People laugh at the ancients for thinking the sun went around the earth, but they were just concluding according to the evidence available to them. Some day the joke will be on us when everything we think is correct will be seen as much of an illusion as the sun going around the earth.
Well yes which is why we should just assume the science is wrong. Remember, 80 years ago the science agreed with eugenics and now the science says men and women are the same.... we have corporate funded pseudo-science, not real peer reviewed science, in the vast majority of cases. That is why future generations will laugh at us.
You are so right! If scientists fail to loosen their tight grip on so-called “truth,” and fail therefore to bring the public forward into a more humble and realistic assessment of the phenomenal world as a mystery whose secrets we are only beginning to unravel, then we risk falling into another culturally reactionary stage, similar to the second Inquisition in Europe that emerged in response to the Copernican Revolution. In fact, you could argue that we are already living inside that cultural reaction today, as reflected by the rise of Christian nationalism in the United States, for just one instance.
Um. In relativity, you are free to regard the Earth being stationary, and the Sun and the Universe going around the Earth. You should predict the same results. Though, it would be much harder. There is no preferred frame of reference. Of course, relativity theory is known to be wrong ... or perhaps "incomplete" is a better statement; in the sense of being self contradictory or unpredictable. As are all scientific theories, at some point.
I write as a PhD-trained scientist with an extensive background in biophysical chemistry, a field that directly addresses the underlying physical and chemical phenomena that cause biology, including biological complexity in the context of thermodynamics. I cannot directly speak to whether there is a second physical “arrow of time;” however, I can confidently say that biological complexity and evolution do not constitute supporting evidence for a second arrow of time in the way Dr. Hazen describes. Biological complexity and its evolution over time happen because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (“2nd law”), and no new physics is required to explain the thermodynamics of biological complexity in full. The crux of the matter is the proper definition of the closed system under consideration, a frequent cause for confusion when considering the 2nd law in any context, but especially in biology. To apply the 2nd law in general, one must first correctly define the closed system being modeled. When energy enters the system from outside sources, that is an open system in which the 2nd law no longer applies. To apply the 2nd law to biology and evolution specifically, the correctly defined closed system must also include all biologically usable energy sources. That includes the sun because most biologically usable energy is harvested from the sun via photosynthesis. Locally, entropy decreases and order increases because of the biologically usable energy harvested from the sun; however, universally the entropy of the closed system in total continues to increase because the closed system, by definition, must also include the sun. No matter how complex biology becomes, most of the sun’s energy always radiates away into space as unused heat and light, so the total entropy keeps going up. It is also still physically impossible (per the 2nd law) for biological systems to harness more than 100% of the energy from any source, so even if we did direct as much energy from the sun to biology as possible, it still wouldn’t disobey the 2nd law or require any unidentified new physics to explain the emergent local order because biology will never create more energy than it consumes, only utilize the available energy to increase biological order locally.
I also casually research, and I see the "local low entropy systems" like life are actually just mechanisms that, over the longer term and larger scale, increase entropy as a whole, like how animals move dirt and plants and other animals around, spreading their DNA, and how humans mine and create machines that run on energy coming from generators that consume and discard matter, where these machines also eventually break down and are discarded, and even more so when we mine asteroids and beyond, all just "disorders" nature and increases entropy. Black holes are what confuse me.
I heard explained that biology and biological complexity are completely coherent with the 2nd law and in addition if you look at let's say a human...our arrangement of atoms increases entropy far faster than if they were not accumulated in an organism and therefore life's temporary order actually increases entropy faster than lacking it and therefore life is a consequence of and let's say catalyst to entropy.
@@tarynrocketman4808 if it's complementary to the second law of thermodynamics and not in contradiction to it, it does not establish a 'second arrow of time'. The amount of complexity will decrease once there're not enough sources of low entropy to draw from. We're just live in the period of the universe when there are sources of low entropy to draw from. This 'functional information' either does not establish an arrow of time, since the complexity WILL start going down eventually(and it will keep going down), or if this 'functional information' does establish a 'second arrow of time', it WILL fail at explaining complexity.
@@tarynrocketman4808 Hey, ChatGPT, how is this attempt to explain complex systems that seemingly defy entropy locally better than, say, dissipative systems theory?
Exactly, that's better than what he said (he is talking nonsense). Persistence of a replicator &or energy density configuration is a way better contextualization. So all this really just falls into the path of least resistance, while interacting resistances will lose energy, which will expand and lead to large number of ways to settle into equilibrium overtime (the universe was simple at the big bang [little variation in the way motion flowed]). Really what we are dealing with is (what is the exact path of least resistance algorithm acting on motion flow at a fundamental level where mass hasn't formed, and motion is in it's most raw form, at the very moment of the big bang).
Actually, I wouldn't even call it "selection", because "selection" implies it's intentional (to "select", and something must be doing the "selecting"). To me, as a cognitive scientist who also delves into physics, I see it as more just "things falling into place", like a kind of "equilibrium"
I think "for function" is good because it's more general. In our case one big fuction would be persistence but there are or might be other functions, too. Maybe a function to serve the principal of least action or to catalyze chemical reactions which would be impossible otherwise. But people who assume there's higher purpose that's relevant to us as humans and which exists beyond our biosphere are just falling for Pascal's wager imo. I don't know maybe there's something about the avoidance of pain which is not physically explained yet, yet we have feedback loops in the physical world which accomplish exactly that. Now what's that about?
I had the opportunity to listen to professor Hazen during my studies in Astrobiology in Naples. He is a great speaker, and the question his team posed is very intriguing. His ideas will influence for sure the next generation of scientists and philosophers. This message is to all the students out there, don't give up guys, there's a lot of things out there waiting to be discovered :)
Contextual value, In Daoism, the Dao is often described as an inexpressible, all-encompassing, and unified force that underlies all existence. However, this unity does not imply homogeneity-each individual thing, from a coffee cup to a human being, has its own unique essence and purpose, which arises from its particular relationship with the Dao. Thus Dao produces an arrow that combines entropy and increasing functional information.
This would require elaboration. Do two identical cups have the same essence? Similar essence? How to essences affect each other? How would two cups increase their complexity and or order and or purpose? How do you quantify the purpose of two cups? (The entropy of two identical cups is twice that of one cup).
@@dylanjayatilaka8533It’s a neat analogy for what is inexpressible, and incomprehensible for humans. The eye cannot see itself, a nerve ending cannot feel itself. And in the same way, we cannot comprehend what makes things happen the way they happen. It’s like trying to explain colour to a blind person, or sound to a deaf person. It’s just not in our realm of understanding. We can only hope to come up with tidy analogies that try to make sense of it
On the contrary, I've heard it said that life, living organisms, are efficient entropy generating/increasing machines. Any organism that exists creates a relatively low entropy state in itself at the cost of creating a much greater, overcompensating entropy in the environment which encloses it. By physical (non-biological processes alone), it would take a much longer time for entropy in a closed system to increase.
Vastly greater, the organisation of matter into living things is absolutely miniscule compared to the disorder we create. E.g. we comprise 100 trillion cells each, which may seem organised. However, we are also made of, and interact daily with, roughly 10^26 molecules - into which the ordered actions of our cells release heat energy and increase their entropy.
@@dutchjack you forgot to mention, some of those atoms we interact with become ordered. For example, building a plane. Even then, the resulting entropy is greater than the resulting order.
I don't get why this 'arrow of time' needs to be separate. Evolution and life are perfectly consistent with the second law of thermodynamics and all the other physical laws
Agree, kind of. If there is an "information increase" law it works against the second law, and it needs to be explained why it is so weak, why there isn't "more order".
It’s not weak, it’s slow. And as he says it’s contextual, so it needs time and function. Which is ambiguous, hence his question at the end ‘does life have a purpose?’.
@@dylanjayatilaka8533 Locally, the informational complexity is free to increase, but universally, the disorder will always go up when the closed system is correctly identified, per the 2nd law.
I got slightly confused towards the end. 1. The coffee cup analogy doesn't fit with the examples of minerals forming in nature, as in the case of coffee cup, there is an external agent defining the purpose and guiding the process. 2. If there is no external agent, isn't the "purpose" - the function for which configurations are selected - will be one which affords longevity (there would be others, but that's the only function that will survive).
We already have the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that *closed* systems go from unlikely states to likely states. In information theory the same equation is called Shannon Entropy and measures the self-information content, which always increases. That is, lower entropy systems take less information to perfectly describe, and the data can be compressed to a smaller and higher entropy file. This video perpetuates some misunderstanding about entropy. Though entropy is often described as disorder, that is just an analogy, it is in fact about probability. So if you have 1,000,000 dice with 90% of them on 1 that might be considered pretty ordered, but if those are weighted dice with a 90% chance to roll 1 then they are in the maximum entropy state, and you'd have to manually flip them to look more disordered but shaking them up would revert them to 90% on 1. Crystals are energetically favorable and work similar to loaded dice. Second, entropy can decrease in an open system, by using an external energy source. This is how life can decrease its entropy, and how refrigerators can decrease their entropy. Third, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics isn't actually considered a law of nature, it's a statistical thing instead. When you're dealing with "large" things like a speck of dust containing over a quadrillion atoms, statistics might as well be a law of nature. But the law doesn't affect particle motions and such, it's just a result of the other laws. And good thing too, or else the physics of a coin flip would require the coin to look at the neighboring coins to decide whether to land heads or tails. Anyhow, if time were running backward (as in toward the negative time direction) entropy would still increase as you got further from t=0, to decrease entropy you'd need to do some sort of rewinding to a pre-determined series of states.
It feels like it misses the fact that usually system that create order do so by creating much more disorder like how an AC will cool down a room but overall generate heat. I also don't see how there is a need adds a force to explain how things that are stable or self-replicating are more common that things that aren't especially in a system were less stable state can be transformed into more stable position. Finally purpose is generally a term that should be avoided when describing natural phenomenon as it often describe way more the "perception of reality of the observer" than nature itself.
Replying to your last comment, I thought in the end he was implying that maybe there is an observer to the universe that's giving a higher purpose. Like the loaded and ambiguous word "god."
Excellent critique! And yes, teleological arguments are dangerous ground. That being said, emergence is a universal phenomenon and there's a great deal of mystery to be explored there.
