In The Beginning There Was Metabolism, And Metabolism Said Let There Be Life

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
The proper thermodynamic system to analyze must include the sunlight hitting the leaf, whose entropy is increased more than the leaf's is decreased.
But only the photons that are absorbed by chlorophyll and perhaps the OEC and protein indoles should be considered; the ones that provide photoreduction energy. The ones that strike cellulose and provide only heat cannot be brought into the photosynthesis equation.

Seems impossible to measure directly, since the secondary heating effects would create too much noise.
 

kookaburra

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
21
Hi haidut, thanks for this post.

Prigogine, using the conventional conception of the second law, noticed that the bifurcations (i.e. thresholds or "flips") observed in his benard cells could not be explained or predicted using statistical mechanics. They appeared to him to be "chance events very similar to the fall of dice" (Prigogine and Stengers 1971, 162). Using statistical mechanics, the odds of a benard cell occuring at all (i.e. the odds of a small fluctuation in a tiny macrostate growing through exponential feedback and "invading" the system) is so small that it might as well be impossible. So, Prigogine concluded that "emergent" phenomena in NET systems are evidence that natural phenomena are not necessarily mechanistic/deterministic etc.

Peat, on the other hand, adopts Whitehead's position that the behavior of even abiotic materials in nature can be teleological (purposive).

"Since Ilya Prigogine's Nobel Prize, a false cultural history of "emergence" has been formulated, to derive the idea of the sudden appearance of order out of disorder, from the official anti-teleological (platonistic) rationalism that had seen change as a matter of random fluctuations in a time-reversible system, in which numbers are real and substance is unreal. In this new version of history, cybernetics is blended with neodarwinism, to explain order as something external to matter, and dependent on chance rather than purpose."

Nowadays, there seems to be a backlash in the wider systems sciences (particularly systems ecology) against the culture Peat is describing (i.e. cybernetics).

Gare, A. (2008). Approaches to the question “What is Life?”: Reconciling Theoretical Biology with Philosophical Biology. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 4, 53–77.

Kauffman, S. A. (2010). Reinventing the Sacred: A new view of science, reason, and religion. Basic Books.

Kay, J. J., & Schneider, E. D. (1994). Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 19(6), 25–48.

Maturana, H. H. R., & Varela, F. J. F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Salthe, S. N. (2005). Energy and Semiotics: the Second Law and the Origin of Life. Cosmos and History, 1(1), 128–145.

Ulanowicz, R. E. (2009). A Third Window: Natural Life Beyond Newton and Darwin.

Ulanowicz, by the way, published a very interesting paper with Mae-wan Ho:

Ho, M. W., & Ulanowicz, R. (2005). Sustainable systems as organisms? BioSystems, 82(1), 39–51.

She also referenced Kay and Schneider frequently, and if you're going to look into any of these references then I would recommend that one. Note Kay and Schneider's restated second law: "The thermodynamic principle which governs the behaviour of systems is that, as they are moved away from equilibrium they will utilize all avenues available to counter the applied gradients. As the applied gradients increase, so does the system’s ability to oppose further movement from equilibrium." This is very different from the statistical reading of the entropy law, as it has the effect of making self-organization (and life) an eventuality hard-baked into the physical laws of our universe, rather than an improbable oddity. Feedback loops occur becuase the system is teleologically driven to adopt whichever configuration dissipates energy most efficiently. In the end, the second law is the final cause of everything.

I find this approach much more compelling than many alternatives I've read. Negative entropy is not the same thing as syntropy. Negative entropy is exergy, referring to the energy available within a system available to do work. Furthermore, we can abandon the concept of entropy without abandoning the second law. We simply need a more nuanced understanding, particularly when it comes to non-equilibrium systems.
 
L

lollipop

Guest
Hi haidut, thanks for this post.

Prigogine, using the conventional conception of the second law, noticed that the bifurcations (i.e. thresholds or "flips") observed in his benard cells could not be explained or predicted using statistical mechanics. They appeared to him to be "chance events very similar to the fall of dice" (Prigogine and Stengers 1971, 162). Using statistical mechanics, the odds of a benard cell occuring at all (i.e. the odds of a small fluctuation in a tiny macrostate growing through exponential feedback and "invading" the system) is so small that it might as well be impossible. So, Prigogine concluded that "emergent" phenomena in NET systems are evidence that natural phenomena are not necessarily mechanistic/deterministic etc.

