Hi Miranda,

Just as a recall, the three laws of thermodynamics.

The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be redistributed or changed from one form to another.

The second law of thermodynamics states that any isolated system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases its entropy.

The third law of thermodynamics states that as the absolute temperature of a system approaches absolute zero temperature in Kelvin, its entropy approaches a constant value.

None of these three laws on its own rules the universe. You mention the second law as a candidate ruler of the universe. According to me it can be a ruler within its system boundaries but not in the universe, since we do not even now the system boundaries of the universe. So this law can be ruled out as a candidate ruler of the universe, as long a we cannot describe the system boundaries of the universe.

Another remark I have to make, is that you seem to consider entropy as a measure of uncertainty. To my opinion entropy is a measure of STRUCTURAL order (or disorder, hence structural integrity or the lack of it. As an example take a living organism as system, to keep its structural integrity it has to pump out entropy. It does this by producing energy (by respiration). When a living organism stops producing energy, then pretty soon, it will disintegrate and lose, its structural (as well as functional) integrity . Look anywhere in the realm of living organism on this globe, you will find that it is a common process to produce energy to keep entropy within a living organism constant. It makes clear that entropy is related to the structure (and function) of living organisms - but also structure and function of molecules and many other micro and macro systems. Hence entropy is related with the degree of structural and functional integrity of a system, whether alive or dead, but not its uncertainty or uncertainty 'tout court'

As an example of the first law of thermodynamics one can cite the solar radiation interactions by a forest during radiative transfer. Actually there are three types of interactions occurring when a solar photon penetrates the canopy of a forest. It can be reflected, it can be absorbed, or it can be transmitted, no more no less.As a consequence of the first law of thermodynamics, the sum of reflectance, absorbance and transmittance when all three take values between 0 and 1, adds up to 1. Always. This is because of the first law states that energy can be nor created nor destroyed. It can only change its type of interaction with the forest. But the incoming solar energy is fully conserved and distributed in other forms of energy (heat, chemical energy or emitted radiation (fluorescence) by absorption) or radiation energy by reflectance and transmission. These three interactions are the basis of the theories by which we describe the radiative transfer interactions in forests, but also in many other media transferring radiation.

Hence, to summarize my opinion on which law of thermodynamics rules the universe, Miranda, it is not one law, not two, but all three.

It is not a coincidence that the three laws have been formulated to describe the thermodynamics of the systems we know of in many a scientific discipline, whether it be physics, chemistry or biology.

Hope this helps a bit,

Cheers,

Frank

Second law of thermodynamics: The entropy of any isolated system cannot decrease. Such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic EQUILIBRIUM — the state of maximum entropy of the system.

So hopefully humans have the common sense, so that there is equilibrium or balance of positives and negatives of attitudes, relationship towards environment, economy, culture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

(Happy mothers' day. God's blessing for Fathers too...)

Hi Miranda,

Just as a recall, the three laws of thermodynamics.

The first law, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be redistributed or changed from one form to another.

The second law of thermodynamics states that any isolated system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases its entropy.

The third law of thermodynamics states that as the absolute temperature of a system approaches absolute zero temperature in Kelvin, its entropy approaches a constant value.

None of these three laws on its own rules the universe. You mention the second law as a candidate ruler of the universe. According to me it can be a ruler within its system boundaries but not in the universe, since we do not even now the system boundaries of the universe. So this law can be ruled out as a candidate ruler of the universe, as long a we cannot describe the system boundaries of the universe.

Another remark I have to make, is that you seem to consider entropy as a measure of uncertainty. To my opinion entropy is a measure of STRUCTURAL order (or disorder, hence structural integrity or the lack of it. As an example take a living organism as system, to keep its structural integrity it has to pump out entropy. It does this by producing energy (by respiration). When a living organism stops producing energy, then pretty soon, it will disintegrate and lose, its structural (as well as functional) integrity . Look anywhere in the realm of living organism on this globe, you will find that it is a common process to produce energy to keep entropy within a living organism constant. It makes clear that entropy is related to the structure (and function) of living organisms - but also structure and function of molecules and many other micro and macro systems. Hence entropy is related with the degree of structural and functional integrity of a system, whether alive or dead, but not its uncertainty or uncertainty 'tout court'