You’re certainly onto something interesting - and there remain many interesting aspects of reality yet unexplained with our laws and theories. To assign it “purpose” may be offputting to some - but maybe “emergent”, counter to disorder and with arrow of time - seems begging for quantifiable ordering. ❤ I cannot wait to see what emerges.
Many years ago, I used to search for books which treated arrow of time, entropy and emergent complexity in a way accessible to me, as my interest and fascination were growing A Lot, but the resources comprehensible to a non specialist ( Art degree.. )were few.. I remember how deeply grateful I was when I found Order out of Chaos, the book that Ilya Prigogine wrote for ALL of the curious out there. Well I would really like to thank all and every gifted "beautiful " mind which bothers to talk to us in such, non formal, for them probably twisted way.. Thank You
As I mindfully enjoy a cup of tea, I am smiling, reading these beautiful comments, realizing that we are all part of this fathomless cosmos. Its fabric is our being.
@@MicahScottPnD indeed. I hope as AI automates work and produces an abundance of goods and services more people can simply enjoy life, without worrying about bills, etc.
Incredible ability to pinpoint at something that could be profoundly important. I think some others are missing the point (or several points). We have to posit new things (and big things at that) if we're ever going to get somewhere. This type of thinking that can pinpoint - and put aside the rest on this scale - is more important to have in science. Just on that basis alone, I would correct the angle some have been taking on it. I don't need to know everything to know that. In addition, what he is saying warrants more attention as even just parts of what he is saying could lead to more understanding - because it asks us to see something as part of a context. Being more exploratory and more receptive, and identifying the parts that are very interesting is a more correct path to take I believe to have progress - especially owing to the current environment.
Hm. I see the point, but would not express it in those words. Function selects itself -- if a mineral is in a stable configuration, it will persist (temporarily defy entropy). If a chemical has a useful function, or is resistant to rapid decay, it is more likely to persist (temporarily defy entropy) than an unstable configuration. (Admittedly, unstable molecules often serve a function as intermediary steps in biochemical reactions --- dependent, of course, upon "input" of energy.)
My reaction was similar. I was waiting for something about dark energy, the effects of unseen dimensions, or maybe a 5th fundamental force. Not some tired YEC nonsense.
The Conscious Spiral of Dynamic Stability: Understanding Homeostasis in Three Dimensions Introduction: To understand the transition from a circle to a spiral, we start by exploring the mathematical dynamics in two dimensions. This sets the foundation for framing the idea of homeostasis as the coherent balance of a system. We then extend this concept to three dimensions, where the human body can be considered an electromagnetic sphere. Circle to Spiral Transition in Two Dimensions: 1. Circle as a Static System: - Definition: A circle in two dimensions is defined as a set of points equidistant from a central point. This creates a perfect uniformity and balance where all points are the same distance from the centre. 2. Dynamic Evolution into a Spiral: - Changing Frequency: When the rate at which the circle is traced changes over time, the path transforms into a spiral. This can be understood as the distance from the centre changing gradually as one moves around the circle, creating a spiral pattern. - Dynamic Stability: The spiral represents the dynamic stability of the circle over time. It maintains a coherent structure while allowing for continuous change and adaptation. Mathematical Representation: - Polar Coordinates: In mathematical terms, a spiral can be described by using polar coordinates, where the distance from the centre changes as one moves around the circle. - Coherence and Balance: For the spiral to remain coherent, the changes in frequency (or radius) must be balanced and gradual, maintaining the overall structure while evolving. The Human Electromagnetic Sphere Transitioning to Three Dimensions: 1. From Circle to Sphere: - Three-Dimensional Context: Extending the concept to three dimensions, we move from a circle to a sphere. The sphere represents a more complex system where information flows not only in two dimensions but also expands outward in three dimensions. 2. Electromagnetic Sphere: - Human Body as a Sphere: The human body can be considered an electromagnetic sphere, with the heart at the centre generating electromagnetic fields that interact with the environment. - Boundary Layer: The surface of this sphere represents the boundary layer that encapsulates all the information within the body. This layer integrates the dynamic changes occurring within the electromagnetic field. Informational Flow and Homeostasis in the Sphere: 1. Outward Spiral Flow: - Dynamic Expansion: Information within the sphere moves outward in a spiral pattern, representing the dynamic expansion and evolution of the system. This flow reflects how the body’s electromagnetic field interacts with and adapts to external and internal stimuli. - Interaction with Boundary: As information reaches the boundary layer, it integrates all the changes and interactions within the sphere. This layer captures the system’s current state, embodying the outcome of all internal processes. 2. Feedback Mechanism: - Feeding Back Information: Information reaching the boundary does not dissipate; instead, it is fed back into the bottom of the sphere. This feedback ensures the system continuously updates and adapts based on the interactions within the field. - Coherent Output: The feedback represents the coherent output of the system, integrating all previous interactions into a balanced and adaptive response. Defining Homeostasis in the Electromagnetic Sphere: Homeostasis in this three-dimensional electromagnetic sphere model is defined as the coherent balance of the system maintained through continuous, dynamic interactions and feedback mechanisms. - Dynamic Stability: The sphere maintains dynamic stability by integrating and responding to informational changes, ensuring the system remains stable yet adaptive. - Informational Integration: The boundary layer acts as a dynamic integrator, capturing the system’s state and facilitating balanced feedback to maintain homeostasis. Applications and Implications: 1. Biological Systems: - Cellular Homeostasis: Cells function as spheres where metabolic and signal transduction processes represent informational flows. The cell membrane integrates these signals and facilitates feedback mechanisms to maintain homeostasis. - Organismal Homeostasis: The human body, as an electromagnetic sphere, uses physiological processes and sensory inputs to dynamically maintain systemic balance. 2. Environmental Systems: - Ecosystem Dynamics: Ecosystems function as spheres with energy and nutrient flows representing informational changes. The boundary of an ecosystem captures these interactions, facilitating feedback to maintain ecological balance. - Climate Systems: The Earth’s climate system, visualised as an expanding sphere, integrates atmospheric and oceanic processes dynamically to regulate stability. 3. Cosmic Systems: - Galactic Homeostasis: Galaxies maintain dynamic stability through gravitational interactions, with their outer layers capturing these interactions and facilitating feedback to maintain coherence. - Planetary Systems: Planetary homeostasis is maintained through geophysical and atmospheric processes, with the outer atmosphere integrating these processes to ensure stability. Conclusion: The transition from a circle to a spiral in two dimensions illustrates the concept of dynamic stability. Extending this to three dimensions, the human body as an electromagnetic sphere maintains homeostasis through coherent informational flow and feedback mechanisms. This model provides a robust framework for understanding how complex systems, from biological organisms to cosmic entities, achieve and maintain balance through dynamic, integrated processes. Recognizing the role of spirals in maintaining homeostasis enhances our appreciation of the intricate balance inherent in natural and cosmic systems.
I would replace the term “functional information” with “functional emergence” as the driving concept of natural selection of outcomes. I.e. (grossly simplified): Gravitational force produces spherical objects, thus nature is selecting for the strongest geometric form. This, in turn, forms enormous spheres of hydrogen gas which, with pressure over time triggers nuclear fusion (stars), which radiates prodigious amounts of heat, which maintains water in liquid form at a certain distance, which helps make life as we know it possible. It all emerged from gravity, and no new arrow of time was needed. This is the process of natural selection of outcomes as I see it, and it all looks like pure functional and natural emergence to me.
Although things are able to organize themselves in to functional forms through trial and error over time, I'd be hesitant to leap to that equating to purpose.
Thanks for this. Yes, I’ve speculated about such a "law" as well, I'm sure many have, about time someone articulated this within a scientific context. 6:52, "it's increasing order, increasing complexity and selecting for function". I think it's a misstep to say it's selecting for function, better to say "it is selecting", and leave it at that. A quick review of the manifestation of biological traits shows that not everything has a function. I think it's better to say there is a law, or mechanism, which results in increased order and complexity, and leave it at that.
I think of his statement "Selection for Function" differently. To me, it is "Selection for Existence". There is a natural process of trying all possible states of a system, and only the ones that have a configuration to exist longer than the others remain. In the example of the trillions of ways to arrange atoms in which only a few form crystals that persist, those few crystalline configurations remain in existence, while all the other trillions of non-crystalline forms fall out. Those that remain in existence can then naturally try new arrangements to form even more complex possible states, a few of which will remain in existence, again, while all the others fall away. And so on. So, there is in nature a process of natural selection, but the underlying force that creates progressive complexity is "The Law of Existence". If it was not so, nothing in the Universe would exist.
The second law is actually not at odds at all. Entropy only increases at timescales that spans across billions of years and there can be (and actually has to be) pockets of time where order can emerge and flourish. Hope @sabinehossenfelder comes across this video
As other comments have stated, I didn't realize there was a problem to be solved here. In fact, I'm almost certain the notion that the compatibility of complexity in the universe with the 2nd Law has been discussed by numerous scientists or science communicators, many of whom are featured on Big Think/The Well, including Sean Carroll Jeremy England, Phillip Ball, and Sabine Hossenfelder, among countless others. Of course, there is nothing wrong with sharing a novel perspective, but regarding this instance, I'm just not buying it. This way of thinking about information might provide some novel insights into the matter, but proposing it as a fundamental new law seems like quite a stretch to me, given how there does not appear to be an incompatibility between the 2nd Law and life (or other complex structures). Indeed, it even seems evident that the 2nd Law would predict complexity (the emergence of complexity creates islands of low entropy at the expense of increasing the overall entropy of the universe).
I readl somewhere that Nature tends to the highest level of complexity (that can be supported by the environment in question). I'd really like to know where I got that Idea - I think it was about 50 years ago that I read that.
The second law of thermodynamics gives way for a part of a closed system increasing entropy while another part of it decreasing entropy and the total system increasing entropy. However, I'm asking whether anybody come upon the idea that this inhomogeneity (between a part of the system holding more entropy while another part holding less entropy) can represent a form of order (lower entropy) that compensates for the total entropy increase of the whole system? Remember that order is always associated with inhomogeneity. When trying to explain this (pseudo?)paradox, one should take into account all forms of manifestation of life: order, system, information, improbability and inhomogeneity.
