[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod
Yeah, but entropy is the principle of "increasing complexity over time", AFAIK.

Tormod, I'm surprised. You have it exactly backwards!

Entropy - a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder, CHAOS, DISORGANIZATION, RANDOMNESS (WWWebster)

It is a DECREASE in complexity over time.

Thus going from a state of polycromatic moving displays with active interaction to a monchromatic fixed state is entropy. A reduction in information.

[Tormod]

Yes, I appear to be wrong, but it's just my English As A Foreign Language skills shining through. I meant disorder. Sorry.

Word-swapping has occured more frequently in my posts lately. Maybe I need some more vacation.

[Tormod]

However, I still maintain that MSOS is violating the second law of thermodynamics every time it bluescreens. It generates a deliciously simple blue-screen out of my endless amount of chaotic work in a microsecond. From chaos -> order, just like my broken glass analogy.

Except, of course, that the blue-screen is also an (now old-fashioned) Hawking black hole which forgets everything it sucks in. If it were a *real* black hole, even Hawking now admits we could restore my work. It would take a few billion years perhaps but hey, who's counting.

It took almost four billion years for bacteria to turn into human beings, and only 20 years for MS-DOS to turn into Windows XP.

[TeleMad]

FreeThinker: An OS is constructed of lots of independant programs and subroutines. Thus we would need to compare it to a more complete ecostructure not just one cell of it. Esp something as bloated as Windows anything.

Pay attention FreeThinker. Here's the common-stated assertion that is being challenged.

"The simplest bacterium is far more complex than anything humans have created".

Based on that assertion, I am comparing two appropriate things.

TeleMad: Not that density is really an issue, but bacteria are in trouble because their information density is basically fixed.

FreeThinker: We are doing a comparison based on current existence, not future proises.

No, you went off topic and started comparing DENSITY. Since the thread topic no longer applied, and nowhere did you assert that in your offtopic tangent the future was out of bounds, I was quite free to look towards the future based on long standing trends.

Now, if you'd like to get back to the thread's topic, fine. But don't sit there and talk about something else, and then try to claim that I am off topic.

[TeleMad]

FreeThinker: Tormod, I'm surprised. You have it exactly backwards!

And I'm afraid you've got it wrong too FT.

FreeThinker: [Entropy] is a DECREASE in complexity over time.

No it's not. Entropy is not a process.

FreeThinker: Thus going from a state of polycromatic moving displays with active interaction to a monchromatic fixed state is entropy.

No, it would be a CHANGE in entropy.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: TeleMad
No it's not. Entropy is not a process.

entropy - a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder (WWWebster)

[Tormod]

Hm...I thought entropy was a measure of the state of disorder in a system. So you go from one entropy to another. But when I read around the web I see different usage - some call it a process, some call it a state, one says it's a reference to the "dissipated potential of the second law of thermodynamics".

Since the entropy of a closed system always increases, it is used as - for example - a way to compare how two events in the system are separated in time (the earlier state will have less entropy, the later more).

But I guess we're straying off topic...I just like the word "entropy". There, I did it again. Hit me one more time.

[Freethinker]

Yes I notice the same confusion. The concept seems to be consistant but the application seems to vary. Is that because of entropy of entropy? Does entropy reflect it's own entropic nature? Is the entropic nature of entropy a process or a measurement? Is entropy only entropic in a closed dictionary? Does the word "Entropy" fade when the book is closed? If a tree becomes entropic in a forest and no one is around to measure it ...

[TeleMad]

Nope. you're wrong FreeThinker. Entropy is NOT a process. It is a measure of the degree of randomness or disorder of a system, or, it is the degree of disorder of the system. Think about temperature. It is the average translational kinetic energy of molecules: that is not a measure, but a state. However, if we measure that average translational kinetic energy of molecules, we then have temperature. So temperature is either the 'state' or the measure of that state. Same kind of thing with entropy.

