Natural selection and entropy.
The premise of physics is the laws of thermodynamics. And entropy is said to always be increasing, disorder and chaos is naturally favoured by the universe at large. Supposedly.
Biologys fundamental tenet on the other hand is natural selection, the systems tendency to favour that which is most stable (better at replicating, better at repairing, more consistent, with ever more precision, accuracy and control, upholding the failure to succumb to grave error, disorder and death.)
It seems then that these two mechanisms work antagonistically, opposing eachother through, rather ironically, piggybacking of the innate properties of the other.
Entropy seeps into the living through unwanted mutation, and the erosion of functionality. Ageing. Disease. Cancer. Maladaptive behaviours. Disorders of the mind: depression, suicide etc.
Natural selection seeps into entropy by utilising the other side of this probability, that every now and then, entropy incidentally mutates a system positively, provides the inevitable diversity of chaos, and thus more opportunity, more substances and more properties for use in gaining the upper hand, becoming more fit, more able, more complex and more empowered to survive against the odds.
It's as if natural selection declares "I want to live! I wish to be sustained, continuous, ordered and complex! " whilst entropy says "I want you dead and disordered, at the mercy of a constant flux of change and chaos. Powerless!"
In this way, life seems just as inevitable as the increasing chaos of the universe at large - As they depend on one another's properties for their mode of action.
If living systems were too stable, too perfect, too ordered and well controlled, if they did not feed off entropy, they would be static. Immortal. Evolution would not be possible. Nothing would change for that living system.
If entropy was too disordered and chaotic, did not include the possibility however small or brief of the "goldilocks zone" - where stability can arise, then Natural selection could not occur in favour of continuing that stability.
In truth I believe they are two faces of the same coin. Life and death emerge from one another simultaneously. The more complex, the more controlled and ordered life is, the bigger the fall into the oblivion of chaos. The greater the decay that occurs at the end of a living individuals ability to continue. The more concrete, obvious, determined and final "Death" manifests and thus the more unique, precious, valued life appears to be by contrast.
Living systems see a dead, sterile, harsh and cold environment (the universe) because of their innate bias as ordered systems. But in truth, life and death are both illusions of a larger system that simply changes following basic principles of opposition - Newton's third law of motion.
And change, being based on probabilities, involves change that confers stability, and change that confers instability.
The only thing instability can attack is stability. The only thing stability can fend off, is instability.
Biologys fundamental tenet on the other hand is natural selection, the systems tendency to favour that which is most stable (better at replicating, better at repairing, more consistent, with ever more precision, accuracy and control, upholding the failure to succumb to grave error, disorder and death.)
It seems then that these two mechanisms work antagonistically, opposing eachother through, rather ironically, piggybacking of the innate properties of the other.
Entropy seeps into the living through unwanted mutation, and the erosion of functionality. Ageing. Disease. Cancer. Maladaptive behaviours. Disorders of the mind: depression, suicide etc.
Natural selection seeps into entropy by utilising the other side of this probability, that every now and then, entropy incidentally mutates a system positively, provides the inevitable diversity of chaos, and thus more opportunity, more substances and more properties for use in gaining the upper hand, becoming more fit, more able, more complex and more empowered to survive against the odds.
It's as if natural selection declares "I want to live! I wish to be sustained, continuous, ordered and complex! " whilst entropy says "I want you dead and disordered, at the mercy of a constant flux of change and chaos. Powerless!"
In this way, life seems just as inevitable as the increasing chaos of the universe at large - As they depend on one another's properties for their mode of action.
If living systems were too stable, too perfect, too ordered and well controlled, if they did not feed off entropy, they would be static. Immortal. Evolution would not be possible. Nothing would change for that living system.
If entropy was too disordered and chaotic, did not include the possibility however small or brief of the "goldilocks zone" - where stability can arise, then Natural selection could not occur in favour of continuing that stability.