Things don’t have a purpose; other things find a purpose in them. (I am using the word “thing” here to bypass for the moment, any discussion of consciousness and intentionality.) Put another way, what we call “purpose” arises dependently, when one evolving thing A finds a use for another evolving thing B. In putting to use the properties of B, A evolves; and in so doing, it creates a new set of conditions that affects the environment in which B (and C, D, E, etc.) exists and evolves. This is a translation of the Buddhist concept of dependent origination into the language of logic. It removes the need for a purposeful first cause or a teleological end state toward which things are evolving.
by finding meaning, we’re seeking order and order can give advantage so it’s not necessarily philosophical or spiritual, I think - which, how when it’s phrased -humans are always trying to find meaning- seems to convey. although it is often funny too. and tragic.
This addresses one of my long-standing problems as a materialist thinking about Life. And that is why it “bothers” to survive, reproduce, and evolve in the first place.
At the fundamental level there is only interactions. To define something, you need something else. Objects are patterns defined by the observer. The most fundamental patterns are frequencies. A frequency is the most simple interaction. It’s defined by the empty space between. Your choice to want to persist as a human pattern is this eleventh law. Your ability to recognize and approximate patterns helps you resonate your pattern through more space.
He doesn’t have the whole story. I was born to do this right because it’s so vitally important to get it right. This is one aspect of it, the stuff the Carnegie group is working on. I already figured all that stuff out. Get ready. Nature rejected my papers, people won’t listen to me, I can’t get a grant. But I cannot give up because I understand why they don’t see it. It has to be done correctly. My first book comes out this week. Get ready for the world to change drastically and dramatically. You will change. I’m tired of no one listening long enough for the miracle to be conveyed. Your world expands now. ❤ Just because I’m autistic, people think they can marginalize me and ignore me. I’m not super good at social strategizing and glad-handing people and people who are good at those things take special delight in humiliation of people who are not. That ends with me. I’m not going to let this happen any more. I had to leave graduate school after 4 years without a PhD because I’m different… so I have been very busy on my own. ❤ I love people, so I won’t give up.❤
I did read the paper they wrote on this. The study of time and chronobiology in particular has been neglected. The ancient calendars were almost entirely focused on sequence and function. There is a lot of presumption they were either star maps or followed astronomy as the primary gauge. That is not true. Time has flavors, and they are easily tracked. Taking a close examination of the sequence of functions in ancient calendars, they match very well with both the periodic table and the amino acids. Self forming systems, are following a pattern that we do not have the causation of yet. You should put a link to the paper in the descriptor. The world's premier calendar cycle is a simple 20 day repeating cycle, with detailed descriptors from around the world. That is the one we should be using.
Here my personal Dunning-Krueger featured thoughts about this topic: A lot of scientists would argue that life and evolution are a logical consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. Earth is not a closed system. You have to consider especially the sun with it's low entropy input and it's energy being radiated back from earth that' much less concentrated. Evolution is just maybe the process of developing a more efficient way for structures / organisms of spreading that concentrated energy along the way so that life actually even accelerates the conversion of low into high entropy. Think about how much longer it would take system earth to spread out the suns energy without life on it? What's this constant use of "(dis-)order" or complexity though? I guess the states of highest and lowest entropy don't differ regarding (dis-)order or complexity. It is the states between that feature complex but evolving structures. There might be another arrow of time or everything we think about the laws of nature might be wrong. But you could explain evolution with just the second law of thermodynamics.
I like to imagine life as eddies in entropy pools - and like waves, if entropy is cresting in one place, it leaves Islands of low entropy in another... and life are the mountains on those islands. That's incredibly rare.
My understanding of the second law isn't so much that there's an "arrow of time" component, but more a probability component, and as repeated reordering of closed systems iterate, the types of macrostates which are more likely to occur, tend to do so, and those less likely to occur, tend not to ocvur. This may look like an "arrow of time" because we never observe large isolated systems "run in reverse", but the second law doesn't prohibit this, it could happen, it's just extremely, vanishingly improbable, so much so that we might say it's "effectively impossible"....then again, given long enough time scales (ie. infinite), anything that can occur, will. Entropy really has nothing to do with "disorder" except that there are generally far less ways for systems to appear "ordered" than the are for them to appear disordered. So again, probability. Evolution and life itself may appear "ordered", but it actually leads to a huge increase in entropy vs no life, due to the burning of fuel/food/resources leading to the "liberation" of stored energy in lower entropy states. I think you're reaching extremely hard to say that this is all due to some "thing" (we all know what's implied here) ascribing meaning or purpose based on "usefulness".
If that's the case then the purpose is not even necessary, nor called for. One might ask what is the purpose of increasing entropy - there not need to be one. If a law of increasing funcional information is indeed The Law, then it should be indifferent to our antropocentric speculation about its purpose. In fact, one could say that in order to maximise the functional information, the backdrop upon which it grows has to be at maximum entropy. Only a blank sheet of paper can be used to draw all possible artworks. This would also validate the possibility of existance of a Boltzman's brain - not just on the basis of infinities of time and microscopic arrangements of atomic states, but, because evolutionaly speaking, such an entity would be of the highest functional complexity in the universe.
Jeremy England proposed an answer to this many years ago. I'm no JE but from my understanding, complexity is caused by entropy just like disorder in an open system. And what you call selection is brought about by resonance
Its not selection for function, its an evolved selection, as promoting a cohesive concrescence of a (particular) process/ing. Or as Rudolph Steiner quoted: form & function, are one in the same.
Very interesting the ideia of purpose. I would like to propose an other interesting view about time. We now that every closed organized system expels its entropy out of the system making the external entropy increase, example , air conditioners. If we assume that the whole universe is a closed system with some order in structure, then may be its own existence expels its own entropy to the past, in other words , it creates the arrow of time….
There is a fundamental aspect of entropy that modern physicists seem oblivious to and that is that matter never rests. It moves and collects. Even in the most diffuse entropitized environment (to coin a word), matter collects. It compresses. It forms stars and those stars create elements and it all cycles around again. It has nothing to do with a second arrow of time or the selection of information or pseudoscientific philosophy. It's not mystical. Any infinitesimal object that moves creates mass. If it creates mass, it creates gravity. Gravity is attraction. All particles must move, therefore all particles moving in different trajectories or velocities must attract. If they attract, then they compress. If they compress, then they organize. Thus entropy has limits. Here is the missing law, the fifth law of thermodynamics (Or maybe a modification of the fourth law of thermodynamics: Onsager reciprocal relations): The greater the mass of an entropic system, the greater its capacity for compression and organization. You're welcome.
What's missing in all scientific analysis is the 'paradox of perception'. All of science deals in the 'evolution of forms'. The most rigorous theories use mathematics to model the form of theoretical objects (quantum field, sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, proteins, cells… all the way up to stars, galaxies, clusters, and the background radiation), and their theoretical properties (mass, charge, spin, etc), along with specified theoretical constants (Fine-structure Constant, etc), as well as theoretical laws (Conservation of Momentum, etc) that together describe their theoretical behavior. There is usually a long chain of mathematics (including the maths embedded in the devices used in any experiment, as well as those used to display the results) that links the theoretical behaviour to the observations. A theory is held to be valid when the theoretical behaviour of the theoretical objects reliably (though not necessarily perfectly) maps or predicts the observed behaviour of observed objects. That is all. No science can ever say anything about the ‘true nature’ of the fleeting sensory images (colours, odours, flavours, feelings, sounds) and ideas (of number, form, and meaning) that together manifest apparent ‘things, events, and relations’… Nor of this Consciousness in which and to which all theories and observations appear. Nor can it ever say anything about ‘meaning’, or the ‘lived experience’. What it is to experience a dawn over the desert, or the thrill and terror of battle to the death, or the hug of a child, or an argument with the boss, or the disgust at a rotting pile of garbage, or the strains of a Mozart symphony or the heady beats of an African drum… or anything else about what it is to experience ‘life’. Plainly, science and introspection demonstrate that Reality is Aware, Immaterial and Non-dual and that the apparent world is merely an illusion arising within and apparent to this Consciousness: michael-haines.medium.com/no-debate-consciousness-is-the-ground-of-being-c29f4f7929db
Increasing functional information. Also called the perfection of wisdom. Philosophy. Hannya haramita. Prajna Paramita. Om mani padme hum. This idea is not new, it is ancient. The drive of the universe to understand itself. Or for humans to do physical and metaphysical studies. Science and religion. The universe is driven by curiosity.
_"If we're wrong, we're wrong in a very interesting way."_ That's fine. More than fine. That 'interesting' should be the real goal of all theorists. Mogel validity is necessary. Model strength emerges after the fact. A valid model with no known correspondence with any measurable phenomenon is still worthwhile, if only because it's interesting.
The answer to your final question? I think: No. I don't see how it leads to the idea of purpose. Just like bilogical evolution, these other forms of evolution are reactive, not goal directed. I identify purpose with goal. It's like saying that 'nature' has a 'reason' for these things. I think that is anthropomorphic thinking. I think you fall into the trap because of the example you choose, namely that of a coffee cup. I think this ia a bit like the argument from design, where you find a watch on the beach. You identify the watch as having a specific purpose, and you attribute this, rightfully, to a mind. You then make the mistake of seeing other order in the universe and attributiing this to mind too. It's the same with the coffee cup. The coffee cup is designed, by us, by a mind, for a particular purpose. But you can't make the logical leap from this to argue that any order or complexity that you percieve in the natural world must also have a purpose. Just like evolution in the biological world, these other forms of evolution are ad hoc responses to conditions, not goal directed processes.
I don’t get why scientists seem to be going down a path of metaphysics. Penrose is doing that with consciousness too. Things don’t need to have a “purpose”. It makes logical sense that all interactions are contextual, and therefore everything we see is contextual, considering everything in the universe is limited by the speed of light, and everything within causal connection has an effect on each other.
I think it’s just anthropomorphism, and a challenge of descriptive language to communicate that is causing this. Even the speaker was tentative in his use of the word “purpose”. I don’t think he has found the right set of words for it yet. In a deeper discussion I think it would be apparent that there is easily separation from the physical logic of this hypothesis and the metaphysical connotations. For my part, I think this emerging hypothesis has a big overlap and connection to Stephen Wolfram’s physics and work in the fundamental understanding of the second law of thermodynamics and entropy. He talks about this at great length, and they, including Jonathan Gorard, are doing the hard work at a deep computational level to show how all of the laws of physics and nature emerge from computational complexity. I would like to see a discussion between this speaker and Gorard and Wolfram. If this exists in the universe, it clearly goes all the way down beyond atoms to the subatomic and deep fabric of fundamental physics. The implications are so profound that it is extraordinarily hard for our minds to grasp. Suggest diving into so,e Wolfram physics lectures and discussions with Gorard.