What you are doing is analogous to saying that if it's 90 degree F at noon, and it's 70 degrees at 8 pm, then temperature occurred. No, a change in temperature occurred. Same with entropy: if the state od disorder of a system increases, then an increase in entropy occurred.

Here's some supporting scientific material. Emphasis on the word MEASURE added to the following.

Physics Material

“Entropy is a measure of disorder or randomness. … The rigorous definition of entropy actually involves counting or calculating the number of possible rearrangements of the microscopic
quantum-mechanical properties of the elementary constituents of a physical system that do not
affect its gross macroscopic properties (such as its energy or pressure). The details are not
essential so long as you realize that entropy is a fully quantitative quantum-mechanical concept
that precisely measures the overall disorder of a physical system.” (The Elegant Universe:
Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory, Brian Greene, W. W.
Norton & Company, 1999, p333-334)

“Entropy: A measure of the amount of disorder in the Universe, or the availability of energy to do work. As energy is degraded into heat, it is less able to do work, and the amount of disorder in the
Universe increases. This corresponds to an increase in entropy. In a closed system, entropy never
decreases, so the Universe as a whole is slowly dying. In an open system, (for example, a growing
flower), entropy can decrease and order can increase, but only at the expense of a decrease in
order and an increase in entropy somewhere else (in this case, in the Sun, which is supplying the
energy that the plant feeds off).” (Q is for Quantum: An Encyclopedia of Particle Physics, John
Gribbin, Free Press, 1998, p126)

“The entropy also has an interpretation in terms of the microscopic view of the thermal system: it
is a measure of disorder in the system, and all the ramifications of the second law can be derived
by treating entropy as disorder. The entropy is thus closely linked to statistical ideas.” (Modern
Physics, Jeremy Bernstein, Paul M. Fishbane, & Stephen Gasiorowicz, Prentice Hall, 2000, p20)

Cell Biology Material

[quote]
”Entropy S is a measure of the degree of randomness or disorder of a system. Entropy increases as a system becomes more disordered and decreases as a system becomes more structured. … To see this, suppose that a 1.0 M solution of glucose is separated from a large volume of water by a
membrane through which glucose can diffuse. Diffusion of glucose molecules across the
membrane will give them more room in which to move, with the result that the randomness, or
entropy, of the system is increased. Maximum entropy is achieved when all molecules can diffuse
freely over the largest possible volume – that is, when the concentration of glucose molecules is
the same on both sides of the membrane. … Many biological reactions lead to an increase in
order, and thus a decrease in entropy ([change in]S < 0). An obvious example is the reaction that
links amino acids together to form a protein. A solution of protein molecules has a lower entropy
than does a solution of

[Freethinker]

We can see that such tools as usage convention are lost on you.

In examples you yourself provide, we see how certain termonology is constructed for efficient communications of agreed concepts. Frmo one of your above sources

ramifications of the second law can

??? WHICH second law? I don't see one specified. The phraseology is obviously faulty!

But don't panic yet!

We KNOW by agreed convention, that when involved with discussions on Entropy, unless OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, any reference to a 2nd law, or second law or such can be understood as the "second law of thermodynamics".

Just as it is a well established agreed convention that since discussions about entropy are moste like about it's "increase". We find this convention used extensively even in related scientific discourse. Take even highly selective phrases such as

"towards entropy"

Obviously there can;t be a tendency towards an unspecified ruberic. The phrase is just plain incorrect if we do not allow acceptance of such agreed conventions. And if we do a Google of it

Results 1 - 10 of about 969 for "towards entropy".

plus if we make a simple spelling change and drop the "s".

Results 1 - 10 of about 536 for "toward entropy".

And so on as we use various combinations of phrases that utilize simple agreed conventions in our discourse. This is why when the word is found in the dictionary, it includes definitions based on it's established common usage.

Try looking up "gay".

If you are incapable of dealing with these usually accepted conventions, we will try to spell it out for you in greater detail when you get confused. Just ask.