Entropy, Conservation of Energy, Order, and Life

Carl Sagan has claimed that life (1) is in fact entropic and that a decrease in order in the sun compensates for an increase in order in earthly systems that receive energy from the sun, specifically living systems. This, he said, proves that life is entropically possible and moreover is likely driven by entropic forces.

Mathematicians have followed this route, using entropy as a force for motion, and since evolution is also declared a motion, then deriving a mathematical justification for an entropic cause for evolution. This has received a certain amount of play in the media and some traction with evolutionists.

In order to examine these propositions, it becomes absolutely necessary to understand exactly what entropy is and is not, and to what the second law of thermodynamics actually refers.

Entropy is an energy based concept, which refers to reversible / irreversible systems. According to thermodynamic system theory, a system cannot use all of the energy it contains due to losses. This means that no system is reversible if it depends upon its own self-contained energy.

If a system receives energy from the outside, it can become reversible, unless it becomes unstable and is destroyed. Stability is achieved when the useful energy in the reversing system plus the waste energy equals the input energy. Excess input energy either is turned into waste energy or it builds in the system somehow as potential or kinetic energy. If it builds in the system too long, destruction occurs.

Entropy only secondarily describes order in a system. It does this by describing the amount of disorder that a system, open or closed, produces. And every system, regardless of whether it is open or closed, produces excess disorder. The equation for conservation of energy in a system looks like this:

Einput + Epotential + Ekinetic internal + Ekinetic output + Ewaste = KeSystem

Entropy merely states that Ewaste is never zero. In other words, entropy is merely a metric which is used to measure system energy loss to disorder.

From this equation we see that when Einput = 0, Ekinetic output = 0, and Ewaste = 0 (non-lossy), in other words, an ideal closed system doing no work, then,

Epotential + Ekinetic internal = KeSystem (a constant).

So when Ekinetic is minimum, Epotential is maximum; conversely when Ekinetic is maximum, then Epotential is minimum. Just like the pendulum.


This means that an ideal system can reverse itself from all kinetic energy to all potential energy.

If external energy, Einput, is added to a perfect, ideal, non-lossy system, then,

Einput + Epotential + Ekinetic internal = KeTotal

So, assuming the potential energy to be limited, the kinetic energy would increase beyond its original values by the amount of energy input, and the total system energy increases also. With unlimited energy input over time, then the kinetic energy would also be unlimited.

But that is not a feature of nature. Here’s what happens in reality, where all systems incur losses, Ewaste:

Einput + Epotential + Ekinetic internal + Ewaste = KeTotal (assuming no work done by the system)

So in reality, the extra input energy from the input is turned into waste energy at ever increasing levels, while the system continues reversing itself.

If work is being done, Ekinetic external, then the relationship becomes:

Einput + Epotential + Ekinetic internal + Ekinetic external + Ewaste = KeTotal

Where Ekinetic external is work. Work is defined as energy expended over a given time.

In natural systems, such as a rolling boulder hitting another boulder and dislodging it, thereby doing “work”, a series of energy conservation equations can be written, and combined into a single system equation. The work done then becomes a completely internal energy issue, and the energy wasted remains a positive value. There is nothing to suggest that natural, material systems ever develop more energy than they consume. Nor is there anything about entropy that suggests that work in a material open system ever creates more order than is lost to waste.

There is nothing about entropy that even suggests that order is being swapped around. What is clear is that disorder is created from order in varying amounts by inputting varying amounts of input energy. This is true whether the system is closed or open.

In addition, the energy that is radiated from the sun is in the form of subparticles and photons, the entropic degradation products of fusion from hydrogen to helium. When this energy is finally input into living systems, mostly via photosynthesis, it is done at the electron level. There is nothing about this energy input to living systems that suggests that anentropy could be expected as a result, or that order would be increased in defiance of thermodynamics.

This is a direct contradiction to Sagan’s claim that increasing disorder on the sun allows for more order to be created in an earthly system. Sagan has taken scientifically illegitimate liberties with the concept of entropy.

Again, entropy is a merely metric for loss in natural systems, whether open or closed. And it defines an increasing disorder only, not any possibility of increasing order. To claim otherwise betrays either an ignorance of physics and specifically thermodynamics, or an intent to deceive using fuzzy physics for obfuscation.

