Springtime is approaching. The 2LoT truthers are flocking at Uncommon Descent, hoping to find mates so that they can pass their second law inanity on to the next generation. Until yesterday, I was observing their bizarre mating rituals up close. Now I have been banned (again) from the nesting site, for pointing out a particularly ugly and infertile egg laid by kairosfocus.
Many others have been banned from the site as well, but we can still observe the spectacle through our high-powered binoculars. At this distance, our laughter will not disturb the awkward courtship rituals, as the participants preen and flaunt their ignorance in front of potential mates.
Hence this thread. Feel free to post your observations regarding the current 2LoT goings-on at UD and the perennial misuse of the 2LoT by IDers in general.
HeKS,
No, information doesn’t appear in his equations. He makes it clear that only the importation of X-order can do the job:
To see how ridiculous this is, consider a freezer during a power outage. The freezer compartment warms up, the ice melts, and some of the liquid water evaporates into the compartment. In other words, the “W-entropy” (LOL) increases and the “W-order” (LOL) decreases.
Now the power comes back on. The freezer compartment cools down, the water vapor condenses into liquid, and the liquid water freezes. The “W-entropy” (LOL) decreases and the “W-order” (LOL) increases.
Was “W-order” (LOL) imported into the system? No. Was “W-entropy” (LOL) exported? No. The only thing that was imported into the system was “E-order” (LOL) — electricity. The only thing that was exported was waste heat, or thermal entropy.
So according to Sewell’s inane reasoning, the second law of “W-entropy” (LOL) was violated.
Now do you see why we laugh at him?
And if you’re wondering how he managed to go so badly wrong, the answer is simple: his equations assume, whether he fully realizes it or not, that diffusion is the only physical process that ever happens.
You can see how close he comes to catching his own mistake in the following quotes:
And:
Obviously, diffusion isn’t the only process in operation on earth, so in most cases Sewell’s equations don’t apply.
The operation of an electric motor is not diffusion, for instance, so his equations are not applicable to my freezer example. Granville has missed a simple and obvious fact: “E-order” (LOL) can be converted to “W-order” (LOL) when processes other than diffusion are operative. Thus, there is no second law of “E-order” (LOL), of “W-order” (LOL), or of “X-order” (LOL).
Does a side order of fries come with any of those other orders?
HeKS,
Let me draw out the implications, lest they be lost on you.
1. Any intelligent agent, natural or divine, who rearranges matter within a system in a way that increases the system’s “X-order” (LOL) for some X, is violating Granville’s “X-Entropy” (LOL) version of the second law for that particular X.
2. Sewell’s bogus “X-entropy” (LOL) versions of the second law are also being violated as we speak, all over the world, as my freezer example shows.
Therefore, not only do Granville’s ideas imply that the second law has been violated on earth, as he has stated many times; they also imply that it’s being violated right now!
You can see why Robert Sheldon likes Granville’s ideas. They fit right in with Sheldon’s own crackpottery regarding the ongoing violation of the second law by life:
The fabric of the Big Tent is fraying:
The problem is that the mythos of the evil Darwinist and the wonderful open-minded IDist/creationist is at stake. Is Cordova actually suggesting that Darwinists could disagree with them for the sake of truth, rather than as some Satanic device to twist the truth and cast them as less than 100% intellectually honest?
Can’t have that. Pretty soon you might as well admit that you should honestly consider what biology has to say, rather than simply demonizing it. Clearly, most of the UDites have never shirked their obligation to attack ad hominem, and with as much evidence for those attacks as they have for ID.
Glen Davidson
HeKS and Sal scold niwrad:
HeKS:
Sal:
keiths,
It’s interesting that Niwrad also discovered Styer’s “Entropy and evolution” and misunderstood it completely. The little thought experiment I posted on UD a few days ago as a challenge (unanswered so far) was based on Styer and Bunn. I told the UDites it wasn’t original. Had anyone bothered to google about, they might have found Styer’s article and copy the solution (OK, they would have had to substitute different numbers, but even an IDer should be able to do that).
That, anyway, was what I thought. I can see now that they can’t match patterns or see analogies — like a little boy who has been taught to add and subtract apples, so he can only do apple artithmetic and can’t repeat the same operations with oranges.
Kairosfocus jumps on the crackpot bandwagon:
KF is the engine and the caboose of the ID train.
Joe to Piotr: “Piotr, you are clueless.
For what it’s worth, I think you’re brilliant, Piotr. Too bad we’re on opposing sides of this debate.
Cheers
stcordova,
Thanks, Sal, you have my respect for resisting the herd mentality of hardline UDites. Any heretic who doesn’t just parrot the official UD prophets will sooner or later get into trouble there.
Piotr,
I’m sure the irony flies right over niwrad’s head, but Denyse recently posted this:
Rupert Sheldrake talks about herd mentality in science
Because clearly, no one would reject Sheldrake’s ideas if it weren’t for the “herd mentality” of scientists. 🙄
Sheldrake has himself to blame. Morphic resonance should lead to herd mentality (that is, if it worked).
Piotr,
True!
niwrad:
Bad karma. Absent friendly fire, Niwrad will shoot himself in the foot.
From an old thread at UD:
In another old thread at UD, Granville tried to defend his X-entropy argument:
Carnap’s statement doesn’t support Sewell’s argument, as I explained in that thread:
I quote this exchange because it highlights an underappreciated fact: Entropy is not an entirely objective quantity. It depends partly on the knowledge of the person measuring it.
This shouldn’t be too surprising, if you think about it. Entropy is a property of the macrostate, not the microstate, and it is proportional to the logarithm of the number of microstates that fit with the known macrostate.
If we could somehow learn the exact microstate, then the macrostate would collapse to that single microstate. In this case W would be 1, and
S = k ln W
would yield an entropy of 0. Perfect knowledge = no entropy.
With that in mind, Carnap’s point makes perfect sense. Suppose that a volume of O-18 is placed in one half of a container while a volume of O-16 with the same temperature, pressure, etc. is placed in the other half of the container.
It isn’t that there’s an X-entropy for O-18 and another for O-16. It’s that the system has a particular thermodynamic entropy in the eyes of one observer (who doesn’t distinguish isotopes), and a different thermodynamic entropy in the eyes of the other, who does distinguish the two isotopes.
To the first observer, the entropy is already at a maximum and will not increase. To the second observer, the entropy will increase as the O-18 and O-16 diffuse into each other.
That inability to abstract shows up in the discussions of simulating evolution as well. I sometimes wonder if it reflects the mindset required to believe in creationism or if it’s just a mechanism for protecting their most cherished beliefs from inspection and criticism. Failing to distinguish the map from the territory in general would seem to interfere with other aspects of their lives.
On the other hand, I don’t really care to go digging around in the creationist psyches all that much. As long as they aren’t trying to take over school boards and legislatures, I don’t care about their beliefs.
Actual scientists get sucked In too. There are two actual controversies I’m following. One is E.O. Wilson and group selection. The other is the junk DNA debate. Larry Moran likes to stir the pot when someone in the science community gets it wrong. He also likes to argue about teaching methods.
Poor niwrad is still unable to grasp that improbable events happen all the time.
I won’t let him off the hook. 😉
I don’t remember if the thread linked below has been brought up already. If it hasn’t, you all may want to take a look at it. Rob Sheldon and other IDCs spew gobs of tard in it. Don’t miss joey g’s last sentence in comment number 74. Also see number 78.
And for a good laugh, notice gordo’s first sentence in comment number 32.
I’m sure Gordo can help Niwrad with his homework. JoeG is an unrecognised computer genius, Mapou, if I understand his allusions correctly, is on the brink of establishing direct contact with the Hosts of Designers who have created the Universe. Who knows, they may even e-mail Rob Sheldon for help. If they team up and work really hard together, they may crack Styer’s exercise for students (though I’m not holding my breath).
P.S. Oh My God
It was 9 February when he wrote it, not 1 April.
That was the thread that led me to conclude that I need never pay any attention to what Sheldon writes.
Piotr,
I’ve been looking for that Sheldon quote! Thanks for finding it.
Isn’t that mind-boggling? A physics PhD who takes an entire frikkin’ year to figure out that f(0) need not equal f'(0).
I’ll bet that referee was on the verge of slitting his or her wrists.
Does anyone know what CJYman is on about?
Does he think that the 2LoT is violated every time an airplane is built?
Hee hee hee! I took graduate thermo from a well-known far-out theoretician. His statement of the first law was “any interaction between two systems in which either of the systems could have been replaced by a weight falling in a gravitational field is work”. I forget his statement of the second law but it was also a doozy..
He spent two class sessions deriving the concept of temperature from first principles. The key was a function which was negative for all negative X and positive for all positive X and therefore was zero for x=0. I pointed out he had not proved the function existed at zero. He was not amused.
I think CJYman is genuinely trying to understand this stuff, so let me answer his latest question in some detail.