Peat, on the other hand, adopts Whitehead's position that the behavior of even abiotic materials in nature can be teleological (purposive).

"Since Ilya Prigogine's Nobel Prize, a false cultural history of "emergence" has been formulated, to derive the idea of the sudden appearance of order out of disorder, from the official anti-teleological (platonistic) rationalism that had seen change as a matter of random fluctuations in a time-reversible system, in which numbers are real and substance is unreal. In this new version of history, cybernetics is blended with neodarwinism, to explain order as something external to matter, and dependent on chance rather than purpose."

Nowadays, there seems to be a backlash in the wider systems sciences (particularly systems ecology) against the culture Peat is describing (i.e. cybernetics).

Gare, A. (2008). Approaches to the question “What is Life?”: Reconciling Theoretical Biology with Philosophical Biology. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 4, 53–77.

Kauffman, S. A. (2010). Reinventing the Sacred: A new view of science, reason, and religion. Basic Books.

Kay, J. J., & Schneider, E. D. (1994). Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 19(6), 25–48.

Maturana, H. H. R., & Varela, F. J. F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Salthe, S. N. (2005). Energy and Semiotics: the Second Law and the Origin of Life. Cosmos and History, 1(1), 128–145.

Ulanowicz, R. E. (2009). A Third Window: Natural Life Beyond Newton and Darwin.

Ulanowicz, by the way, published a very interesting paper with Mae-wan Ho:

Ho, M. W., & Ulanowicz, R. (2005). Sustainable systems as organisms? BioSystems, 82(1), 39–51.

She also referenced Kay and Schneider frequently, and if you're going to look into any of these references then I would recommend that one. Note Kay and Schneider's restated second law: "The thermodynamic principle which governs the behaviour of systems is that, as they are moved away from equilibrium they will utilize all avenues available to counter the applied gradients. As the applied gradients increase, so does the system’s ability to oppose further movement from equilibrium." This is very different from the statistical reading of the entropy law, as it has the effect of making self-organization (and life) an eventuality hard-baked into the physical laws of our universe, rather than an improbable oddity. Feedback loops occur becuase the system is teleologically driven to adopt whichever configuration dissipates energy most efficiently. In the end, the second law is the final cause of everything.

I find this approach much more compelling than many alternatives I've read. Negative entropy is not the same thing as syntropy. Negative entropy is exergy, referring to the energy available within a system available to do work. Furthermore, we can abandon the concept of entropy without abandoning the second law. We simply need a more nuanced understanding, particularly when it comes to non-equilibrium systems.
Interesting post and references. Thank you for taking the time.
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Hi haidut, thanks for this post.

Prigogine, using the conventional conception of the second law, noticed that the bifurcations (i.e. thresholds or "flips") observed in his benard cells could not be explained or predicted using statistical mechanics. They appeared to him to be "chance events very similar to the fall of dice" (Prigogine and Stengers 1971, 162). Using statistical mechanics, the odds of a benard cell occuring at all (i.e. the odds of a small fluctuation in a tiny macrostate growing through exponential feedback and "invading" the system) is so small that it might as well be impossible. So, Prigogine concluded that "emergent" phenomena in NET systems are evidence that natural phenomena are not necessarily mechanistic/deterministic etc.

Peat, on the other hand, adopts Whitehead's position that the behavior of even abiotic materials in nature can be teleological (purposive).

"Since Ilya Prigogine's Nobel Prize, a false cultural history of "emergence" has been formulated, to derive the idea of the sudden appearance of order out of disorder, from the official anti-teleological (platonistic) rationalism that had seen change as a matter of random fluctuations in a time-reversible system, in which numbers are real and substance is unreal. In this new version of history, cybernetics is blended with neodarwinism, to explain order as something external to matter, and dependent on chance rather than purpose."

Nowadays, there seems to be a backlash in the wider systems sciences (particularly systems ecology) against the culture Peat is describing (i.e. cybernetics).

Gare, A. (2008). Approaches to the question “What is Life?”: Reconciling Theoretical Biology with Philosophical Biology. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 4, 53–77.

Kauffman, S. A. (2010). Reinventing the Sacred: A new view of science, reason, and religion. Basic Books.

Kay, J. J., & Schneider, E. D. (1994). Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 19(6), 25–48.