@@aaronsinspirationdaily4896 it’s interesting you bring up the Wolfram Physics project. It makes me realise that the reason many scientists are talking seemingly metaphysical is because they are at the limits of what the models they know can explain… everything else beyond the model is of course mysterious…. So like everyone from the past who don’t have an understanding, they switch to just “making it up” and use metaphysical explanations. I like the Wolfram Physics Project because it’s seeking to find a modern model of physics. Their model resonates with me because I’m a software engineer, and it makes perfect sense to me from what little I’ve heard about it so far. I just hope they are able to devise physical tests to experimentally verify their models. The other model I’ve heard about that seems half reasonable, is Vivian Robertson’s rotating photon model. There is one video where he explains how this model can mathematically explain all the particles, phenomena like spin, and how the combine to form atoms and molecules, and then describes how it can be used to derive gravity, and answer questions about galaxy rotation curves etc. It’s quite fascinating. There are a few unanswered questions in my mind, so I haven’t completely drunk that kool aid, but it at least sounds logical and potentially verifiable.
Why not just stick with the word coined decades ago for increasing functional information which also beautifully mirrored Entropy as an arrow of time. This is called Syntropy which represents increasing order in context.
Mathematical speaking could this function be characterized or represented as the Lagrangian? System always tend to a stable energy or some sort of vacuum energy functional at least quantum mechanically speaking. Also information is already linked to entropy though Shannon entropy
Information actually increases with disorder. I believe the term you are searching for is meaning, which decreases information through creation of transdiemantional relationships within the informaiton.
I like this idea but I would say does life have affinity to certain environments which we have strong evidence for. Purpose is much harder to define as words go because it is not contextual so much as conceptual.
Thank you 🙏😁 Your ideas make sense and your words speak true. The implications of your theory are profound. What if we have function, a purpose and value? Perhaps we can adapt to the challenges we face.
A new book by Austin Macauley Publishing titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth explains a molecular natural selection formula with a functional variable expressed as a percentage.
What's the selecting factor in your mineral formation example? In biology it is ability to reproduce, but I didn't understand what the selection pressure is in your mineral example? No, I don't think there is a purpose.
Passionate and intriguing approach, but information doesn’t have a purpose. It is a byproduct of the boundaries between low and high entropy. It emerges from the caos. We just attribute a meaning to it. Our universe is the result of quantum celular automata.
Information is purpose. Entropy is lowered by the organization of information into repeatable and recognizable patterns which creates purpose and meaning, which resulted in the universe and us. Information gives us meaning, we dont attribute meaning to it.
There is a problem with comparing natural selection, which involves life, and minerals, which are not alive. The selection (attraction? Minerals do not "select" anything, btw...) of minerals to other minerals is not dependent upon reproduction, but rather, chemistry. WE made the coffee cup for an exact purpose. We also make screwdrivers... out of different materials, to start with. No, minerals do not have a purpose... they just are. This sounds very much like he is trying to find an "intelligent design" angle here through denying the randomness of the universe. It is a far stretch to say "we are experiencing the opposite of entropy." I am afraid that many would disagree. 😊
Life is a local reversal of entropy. A river runs downhill. The river turns a waterwheel, which drives a lumber mill. The original energy came from the sun, to carry the rain clouds uphill. Similar processes fueled the carpenters. The furniture created is ordered, but not mysterious.
Energy unwinds and information accumulates...accumulated information leads to emergent possibilities and stable information....DNA is representative of this...life and then life with emergent consciousness turns accumulated inarticulate information into articulated awareness...also the process of entropy allows as many configurations as possible...crunching them out...some remain.
this is on the right track but you don’t have enough arrows. it’s more like how a river branches into tributaries and then gets picked up by the water cycle and rains down elsewhere…that’s the flow of time. it’s both circular and linear, and flows in branches and networks at different rates depending on the material context/resistance
What you sayis not new. The German philosopher Hegel called this law "the spirit of the world is coming to itself" 200 years ago. He claimed that there is a world spirit a priori which is in the world from the very beginning and it enfolds itself and becomes more and more reality. This means that the world develops from chaos into an order that has been intricate to the world as an idea, the "absolute idea". By the way I don't agree with Hegel in this case. I think that there is only one time arrow. If there was no growing entropy there would be no development. Development is the competition for the declining density of energy. So locally the density of information, i.e the complexity may grow and the entropy may decline. But this is to the debit of the overall surrounding. Globally the entropy is growing, locally it may decline. Locally the "time arrow" may reverse temporarily.
Survival of functionalities, is very different to a survival of the fittest..indeed where something 'best fits' in evolution to me sounds more inclusive and more likely. The symbiosis found throughout nature, functions to assist. Even completely different species ..I think shows, life does have its predatory nature, everything will eat itself eventually, but to me this new idea rings true , with or without a 'second arrow of time', which personally I have thought may exists when considering tye double slit experiment. Particle or Wave ? Either way what I really love about this, is the admittance that they may have this wrong, something science and scientists have a very hard time saying 😅
All the laws have an arrow of time. Motion of any kind has a time component that cannot be reversed. The entire universe would have to reverse in time for even one infinitesimal particle to reverse. Therefore, every component of every kind of physics has an arrow of time. Entropy just illustrates it and locks it in for us.
I find the idea of "purpose" when looking at nature very problematic. In my opinion, "purpose" is a very narrow psychological phenomenon needing "conscience", which I will define as "knowing that you are thinking and thinking about your thinking". For there to be a "purpose", one needs to consciously set a desirable end result, consciously plan a series of actions to reach this end result, consciously constantly evaluate how far one is from the end result and consciously modify the plan accordingly. I'd accept the ideas in this video more easily if "purpose" was replaced with "structured stability"... To me, it makes more sense to say that as entropy/disorder increases in the universe, there are instences where structure and stability increases through natural selection, life and crystals being examples...
I agree that increasing complexity is a compelling thing, but I don't think "purpose" is the right word for it. Purpose is a human idea. Things have causes, and life may just be a coincidence.
Contextuality has no absolutes. If you follow the causal chain of purposes to the end, your ultimate purpose would be to exhaust your limits to assist the universe in destroying all information quicker, which is meaningless. The arrow of time and timeflow are not to find among the physical laws but in the architecture of consciousness. It projects information from one part of the world to another through a time crystal structure. The arrow of time is just the direction of the projection, which is consciousness, and doesn't exist apart from the projector structure.
Universal purpose/reason = “logos” in Stoic cosmology of the ancient Greeks. Go check it out, their view of the cosmos is very interesting. They talk about heat death of the universe and rebirth cycles (multiverse), and other fascinating thoughts about life, consciousness (‘Mind at Large’). It’s amazing how much of their ideas/beliefs correspond to what we currently discuss in theoretical physics, and I don’t think it’s a mere coincidence.
There are 2 equal ways to get the answer. (The decay rate of the super conductive state [effectively increasing vector field density]) or (your expansion rate relative to that superconductive state [which effectively increases vector field density as well, relative to the resistance in the system]). Both ways decrease superconductivities force over distance, allowing looser arrangements of motion flow [increasing complexities in which motion can settle into local averages and equilibriums, (n) of low resistance states increase]. At the fundamental scale, energy density = motion direction asymmetries over volume. Kinetic diffusion occurs when these asymmetries in directionality come within the volumetric super conductive distance of each other.
When compared to the lifetime of our universe, from the Big Bang to Heat Death. Life and complexity (“increase in order”) may only be possible for 10^-100 of 1% or 0.(100 Zeros)1 of 1% of the total lifetime of the universe. This is because most of the entropy and arrow of time of the universe is locked up in Black Holes (more than a google years). Therefore it is hard to see how this hypothesis can be a universal law.
There is no such thing as time. It is only our perception which is based on memory that makes us see 'time'. Similarly things have no purpose. Purpose is just a meaning we give to things. For you a chair is for sitting, but a fly cannot sit, it has no idea what sitting is, so a chair does not even exist for the fly. Its just a piece of wood for it. And even wood does not exist, that is also just a meaning only existing in the brain. What there really is has no meaning, it is free of abstraction, and that is why its impossible to put into words what there really exists.
People laugh at the ancients for thinking the sun went around the earth, but they were just concluding according to the evidence available to them. Some day the joke will be on us when everything we think is correct will be seen as much of an illusion as the sun going around the earth.
Well yes which is why we should just assume the science is wrong. Remember, 80 years ago the science agreed with eugenics and now the science says men and women are the same.... we have corporate funded pseudo-science, not real peer reviewed science, in the vast majority of cases. That is why future generations will laugh at us.
scary
You are so right!
If scientists fail to loosen their tight grip on so-called “truth,” and fail therefore to bring the public forward into a more humble and realistic assessment of the phenomenal world as a mystery whose secrets we are only beginning to unravel, then we risk falling into another culturally reactionary stage, similar to the second Inquisition in Europe that emerged in response to the Copernican Revolution.
In fact, you could argue that we are already living inside that cultural reaction today, as reflected by the rise of Christian nationalism in the United States, for just one instance.
Um. In relativity, you are free to regard the Earth being stationary, and the Sun and the Universe going around the Earth. You should predict the same results. Though, it would be much harder. There is no preferred frame of reference. Of course, relativity theory is known to be wrong ... or perhaps "incomplete" is a better statement; in the sense of being self contradictory or unpredictable. As are all scientific theories, at some point.
This is such a thoughtful comparison. In some way, it's thrilling to imagine what we might be so wrong about!
I write as a PhD-trained scientist with an extensive background in biophysical chemistry, a field that directly addresses the underlying physical and chemical phenomena that cause biology, including biological complexity in the context of thermodynamics.
I cannot directly speak to whether there is a second physical “arrow of time;” however, I can confidently say that biological complexity and evolution do not constitute supporting evidence for a second arrow of time in the way Dr. Hazen describes.
Biological complexity and its evolution over time happen because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (“2nd law”), and no new physics is required to explain the thermodynamics of biological complexity in full. The crux of the matter is the proper definition of the closed system under consideration, a frequent cause for confusion when considering the 2nd law in any context, but especially in biology.
To apply the 2nd law in general, one must first correctly define the closed system being modeled. When energy enters the system from outside sources, that is an open system in which the 2nd law no longer applies.