Piotr or Sal, could you let CJYman know that I’ve responded and post a link to this comment at UD? Thanks.
CJYman:
CJYman,
Let me give an example of a system in which the entropy isn’t expressed in J/K units but in which a version of the second law nevertheless holds true. Then I’ll explain why this isn’t possible in “real life”.
We’re all familiar with textbook illustrations of a gas enclosed in a rigid container. The molecules are zipping around at high speed, bouncing off each other and the walls of the container. The collisions are perfectly elastic.
In such a system, the temperature is defined in terms of the average kinetic energy of the molecules, and the pressure is the consequence of zillions of collisions between the gas molecules and the walls of the container. We can measure the macrostate, but we have no idea what each of the gas molecules is doing — in other words, the microstate is unknown. The entropy is defined in terms of the number of microstates that are compatible with what we know about the macrostate.
Now imagine that we create a similar system on a much larger scale. This time we use gazillions of basketballs instead of gas molecules. The basketballs are zipping around in an evacuated chamber at enormous speeds, bouncing off each other and the walls. The collisions are perfectly elastic. Let’s call this system “Basketball World”.
In the real world, the temperature T is defined as the average kinetic energy of the gas molecules. In Basketball World, we can define an an analogous T_bw as the average kinetic energy of the basketballs. We can do something similar for the other macrostate variables.
Now, note that Basketball World is part of the real world. That means that each basketball has its own internal temperature and pressure due to the gas molecules it contains, but these are not the same as the “temperature” and “pressure” of Basketball World. In other words, T is not equal to T_bw and can vary independently of it. Likewise for P and P_bw.
For example, if we have a bunch of really hot basketballs moving slowly in Basketball World, then each basketball’s T will be high while T_bw will be low. We can also have a bunch of ice cold basketballs moving at extreme speeds, in which case each basketball’s T will be low while T_bw will be high.
We can define macrostates and microstates for Basketball World, and so there can be a Basketball World entropy that is analogous to the real world entropy. Like T_bw and P_bw, this S_bw is separate from the real world entropy and can change independently.
Is there a second law for Basketball World entropy that corresponds to the 2LoT? You bet. Since Basketball World is an isolated system, and since it is exactly analogous to the “gas molecules in a container” model, we can say that S_bw will never spontaneously decrease.
In other words, we have a version of the second law that fits your criteria: it is about energy dispersal, but the units are not the real world J/K, but rather Basketball World units: J_bw/K_bw.
There is also a First Law of Basketball Dynamics that requires the conservation of basketball energy.
In my next comment, I’ll explain why Basketball World and the First and Second Law of Basketball World Dynamics are not possible in reality.
keiths,
Done.
Thanks, Piotr.
So why isn’t Basketball World possible? For a simple reason: in real life, the collisions aren’t perfectly elastic. If you drop a basketball (even in a vacuum so that air resistance isn’t a factor) on a flat surface, it won’t bounce forever. The kinetic and potential energy of the basketball will get converted into heat. The basketball and the surface will warm up.
If we tried to create Basketball World in real life, it wouldn’t work, because the inelastic collisions would cause the basketballs to lose kinetic energy. T_bw would spontaneously decrease, and the basketballs would eventually stop moving. Basketball energy is not conserved.
In other words, the First Law of Basketball Dynamics doesn’t hold true, because basketballs don’t behave like gas molecules. The kinetic energy of basketballs can be converted to heat within the basketballs through inelastic collisions. This is not possible for gas molecules.
By similar reasoning, the Second Law of Basketball Dynamics also doesn’t hold true.
So when you try to apply the 2LoT to an arrangement of macroscopic objects like basketballs, using microstates that are defined in terms of the possible arrangements, you are misapplying the 2LoT.
No sign of CJYman.
Meanwhile, Box has brilliantly deduced that under materialism, macroscopic objects aren’t real because they are only particles in motion.
So a materialist can’t legitimately refer to a rock, but a dualist can, because…? The rock has an immaterial soul that unites its particles?
I’ve never considered the chemical bonding holding objects together to be trivial aspects of reality.
It’s why I expect my bed to hold together through the night. Should I instead expect the particles in it to shoot off to somewhere else? Thermodynamics suggests not.
Glen Davidson
Pragmatism rules!
GlenDavidson,
According to Box, materialists have no beds. They only have particles in motion. And according to Upright BiPed, laws of physics should be able predict the colour of your bed linen on any given night.