Maturana, H. H. R., & Varela, F. J. F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Salthe, S. N. (2005). Energy and Semiotics: the Second Law and the Origin of Life. Cosmos and History, 1(1), 128–145.

Ulanowicz, R. E. (2009). A Third Window: Natural Life Beyond Newton and Darwin.

Ulanowicz, by the way, published a very interesting paper with Mae-wan Ho:

Ho, M. W., & Ulanowicz, R. (2005). Sustainable systems as organisms? BioSystems, 82(1), 39–51.

She also referenced Kay and Schneider frequently, and if you're going to look into any of these references then I would recommend that one. Note Kay and Schneider's restated second law: "The thermodynamic principle which governs the behaviour of systems is that, as they are moved away from equilibrium they will utilize all avenues available to counter the applied gradients. As the applied gradients increase, so does the system’s ability to oppose further movement from equilibrium." This is very different from the statistical reading of the entropy law, as it has the effect of making self-organization (and life) an eventuality hard-baked into the physical laws of our universe, rather than an improbable oddity. Feedback loops occur becuase the system is teleologically driven to adopt whichever configuration dissipates energy most efficiently. In the end, the second law is the final cause of everything.

I find this approach much more compelling than many alternatives I've read. Negative entropy is not the same thing as syntropy. Negative entropy is exergy, referring to the energy available within a system available to do work. Furthermore, we can abandon the concept of entropy without abandoning the second law. We simply need a more nuanced understanding, particularly when it comes to non-equilibrium systems.

So, maybe England is simply rephrasing the second law with his research - i.e. the second law should state that over time, a randomly sampled area of the Universe will tend to contain structures with higher and higher heat dissipation capacity. This is quite different from saying that over time the average temperature of two randomly selected areas of space will approach the same value (i.e the heat death of the Universe as per the current second law definition).
The biggest problem I have with cosmology and physics is precisely their worshiping of chaos/randomness even though pure randomness (or even anything close to it) has not been observed anywhere in nature. Radioactive decay is not random at all and it is causing all sorts of problems for the NSA and other govt spooks using these pseudo-random sources to seed their cryptological engines.
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
What does it depend upon? Solar activity ?

Yes, among other things. The Earth's magnetic field also affects it as do the other planets in the solar system. There is also some evidence that it varies with the position of our galaxy in relation to other galaxies in our local galactic cluster. Quite in line with Mach's principle.
 

Dante

Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
460
Yes, among other things. The Earth's magnetic field also affects it as do the other planets in the solar system. There is also some evidence that it varies with the position of our galaxy in relation to other galaxies in our local galactic cluster. Quite in line with Mach's principle.
From the Bible of modern age (Wikipedia) :) -----
Recent results suggest the possibility that decay rates might have a weak dependence on environmental factors. It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54, and radium-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (of the order of 0.1%),[29][30][31] while the decay of radon-222 is reported to exhibit large 4% peak-to-peak seasonal variations,[32] proposed to be related to either solar flare activity or the distance from the Sun. However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper[33] has found no evidence for such correlations in seven other isotopes (22Na, 44Ti, 108Ag, 121Sn, 133Ba, 241Am, 238Pu), and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects.
----
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
From the Bible of modern age (Wikipedia) :) -----
Recent results suggest the possibility that decay rates might have a weak dependence on environmental factors. It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54, and radium-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (of the order of 0.1%),[29][30][31] while the decay of radon-222 is reported to exhibit large 4% peak-to-peak seasonal variations,[32] proposed to be related to either solar flare activity or the distance from the Sun. However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper[33] has found no evidence for such correlations in seven other isotopes (22Na, 44Ti, 108Ag, 121Sn, 133Ba, 241Am, 238Pu), and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects.
----

By definition, there is no such thing as "almost" random natural process. Either the process is completely random or it is not. So, even a 1% seasonal variation destroys the idea of randomness of radioactive decay. And keep in mind, new influencers of this decay process are being discovered every day. Yes, each one has a small effect but there could be an infinite number of them and even one of them invalidates the idea of randomness.
There can be no randomness in nature, as randomness implies no structure can exist and no physical laws either. The very existence of matter implies impossibility of pure randomness. None of the gurus barking mindlessly about "emergent" properties has ever proposed a testable theory how order can arise out of randomness. BY what law, principle or property of reality? And then how do we explain that law, principle or property? Its very existence is a highly non-random event.
Randomness is akin to nothingness - nothing can be said, measured, deducted or even comprehended about it. The more you realize what randomness is the more incompatible you realize it is with the world we live in.
 