To apply the 2nd law to biology and evolution specifically, the correctly defined closed system must also include all biologically usable energy sources. That includes the sun because most biologically usable energy is harvested from the sun via photosynthesis.
Locally, entropy decreases and order increases because of the biologically usable energy harvested from the sun; however, universally the entropy of the closed system in total continues to increase because the closed system, by definition, must also include the sun. No matter how complex biology becomes, most of the sun’s energy always radiates away into space as unused heat and light, so the total entropy keeps going up.
It is also still physically impossible (per the 2nd law) for biological systems to harness more than 100% of the energy from any source, so even if we did direct as much energy from the sun to biology as possible, it still wouldn’t disobey the 2nd law or require any unidentified new physics to explain the emergent local order because biology will never create more energy than it consumes, only utilize the available energy to increase biological order locally.
I also casually research, and I see the "local low entropy systems" like life are actually just mechanisms that, over the longer term and larger scale, increase entropy as a whole, like how animals move dirt and plants and other animals around, spreading their DNA, and how humans mine and create machines that run on energy coming from generators that consume and discard matter, where these machines also eventually break down and are discarded, and even more so when we mine asteroids and beyond, all just "disorders" nature and increases entropy. Black holes are what confuse me.
I heard explained that biology and biological complexity are completely coherent with the 2nd law and in addition if you look at let's say a human...our arrangement of atoms increases entropy far faster than if they were not accumulated in an organism and therefore life's temporary order actually increases entropy faster than lacking it and therefore life is a consequence of and let's say catalyst to entropy.
@EliotSmith42 Thanks for being sensible. I was thinking along these lines too
@@tarynrocketman4808 if it's complementary to the second law of thermodynamics and not in contradiction to it, it does not establish a 'second arrow of time'. The amount of complexity will decrease once there're not enough sources of low entropy to draw from. We're just live in the period of the universe when there are sources of low entropy to draw from. This 'functional information' either does not establish an arrow of time, since the complexity WILL start going down eventually(and it will keep going down), or if this 'functional information' does establish a 'second arrow of time', it WILL fail at explaining complexity.
@@tarynrocketman4808 Hey, ChatGPT, how is this attempt to explain complex systems that seemingly defy entropy locally better than, say, dissipative systems theory?
He says selecting for function. His description suggests more strongly selection for persistence.
Exactly, that's better than what he said (he is talking nonsense). Persistence of a replicator &or energy density configuration is a way better contextualization. So all this really just falls into the path of least resistance, while interacting resistances will lose energy, which will expand and lead to large number of ways to settle into equilibrium overtime (the universe was simple at the big bang [little variation in the way motion flowed]). Really what we are dealing with is (what is the exact path of least resistance algorithm acting on motion flow at a fundamental level where mass hasn't formed, and motion is in it's most raw form, at the very moment of the big bang).
Actually, I wouldn't even call it "selection", because "selection" implies it's intentional (to "select", and something must be doing the "selecting"). To me, as a cognitive scientist who also delves into physics, I see it as more just "things falling into place", like a kind of "equilibrium"
I think "for function" is good because it's more general. In our case one big fuction would be persistence but there are or might be other functions, too. Maybe a function to serve the principal of least action or to catalyze chemical reactions which would be impossible otherwise. But people who assume there's higher purpose that's relevant to us as humans and which exists beyond our biosphere are just falling for Pascal's wager imo. I don't know maybe there's something about the avoidance of pain which is not physically explained yet, yet we have feedback loops in the physical world which accomplish exactly that. Now what's that about?
In fairness, there’s some overlap. It’s rare that does not function somehow persists
and how does it actually select for persistence? by selecting for function. the increase in complexity implies learning and memory.
I had the opportunity to listen to professor Hazen during my studies in Astrobiology in Naples. He is a great speaker, and the question his team posed is very intriguing. His ideas will influence for sure the next generation of scientists and philosophers. This message is to all the students out there, don't give up guys, there's a lot of things out there waiting to be discovered :)
Awesome tune you're singing! ❤
That sounds like such a wonderful experience! Thank you for sharing your positive insight - the world is propelled by those who learn!
🙏🏻
Contextual value, In Daoism, the Dao is often described as an inexpressible, all-encompassing, and unified force that underlies all existence. However, this unity does not imply homogeneity-each individual thing, from a coffee cup to a human being, has its own unique essence and purpose, which arises from its particular relationship with the Dao.
Thus Dao produces an arrow that combines entropy and increasing functional information.
This would require elaboration. Do two identical cups have the same essence? Similar essence? How to essences affect each other? How would two cups increase their complexity and or order and or purpose? How do you quantify the purpose of two cups? (The entropy of two identical cups is twice that of one cup).
@@dylanjayatilaka8533It’s a neat analogy for what is inexpressible, and incomprehensible for humans. The eye cannot see itself, a nerve ending cannot feel itself. And in the same way, we cannot comprehend what makes things happen the way they happen. It’s like trying to explain colour to a blind person, or sound to a deaf person. It’s just not in our realm of understanding. We can only hope to come up with tidy analogies that try to make sense of it
On the contrary, I've heard it said that life, living organisms, are efficient entropy generating/increasing machines. Any organism that exists creates a relatively low entropy state in itself at the cost of creating a much greater, overcompensating entropy in the environment which encloses it. By physical (non-biological processes alone), it would take a much longer time for entropy in a closed system to increase.
Vastly greater, the organisation of matter into living things is absolutely miniscule compared to the disorder we create. E.g. we comprise 100 trillion cells each, which may seem organised. However, we are also made of, and interact daily with, roughly 10^26 molecules - into which the ordered actions of our cells release heat energy and increase their entropy.
@@dutchjack you forgot to mention, some of those atoms we interact with become ordered.
For example, building a plane.
Even then, the resulting entropy is greater than the resulting order.
Thank you, Robert! I now know that my purpose in life is to build a coffee cup that can drive screws.
Send us one when it's built!
"but if we are wrong, we are wrong in an interesting way" I love this line
Buckminster Fuller called it Syntropy.
Dr. Hazen, your lectures on abiogenesis are amazing and taught me so much. Thank you
I don't get why this 'arrow of time' needs to be separate. Evolution and life are perfectly consistent with the second law of thermodynamics and all the other physical laws
Agree, kind of. If there is an "information increase" law it works against the second law, and it needs to be explained why it is so weak, why there isn't "more order".
It’s not weak, it’s slow. And as he says it’s contextual, so it needs time and function. Which is ambiguous, hence his question at the end ‘does life have a purpose?’.
It doesn't need to. It's like saying that, since less dense things float, there must be an unknown law that explains the inverse arrow of gravity.
I agree entirely. This increase in complexity and information is not in any way a contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics.
@@dylanjayatilaka8533 Locally, the informational complexity is free to increase, but universally, the disorder will always go up when the closed system is correctly identified, per the 2nd law.
I got slightly confused towards the end.
1. The coffee cup analogy doesn't fit with the examples of minerals forming in nature, as in the case of coffee cup, there is an external agent defining the purpose and guiding the process.
2. If there is no external agent, isn't the "purpose" - the function for which configurations are selected - will be one which affords longevity (there would be others, but that's the only function that will survive).
You are confused because these ideas are self-contradictory.
We already have the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which says that *closed* systems go from unlikely states to likely states. In information theory the same equation is called Shannon Entropy and measures the self-information content, which always increases. That is, lower entropy systems take less information to perfectly describe, and the data can be compressed to a smaller and higher entropy file.
This video perpetuates some misunderstanding about entropy. Though entropy is often described as disorder, that is just an analogy, it is in fact about probability. So if you have 1,000,000 dice with 90% of them on 1 that might be considered pretty ordered, but if those are weighted dice with a 90% chance to roll 1 then they are in the maximum entropy state, and you'd have to manually flip them to look more disordered but shaking them up would revert them to 90% on 1. Crystals are energetically favorable and work similar to loaded dice.
Second, entropy can decrease in an open system, by using an external energy source. This is how life can decrease its entropy, and how refrigerators can decrease their entropy.
Third, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics isn't actually considered a law of nature, it's a statistical thing instead. When you're dealing with "large" things like a speck of dust containing over a quadrillion atoms, statistics might as well be a law of nature. But the law doesn't affect particle motions and such, it's just a result of the other laws. And good thing too, or else the physics of a coin flip would require the coin to look at the neighboring coins to decide whether to land heads or tails. Anyhow, if time were running backward (as in toward the negative time direction) entropy would still increase as you got further from t=0, to decrease entropy you'd need to do some sort of rewinding to a pre-determined series of states.
This is wonderfully articulated and super useful. Thank you so much for taking the time and energy to write it! 💜
It feels like it misses the fact that usually system that create order do so by creating much more disorder like how an AC will cool down a room but overall generate heat.
I also don't see how there is a need adds a force to explain how things that are stable or self-replicating are more common that things that aren't especially in a system were less stable state can be transformed into more stable position.
Finally purpose is generally a term that should be avoided when describing natural phenomenon as it often describe way more the "perception of reality of the observer" than nature itself.
Replying to your last comment, I thought in the end he was implying that maybe there is an observer to the universe that's giving a higher purpose. Like the loaded and ambiguous word "god."
@@christopher7042 I definitly felt like there was a religious implication in his last senteces.
Excellent critique! And yes, teleological arguments are dangerous ground.
That being said, emergence is a universal phenomenon and there's a great deal of mystery to be explored there.
What he's missing can be summarized in two words: dissipative systems.
You’re certainly onto something interesting - and there remain many interesting aspects of reality yet unexplained with our laws and theories. To assign it “purpose” may be offputting to some - but maybe “emergent”, counter to disorder and with arrow of time - seems begging for quantifiable ordering. ❤ I cannot wait to see what emerges.
Many years ago, I used to search for books which treated arrow of time, entropy and emergent complexity in a way accessible to me, as my interest and fascination were growing A Lot, but the resources comprehensible to a non specialist ( Art degree.. )were few.. I remember how deeply grateful I was when I found Order out of Chaos, the book that Ilya Prigogine wrote for ALL of the curious out there. Well I would really like to thank all and every gifted "beautiful " mind which bothers to talk to us in such, non formal, for them probably twisted way.. Thank You
As I mindfully enjoy a cup of tea, I am smiling, reading these beautiful comments, realizing that we are all part of this fathomless cosmos. Its fabric is our being.
