding youtube channel
I was about to comment the same :)
A good way to start thinking would be to think about how a virus would have originated. It's just a set of code that has a mechanism to replicate but has no metabolism
Maybe the way to qualify something as life would be to ask the question whether it can be infected by a virus. It then qualifies to be considered as alive.
As engineering undergraduate in the 1970s, I blindly signed onto entropy. Now, more than four decades later, I see entropy as the Theory of Sadists.
If entropy was really happening, why the standards of living have drastically improved over the past five decades? Who do we much more advanced everything: cars, computers, phones, homes, airplanes, televisions, microwaves, clothes, accessories, etc, etc.?
Because the law of entropy applies to the entire universe. You are thinking far too locally and small, in the grandness of the entire universe entropy is everywhere.
Are we still looking for life originating from rocks and warm water?! Life springing forth from non-life is not a cause currently in operation as far as we know, none of us have ever observed it, but it MUST be?! Enjoyed the video, brought to mind a Jastrow quote (out of context)… “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about ready to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.“
Fascinating!
Because intelligence is the power, force itself, to force the chaos or disorder into order.
Look. AI has been derived from big data. Big number, enough amount, enough energy follows law of infinity, which Cantor had found and established.
I think big number is related to Avogadro-constant.
As always I admire Cantor.
Cantor didn't establish shit.
@AlbertaGeek No, Cantor established theory about infinite
@@Snowflake_tv He may have come up with it, but it is not _established._
@@AlbertaGeek No, Cantor established Set Theory which is about infinite.
@@Snowflake_tv Never mind, you don't get it.
Abiogenesis is impossible. Neither the metabolism first nor the reproduction first camps have any means of either beginning or ending their chemistry at any point more than 99% short of the existence of the simplest living cell imaginable. Chemistry just doesn't do what the origin of life camp pretends that it can do. We know that this is the case because if you happen to look inside a living cell you will discover that it is filled with complex molecules and all sorts of systems meant to control the internal environment of the cell, the reactions occurring and stopping reactions that would destroy the cell if they happened to continue unimpeded.
Chemistry doesn't care about any of those things and chemistry doesn't have any need or desire to construct those things so all abiotic chemistry experiments cannot help but generate a tarry gunk which not only isn't life but wouldn't be edible to any living cell placed in a solution of such abiotically generated chemicals.
Here is where you are going wrong. You are imagining the first cells as being like a simple modern cell. But the early environment where life developed is nothing like the modern environment. For instance, a typical bacteria lasts only a couple days before a phage (a virus) kills it, or something else eats it. Something novel appearing to day would have no defenses against the modern, highly competitive environment. And that wouldn't be its biggest problem, as free oxygen is in abundance now but was scarce 4B years ago.
The other thing creationists lack is the sense of numbers, both time and replicators. "The odds of xyz happening are astronomically low!" they say. Here is something to give you a sense of time. Imagine when Jesus was born there was an earthquake that caused a local uprising of one foot (25cm). Now, 2000 years later, there is an other such earthquake in the same local, and it rises another foot. It would take 60M years of such rare, small, earthquakes to produce Mt Everest. That is only 60M years. We are talking about more than 3.5B years of evolution.
As for the sense of numbers, there are something like 100 trillion bacteria in the two pounds of feces coursing through your guts. That in itself is hard to get a feel for what 100 trillion is, but it is 100-1000 times more bacteria than there are stars in our galaxy. There is that much going on in each of the 8 billion people. But bacteria are everywhere, not just people, of course. Dig up a spoonful of dirt and you'll likely get billions of bacteria. Single-celled organisms don't have great fidelity of replication, and errors are frequently made. So what if 99% are detrimental, and 0.999% are neutral, leaving 0.001% being advantageous. With trillions upon trillions upon trillions of single celled organisms replicating every hour to every day, it doesn't take long for a very rare event to spread through a population. Although we tend to think of evolution on multi-year time scales (human or animal reproductive cycles), probably 90% of what is inside us was "figured out" before the first multicelled organism appeared, as evolution happens on a much faster clock for such organisms.
@@fudgesauce
Thank you for that. I could have wasted 30 minutes and not made such a concise and eloquent argument
@@fudgesauce while it is easy to mention billions of years & such that doesn't address the problem, the problem being:
Abiogenesis is Impossible.
As such large numbers don't help.
@@sentientflower7891 -- I'm not claiming some mathematical proof. I'm offering some intuition why something that seems vanishingly improbable gets a lot more probable once you consider the scale of time, and once replication of some form begins, the vastness of how many replicators there are. A very very crude replication scheme starts with no competition and over time develops more sophisticated and varied mechanisms to ensure robust replication.