Piotr Gasiorowski,
I can’t quite figure out what the problem is. Is it that we’re not supposed to use words like “bed” or “puppy,” or are we not supposed to treat something like a puppy any differently than we would a gas?
It seems to be an extreme case of mistaking the finding of what the constituents are for the phenomenon itself–apparently based on the idea that “materialists” can’t (or shouldn’t) understand anything as a greater whole than its constituents. However, particles in motion do interesting and useful things.
Apparently this whole line of non-thought goes back to this bit of misunderstanding:
Funny how particles form coherent tubes from, primarily, chemical bonding, and other particles in motion heed the boundaries of these tubes, albeit without actually caring.
Is Box’s problem that we lack a chemistry of caring? Unfortunately, particles such as atoms have simply been quite indifferent to our concerns thus far, in our experiences. Is this because they despise “materialists”?
Glen Davidson
In the UD thread, Alicia Renard here is right on the money:
They would have to be claiming that, to claim that the 2LoT is violated by the evolution of adaptations by natural selection. Once there is a biological system with survival and reproduction occurring, those are powered by chemosynthesis, photosynthesis, and respiration, as these power the replication of genotypes, and natural selection will occur. So unless those processes violate the 2LoT, no violation is occurring in evolving systems. At least, no violation is inherent in such systems undergoing natural selection.
Joe Felsenstein,
At this point, I wonder if they know themselves what they are claiming. When the discussion started (a few threads ago), the UD position was that life did somehow violate the 2LoT and that the “compensation” argument was bogus.
Now the more enlightened UDites have shifted to a weaker position: OK, perhaps life does not violate the 2LoT, perhaps entropy can be reduced locally as long as more entropy is exported to the surroundings, perhaps entropy doesn’t equal disorder (we’ll soon learn that IDers have never claimed otherwise). However… — and here the situation becomes less clear. Their last-ditch defence seems to be some unnamed “law” which prevents unguided natural processes from producing or increasing “functional specified blah blah information” (which may or may not be a consequence of some general principle derived from probability arguments and analogous to the 2LoT, but not clearly formulated by anyone).
I guarantee that within a month, those same people will be back, as if nothing had happened.
The only people at UD who seem to understand evolution are KF and gpuccio, and they maintain their opposition by the simple expedient of denying that functional sequences are connectable or reachable by small steps.
Has anybody ever asked Sewell or newrad why we eat? Could there be a reason why we eat? Does eating have anything to do with the second law?
davemullenix,
Or why we breathe out, sweat, and use the toilet. What’s the connection between the loo and the second law?
Meanwhile, KF is explaining that Functional, Irreducibly Algorithmic Specified Complex Organisation has only one empirically warranted source: Functional Unevolvable Configurational Knowledge ®.
The funny thing is, I can sympathize with the compensation part of their argument.
If what we defenders of the 2LoT were saying was that we could explain the local decrease of entropy, but in order to explain it we had to invoke a compensating increase of entropy on Neptune, then they would be right to say that this is illogical.
I don’t know how to write down the proper equations from nonequilibrium thermodynamics, but if I did I am pretty sure that they would show a problem, as the events on Neptune would not connect enough to the events on Earth to result in an explanation. So if that was our argument, yes, it would be illogical.
But that isn’t our argument. Although some of us may get lazy and invoke compensating changes far away, there are compensating changes close to home. As explained here by many TSZ commenters, the flows of energy that enable growth, survival, and reproduction of organisms are absolutely necessary if one is to have evolution in an ecosystem. They obey the 2LoT.
The commenters at UD have no way around that. Instead they either invent supposed new laws of physics concerned with “order”, or they continue to say that the compensation argument is illogical. They leave the impression that we are being illogical, that we are forced to invoke events on Neptune to compensate for events on Earth.
So yes, eating, excreting, doing work, being eaten, and trying to keep oneself warm are precisely relevant, and show that the creationist 2LoT argument is wrong.
Keiths,
Sorry, I didn’t post a link to you response to CJYman. Here was one of my responses. CJYman wrote:
Configuration of what?
The definition of configuration entropy may not be universally accepted. If by configuration one means “position and momentum” as used by the Lioville theorem and Gibb’s type formulation of statistical thermodynamics, then I should point out that is a more a classical mechanics formulation of statistical thermodynamics which is strictly then only an approximation. These microstates (position and momentum) change with temperature and pressure (if dealing with a gas).
If by configuration, one means something to include “heads/tails” configuration of coins, then this is clearly NOT covered by statistical thermodynamics. Example: changing temperature changes the number of thermodynamic microstates of 500 fair coins, however the number of heads/tails microstates does not change with temperature changes.
That’s the other thing, if we’re talking thermodynamics, a coherent definition of entropy ought to relate temperature to entropy. All the more reason to decouple design type microstates from thermodynamics.
Worse, even in ID literature the heads/tails configuration doesn’t change the entropy score! 500 fair coins heads has the same design space entropy as 500 fair coins with a random pattern. Until one defines configuration entropy in a more precise way and one that isn’t idiosyncratic, then the above quotation isn’t workable as a proposition.
I stated:
“1. How can 2LOT not cover energy flow configurations that are not measured in J/K, that are highly constrained (low multiplicity) and required for building a 747 for example?”
Keiths:
“Does he think that the 2LoT is violated every time an airplane is built?”
I presume that you just haven’t been able to follow all of my comments. No fault of your own of course. There have been a few threads relevant to this ongoing discussion and I’ve tried to follow through with them and provide some comment but time is tight and my comments are scattered across a few threads. At least you are asking a question rather than engaging in outright uncharitable reading. That is much appreciated.
Anyway, I have explicitly stated elsewhere that nothing can ever violate 2LOT. Think about it. As I see it, if a person thought that 2LOT could be violated there would be no sense in an appeal to 2LOT as an arbiter of what can or cannot occur. Referring to an ‘apparent’ violation based on certain ‘givens’ … well that is another story altogether that I have already explained. It is the spontaneous & long term negative change in entropy without a discussion of the proper compensation that ID proponents are ‘on about.’ Without any details about appropriate compensation, a suggested process that requires a negative change in entropy within a closed or an open system is a process that violates 2LOT. I do not yet know of any ID proponent who holds the opinion that 2LOT can actually be violated. If we thought it could be violated, then we wouldn’t be holding unguided evolution to the standard of 2LOT. I really can’t believe I have to lay this simple concept out for you.
Also, I must admit that I am a bit confused as to how you can arrive at “does he think that the 2LOT is violated ……” from my comment. Could you please expound on your thought process for that one. Unless, of course you are merely trying to score rhetorical points with your buddies and get a chuckle or two.
Discussing Basketball world — I am already well aware of at least some of the assumptions required to discuss change in entropy and thus 2LOT. For one, an enabler, ‘motional energy,’ is required; for another ‘restraints’ must be taken into consideration to determine whether a higher level of entropy will indeed be actualized. Entropy always increases unless there exists what I and others have been calling ‘compensation.’ — the “change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time” according to Rudolf Clausius. ‘Basketball 2LOT,’ without an enabler, doesn’t work for the same general reason why we cannot apply 2LOT to just any configuration (or positional) macrostate such as a ‘static’ deck of cards.
As a side note, when do gases themselves tend to behave like ideal gases? Under all conditions? Does 2LOT only apply to elastic collisions? Can we just ignore 2LOT because we are dealing with a system of inelastic collisions, even if an enabler is present?
Now, for the sake of discussion and understanding, let’s expand your example to dealing with Basketball world starting at a point with no Basketball motion and with all the Basketballs in one corner of Basketball world constrained by a divider. Now, lets add an enabler. God, Buddha, or a scientist outside of the boundaries of basketball world (the details are irrelevant), or an impersonal shaker for those with a natural aversion to all things ID, begins to shake Basketball world and while shaking (not stirring — pardon my attempt at injecting some lame humor), removes the divider. Let’s ignore, for the moment, that we are not measuring a macrostate based on temperature since our concern is merely the positional entropy of the basketballs. Starting at the time that the divider is removed, so long as Basketball world is shaken, the principles which explain how 2LOT works — statistical mechanics — will apply in a real life situation to Basketball world. The only difference is in our measured macrostate. In this instance we are measuring a positional-dynamic system rather than a thermodynamic system. However, the same probabilistic math grounding statistical thermodynamics would explain the increase in configuration entropy of Basketball world, therefore there is no way that during the time that an enabler is present Basketball world will violate the principles upon which statistical thermodynamics is grounded (which deals with terms of configuration/positional entropy). By extension, if someone were to argue that a positional-dynamic (enabler present) system could show a spontaneous, sustained drop in entropy without appropriate compensation they would have to argue that the principles upon which statistical thermodynamics is grounded are wrong and that 2LOT could indeed be violated. From that understanding, we can arrive at Granville’s whole point. Pick the source of your enabler, tornado or energy flow from the sun, merely opening up your system on its own does nothing to reverse certain positional-dynamic processes. Basically, it doesn’t automatically make the improbable more probable in all cases. Do you have a problem with this conclusion?
Similarly, what about the process of applied energy to a deck of cards or using a continuously shuffled deck of cards as an analogy for a lesson on 2LOT? Now you have a dynamic system of distinguishable microstates and potentially well defined macrostates that follow the same rules upon which statistical thermodynamics is built. The main difference of course is that you are measuring a macrostate not defined in terms of temperature. The energy transfer required to shuffle a deck of cards and position those cards in certain configurations definitely is a real world problem and I will be arguing at uncommondescent (I have just begun to do so) that there is a definite connection between energy macrostates and certain configuration macrostates such as seen in a deck of cards. This will bring us into the realm of 2LOT by dealing with energy flow dynamics and change in entropy, the dynamics of which will be able to be explained by the principles of statistical thermodynamics.
And finally, what I am ‘on about’ is providing conclusions from premises. I would have thought that was quite apparent. In the interest of being more detailed and providing a more proper argument, I have re-phrased my premises and conclusions. Do you have any problems with my new premises, or conclusions given those premises? Am I being clear enough when I lay out my Ps and Cs in a numbered stepwise fashion?
Here they are:
P1. Probabilities associated with change in configuration multiplicity provides the basis for statistical thermodynamics.
P2. Statistical thermodynamics provides the rationale behind why 2LOT exists. Ie: You can make entropy measurements and calculations all day and notice that dS > 0 unless appropriately compensated, but it is the statistics that show how it works. I hesitate to use the term ‘why,’ but statistical thermodynamics explains ‘why’ dS > 0.
P3 — extension of P1. If configuration entropy in a dynamic system can move spontaneously from high to low multiplicity without proper ‘compensation’ then the principles of statistical thermodynamics are incorrect.
P4 — extension of P2. If the principles of statistical thermodynamics are incorrect, then either the foundation of our understanding of why 2LOT is true is incorrect or 2LOT is itself incorrect.
C1 — from P3 & P4. Therefore, the idea of a spontaneous negative change of configuration entropy without proper ‘compensation’ would be a violation of the principles which govern how 2LOT works.
C2 — extension of C1. If the possible direction of ‘change in J/K’ measurements as stated in 2LOT are to remain correct as a law, a re-write of the connection between statistical thermodynamics and 2LOT would be required.
In the end, when someone says that ‘x’ violates 2LOT, that is a short-hand way of saying that the idea that ‘x’ could occur based on the ‘givens’ associated with ‘x,’ isn’t consistent with the principles which govern 2LOT. I understand the requirement for details and precision when a discussion is underway. What I don’t understand is simply being pedantic and mocking your ‘discussion partner’ instead of asking for clarification if something doesn’t make sense and attempting to understand what they are actually trying to say. You really should try to give the benefit of the doubt sometime. It takes more intelligence to give the benefit of the doubt and attempt to understand an opposing viewpoint than to scoff.
Hi CJYman. I saw your comment held up in the spam filter and freed it. You should be good now – and welcome.
How can configuration entropy be violated? Entropy is a state function of a system. It’s almost like saying “temperature is violated?”.
So then if we found 500 fair coins 100% heads, would we say 2LOT has been violated? Absolutely not. Granted 100% heads is a low multiplicity configuration for heads/tails, but I doubt there is a physicist in the world who’d say, “that’s an example of 2LOT being violated” the only thing being violated would be the chance hypothesis since chance + LLN does not result in 100% heads.
I should point out now, unfortunately there seems to be at least two notions of entropy floating around for IDists.
1. Bill Dembski/Shannon simple count of microstates, high complexity designs have HIGH entropy (number of design space bits)
2. Sewell/CJYman low multiplicity is low entropy, high complexity designs have LOW entropy since they have low multiplicity.
This is NOT a good situation since the definitions of entropy are practically polar opposites in the ID community. So why go there? !!!!
Basic probability and Law of Large numbers is good enough, clear, and unassailable.
Look what happens when we steer clear of information theory, 2LOT and whatever else, and go back to basics:
and
and
and
Hi CJYman,
Welcome to TSZ!
There’s a lot to respond to in your comment, so let me postpone my reply until later tonight when I can devote my full attention to it.
In the meantime, one question about this:
I assume you are using ‘configuration entropy’ in a broad sense here, where a microstate could be, for example, the exact heads/tails configuration of 500 coins, while the associated macrostate might be the number of heads overall. Is that correct?