We're so glad you're here :)
✌️💚
Heck yeah, it's a special thing, being alive ❤
@@MicahScottPnD indeed. I hope as AI automates work and produces an abundance of goods and services more people can simply enjoy life, without worrying about bills, etc.
@@moderncontemplative I like the way you're thinking!
Incredible ability to pinpoint at something that could be profoundly important. I think some others are missing the point (or several points). We have to posit new things (and big things at that) if we're ever going to get somewhere. This type of thinking that can pinpoint - and put aside the rest on this scale - is more important to have in science. Just on that basis alone, I would correct the angle some have been taking on it. I don't need to know everything to know that. In addition, what he is saying warrants more attention as even just parts of what he is saying could lead to more understanding - because it asks us to see something as part of a context. Being more exploratory and more receptive, and identifying the parts that are very interesting is a more correct path to take I believe to have progress - especially owing to the current environment.
Hm. I see the point, but would not express it in those words. Function selects itself -- if a mineral is in a stable configuration, it will persist (temporarily defy entropy). If a chemical has a useful function, or is resistant to rapid decay, it is more likely to persist (temporarily defy entropy) than an unstable configuration. (Admittedly, unstable molecules often serve a function as intermediary steps in biochemical reactions --- dependent, of course, upon "input" of energy.)
No. Life, minerals, the cosmos, have no purpose.
"Purpose" is a human interpretation. Only valid from our perspective.
What is your definition of order and disorder? How do you decide if something is in order or disorder?
Sounds like this guy has been reading some of the literature by folks over at the Discovery Institute.
My reaction was similar. I was waiting for something about dark energy, the effects of unseen dimensions, or maybe a 5th fundamental force. Not some tired YEC nonsense.
The Conscious Spiral of Dynamic Stability: Understanding Homeostasis in Three Dimensions
Introduction:
To understand the transition from a circle to a spiral, we start by exploring the mathematical dynamics in two dimensions. This sets the foundation for framing the idea of homeostasis as the coherent balance of a system. We then extend this concept to three dimensions, where the human body can be considered an electromagnetic sphere.
Circle to Spiral Transition in Two Dimensions:
1. Circle as a Static System:
- Definition: A circle in two dimensions is defined as a set of points equidistant from a central point. This creates a perfect uniformity and balance where all points are the same distance from the centre.
2. Dynamic Evolution into a Spiral:
- Changing Frequency: When the rate at which the circle is traced changes over time, the path transforms into a spiral. This can be understood as the distance from the centre changing gradually as one moves around the circle, creating a spiral pattern.
- Dynamic Stability: The spiral represents the dynamic stability of the circle over time. It maintains a coherent structure while allowing for continuous change and adaptation.
Mathematical Representation:
- Polar Coordinates: In mathematical terms, a spiral can be described by using polar coordinates, where the distance from the centre changes as one moves around the circle.
- Coherence and Balance: For the spiral to remain coherent, the changes in frequency (or radius) must be balanced and gradual, maintaining the overall structure while evolving.
The Human Electromagnetic Sphere
Transitioning to Three Dimensions:
1. From Circle to Sphere:
- Three-Dimensional Context: Extending the concept to three dimensions, we move from a circle to a sphere. The sphere represents a more complex system where information flows not only in two dimensions but also expands outward in three dimensions.
2. Electromagnetic Sphere:
- Human Body as a Sphere: The human body can be considered an electromagnetic sphere, with the heart at the centre generating electromagnetic fields that interact with the environment.
- Boundary Layer: The surface of this sphere represents the boundary layer that encapsulates all the information within the body. This layer integrates the dynamic changes occurring within the electromagnetic field.
Informational Flow and Homeostasis in the Sphere:
1. Outward Spiral Flow:
- Dynamic Expansion: Information within the sphere moves outward in a spiral pattern, representing the dynamic expansion and evolution of the system. This flow reflects how the body’s electromagnetic field interacts with and adapts to external and internal stimuli.
- Interaction with Boundary: As information reaches the boundary layer, it integrates all the changes and interactions within the sphere. This layer captures the system’s current state, embodying the outcome of all internal processes.
2. Feedback Mechanism:
- Feeding Back Information: Information reaching the boundary does not dissipate; instead, it is fed back into the bottom of the sphere. This feedback ensures the system continuously updates and adapts based on the interactions within the field.
- Coherent Output: The feedback represents the coherent output of the system, integrating all previous interactions into a balanced and adaptive response.
Defining Homeostasis in the Electromagnetic Sphere:
Homeostasis in this three-dimensional electromagnetic sphere model is defined as the coherent balance of the system maintained through continuous, dynamic interactions and feedback mechanisms.
- Dynamic Stability: The sphere maintains dynamic stability by integrating and responding to informational changes, ensuring the system remains stable yet adaptive.
- Informational Integration: The boundary layer acts as a dynamic integrator, capturing the system’s state and facilitating balanced feedback to maintain homeostasis.
Applications and Implications:
1. Biological Systems:
- Cellular Homeostasis: Cells function as spheres where metabolic and signal transduction processes represent informational flows. The cell membrane integrates these signals and facilitates feedback mechanisms to maintain homeostasis.
- Organismal Homeostasis: The human body, as an electromagnetic sphere, uses physiological processes and sensory inputs to dynamically maintain systemic balance.
2. Environmental Systems:
- Ecosystem Dynamics: Ecosystems function as spheres with energy and nutrient flows representing informational changes. The boundary of an ecosystem captures these interactions, facilitating feedback to maintain ecological balance.
- Climate Systems: The Earth’s climate system, visualised as an expanding sphere, integrates atmospheric and oceanic processes dynamically to regulate stability.
3. Cosmic Systems:
- Galactic Homeostasis: Galaxies maintain dynamic stability through gravitational interactions, with their outer layers capturing these interactions and facilitating feedback to maintain coherence.
- Planetary Systems: Planetary homeostasis is maintained through geophysical and atmospheric processes, with the outer atmosphere integrating these processes to ensure stability.
Conclusion:
The transition from a circle to a spiral in two dimensions illustrates the concept of dynamic stability. Extending this to three dimensions, the human body as an electromagnetic sphere maintains homeostasis through coherent informational flow and feedback mechanisms. This model provides a robust framework for understanding how complex systems, from biological organisms to cosmic entities, achieve and maintain balance through dynamic, integrated processes. Recognizing the role of spirals in maintaining homeostasis enhances our appreciation of the intricate balance inherent in natural and cosmic systems.
I would replace the term “functional information” with “functional emergence” as the driving concept of natural selection of outcomes. I.e. (grossly simplified):
Gravitational force produces spherical objects, thus nature is selecting for the strongest geometric form. This, in turn, forms enormous spheres of hydrogen gas which, with pressure over time triggers nuclear fusion (stars), which radiates prodigious amounts of heat, which maintains water in liquid form at a certain distance, which helps make life as we know it possible. It all emerged from gravity, and no new arrow of time was needed. This is the process of natural selection of outcomes as I see it, and it all looks like pure functional and natural emergence to me.
There is no gravitational force, so there’s that. Only the bending of space time itself.
Although things are able to organize themselves in to functional forms through trial and error over time, I'd be hesitant to leap to that equating to purpose.
Thanks for this. Yes, I’ve speculated about such a "law" as well, I'm sure many have, about time someone articulated this within a scientific context. 6:52, "it's increasing order, increasing complexity and selecting for function". I think it's a misstep to say it's selecting for function, better to say "it is selecting", and leave it at that. A quick review of the manifestation of biological traits shows that not everything has a function. I think it's better to say there is a law, or mechanism, which results in increased order and complexity, and leave it at that.
I think of his statement "Selection for Function" differently. To me, it is "Selection for Existence". There is a natural process of trying all possible states of a system, and only the ones that have a configuration to exist longer than the others remain. In the example of the trillions of ways to arrange atoms in which only a few form crystals that persist, those few crystalline configurations remain in existence, while all the other trillions of non-crystalline forms fall out. Those that remain in existence can then naturally try new arrangements to form even more complex possible states, a few of which will remain in existence, again, while all the others fall away. And so on. So, there is in nature a process of natural selection, but the underlying force that creates progressive complexity is "The Law of Existence". If it was not so, nothing in the Universe would exist.
The second law is actually not at odds at all. Entropy only increases at timescales that spans across billions of years and there can be (and actually has to be) pockets of time where order can emerge and flourish. Hope @sabinehossenfelder comes across this video
As other comments have stated, I didn't realize there was a problem to be solved here. In fact, I'm almost certain the notion that the compatibility of complexity in the universe with the 2nd Law has been discussed by numerous scientists or science communicators, many of whom are featured on Big Think/The Well, including Sean Carroll Jeremy England, Phillip Ball, and Sabine Hossenfelder, among countless others. Of course, there is nothing wrong with sharing a novel perspective, but regarding this instance, I'm just not buying it. This way of thinking about information might provide some novel insights into the matter, but proposing it as a fundamental new law seems like quite a stretch to me, given how there does not appear to be an incompatibility between the 2nd Law and life (or other complex structures). Indeed, it even seems evident that the 2nd Law would predict complexity (the emergence of complexity creates islands of low entropy at the expense of increasing the overall entropy of the universe).
I readl somewhere that Nature tends to the highest level of complexity (that can be supported by the environment in question). I'd really like to know where I got that Idea - I think it was about 50 years ago that I read that.
The second law of thermodynamics gives way for a part of a closed system increasing entropy while another part of it decreasing entropy and the total system increasing entropy. However, I'm asking whether anybody come upon the idea that this inhomogeneity (between a part of the system holding more entropy while another part holding less entropy) can represent a form of order (lower entropy) that compensates for the total entropy increase of the whole system? Remember that order is always associated with inhomogeneity.
When trying to explain this (pseudo?)paradox, one should take into account all forms of manifestation of life: order, system, information, improbability and inhomogeneity.
Things don’t have a purpose; other things find a purpose in them. (I am using the word “thing” here to bypass for the moment, any discussion of consciousness and intentionality.)
Put another way, what we call “purpose” arises dependently, when one evolving thing A finds a use for another evolving thing B. In putting to use the properties of B, A evolves; and in so doing, it creates a new set of conditions that affects the environment in which B (and C, D, E, etc.) exists and evolves.
This is a translation of the Buddhist concept of dependent origination into the language of logic. It removes the need for a purposeful first cause or a teleological end state toward which things are evolving.
Spot on.
Humans are so interesting in their behavior of finding meaning
It's our favorite hobby, and we barely consider the act of doing it as something we 'do.'
I find it interesting that most of us feel the need to find meanings in our lives at all.
@@heristyono4755that’s because it is interesting!
Makes things more fun
by finding meaning, we’re seeking order and order can give advantage so it’s not necessarily philosophical or spiritual, I think - which, how when it’s phrased -humans are always trying to find meaning- seems to convey. although it is often funny too. and tragic.
Fascinating 🤓 In a nut shell I would call it “the law of discernment”
I find this idea very interesting and optimistic.
This addresses one of my long-standing problems as a materialist thinking about Life. And that is why it “bothers” to survive, reproduce, and evolve in the first place.
At the fundamental level there is only interactions.
To define something, you need something else.
Objects are patterns defined by the observer. The most fundamental patterns are frequencies.
A frequency is the most simple interaction. It’s defined by the empty space between.
Your choice to want to persist as a human pattern is this eleventh law.
Your ability to recognize and approximate patterns helps you resonate your pattern through more space.
Thankyou. I have a new path to explore...from an engineering perspective, this isn't "obvious" because it reinserts the future.
He doesn’t have the whole story. I was born to do this right because it’s so vitally important to get it right. This is one aspect of it, the stuff the Carnegie group is working on. I already figured all that stuff out. Get ready. Nature rejected my papers, people won’t listen to me, I can’t get a grant. But I cannot give up because I understand why they don’t see it. It has to be done correctly. My first book comes out this week. Get ready for the world to change drastically and dramatically. You will change. I’m tired of no one listening long enough for the miracle to be conveyed. Your world expands now. ❤
Just because I’m autistic, people think they can marginalize me and ignore me. I’m not super good at social strategizing and glad-handing people and people who are good at those things take special delight in humiliation of people who are not. That ends with me. I’m not going to let this happen any more. I had to leave graduate school after 4 years without a PhD because I’m different… so I have been very busy on my own. ❤
I love people, so I won’t give up.❤
I did read the paper they wrote on this. The study of time and chronobiology in particular has been neglected. The ancient calendars were almost entirely focused on sequence and function. There is a lot of presumption they were either star maps or followed astronomy as the primary gauge. That is not true. Time has flavors, and they are easily tracked. Taking a close examination of the sequence of functions in ancient calendars, they match very well with both the periodic table and the amino acids. Self forming systems, are following a pattern that we do not have the causation of yet.
You should put a link to the paper in the descriptor.
The world's premier calendar cycle is a simple 20 day repeating cycle, with detailed descriptors from around the world. That is the one we should be using.
Bro discovered Universal Darwinism 😅
Complexity evolves,,temporarily, during the journey to disorder.
"I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out."
Here my personal Dunning-Krueger featured thoughts about this topic:
A lot of scientists would argue that life and evolution are a logical consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.
Earth is not a closed system.
You have to consider especially the sun with it's low entropy input and it's energy being radiated back from earth that' much less concentrated.
Evolution is just maybe the process of developing a more efficient way for structures / organisms of spreading that concentrated energy along the way so that life actually even accelerates the conversion of low into high entropy. Think about how much longer it would take system earth to spread out the suns energy without life on it?
What's this constant use of "(dis-)order" or complexity though? I guess the states of highest and lowest entropy don't differ regarding (dis-)order or complexity. It is the states between that feature complex but evolving structures.
There might be another arrow of time or everything we think about the laws of nature might be wrong. But you could explain evolution with just the second law of thermodynamics.
I like to imagine life as eddies in entropy pools - and like waves, if entropy is cresting in one place, it leaves Islands of low entropy in another... and life are the mountains on those islands.
That's incredibly rare.
My understanding of the second law isn't so much that there's an "arrow of time" component, but more a probability component, and as repeated reordering of closed systems iterate, the types of macrostates which are more likely to occur, tend to do so, and those less likely to occur, tend not to ocvur. This may look like an "arrow of time" because we never observe large isolated systems "run in reverse", but the second law doesn't prohibit this, it could happen, it's just extremely, vanishingly improbable, so much so that we might say it's "effectively impossible"....then again, given long enough time scales (ie. infinite), anything that can occur, will.
Entropy really has nothing to do with "disorder" except that there are generally far less ways for systems to appear "ordered" than the are for them to appear disordered. So again, probability.
Evolution and life itself may appear "ordered", but it actually leads to a huge increase in entropy vs no life, due to the burning of fuel/food/resources leading to the "liberation" of stored energy in lower entropy states.
I think you're reaching extremely hard to say that this is all due to some "thing" (we all know what's implied here) ascribing meaning or purpose based on "usefulness".
If that's the case then the purpose is not even necessary, nor called for. One might ask what is the purpose of increasing entropy - there not need to be one. If a law of increasing funcional information is indeed The Law, then it should be indifferent to our antropocentric speculation about its purpose. In fact, one could say that in order to maximise the functional information, the backdrop upon which it grows has to be at maximum entropy. Only a blank sheet of paper can be used to draw all possible artworks.
This would also validate the possibility of existance of a Boltzman's brain - not just on the basis of infinities of time and microscopic arrangements of atomic states, but, because evolutionaly speaking, such an entity would be of the highest functional complexity in the universe.
Jeremy England proposed an answer to this many years ago. I'm no JE but from my understanding, complexity is caused by entropy just like disorder in an open system. And what you call selection is brought about by resonance
I don't know 🤔, Maybe "Functional" isn't a good metric to describe information" because depend of the eye of the observer....
Its not selection for function, its an evolved selection, as promoting a cohesive concrescence of a (particular) process/ing. Or as Rudolph Steiner quoted: form & function, are one in the same.
Very interesting the ideia of purpose. I would like to propose an other interesting view about time. We now that every closed organized system expels its entropy out of the system making the external entropy increase, example , air conditioners. If we assume that the whole universe is a closed system with some order in structure, then may be its own existence expels its own entropy to the past, in other words , it creates the arrow of time….
Thank you 🦋
Thanks for spending time with us today!
There is a fundamental aspect of entropy that modern physicists seem oblivious to and that is that matter never rests. It moves and collects. Even in the most diffuse entropitized environment (to coin a word), matter collects. It compresses. It forms stars and those stars create elements and it all cycles around again. It has nothing to do with a second arrow of time or the selection of information or pseudoscientific philosophy. It's not mystical.
Any infinitesimal object that moves creates mass. If it creates mass, it creates gravity. Gravity is attraction. All particles must move, therefore all particles moving in different trajectories or velocities must attract. If they attract, then they compress. If they compress, then they organize.
Thus entropy has limits. Here is the missing law, the fifth law of thermodynamics (Or maybe a modification of the fourth law of thermodynamics: Onsager reciprocal relations):
The greater the mass of an entropic system, the greater its capacity for compression and organization.
You're welcome.
*In the beginning, there was the Word.
*Is purpose quantifiable?
*Perhaps we need not box ourselves inside positivism.
What's missing in all scientific analysis is the 'paradox of perception'.
All of science deals in the 'evolution of forms'.
The most rigorous theories use mathematics to model the form of theoretical objects (quantum field, sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, proteins, cells… all the way up to stars, galaxies, clusters, and the background radiation), and their theoretical properties (mass, charge, spin, etc), along with specified theoretical constants (Fine-structure Constant, etc), as well as theoretical laws (Conservation of Momentum, etc) that together describe their theoretical behavior.
There is usually a long chain of mathematics (including the maths embedded in the devices used in any experiment, as well as those used to display the results) that links the theoretical behaviour to the observations.
A theory is held to be valid when the theoretical behaviour of the theoretical objects reliably (though not necessarily perfectly) maps or predicts the observed behaviour of observed objects.
That is all.
No science can ever say anything about the ‘true nature’ of the fleeting sensory images (colours, odours, flavours, feelings, sounds) and ideas (of number, form, and meaning) that together manifest apparent ‘things, events, and relations’…
Nor of this Consciousness in which and to which all theories and observations appear.
Nor can it ever say anything about ‘meaning’, or the ‘lived experience’. What it is to experience a dawn over the desert, or the thrill and terror of battle to the death, or the hug of a child, or an argument with the boss, or the disgust at a rotting pile of garbage, or the strains of a Mozart symphony or the heady beats of an African drum… or anything else about what it is to experience ‘life’.
Plainly, science and introspection demonstrate that Reality is Aware, Immaterial and Non-dual and that the apparent world is merely an illusion arising within and apparent to this Consciousness:
michael-haines.medium.com/no-debate-consciousness-is-the-ground-of-being-c29f4f7929db
Fine words
Increasing functional information. Also called the perfection of wisdom. Philosophy. Hannya haramita. Prajna Paramita. Om mani padme hum. This idea is not new, it is ancient.
The drive of the universe to understand itself. Or for humans to do physical and metaphysical studies. Science and religion.
The universe is driven by curiosity.
_"If we're wrong, we're wrong in a very interesting way."_ That's fine. More than fine. That 'interesting' should be the real goal of all theorists. Mogel validity is necessary. Model strength emerges after the fact. A valid model with no known correspondence with any measurable phenomenon is still worthwhile, if only because it's interesting.
How can we determine functional information without being biased?
“Functional information” should be the first the first law of Time!
The answer to your final question? I think: No. I don't see how it leads to the idea of purpose. Just like bilogical evolution, these other forms of evolution are reactive, not goal directed. I identify purpose with goal. It's like saying that 'nature' has a 'reason' for these things. I think that is anthropomorphic thinking. I think you fall into the trap because of the example you choose, namely that of a coffee cup. I think this ia a bit like the argument from design, where you find a watch on the beach. You identify the watch as having a specific purpose, and you attribute this, rightfully, to a mind. You then make the mistake of seeing other order in the universe and attributiing this to mind too. It's the same with the coffee cup. The coffee cup is designed, by us, by a mind, for a particular purpose. But you can't make the logical leap from this to argue that any order or complexity that you percieve in the natural world must also have a purpose. Just like evolution in the biological world, these other forms of evolution are ad hoc responses to conditions, not goal directed processes.
I don’t get why scientists seem to be going down a path of metaphysics. Penrose is doing that with consciousness too. Things don’t need to have a “purpose”. It makes logical sense that all interactions are contextual, and therefore everything we see is contextual, considering everything in the universe is limited by the speed of light, and everything within causal connection has an effect on each other.
Agreed
I think it’s just anthropomorphism, and a challenge of descriptive language to communicate that is causing this. Even the speaker was tentative in his use of the word “purpose”. I don’t think he has found the right set of words for it yet. In a deeper discussion I think it would be apparent that there is easily separation from the physical logic of this hypothesis and the metaphysical connotations. For my part, I think this emerging hypothesis has a big overlap and connection to Stephen Wolfram’s physics and work in the fundamental understanding of the second law of thermodynamics and entropy. He talks about this at great length, and they, including Jonathan Gorard, are doing the hard work at a deep computational level to show how all of the laws of physics and nature emerge from computational complexity. I would like to see a discussion between this speaker and Gorard and Wolfram. If this exists in the universe, it clearly goes all the way down beyond atoms to the subatomic and deep fabric of fundamental physics. The implications are so profound that it is extraordinarily hard for our minds to grasp. Suggest diving into so,e Wolfram physics lectures and discussions with Gorard.
@@aaronsinspirationdaily4896 it’s interesting you bring up the Wolfram Physics project. It makes me realise that the reason many scientists are talking seemingly metaphysical is because they are at the limits of what the models they know can explain… everything else beyond the model is of course mysterious…. So like everyone from the past who don’t have an understanding, they switch to just “making it up” and use metaphysical explanations. I like the Wolfram Physics Project because it’s seeking to find a modern model of physics. Their model resonates with me because I’m a software engineer, and it makes perfect sense to me from what little I’ve heard about it so far. I just hope they are able to devise physical tests to experimentally verify their models. The other model I’ve heard about that seems half reasonable, is Vivian Robertson’s rotating photon model. There is one video where he explains how this model can mathematically explain all the particles, phenomena like spin, and how the combine to form atoms and molecules, and then describes how it can be used to derive gravity, and answer questions about galaxy rotation curves etc. It’s quite fascinating. There are a few unanswered questions in my mind, so I haven’t completely drunk that kool aid, but it at least sounds logical and potentially verifiable.
Why not just stick with the word coined decades ago for increasing functional information which also beautifully mirrored Entropy as an arrow of time. This is called Syntropy which represents increasing order in context.
Mathematical speaking could this function be characterized or represented as the Lagrangian?
System always tend to a stable energy or some sort of vacuum energy functional at least quantum mechanically speaking.
Also information is already linked to entropy though Shannon entropy
Information actually increases with disorder. I believe the term you are searching for is meaning, which decreases information through creation of transdiemantional relationships within the informaiton.
Does illusion have a purpose?
Absolutely fascinating❤
We're so glad you enjoyed. Thanks for being here!
I like this idea but I would say does life have affinity to certain environments which we have strong evidence for. Purpose is much harder to define as words go because it is not contextual so much as conceptual.
We are the context
Thank you 🙏😁
Your ideas make sense and your words speak true. The implications of your theory are profound.
What if we have function, a purpose and value? Perhaps we can adapt to the challenges we face.
A new book by Austin Macauley Publishing titled From Chemistry to Life on Earth explains a molecular natural selection formula with a functional variable expressed as a percentage.
What's the selecting factor in your mineral formation example? In biology it is ability to reproduce, but I didn't understand what the selection pressure is in your mineral example?
No, I don't think there is a purpose.
Passionate and intriguing approach, but information doesn’t have a purpose. It is a byproduct of the boundaries between low and high entropy. It emerges from the caos. We just attribute a meaning to it. Our universe is the result of quantum celular automata.
Information is purpose. Entropy is lowered by the organization of information into repeatable and recognizable patterns which creates purpose and meaning, which resulted in the universe and us. Information gives us meaning, we dont attribute meaning to it.
What law explains consciousness and how DNA adapts by it?
Contextual value seems like a weird argument. How can we compare a coffee cup with minerals?
Having purpose does not mean it is in good intention. There are just too many sufferings to conscious beings in our natural and physical world.
There is a problem with comparing natural selection, which involves life, and minerals, which are not alive. The selection (attraction? Minerals do not "select" anything, btw...) of minerals to other minerals is not dependent upon reproduction, but rather, chemistry.
WE made the coffee cup for an exact purpose. We also make screwdrivers... out of different materials, to start with.
No, minerals do not have a purpose... they just are.
This sounds very much like he is trying to find an "intelligent design" angle here through denying the randomness of the universe.
It is a far stretch to say "we are experiencing the opposite of entropy."
I am afraid that many would disagree. 😊
Life is a local reversal of entropy.
A river runs downhill. The river turns a waterwheel, which drives a lumber mill.
The original energy came from the sun, to carry the rain clouds uphill. Similar processes fueled the carpenters.
The furniture created is ordered, but not mysterious.
Energy unwinds and information accumulates...accumulated information leads to emergent possibilities and stable information....DNA is representative of this...life and then life with emergent consciousness turns accumulated inarticulate information into articulated awareness...also the process of entropy allows as many configurations as possible...crunching them out...some remain.
Keep going.. until you have victory or defeat by the law of science. This is the way.
I do so enjoy someone who can explain terribly complicated things and make it understandable to the Layman.
Lord how I miss Carl Sagan
this is on the right track but you don’t have enough arrows. it’s more like how a river branches into tributaries and then gets picked up by the water cycle and rains down elsewhere…that’s the flow of time. it’s both circular and linear, and flows in branches and networks at different rates depending on the material context/resistance
What you sayis not new. The German philosopher Hegel called this law "the spirit of the world is coming to itself" 200 years ago. He claimed that there is a world spirit a priori which is in the world from the very beginning and it enfolds itself and becomes more and more reality. This means that the world develops from chaos into an order that has been intricate to the world as an idea, the "absolute idea".
By the way I don't agree with Hegel in this case. I think that there is only one time arrow. If there was no growing entropy there would be no development. Development is the competition for the declining density of energy. So locally the density of information, i.e the complexity may grow and the entropy may decline. But this is to the debit of the overall surrounding. Globally the entropy is growing, locally it may decline. Locally the "time arrow" may reverse temporarily.
Teleology, basically.
Note Ilya Prigogine's Order out of Chaos.
Survival of functionalities, is very different to a survival of the fittest..indeed where something 'best fits' in evolution to me sounds more inclusive and more likely. The symbiosis found throughout nature, functions to assist. Even completely different species ..I think shows, life does have its predatory nature, everything will eat itself eventually, but to me this new idea rings true , with or without a 'second arrow of time', which personally I have thought may exists when considering tye double slit experiment. Particle or Wave ? Either way what I really love about this, is the admittance that they may have this wrong, something science and scientists have a very hard time saying 😅
I call the process Syntropy, and I believe it operates from the future in reverse time.
Thats nuts
All the laws have an arrow of time. Motion of any kind has a time component that cannot be reversed. The entire universe would have to reverse in time for even one infinitesimal particle to reverse. Therefore, every component of every kind of physics has an arrow of time. Entropy just illustrates it and locks it in for us.
To look at creation and say “there is no creator” is similar to looking at a painting and saying “there is no painter.”
I find the idea of "purpose" when looking at nature very problematic. In my opinion, "purpose" is a very narrow psychological phenomenon needing "conscience", which I will define as "knowing that you are thinking and thinking about your thinking". For there to be a "purpose", one needs to consciously set a desirable end result, consciously plan a series of actions to reach this end result, consciously constantly evaluate how far one is from the end result and consciously modify the plan accordingly.
I'd accept the ideas in this video more easily if "purpose" was replaced with "structured stability"... To me, it makes more sense to say that as entropy/disorder increases in the universe, there are instences where structure and stability increases through natural selection, life and crystals being examples...
0:45 "Birds fly." That's what he wanted to say initially.
I agree that increasing complexity is a compelling thing, but I don't think "purpose" is the right word for it. Purpose is a human idea. Things have causes, and life may just be a coincidence.
What about viruses? Why didn't they evolve into something more complex? Selecting for function doesn't always imply more complexity
Contextuality has no absolutes. If you follow the causal chain of purposes to the end, your ultimate purpose would be to exhaust your limits to assist the universe in destroying all information quicker, which is meaningless. The arrow of time and timeflow are not to find among the physical laws but in the architecture of consciousness. It projects information from one part of the world to another through a time crystal structure. The arrow of time is just the direction of the projection, which is consciousness, and doesn't exist apart from the projector structure.
Sobresaliente! ❤
Universal purpose/reason = “logos” in Stoic cosmology of the ancient Greeks. Go check it out, their view of the cosmos is very interesting. They talk about heat death of the universe and rebirth cycles (multiverse), and other fascinating thoughts about life, consciousness (‘Mind at Large’).
It’s amazing how much of their ideas/beliefs correspond to what we currently discuss in theoretical physics, and I don’t think it’s a mere coincidence.
There are 2 equal ways to get the answer. (The decay rate of the super conductive state [effectively increasing vector field density]) or (your expansion rate relative to that superconductive state [which effectively increases vector field density as well, relative to the resistance in the system]). Both ways decrease superconductivities force over distance, allowing looser arrangements of motion flow [increasing complexities in which motion can settle into local averages and equilibriums, (n) of low resistance states increase]. At the fundamental scale, energy density = motion direction asymmetries over volume. Kinetic diffusion occurs when these asymmetries in directionality come within the volumetric super conductive distance of each other.
You were so excited to say this that you missed the entire point.
@@b1r2y3n What do you mean exactly?
@b1r2y3n I don't care who you are that's some funny **** right there
When compared to the lifetime of our universe, from the Big Bang to Heat Death. Life and complexity (“increase in order”) may only be possible for 10^-100 of 1% or 0.(100 Zeros)1 of 1% of the total lifetime of the universe.
This is because most of the entropy and arrow of time of the universe is locked up in Black Holes (more than a google years). Therefore it is hard to see how this hypothesis can be a universal law.
⭐
This sounds remarkably like assembly theory.
There is no such thing as time. It is only our perception which is based on memory that makes us see 'time'. Similarly things have no purpose. Purpose is just a meaning we give to things. For you a chair is for sitting, but a fly cannot sit, it has no idea what sitting is, so a chair does not even exist for the fly. Its just a piece of wood for it. And even wood does not exist, that is also just a meaning only existing in the brain. What there really is has no meaning, it is free of abstraction, and that is why its impossible to put into words what there really exists.