Either way, entropy is not a force that can be used because it is a definition of wasteful disorder, and it cannot be a force for increasing complexity as is suggested by the evolutionists and mathematicians. It is a logarithmic measure of system loss. No matter how fancy the math, if it is based on incorrect premises then it cannot produce correct theorems.

General Discussion:

Here is how the man who defined entropy in the first place describes it:

Max Planck:

”“Whether reversible processes exist in nature or not, is not a priori evident or demonstrable. There is , however, no purely logical objection to imagining that a means may some day be found of completely reversing some process hitherto considered irreversible: one, for example in which friction or heat-conduction plays a part. But it can be demonstrated that if, in a single instance, one of the processes here declared to be irreversible should be found to be reversible, then all of these processes must be reversible in all cases. Consequently, either all or none of these processes are irreversible. There is no third possibility. If those processes are not irreversible, the entire edifice of the second law will crumble. None of the numerous relations deduced from it , however many may have been verified by experience, could then be considered as universally proved, and theoretical work would have to start from the beginning… It is this foundation on the physical fact of irreversibility which forms the strength of the second law. If therefore, it must be admitted that a single experience contradiction that fact would render the law untenable , on the other hand, any confirmation of part supports the whole structure, and gives to deductions, even in seemingly remote regions, the full significance possessed by the law itself.”(2)
[emphasis added].

There are no reversible processes seen in nature. Using the admittedly flawed inductive process we can say that entropy is universal: there are no “back eddy anentropic natural processes”. We can also say that purposefully moving a rock back uphill is anentropic. As Bertrand Russell pointed out, catching a train is against the determinate laws of nature. Determinate physical processes are not the same as non-determinate intentionality. Living things convert energy into higher forms of existence. Animate living things, especially higher forms, can go up hill, by first wanting to go there, then by purposefully implementing energy conversion into an increase in altitude. They can take rocks up hill by wanting to do that, then implementing that, intentionally.

On the other hand, atoms forming into molecules, crystals, etc. are finding lower energy levels at which to exist; they deterministically obey laws of physics, not self-intent. Intent is a capability accompanied by sentience, life and includes defying physical laws as in purposefully using certain laws of nature (e.g. leverage) to defy other laws of nature (e.g. gravity).

Crystal formation and molecular chains form under entropic law. Such molecules are not “more organized” than individual atoms. They are merely atoms connected together in lower energy combinations, when they find physical positions that satisfy that criterion. The properties are those of self-description, i.e. water is “wet” in the sense that it adheres to surfaces giving those surfaces a different quality of friction, refraction, and evaporation changes surface temperatures, all of which are in obedience to physical laws. This is eminently predictable under those physical laws.

Living things that exhibit intent and sentience can and do violate physical laws. Their behaviors are not predictable under any law of physics.

Here is an assortment of non-mathematical definitions of entropy:

Entropy:
1. “There is a tendency in nature to proceed toward a state of greater molecular disorder.” [not restricted to closed systems]. (3)

2. 100% conversion of heat into mechanical work is not possible by any form of engine.(4) [Specific]

3. There is a tendency in nature to proceed toward a state of greater molecular disorder. This one-sidedness of nature produces irreversible processes. (5) [General]

Notes:
(1) http://isotope.colorado.edu/~geol3300/Sagan%20Definitions%20of%20life.pdf Sagan also defines life as the focus of several viewpoints, with the idea of obscuring the fundamental characteristics. An example is the claim that automobiles give the appearance of life due to metabolizing fuel. This obscures the totality of living things which demonstrate all the physical characteristics plus one: life itself, which only comes from other life, and once it is gone, it is gone. Sagan has an objective: apologetics for evolution, which supports his Atheism.

(2)Max Planck, “The Second Law of Thermodynamics”; World Treasury of Physics, Astronomy, and Mathematics, Ferris, Ed.; Little Brown & Co. pubs; 1989; pg 343.

(3) Modern University Physics, Richards, Sears, Wehr, Zemansky, Addison-Wesley Pub., 1960.

(4) http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/SECOND_THERM.html; Sears and Zemansky, p 342,

(5) http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASC/SECOND_THERM.html; Sears and Zemansky, p 347,