Re: First Law of Intelligence and the Big Bang

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 02:16:55 GMT, Zoe <muze10@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 12:51:44 -0400, r norman
<NotMyRealEmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 16:32:40 GMT, Zoe <muze10@xxxxxxx> wrote:

The first law of intelligence (FLOI) says that the level of chaos or
disorder in a system is inversely proportional to the level of applied
intelligence. Or vice versa, the level of organization or order in a
system is directly proportional to the level of applied intelligence.

snip>

With me so far? May I proceed?

Not really. You started out saying that the opposite (inverse?
complement?) of "chaos" or "disorder" is necessarily "intelligence".
In other words, any spontaneous development of "order" or "regularity"
or "organization" must necessarily prove "intelligence".

wait a minute. That's not what I said. You have rephrased, adding
your own a-priori concept -- spontaneous activity. "Spontaneous," if
included in the definition, will, of course, automatically rule out
intelligence. But the onus is now on you (having introduced the word)
to demonstrate that order can indeed arise spontaneously.

And no, you can't use crystals or snowflakes as your examples, because
these are processes that are already in place, and it can only be
speculated as to how they got started. It's like a native from a
primitive tribe who comes across a computer with a program running on
it, and because the program seems to be running by itself, they decide
that the program must have arisen spontaneously.

So you need to demonstrate that basic particles can order themselves
into systems beyond the limits within which they are normally observed
to operate. A particle accelerator would be a good place to start.

Since your first law is wrong, everything that follows is wrong.

well, since you have made my first law wrong by inserting your own
term "spontaneous," I don't think you can yet sweep my law off the
table -- not just yet.

It
has long been recognized (with Prigogine earning a Nobel Prize for the
effort) that localized regularities and localized order will develop
from a system moving spontaneously towards increased entropy or
disorder.

why did Prigogine earn a Nobel prize for this observation when any
layperson could tell you the same thing? I guess he must have couched
it in dense mathematical terms which is what it takes to earn a prize?
I mean, come on...any layperson can tell you that, of course, there
are localized regularities and localized order that arise in spite of
entropy. The refrigerator is one such example. The question is, what
causes these localized orders? Random activity or deliberate
intervention?

There is no thermodynamic problem there, especially no
second law problem.

agreed.

I won't quibble about your "unit of measurement" because it really
corresponds to one bit of information.

aha...one bit of information = one fact? Is there actually such a
thing as a single fact after all?

If you choose one particular
notion of information (which I would imagine is sort of on a par with
"intelligence") then that is as good a measure an any other.

not really. A single notion of information does not reflect
intelligence. It is the manipulation of information and the building
of one bit of information upon another that reflects intelligence.

snip>

You are also on bad ground (or none at all) on the big bang -- which
is not the result of annihilation of matter and antimatter, but merely
a singularity in the cosmos.

call it a singularity then, or a quantum fluctuation. But are you
saying that scientists have not speculated that annihilation of matter
and antimatter supposedly occurred at or around the time of the big
bang?

snip>

Yes I did embellish with the word "spontaneous". That is because a
word such as that is used in mechanistic explanations to describe the
natural working out of the laws of physics and no external agent or
"intelligence" or "prime mover" behind it all.

You did equate chaos or disorder inversely with "applied intelligence"
but you do not have any way of describing or quantifying either.
Scientific types usually do have a sense of what people mean by chaos
or disorder and that is entropy. Scientific types generally have
absolutely no idea what you mean be "applied intelligence". And it is
the role of entropy in the notion of chaos that introduces the arrow
of time; things happen spontaneously in the direction of increasing
entropy, defining your system carefully and precisely enough.

Prigogine won his prize, in the words of the Nobel Committee, "for his
contributions to non-equilibrium thermodynamics, particularly the
theory of dissipative structures," It is a substantial body of work
advancing the theory of non-equlibrium thermodynamics. However the
Nobel Press release is headlined "ORDER FROM DISORDER LED TO NOBEL
PRIZE IN CHEMISTRY" which is the glamorous part of the work, albeit a
small part.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1977/press.html

I won't debate you about the nature of "one fact". That has happened
already and went on for far too long in the past. And your misuse of
both physics and information which seem the result of a partial (but
noticeably incomplete) understanding of both subjects is not really
the point. There are some aspects of truth in your statements about
these subjects but you seem to put them together to draw conclusions
that do not really follow. The real point is, as just about every
respondent to your original post, is that you "first law" relating
chaos inversely to "applied intelligence" is totally flawed.

I can't accept your rejection of crystal formation. There is no
"crystal homunculus" hidden inside individual atoms. There are only
electron orbitals which by interaction result in highly organized
geometric structures. Your "processes already in place" are not
located in any place or identified. It is equivalent in saying that
"processes already in place in the big bang and the laws of physics"
are what produced the organized universe we now see.

If you want just one tiny example of a "local fluctuation" or
organization in a larger sea of dissipative structures (Prigogine's
subject), then it is life on earth in all its diversity including the
human body and brain and social/cultural evolution. All this, what we
some consider the highest work of creative intelligence (usually
expressed in terms of a supreme deity), is really a rather small and
insignificant blip in the working out of the universe at large.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Entropy for the unenlightened
    ... seed becoming a tree as a contradiction to the law of entropy. ... The total effect is always toward greater disorder. ... converting and directing mechanism to direct, develop, and maintain ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evidence for the Laws of Intelligence
    ... The reverse of this law states: The level of disorder in a system is ... commands in evidence in Fig.1. ... There is start-stop activity in Fig. 2, but no evidence of commands ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Fourth Law of Intelligence
    ... A law of _human_ creation, yes, a law of intelligent ... The level of chaos or disorder in a humanly created system ... >>evidence that leprechauns exist. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Physics Wrong Turn
    ... but quickly diminishes as a square of the distance. ... How does entropy, or the Second Law, relate to inverse-square ... And the Second Law or entropy does what? ... and disorder over longer times or distances. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Can an explosion produce order?
    ... of a uniform cloud of gas produces an increase in entropy. ... there is a 3 body collision that drops the kinetic energy ... sense to think of entropy as a measure of disorder, ...  that a diamond is thermodynamically ordered. ...
    (talk.origins)