As an example of the first law of thermodynamics one can cite the solar radiation interactions by a forest during radiative transfer. Actually there are three types of interactions occurring when a solar photon penetrates the canopy of a forest. It can be reflected, it can be absorbed, or it can be transmitted, no more no less.As a consequence of the first law of thermodynamics, the sum of reflectance, absorbance and transmittance when all three take values between 0 and 1, adds up to 1. Always. This is because of the first law states that energy can be nor created nor destroyed. It can only change its type of interaction with the forest. But the incoming solar energy is fully conserved and distributed in other forms of energy (heat, chemical energy or emitted radiation (fluorescence) by absorption) or radiation energy by reflectance and transmission. These three interactions are the basis of the theories by which we describe the radiative transfer interactions in forests, but also in many other media transferring radiation.

Hence, to summarize my opinion on which law of thermodynamics rules the universe, Miranda, it is not one law, not two, but all three.

It is not a coincidence that the three laws have been formulated to describe the thermodynamics of the systems we know of in many a scientific discipline, whether it be physics, chemistry or biology.

Hope this helps a bit,

Cheers,

Frank

Andras,

Entropy in Economics is certainly the lenses through which a large percent of economists view the economy harking back to Adam Smith view of capitalism.

The laws of thermodynamics had a firm grip in neoclassical economics since the Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson was influences by this physics teachers E. Wilson. Samuelson made this law the foundation of production processes when he stated that “Until the law of thermodynamics are repealed, I shall continue to relate outputs to inputs—i.e. to believe in production functions.” (Samuelson Collected Scientific Papers, Vol. 3, 1972, p/ 174). According to Gibbs, the application would assume a world in which energy is constant, but its entropy always grows. This can be exemplified using the famous Edgeworth box in economics. (Ibid, Vol. 7, 19 p 482-483)

F. Edgeworth (1881) developed the Edgeworth box to analyze competition. His model is characterized by two traders with given preferences and endowments. In a process of re-contracting, the traders will eliminate areas inside the box that each can block, such as areas below their indifference curves. This process will bring them to a lens shape area formed by their indifference curves going through the coordinate point of their endowment. If agents are willing to rearranging trade in the lens shape area by giving up some of one commodity for the other agent’s commodity, then unblocked points of equilibrium can be reached. Such unblocked points in the lens shape form the core. They are tangents points of the two players indifference curves trough which we can pass a hyper-plane of prices to get the Walrasian equilibrium. In a closed system, we will find that entropy is maximized.

• The box is assumed closed with an inner wall separating two system (utility function).

• The two system have different temperatures (endowments).

• Economists now locates and endowment vectors in X, which the two systems (potential energy or utility functions) will support.

• If the separating wall is now removed, allowing the two functions to interact, then the bargaining takes place to find a new allocation from trading of their endowments. This equilibrium occurs when the ratio of marginal utilities to prices are equated for the two traders analogous to the different temperatures being equated.

This analysis quickly becomes sophisticated. Briefly, Martin Shubik (1959), G. Debreu and H. Scarf (1963) were able to capitalize on Edgeworth expanded economy that consists of “..2n consumers divided into two types; everyone of the same type having identical preferences and identical resources…as n becomes large more and more allocations are ruled out, and eventually only the competitive allocations remains.” (Debrue and Scarf, 1963, p. 152) Their economy consists of m-types of individual and r-replications, i.e., different individuals of the same type. For a typical replication, , and the ith , an allocation would be . Individuals will have insignificant influence on market outcome in the sense that their endowment would be small relative to the total endowment . In terms of demand and supply, we will have that . The key to Debrue and Scarf theory lies in their equal treatment assumption, namely that identical agents will have the same allocation, i. e., for all and . If we have a situation where the allocations are not equal, a coalition of -individuals with the worse allocations will block the allocations. In the Walrasian case, each consumer of type will face the same price, get the same endowment and the same allocation. We will have an allocation in the -commodity and -type of consumer space, an allocation vector that is in the core, . Also, the coalition in the core for is contained in the core for because a blocking coalition in the -replicated economy will be available for blocking in an economy with replicated economy. (Ibid., p. 157). As the number of replication increases, therefore, the intersection of the monotologically decreasing cores will be equal to the Walrasian. In set theory terms, the Hausdorff distance between the Walrasian and the core will then to zero as tend to infinity.

Some References:

Debreu, Gerard and Herbert Scarf, “A Limit Theorem of the Core of an Economy,” International Economic Review, Vol. 4, 1963, pp. 235-236), reprinted in Gerard Debreu, Mathematical Economics, (U. K.: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 151-162.

Edgeworth, F. Y., Mathematical Psychics, (New York: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers, 1967 [1881]).

Shubik, Martin, “Edgeworth Market Games,” Contributions to the Theory of Games IV, ed. A. W. Tucker and R. D. Luce (Princeton, J. J.: Princeton University Press, 1959).

It's true that the thermodynamic principle can be applied in non material systems, but it save the humanity or the universe, it's strange !

A chance that made this universe and, for billions of years on and works well and without incident according to universal laws, for me it can not be that the good Lord.

Our last hope is the true principles and true moral values ​​that are eternal. The rest takes some time and dies and is buried in history.

Dear Frank,

Your explanation on the laws of thermodynamics and entropy is fully and accurately right. I would like to stress only that your comment expressed mainly the physical meaning of these laws. The second law concern isolated systems and as you put it out the boundaries of the universe are not known. Entropy is the measure of disorder regarding the structure and function of systems and their energy equilibrium. However, from ecological or information point of view entropy may have a meaning approaching uncertainty, look at the Shannon-Wiener formula of diversity. Regarding exclusively living beings even their assemblages or communities, the “strict” physical application of the second law cannot be desirable in each cases. The third thing would be the message of the Morin article and the relationship between this message on the future of mankind and the entropy law. The original Morin article you can read here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_your_opinion_on_the_last_Edgar_Morin_paper.

The main point of my thread is whether the vision and hope of Edgar Morin is right or vain?

I cannot add anything to the precisions (made to Miranda) in a polite way by Frank. Agree completely.

I can add, though, the fathers of each law: Fourier, Boltzmann, and Lord Thompson (Kelvin), correspondingly.

The fact is that the second law expresses the most ancient, sedimented, and extended cultural belief of the western world, namely that: a) time is a curse, and hence, b) that the arrow of time leads toward end, exhaustion, equilibrium, or death. In this tenure, the real "time" begins after time down-here: in heaven.

Besides, we can also say that the universe is not a closed or isolated system (something that has been reinforced by quantum theory, f.i.). Hence one more reason to recognize that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to our universe as such.

Two final remarks: 1) we must take into consideration classical thermodynamics on the one hand, and non-equilibrium thermodynamics, on the other hand. And yet, there are not two thermodynamics. It is only one and the same i tow different moments, or also applied to two very distinct systems.

2) In spite of the fact that I like Morin, his knowledge about science is far from solid. He has great intuitions, and some information about science.

Our understanding of physics is, while elaborate, still lacking in many respects. Until we have the complete picture (probably never), the law of entropy always increasing still has a degree of uncertainty associated with it.

While the second law may be true for our observable environment and a small part of the universe (that which we can observe, the data getting older as we look further from earth), it is not to say it is true universe-wide at present, but probably a reasonable assumption.(based on what we know)

As far as biology is concerned, living things actually accelerate the increase of entropy, so our destiny is almost certainly that of doom.

In the meantime, the law is quite useful for the design of thermal machines.

Thank you friends for adding to my knowledge. It's not my research area, and at first I wasn't keen to answer this question. This was what I said to Andras:

'Second law of thermodynamics: The entropy of any isolated system cannot decrease. Such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium — the state of maximum entropy of the system. Equivalently, machines that violate the second law (perpetual motion machines) are impossible.

But Andras, I stay away from answering this type of Q on the thread. I believe that this earth will still exist until Jesus returns in glory. If you read my profile, I state clearly that I am a christian.' (I may make mistakes, but I'm honest.)

I have found interesting, not so long, debate on the issue of entropy applied to humankind!

"A Feb 9th, 2009 science-vs-religion street debate, at Penn State University, on the question of entropy or the second law of thermodynamics applied to humankind, and, in particular, human origins, between college students and a random opinionated Christian philosopher...."! Good discussion followed by a debate.

It is interesting, also have a look into a link mentioned under: http://www.eoht.info/page/Standard+model+of+human+existence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLvwDKD09i8

Dear Carlos,

I am sorry that somebody down voted your answer. I am sure that only intelligent discussion can help us to understand the points of others. Thus, I would like you to express your opinion on the Morin article. I know that Morin is a philosopher and sociologist, but his message seems to be true regarding the very difficult situation on Earth. It would be also exiting if you explained your view on the possible reasons of this situation.

Dear András, I appreciate your comment on the down-vote. It's a bruden many of us have to carry - as long as RG will not do anything about anonymous downvoting. I participate in RG because of th joy it produces me and in spite of such politically dangerous procedire (as I mentioned in another forum here in RG).

I have no doubt about Morin's the real and deep sentiments baout our world. I know very well his works and I am a member of large network on complexity that encompasses Spain, Portugal and Latin America.

Since the very beginning of his work, Morin has suffcieitnly proved a honest concern about the troubles of mankind. As he grows older, the tone of his voice has become graver, yet whiyout loosing the warmth and gaïté he expresses everywhere.

My comment is a very singular, namely: very as F. Capra - to mention just one example - Morin´s knlwledge about science comes from encounters with other people rather than a rigourous study or reading.

Complex thinking is a most valuable tool for coping with the problems of our planetary age, and try to solve them.

Dear Carlos,

Thanks for your answer. The point of this thread is not the personnel merit or the scientific (naturwissenschaftliche) knowledge of Morin but the reversible? irreversible changes of our world (environmental, economical, behavioural, ethical, paradigmatic changes) everybody are able to experience them and the opportunity for finding a solution in time for these changes.

Independently from Morin’s article and opinion, many scientists dealing with ecological and environmental issues arrived to very similar consequences.

What is your opinion on these changes as an expert of social sciences and philosophy?

Dear Lall,

Many thanks for explaining the economic point of view on entropy. I would like to know your opinion as economist whether the difficult state of our world (environmental, economic, behavioural situation with special regard to sustainability) may be in connection with the dominant paradigm on the aim of production, process of production growth, the controllability on the implementation of production and financial issues?

Dear András,

I´ve hesitated some times because I see the same problems like Frank in his well made remarks with the term "uncertainty ". I´m physicist and trained to understand entropy as a measure for disorder. The essay of Morin was the first time for me, to read the association of entropy and uncertainty. But to be honest, I´ve problems to follow this association.

I will follow this thread with interest.

Dear Andras,

I thank you for your willingness to bring this abstract discussion down to the practical level of economics and finance.

I think that the direction economists are taking is to follow natural laws and rules to the extent that they will result in a better sustainable environment and standard of living. They have mapped these laws into the market mechanism. The two major schools dominate the literature. The Classical school wants the market laws to prevail. The Keynesian school wants to give the market laws a helping hand when it fails.

Economists are willing to bend to the point of view that Professor Frank Veroustraete has pointed out regarding structure and function. The structural framework in economics and finance is still being established. Its foundation was built on faculty of feeling by David Hume, and social philosophy by Adam Smith. When we see that structure falters, we source the failure to market imperfections. For instance, when consumers lack wealth, it shows up as incomplete ordering of their preferences for goods, services, or assets, and you might say they would fall into a black hole where time does not exists for them. So we create a Theorem, The Second Welfare Theorem, we call it, which transfer wealth to them, preferably in the form of money to repair their preference ordering. That way they can be more capable, and therefore function as the natural laws would require them to function.

This point may seem strange to you as it appeared to many economists I have tried it on. Structure can falter if consumers do not follow the preferences they have revealed to us, such as in the case of impulsive buying and wild speculation. Now the kind of rationality that we have achieved in the social sciences is still that 1 +1 = 2. But should the example of impulsive buying make rationality looks like 1 + 1 is not 2, the economists would allow the consumer to make the correction. This allows corrective actions to be taken when the structure falters.

But there exists schools of thought in economics that holds on to pure a priori truths. I mention another school in economics that follow only one axiom: The Action Axiom. Once and action or choice is taken, then agent has to bear the consequences. The structure is never at fault only its application, and the burden is on the actor to suffer the malfunction.

Hope these general points are in the direction you expect.

Dear András, thank you very much. I take up gladly your questions and remark.

This is is most crucial debate, indeed. Given the bottleneck we find ourselves nowadays, the question about (i)reversibility is simply vital.

Please allow me first a general consideration. The intellectually fascinating moment is that during the 19th century two irreversible arrows of time were discovered - independently and yet, as a Zeitgeist, in parallel. On the one hand, Boltzmann stated out the second law of thermodynamics - brought out here thanks to your question. However, an opposite or contrary arrow of time was discovered by Darwin, namely the arrow of time of evolution. i.e. life.

The ricky point is whether entropy rules (question above) or else, it is the arrow of complexification that prevails.

Let me please confess you that I am an optimist. Hence, in the midst of troubles, challenges, hurdles and crises I strongly believe that it is not Bolztmann's arrow what is determinant but, so to put it, Darwin's arrow of time.

We are currently facing a metamorphose, indeed. In order to clearly understand it we must, nonetheless, recall that evolution does not happen teleologically. We got here because of series of factor s that can be traced back in history, and we can (and we will) get out as fast as possible - as fast as we can: no faster, no slower.

(I can continue later on).

Now, back to the environmental crisis. The first remark here is the need to soundly distinguish between negationists of the environmental crisis (many of them - I apologize! paid by big corporations, it seems -, the catastrophists, and, well, here, what I may call the complexologists.

Negationists claim that there is no serious environmental crisis going on, and issues such as global warming have already happened before by natural causes, and it is not man' s responsibility only. Catastrophists argue that we are facing sort of apocalypses, or at least we are on the way to it, inevitably, irreversibly.

From the standpoint of complexity science, I would say that the Boltzmann arrow of time is not inevitable, since we must also take into consideration life's own arrow of time - which leads toward innovation, adaptation, exploration, and - more and better knowledge.

We can overcome the environmental crisis, and yet, we must seriously strive and try to make it. There is no guarantee, but it all depends on us, it appears.

Dear Carlos,

I thank you for your honest and clear estimation. My first remark is that unfortunately, regarding the participation in this subject, scientists do not show a measurable interest. I am glad you are optimist, this is the best attitude independently from the circumstances. Your evaluation comparing the Boltzmannian and Darwinian line or arrow is really a distinctive one. I am sure the stressing of time dimension was crucial in this discussion. Going back to Morin’s opinion, he also emphasised the necessity of a metamorphose, but mentioned the time is not sufficient. The metamorphose itself would merit another thread! I am afraid, this on going metamorphose as a process is not sufficiently studied and forecasted (if possible). I feel, one of the biggest challenges is - scientifically – getting and evaluation of reliable data from point of view of environmental crisis. You have mentioned some by corporations paid, mercenary scientists. Who are these? Some of the catastrophists, the complexologists? I think there must be a third kind, the sceptics.

I deal with crop protection and with the effects and side-effects of pesticides. There is a herbicide which was widely used in corn, the atrazine. Unfortunately, it has many side-effects e.g. contaminates ground, surface and drinking water and by the way it induces feminization in adult amphibians and may effect other vertebrates. According to the US EPA the acceptable level of atrazine concentration in drinking water is 3 ppb (parts per billion). These side-effects were described correctly by the researchers at University of California and proved that at 0.1 ppb of atrazine frogs grow female gonads and then complete feminization takes place. The producer of atrazine (Syngenta) founded the studies of another scientist at Texas Tech University who found that these changes developed only at the level of 25 ppb.

Now, who is/are the mercenary scientist(s)?

Your last two paragraphs are those of the hope. Everybody can agree with them at the level of a desire.

Entropy: A concept that is not a physical quantity

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230554936_Entropy_A_concept_that_is_not_a_physical_quantity