Last edited:
L

lollipop

Guest
None of the gurus barking mindlessly about "emergent" properties has ever proposed a testable theory how order can arise out of randomness.
Question. Does emergence refer exclusively to order out of randomness? I was under the impression that emergence involves a level of interactive intelligence. Sort of like the intelligent, maybe purposeful "space between" that in interaction emerges to a higher order.
 

kookaburra

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
21
So, maybe England is simply rephrasing the second law with his research - i.e. the second law should state that over time, a randomly sampled area of the Universe will tend to contain structures with higher and higher heat dissipation capacity. This is quite different from saying that over time the average temperature of two randomly selected areas of space will approach the same value (i.e the heat death of the Universe as per the current second law definition).
The biggest problem I have with cosmology and physics is precisely their worshiping of chaos/randomness even though pure randomness (or even anything close to it) has not been observed anywhere in nature. Radioactive decay is not random at all and it is causing all sorts of problems for the NSA and other govt spooks using these pseudo-random sources to seed their cryptological engines.

Yes, I agree, and with your point on randomness as well. Schneider recently published a book with Dorian Sagan, Into the Cool, that elaborates on the restated second law from Kay and Schneider '94. In it, they argue that the second law essentially boils down to "nature abhors a gradient." The gradient-dissipation imperative drives, rather than prevents, self-organizing processes at all scales. It has been argued by Jantscht (1980) that the universe is self-organizing, rather than moving toward heat-death. This is also what we observe in ecosystems, which are essentially giant, self-organizing, dissipative structures. The higher the gradient, the more energy dissipated, the more complex the structure. Equatorial ecosystems are exposed to the highest energetic gradient, and, therefore, develop more trophic levels and biodiversity. This also explains why they're always cooler, temperature-wise, than their surrounding environments, as exergy cascades downward through the food-chain and is dissipated more efficiently. It's very Peat-y, when you think about it; energy, structure, and function are interdependent at every level.

The trade-off is that highly developed ecosystems become "brittle" due to path dependency and loss of functional diversity, despite their high biodiversity in general. Path "lock in" is necessary to support high structural complexity. Resilience, or "Panarchy" theorists (Gunderson and Holling 2002) argue that this is why highly developed ecosystems periodically collapse on their own, without even human intervention. Personally, I prefer Salthe's argument that high structural complexity results in "information overload," leading to "senescence" and structural breakdown in highly developed, complex systems (i.e. organisms, ecosystems, and even societies). This is not unlike what Zotin observed in the aging process, I think. As Peat has noted, aging occurs due to the complexification of cells rather than "wear and tear."
 

kookaburra

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
21
Question. Does emergence refer exclusively to order out of randomness? I was under the impression that emergence involves a level of interactive intelligence. Sort of like the intelligent, maybe purposeful "space between" that in interaction emerges to a higher order.

Emergence refers to a system with properties that cannot be explained through linear, reductionist science. Evapotranspiration in any given area of wetland, for example, will be higher than if you were to remove the plants and measure the aggregate evapotranspiration of the individuals. The interrelationships between the plants create synergy and feedback. The whole, in other words, is greater than the sum of its parts. That's emergence, and it doesn't require any randomness or intelligence, per se, to occur. Teleology does not necessarily imply intelligence.

To be clear, I'm speaking from a culture within the systems sciences that disagrees with chaos theorists and most cyberneticians. We don't use terms like "order and chaos," we refer instead to organization, structure and function. Kay and Schneider's restated second law is testable, and it was allegedly proven by an engineer named Don Mikulecky. I left the book in my lab, so I can't find the ref right now. I'll try to get it for you.
 

kookaburra

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2014
Messages
21
Here we go:

Mikulecky, Donald C., and Donald C. Mikulecky. Applications of network thermodynamics to problems in biomedical engineering. New York university press, 1993.
 
L

lollipop

Guest
Here we go:

Mikulecky, Donald C., and Donald C. Mikulecky. Applications of network thermodynamics to problems in biomedical engineering. New York university press, 1993.
Very interesting. Thank you. I definitely need to learn more and this thread has shown me that. I cherish good vetted resources.
 

LLight

Member
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
1,411
Seems like a similar topic:

The authors also talk, in other papers, about the link between metabolism and diseases (cancer) or structured water.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom