A bacteria the size of a grain of sand dissipates much, much more energy than the grain of sand, and so there is a very strong "preference" for bacteria in this regard.
A bacteria the size of a grain of sand dissipates much, much more energy than the grain of sand, and so there is a very strong "preference" for bacteria in this regard.
Human beings are closer to 1W/kg at rest.
US Primary energy consumption = 30 Trillion Kwh/ year [1]
30 Trillion Kwh/ year / 8760 hrs = 3.3×10^12 W (watts)
3.3×10^12 W (watts)/ 330million = 10 kW/ person
10 kW/ person / 80kg = 125 W/kg
We can make sustained nuclear reactions in much less space using engineered pressure instead of gravity, so that skews the energy density ratio.
IIRC fusion reactors on earth use magnetic confinement to raise the temperature much higher than the sun's interior for a much higher rate of fusion reactions. I'm sure someone will be along to correct me if I got that wrong. ;0)
What more do you want to know.
Joking aside, this comparison is really beautiful.
Allow me to become a little philosophical but since human beings which are product of nature made plutonium, isn't the making of plutonium natural too?
I mean everything that is happening in this universe is natural!
I know the general usage of the words "artificial" for human-made and "natural" for everything else. But when we are talking at the grand scale of life and universe I think a human-made plutonium is as natural as bee-made honey.
My wife was recently asked to make a meal for someone who didn't eat "processed" foods. What level of manipulation needs to happen before a food is "processed"? Can beans or rice be dried and put in a bag? Can chicken broth be used if it's homemade, but the chicken came from a commercial farm? Or is extracting broth from a chicken processing it?
I've increasingly noticed many sub-cultures adopting odd definitions and interpretations of commonly used language with the expectation that everyone who interacts with their group understand their dialects. It's not really jargon or vernacular since the words are common to the language, just used to mean something different than the general population would understand. Similarly, artificial is now assumed to mean bad and natural good, when neither ascribe value by definition or in practice.
But your idea that people are failing to use Standard English and creating language subcultures around peculiar meanings of artificial/processed/chemical vs natural/homemade/organic is itself based on a very artificial distribution of language.
To me, the actions of stars fusing heavy atoms and then those atoms ending up in lumps of material somewhere sounds like a pretty complex system doing its thing.
From that springs everything we are. Utterly amazing to me that from a gradient plus some random chemicals plus time equals humans, sex, violence, loss, birth, love, games, music, and so much more.
All just to help the earth cool down a little bit faster.
I don't get this part, why does this follow?
Why would life that transfers heat faster get selected for? This seems backwards to me: in reality it seems like life that is more capable or more adapted reproduces more, and that results in more heat moving around most of the time.
But progress can go backwards, if there were a nuclear war this would reduce heat transfer.
We are. Descartes had the right idea. The experience of consciousness is irreducible. To say "we are atoms thinking" and variations thereof is utterly meaningless. All words and concepts used for such word play is dependent on the experience of human consciousness. They don't exist independently. Consciousness is the only thing we can posit that has independent existence. Everything else is just a concept created by a conscious being.
It's like the tree falling in the forest with no one to hear it. A universe without consciousness experiencing it really exists? Existence is a property of consciousness. We can't conceive of things that are not experienced, by definition. Even if we imagine a dead universe with just energy and no consciousness, that is an image that exists inside of a conscious mind.
Kant would vehemently disagree. Not that I'm a Kantian, but he makes some pretty good points. So I think there's a lot of work here that needs to be done to make your argument stronger.
It is even debatable what points he really made. As always in philosophy.
Actually this famous slogan that "existence is not a predicate" is closer to proposals of Russell and Quine.
Disclaimer: quoted phrases from Kant may not match exactly what you can find in English translations. I know Kant from Polish translations, so I improvised a bit.
Furthermore I find the verbosity of German philosophy nearly unbearable, to be honest.
I mean, you probably don't even realize that this view is influenced by Kant. You are giving a very poor retread of 200+ year old German idealism.
For example, from the Wikipedia article on Critique of Pure Reason [1], Kant's major work: In the preface to the first edition, Kant explains that by a "critique of pure reason" he means a critique "of the faculty of reason in general, in respect of all knowledge after which it may strive independently of all experience"
I think it is fair to criticize his prose but it isn't like you don't have access to well over 200 years of commentary and follow-ups to one of the most famous and important philosophers within the Western tradition. For a gentle introduction I suggest this video [2] (42 minutes) where Geoffrey Warnock (at the time the Vice Chancellor at Oxford) provides an overview of Kant's ideas.
It is also fair to disagree with Kant, but it is pretty obvious when you are talking about the subject he dominates while having no experience with his work. The reason he is so famous is that he had very compelling things to say on this very subject.
To give an example, it would be like you were talking about gravity and saying that Newton was right. Then someone mentions Einstein, and you respond that you couldn't be bothered understanding the general theory of relativity because the math is too hard.
I mean, no one is saying you should read Einstein, just that Einstein had some things to add to the ideas of gravity that are worth considering. And if you want any theory of gravity that you have baked up on your own to be taken seriously, you will find that others will expect you to show some familiarity with his theories. And further, there is a wealth of material on his theories that does not require you to engage directly with the esoteric math.
The same is true about Kant (although, to be fair this is philosophy and not physics, so he didn't supplant Descartes in the same way Einstein did Newton). He added explicitly to the question about the bounds of knowledge with respect to experience. So if you are making claims about that subject then it is not unreasonable to expect that you have at least some familiarity with his contribution.
> You are giving a very poor retread of 200+ year old German idealism.
You kept putting me down because my ideas don't jibe with your readings. Now you're comparing philosophy with physics.
I am trying stay away from such pedantic bibliographic review. You keep appealing to authority to minimize my contributions. This is why I didn't want to go down this road. Thanks for dragging me.
> your viewpoint is well over 200 years old
Hate to break this to you but the ideas I'm talking about are well over 3000 years old. Kant et al are a cul de sac in this tradition.
Perhaps, yet how would you know if you refuse to engage with it?
I'm not sure how to respond when someone insists on remaining ignorant of alternative viewpoints and then suggests that any attempt to point out relevant arguments against their position is victimizing them.
I saw the self importance a mile away and I said I wanted none of it. Like I said, I dislike German philosophers verbosity and I'm getting to dislike its fans' self importance.
edit: you've called my ideas half baked, you've called me ignorant. it's pretty clear to me now you just wanted to play vocabulary ping pong with dead man's ideas to feel smart. I pretty much intuited it, and regretted every engagement with you so far.
As long as we don't discover something truly novel this is how reality of this universe looked like before we came since its creation. And it fared just fine.
Interesting turn of phrase about a supposed reality deprived of consciousness. Created.
Just look at Earth. Life is incredibly complex but is ultimately driving everything towards dust.
Depending on how you look at it, life is driven by the opposite of entropy. Schrödinger in his book, What is Life?, calls it "negative entropy" or even "free energy".
> In the 1944 book What is Life?, Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who in 1933 had won the Nobel Prize in Physics, theorized that life – contrary to the general tendency dictated by the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy of an isolated system tends to increase – decreases or keeps constant its entropy by feeding on negative entropy.
> The problem of organization in living systems increasing despite the second law is known as the Schrödinger paradox. This, Schrödinger argues, is what differentiates life from other forms of the organization of matter.
> Schrödinger asked the question: "How does the living organism avoid decay?" The obvious answer is: "By eating, drinking, breathing and (in the case of plants) assimilating." While energy from nutrients is necessary to sustain an organism's order, Schrödinger also presciently postulated the existence of other molecules equally necessary for creating the order observed in living organisms:
> "An organism's astonishing gift of concentrating a stream of order on itself and thus escaping the decay into atomic chaos – of drinking orderliness from a suitable environment – seems to be connected with the presence of the aperiodic solids..." We now know that this "aperiodic" crystal is DNA, and that its irregular arrangement is a form of information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life#Negative_entr...
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-o...
https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/leading-figures/ilya...
Anyway, I'm now going back to read Prigogine's book, Order Out of Chaos. It's also brought me around to think and study more about self-organization and emergent properties of complex systems.
About "A New Physics Theory of Life", and the idea that life exists because "the law of increasing entropy drives matter to acquire lifelike physical properties".. I see this is what you meant by "entropy is the process that drives life".
> Besides self-replication, greater structural organization is another means by which strongly driven systems ramp up their ability to dissipate energy. Thus, England argues that under certain conditions, matter will spontaneously self-organize.
Re-reading the article, I'm struck by how entropy and organization are, seemingly paradoxically, two sides of the same coin. It feels like there's something profound there, some principle that explains many phenomena at different scales all at once.
This seems silly on the level of the anthropic principle.
It's like claiming a calculator exists to use up electricity.
We're eddies in the flow of energy from high to low entropy because it's free energy.
We create more entropy in capturing energy than we capture because it's impossible not to.
There's no purpose for life there. It's just where life lives.
sighs in bitcoin
Energy MUST flow. No matter how energy is captured and stored, there is a pressure for it to continue moving.
The movement of energy means that matter is always moving, and new configurations are always being "discovered."
Some configurations allow for energy to flow more easily, and when one of those configurations is "discovered" the movement of energy keeps that configuration in place. I think it's literally a strange attractor from chaos theory.
Areas of stable energy flow create correlations across space time that allow for more complex correlations to emerge.
No, matter isn't 'captured' energy any more than it's 'captured' mass or momentum. Energy is a quantity, not a substance.
I am trying to recognize that even in that rock, energy is dissipating in multiple ways, and any number of different events can lead to it dissipating in different ways.
I suppose you can say that the individual atoms composing the rock are moving, but are those movements connected to the potential energy it has by virtue of being far from the relative minimum in a gravity well?
That rock could fall down the mountain mostly intact - a highly energetic event, compared to being eroded away chemically by rain over millennia.
ps: I subscribe to the heat death theory.
the rock, does, obviously "contain" energy thanks to e=mc2. but the notion that the rock is energetically in a different state as it sits on top of the mountain that when it sits at the bottom never sat well with me in high school, and it still doesn't, 45 years later.
I just happen to consider the explanation that a rock sitting on top of a mountain having "potential energy" to be relatively content free.
There's always a tension in physics (or has been for a couple of centuries or so) between force-based explanation and energy-based explanation.The force-based explanation (gravity) of why the rock might move downhill makes vastly more sense to me than the notion that it has "potential energy". However, the force-based explanation is not always clearly the right one either.
Also, I wasn't referring to "the idea of energy stored by being in motion". This is precisely the hangup that trips up so many. An object doesn't have energy because it is moving. And it doesn't move because it has energy. The motion and the energy are the same thing, just two different ways of talking about the same thing. The distinction matters because the way we've developed the semantics of "motion" and "energy" in physics means that, for example, "motion" is not something that is transferred between objects, but "energy" is.
OR the comet is just sitting there, 'stationary', the object hits it. Not the object has energy.
There's no total energy to a system, except calculated from some point of view?
if you consider the state to include position - relative to a frame of view - then energy describes (at least in part) the likelihood that the position at time T' is different than at time T
Theories which make life inevitable are inherently shaky because we have 1 sample.
In fact as far as we know - most of the space in the universe is doing the dissipation in a very inefficient way.
Which means the theory that it will do it simply because of the "selection pressure" is empirically wrong.
Let's say a huge asteroid sterilized Earth 100 years ago. What could the life do to outcompete that? Was it the result of this "selection pressure" that it didn't or was it simply result of starting conditions and gravity?
This theory seems to provide almost no predictive value it just takes a thing that happened once and makes a story about how it had to happen.
Again, this is not true. We have empirical evidence that life on Earth began as soon as it could. And the universe doesn't spontaneously do things as you're wishing it to do to support your argument.
> Let's say a huge asteroid sterilized Earth 100 years ago. What could the life do to outcompete that?
That doesn't negate anything. Entropy increases over time. Given the various conditions available in the universe, its processes follow that directive relevant to their conditions.
That's the whole point. The theory reduces to "if conditions are right life will happen" which moves the whole predictive power to the "conditions are right" and leaves the theory with 0 value added.
Theres a bunch of lectures of him on YouTube going off about how complexity increases asymptotically greater than entropy in a black hole, but I need to refresh myself on the lecture. Disclosure: I'm an idiot, and may be spewing nonsense