In truth I believe they are two faces of the same coin. Life and death emerge from one another simultaneously. The more complex, the more controlled and ordered life is, the bigger the fall into the oblivion of chaos. The greater the decay that occurs at the end of a living individuals ability to continue. The more concrete, obvious, determined and final "Death" manifests and thus the more unique, precious, valued life appears to be by contrast.
Living systems see a dead, sterile, harsh and cold environment (the universe) because of their innate bias as ordered systems. But in truth, life and death are both illusions of a larger system that simply changes following basic principles of opposition - Newton's third law of motion.
And change, being based on probabilities, involves change that confers stability, and change that confers instability.
The only thing instability can attack is stability. The only thing stability can fend off, is instability.
Comments (18)
In the end, no biological closed system decreases entropy, so it arguably doesn't oppose it.
Ageing is a biological adaptation, perhaps unwanted, but evolution does not select for wish granting.
More to the point, anything thus static would not be living at all.
That is just a law of motion. A general principle of opposition is something for which one can argue, but it isn't Newton's law at that point.
I didn't say it did. I said it piggybacks off natural selection, which is a statistical process that I'm sure applies beyond just biology. NS is an inclusive tenet of biology but I don't think biology is an exclusive tenet of NS. NS likely preceded it during abiogenesis and just applies to systems in general.
Quoting noAxioms
Where does motion end and behaviour, or further yet, phenomenology begin? If newton's law is a principle of physics, and biology, its behaviours and phenomenology, don't magically appear outside of that mechanism then equal and opposite reactions can be applied to motion within biological systems, between biosystems and between them and the environment.
I am aware I'm using newton's law in more loose atypical sense but that is because I don't believe there is a different between living physics and universal physics. It's the same Newtonia physics at work.
Natural selection is not particularly a statistical process. The mutations are, but the selection of them is not in any way random, so I guess it depends on whether you consider the mutations to be covered under the NS term.
Quoting Benj96
It isn't a general principle. The third law is essentially a statement of conservation of momentum, and anything beyond that isn't Newton's law, even if it is a valid principle.
To be honest, I cannot glean how you're trying to apply this vaguely hinted 'principle of opposition'. It would be nice if you stated the principle as you see it, in terms other than that of momentum.
So while life may temporary decrease entropy locally, the total entropy of life and all other parts of the universe that interact with life is increasing. Any local decrease in entropy in living organisms is smaller than the increase in entropy elsewhere that it interacts with (eg in the sun).
:clap: and the universe itself, is currently considered a closed system, as there is no evidence of anything entering or leaving this universe. So, heat death is the most likely ultimate fate but maybe something like Roger Penrose's CCC, will mean eternal 'aeons.'
https://www.google.com/search?q=Natural+selection+and+entropy
/thread
I sometimes wonder if heat death is merely the transformation of actionable energy (light, thermal, kinetic, chemical etc) - observable energetic interactions, back to the un-observable - pure potential energy (as energy cannot be created nor destroyed but only change from one form to another).
If all energy was "potential energy" would the end of the universe not parallel the "potential" for a big bang?
Like a big spring dropping and recoiling to the starting position.
If heat death means no movement, no kinetic energy, then time effectively stops. And as Power is a function of work over time, if the denominator becomes negligible, the ability to do work. (energy) becomes more potent (potential).
Just as 1 (work) /0. 5 (time) or "2" is greater than 1( work) /0 (time) or "1" or "heat death".
If energy and time are ratios of one another, when time stops, potential is at maximum. When time starts, potential is converted into other forms of energy - diluted in potency by duration.
Can anyone elaborate why you'd call natural selection a statistical process? Statistics is a mathematical/scientific way of drawing useful information from sets of data, so would it be right to say that any natural process is inherently statistical? Rather the products of natural selection (taxonomic groups/populations), lend themselves to study by statistical processes.
Like what if we also said, planetary formation is a statistical process. Is that any more or less legitimate than saying natural selection is a statistical process? Are we instead just suggesting that it concerns variations of a population/set and this is sufficient to call it statistical?
I don't know what you mean by 'un-observable' in the context you use it above.
PE=mgh, I also don't know what 'pure potential energy' is.
If you mean 'undetectable then are you suggesting a point in the future where the only energy form left in the universe is so called 'dark energy?'
I tend to take my 'heat death' descriptions from what is suggested by Roger Penrose.
But in general, from wiki, we have:
The heat death of the universe (also known as the Big Chill or Big Freeze) is a hypothesis on the ultimate fate of the universe, which suggests the universe will evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy, and will therefore be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy. Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium. The Heat Death theory has become the leading theory in the modern age with the fewest unpredictable factors.
Penrose postulates a time when:
At the end of the universe all matter is eventually contained within black holes which subsequently evaporate via Hawking radiation. At this point, everything contained within the universe consists of photons which "experience" neither time nor space. There is essentially no difference between an infinitely large universe consisting only of photons and an infinitely small universe consisting only of photons. Therefore, a singularity for a Big Bang and an infinitely expanded universe are equivalent.
The theory of heat death is postulating a state where entropy has increased to a point where it can no longer increase. This state does not mean there is no energy, rather it means that the energy cannot be used to do work.
So it is almost the opposite of what we conceptualize as potential energy - it is energy that has no potential to do any work at all.
It's true that creative Energy and destructive Entropy are opposing forces in the world. But ultimately, they are working together -- like warp & woof -- to produce the fabric of Reality : a self-organizing universe from the otherwise annihilating explosion of the Big Bang. In my personal BothAnd worldview, the evolutionary process works like a computer program, interpreting Potential (stochastic probability) into Actual (physical organism), and Nothing (0) into Something (1). Evolution is a heuristic learning process, based on trial & error, in search of functional physical Forms that are "fit" (suitable) for specific niches.
So the result of that seemingly random process is self-discovery : finding novel workable solutions to some teleological problem. That's how AI programs work : by "piggybacking" positive & negative forces into systems that are complex enough for self-reference (feedback loops), but also simple enough to maintain structure despite the de-structive forces of Entropy. The whole system evolves in a manner similar to the growth of an organism : beginning with encoded information (natural laws functioning like DNA).
Therefore, the evolution of our Cosmos is not simply the antagonism of Energy vs Entropy -- leading to Heat Death -- but a cooperative system of positive & negative values that work toward some un-manifest ultimate pattern. We may be currently near the halfway point of that progression from raw Potential (the Bang) to ultimate Actualization (Omega Point). Lacking complete information though, we can only guess about the final output of the computation. However, the fortuitous eventual emergence (manifestation) of Life & Mind & Purpose seems promising. :smile:
Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal com-petition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution limited only by local restraints to the original programmers goal or purpose.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
Evolutionary Programming :
as a learning process
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming
Entropy :
[i]A quality of the universe modeled as a thermodynamic system. Energy always flows from Hot (high energy density) to Cold (low density) -- except when it doesn't. On rare occasions, energy lingers in a moderate state that we know as Matter, and sometimes even reveals new qualities and states of material stuff .
The Second Law of Thermo-dynamics states that, in a closed system, Entropy always increases until it reaches equilibrium at a temperature of absolute zero. But some glitch in that system allows stable forms to emerge that can recycle energy in the form of qualities we call Life & Mind. That glitch is what I call Enformy.[/i]
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note -- The coined term is a play on Entropy, combining Energy & Form.
Note : Natural Selection seems to be a mathematical information process that both multiplies (random variations) and divides (de-selection of unfit variants) to calculate solutions to Necessity. Positive values are expressed in terms of Energy, while negative values are called Entropy, and Necessity is the Equals sign connecting Before with After, to represent the whole system over time. Creative Energy randomly produces novel forms (en-formation) via bonding forces, then weeds-out the weak (un-fit) via loosening those bonds. In Information Theory, certainty becomes uncertainty.
OPPOSING WARP & WOOF THREADS PULL TOGETHER
Entropy really "clicked" for me when I understood it as nothing but the direction we observe energy to move -- without the 2nd law of thermodynamics, there's no reason why water spills to the ground -- if you reverse the 2nd law, then the water would fall up and into containers.
Calling it "disorder" or "order" is a bit misleading, I think -- or, at least, has the tendency to evoke images that aren't exactly what the law is saying. Really it's just describing the movement (dynamics) of heat (thermo) -- and less archaically, the 2nd law says "heat goes from hotter object to colder object", and hotter object happens to have a relationship to energy, so more technically "energy goes from object with more joules to object with less joules". This is confusing in the water example because there's not really any heat involved, but it's that relationship between temperature and energy that makes it more generally applicable -- we generally observe energy to go from a higher concentration to a lower concentration within the universe. [s]Without[/s] Reverse the 2nd law, rather than a heat death we would predict a heat compaction.
And, as already pointed out, life increases the entropy of the universe. So rather than being at odds the theories are actually in harmony.
But it's still just what we observe. I'm pretty leery of cosmological claims because I tend to think of the 2nd law in empirical, experimental terms more than a fundamental law.
That's a nice way to put it. Although there is also such a thing as entropy of mixing, as when two dissimilar gases mix with each other, in which no energy transfer needs to occur.
In general, I would describe entropy as the tendency of some macro-scale processes to be strongly time-asymmetric. That is, under the same general conditions we will almost never see their spontaneous reversal. Thus, ice cubes will melt at room temperature and never form out of room-temperature water; cream will mix with coffee and never spontaneously separate from it, and so on.
Thanks :)
Yeah it gets more complicated. What you're talking about, I think, is Gibbs "free" energy. Energy transfer still occurs, it's just not in the simple terms I set out.
I was mostly hoping to deflate the notion that entropy increase is somehow opposed to natural selection.
Heh, that's pretty good. But I'd counter the experimental definition. "macro-scale" already says too much, in this notion :D
I like the definitions which relate to the experimental apparatus and observations more than the conceptual ones.
Does it? What if the gasses are at thermal equilibrium? Where does energy transfer take place in mixing?
Let's take the air in your room, which is mostly a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen at thermal equilibrium with each other (albeit different concentrations). We know that they almost certainly won't spontaneously separate into regions of all nitrogen and all oxygen (thank God - or entropy - for that!) This spontaneous separation won't happen even if thermal equilibrium is maintained throughout. Indeed, bracketing out energy transfer makes it especially easy to see why spontaneous separation does not happen: the number of combinations corresponding to a state of separation is negligibly small in relation to the number of all possible combinations under the same conditions.
(Gibbs free energy is closely related to entropy, and it will decrease as a result of mixing, just as it does as a result of spontaneous energy transfer.)
Or consider mixing in reverse. You need to do work in order to separate mixed substances, transferring energy into the system - but not the other way around. In this sense, mixing does involve an asymmetric energy transfer.
Quoting Moliere
Well, the experimental definition fails at sufficiently small scales - hence the stipulation. Try to say anything about the entropy of three particles kicking around in an empty can. The concept of entropy is applicable to bulk materials, where you can neglect or average out their internal structure.
Just to make sure we're on the same page here, this is the wiki link to the phenomena I believe we're discussing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_mixing#:~:text=In%20thermodynamics%2C%20the%20enthalpy%20of,from%20a%20substance%20upon%20mixing.
So when you note that you don't need to do work to mix the substances -- that's what I'm saying is an energy transfer. I'd say that the energy transfer is between the system and the universe. Which is a funny way to really just say a beaker and the lab. So we have a beaker with a barrier between two different gasses, say, and we open up the barrier the mixing takes place within the system, there's a change in enthalpy and entropy -- and because Gibbs is negative it is a spontaneous process. We don't have to input work to have the process occur. But that still means there's a transfer of energy -- the mixed state is an energetically favorable because of the increase in entropy. In the case of gasses mixing you'll note in the equation for Gibbs:
?G=?H-T*?S
Since there is no change in enthalpy with mixing, the only change is in entropy. And since entropy is increasing the gibbs free energy is negative, and hence mixing is a spontaneous process.