Text 404, 91 rader
Skriven 2004-10-18 22:15:00 av Guy Hoelzer (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: the why question
============================


in article cks1r6$feq$1@darwin.ediacara.org, Tim Tyler at tim@tt1lock.org
wrote on 10/16/04 1:55 PM:

> Guy Hoelzer <hoelzer@unr.edu> wrote or quoted:
> 
>> I never suggested that cells, viruses, or the process of reproduction
>> were physical NECESSITIES.  I don't think that they are physical
>> necessities any more than convection, or lightening, or vortices, or
>> galaxies, or any other particular phenomena.  I do, however, think that
>> all processes (e.g., reproduction) and dissipative systems (e.g.,
>> cells) are underpinned by their service to thermodynamics through
>> maximization of the rate of entropy gain in the universe.  Honestly.
> 
> As I argue on:
> 
>   http://originoflife.net/bright_light/
> 
> ...talking about "maximization of the rate of entropy gain in the
> 
> universe" may not be quite correct.

I agree that this idea remains conjectural at the moment.
 
> It seems reasonable to think that living systems can conserve resources
> in times of scarcity - in the hope of surviving until resources become
> plentiful again - and this is /not/ behaviour that would maximise the rate
> of entropy increase during the resource shortage.

I agree.  This is not at all inconsistent with my view, although I can
certainly see how you might have thought otherwise.  My view is that
thermodynamics explains the things that do exist or happen in the universe,
but does not explain why other things do not exist or happen.  Therefore,
the observation that organisms DO NOT use up resources as fast as they can
is neither here nor there regarding the point I was trying to make.  Those
things that an organism does do, including any effort put toward conserving
resources (e.g., caching behavior), ALWAYS contribute toward increases in
universal entropy.  There are no exceptions.  And it is ONLY through the
doing of things that rewards (e.g., fitness gains) can be generated.  Of
course action can also result in a degree of self-destruction, which also
increases the amount of universal entropy.  The proposition that the rate of
entropy gain in the universe is maximized by all processes and dissipative
systems can only be refuted by an instance that is either negentropic or
neutrally entropic at the level of the whole universe.  Failure to take
advantage of an opportunity (e.g., consuming all of your resources now) does
not negate the other entropy-producing activities of processes and systems,
which generate and sustain them.
 
> If a biologically-based entropic maximand is proposed, I therefore
> think that it can't simply stress short term measurements of entropy
> increase - instead, it must consider long-term effects.

I'm not sure how to formalize this conjecture, but I agree that strategies
promoting persistence in the long term may also be favored
thermodynamically.  However, I am not sure how to distinguish between
forward-looking thermodynamics and forward-looking by emerged systems.  For
example, I don't know of any thermodynamic reason that natural selection
can't engineer organisms or species to behave strategically so as to
increase their chances of survival or reproduction in the long-term.
Natural selection, and other processes underpinned by thermodynamics (all
processes under my view) are free to elaborate on the constraints of
thermodynamics, including the evolution of long-term strategies.  On the
other hand, it seems too thermodynamically convenient to me that protecting
the persistence of dissipative systems would tend to increase the rate of
entropy gain in the universe in the future as a mere side effect.

I don't know of any proposed connection between thermodynamics and the
existence of time, which would be directly relevant to this issue.  Do you?
 
> This is directly analogous to the situation with maximising genetic
> descendants:
> 
> Genes should be expected to maximise the number of their long-term
> descendants - rather than the number of their immediate offspring.

And this is something that, IMHO, they do.  Do you agree?  Any mutation that
results in the production of more copies (offspring) at the expense of
reproductive potential gets washed out of the population by natural
selection.

Regards,

Guy
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/18/04 10:15:55 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)