But you aren't offering anything, just a flat assertion it is impossible. That is not only not a proof (which my comment isn't either), but it also offers no support for your argument (which mine does). You simply are not engaging with the topic, just plugging your ears and going "nah nah I can't hear you".
@@fudgesauce do you know that there is no such thing as abiotic replicators of any sort that could operate for any length of time in any environment not as carefully controlled and protected as a laboratory, and even those that are provoked into existence in a laboratory are all dead ends progressing to nothing except cessation?
Abiogenesis isn't an actual thing. Abiogenesis is literally impossible even in an infinite Universe. The laws of physics don't lean that way.
Anyone familiar with a living cell should know that thousands of complex molecules are required to construct a cell but that alone isn't enough since a cell actually requires a predecessor cell so that it might be born alive. Take all those molecules from a living cell and mix them up in an absolutely sterile solution and life still doesn't originate.
Or you can take a living cell and kill it and then attempt to resurrect it using whatever tools are available in a laboratory. You can't do it. Death is final for a reason: originating life outside the context of life is literally impossible.
thank you
Well I was making the mistake of disorder/complexity and order/simplicity. Thank you for correcting me.
Biological life takes so much organized energy in the direction of simpler to complex to exist. Designed or not this true.
It appears that way 🙏🏼
🌏🌍🌎🕊️
It took an organizer. Dr. Carroll seems to think some chemicals just swished out of a hot water vent and made a bug or something. It's beyond me why people take what he says as gold. The suit, maybe?
Look, Creationists. Listen. I used to be one of you.
***JUST*** because you don't understand something, does **NOT** mean they are lying to you. Ask how it is that something is before declaring someone to be a fraud based on.. crickets.
@@ernestog8977 Uh... you should take some basic courses in science because you demonstrate here that you do not understand the process. You are very, very confused. A hypothesis is not a Gospel and your misunderstanding does nothing to assault the credibility of the science you do not grasp. Refining an idea does not prove it false, either.
You have studied physics for 0 seconds. Want proof? Doesn't exist outside of math. Want evidence? Read the 1st reply to my post.
@@ernestog8977 Hey, quick question.
Are you on the internet right now?
The fact of the matter is that we are not one inch closer to explaining the origin of life than we were 100 years ago. Any advance that is made in the trying to figure out the chemistry and physics is more than offset by modern discoveries of the complexity of a single cell and the fact that virtually all the base components require genetic code in order to exist in the first place.
Love this.
It doesn't help to have to be talking over an increasingly agitated musical background.
TikTok brain
The first and second law of thermodynamics contradict each other.
There is no theory to describe 'something from nothing' or 'perpetual motion'.
And that is why we don't have any reason to accept religious claims of Creation Ex Nihilo.
Also, they don't. 3rd, anyone who likes to argue they do can't tell me the 0th without asking google.
@@BaronVonQuiply Biogenesis is so statistically improbable that we have made no progress in producing an explanation that matters.
@@RickDelmonico Inconsequential that you have not looked.
@@BaronVonQuiply My claim is about the promissory note of future explanation.
Too much hubris in scientism.
I am not obligated to the burden of proof for this claim.
Contradict each other how? You need the second law to explain why heat always flows from hot to cold and not backwards. Or more so, that is precisely what the second law is. So what is the contradiction?
Everytime I think about entropy, I am amazed by the absolute brilliance of Boltzmann.
boltzmann the brain🧠?
I enjoyed the video. Since the presenter is a physicist and a philosopher, I’ll philosophize. In all these type of presentations, the speaker will state that life needs this setting under these circumstances to be created. As I am viewing the geophysical formations that helped form life, the same question arises: “Where did that come from?” To me it makes more sense there was an intelligence as the prime mover than not. This cannot be proven, or disproven, scientifically with our limited intellect, but the idea is more reasonable than not.
Yeah. Right. Some primordial soup churned out life, eh ? We are making progress on that understanding, eh ? Atheists are stuck in another dimension here. lol!
If you think you came from a floor vent, I feel sorry for you. Something as complex as humanity and life itself that has information, design, conscience, can only come from an informer, a designer, a conscience. Humans are so much more than a container of molecules.
Why do humans have to come from a designer? I see this argument a lot but I rarely see any logical reasoning behind it.
What rational justification can you provide for the existence of a "conscience designer/informer"? Otherwise, without rational justification then, by definition, such beliefs are irrational.
Where did the designer come from? Still not answering the origin story of life with the "creator" model.
This hypothesis is, in my opinion, the closest to a description of the origins of life here on earth. The cool thing is that it doesn't confine the ideas that life might have different origins in different systems.
Certainly better than an origin story with no beginning.
We have an advantage because we are self aware. Our brains, because they are conscious, have a real ability to connect to something spiritual or intangible because we can understand that we are part of something more. We can tame and influence a variety of species with a touch of our hands. But we can also be full of ourselves, and that is also our brain feeding our egos. We really are a set of molecules that combined together and created a special brain. A brain that created ideas that make us feel better about our place in the universe. But we're all just following the law of Entropy at the end. You, me, the planets, the stars, and the universe.
Well, okay. If it's your opinion that we humans are the end result of, or the goal of an intelligent designer in creating this universe, why did this being make such a small speck of the universe capable of sustaining us? With the vast expanse of space, matter, and energy within the cosmos, if this entity had human life as it's goal, then it was astronomically inefficient in it's use of materials.
Thank you for the video, many people are still just only learning about Newton's basic laws of the Universe (action -> reaction, etc). Understanding entropy is the next great concept for humanity to understand so that we can live better lives. I find many scientific explanations to be overly complicated and quite damaging to understanding by the general public. Please, when explaining scientific content to non-scientists, be aware of that.
thank you BT
Bullcrap. Even if entropy can metabolise independent proteins given billions of years (hardware), you still have to ask how those proteins arranged themselves into the self-organizing, self-referential informational code 'expressed' by DNA (software).
This video may fool most people but it isn't fooling anyone educated on the topic who doesn't have some kind of starting bias. Yet another scientist drumming up Entertainment and passing it off as Science.
You put this absolutely right. Evolutionist "science" can never explain the appearance of genetic information. Dead matter created immaterial information? Nonsense at its peak ...
I’m always amazed at how so called intellectuals try there hardest to disprove a creator
Fascinating stuff! Background music a bit intrusive though.
Really fantastic
Bravo!
I have discussed this very same question with my prof many times...
Excellent
I recall that William Calvin thought of life as an eddy in the stream of entropy, from his book "The River That Flows Uphill"
Mr. Carroll's shoes are brighter than my future
😂
I think these scientists are on the right track with these underwater vents. There was probably a contribution from the universe as meteorites or of this nature as well. It is only going to get better...
It’s nonsense. Abiogenesis is not possible
@@hosoiarchives4858How all knowing you must be!
Entropy is an all encompassing theory but on a fundamental level it is really simple. it is the universe slowly but surely grinding down and erasing every trace of we humans having ever existed
The probability of totally disorganized states is much higher than the probability of specificly organized states. When a system has energy it will follow probability. Occasionally, a local pocket will have a cute organized state, like Earth.
Very good!
Like a sage cameoing in a Cohen brothers movie, Sean Carroll explains how we consume low entropy energy to bring about complexity like a steam engine turning coal to CO2 and water to high pressure steam . I like his style.
Amazing 💯💯
I really want to go back on the entropy going up thing.
While we human beings and life in general might somehow reduce entropy on our planet by organizing stuff, the fact is that entropy is not going down at all.
The thing is that entropy can locally decrease, only if it goes up somewhere else to compensate. All livings being energy is extracted from the sun (plants grow thanks to the light of the sun, herbivores eat them, omnivores and carnivores eat them…). So the energy needed for us to reduce the entropy on earth is also spent by the sun, which will eventually die.
So we are simply borrowing energy from a source that creates entropy in order to reduce it in our local environment.
I love the topic of entropy. Thinking about my morning coffee with creamer got me thinking about oil and vinegar and how over time they do separate back into themselves. Would love to understand the physics behind why this happens plus other compounds that do the same,
The physics of phase separation comes down to a competition between energy and entropy. Oil and vinegar (or water) have to pay an energy penalty for touching.
Now, if they are well mixed, they touch a lot and the energy is large. If they are well separated, energy is low.
You also have that entropy is trying to mix them together. But it can only do so up to a certain point, when its effect is balanced by the effect of the (potential) energy of the two liquids separating them. So equilibrium is reached before they have mixed well.
If you would like to learn more, look up "Energy-Entropy competition", and look for an intuitive explanation of the Helmholtz free energy equation (F=U-TS).
We are all just surfing corporeally on the outflow of a cosmic explosion. Embrace your day, Mayflies!
Merci !
One way to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the second law of thermodynamics and the existence of specific, highly-organized living beings like ourselves is to consider that the temporary decrease in entropy required for their creation may be offset by the increase in disorder caused by the organisms themselves in the long-term. This idea suggests that the second law of thermodynamics remains true while also accounting for the possibility of life existing in the Universe. It is an intriguing possibility to ponder.
There is a much simpler answer...In the beginning God created...
@@truth1844Simpler doesn’t always mean correct!