[island]

Originally Posted by JAK Given the tendency for the universe to move toward "heat death" (maximum entropy), a strong case was made by Erwin Schrodinger in the 1940s ("What is Life?") that life must climb toward "negative entropy" (greater order) to survive. At maximum entropy (maximum equilibrium and chaos), no "work cycles" are possible, so life (and awareness) cannot exist (Stuart Kauffman, 1990s).

The Schrodinger Paradox

Originally Posted by JAK Gravity appears to move oppositely to entropy. As interstellar gas condenses, stars (high energy sources) are formed. Essentially, resources go from relatively disordered, low energy sources (high entropy) to well ordered, complex, systematic, high energy sources (low entropy). Of course, at that point, they emit electromagnetic radiation, so they begin wasting away toward greater entropy. The question of infinite expansion of the universe verses cyclical expansions/contractions (quasi steady state, I believe may be the term for it) becomes the crux of the issue of life in the future.

Actually, high energy sources, like humans, Black holes, and Supernovae, can isolate the release of enough energy to create particles from the negative energy of the vacuum, which reverses the normally destructive consequences of the second law on a grand scale, but without violating it.

Einstein didn't know that particle creation in his static model causes expansion, while holding the universe flat and stable, or we'd be living in a much different universe right now that doesn't include infinities and uncertainty.

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2005-06/msg0069755.html

You guys want a real ToE?

I'm the guy that you're looking for.

[Steve Hanson]

JAK:They look in a mirror (or TV monitor) and realize they are seeing their own image. Lower animals tend to see their own reflection and react as if the image was another animal.

Thanks. I did not know that. I've seen the evidence but drew no conclusions about it. Seems a valid conclusion though.
The difference between us and the apes is that we made the mirror.

JAK:Gravity appears to move oppositely to entropy. As interstellar gas condenses, stars (high energy sources) are formed. Essentially, resources go from relatively disordered, low energy sources (high entropy) to well ordered, complex, systematic, high energy sources (low entropy).

You say, "potato" ....I say, "po..tah..to".
However, if gravity is not an 'attracting' force, stillness would be perfect zero entropy, right?

[JAK]

Originally Posted by island http://www.intothecool.com/energetic.php>The Schrodinger Paradox

Interesting site - I'll keep reading it.

Originally Posted by island ... Actually, high energy sources, like humans, Black holes, and Supernovae, can isolate the release of enough energy to create particles from the negative energy of the vacuum, which reverses the normally destructive consequences of the second law on a grand scale, but without violating it. ...

Did I read that right? Are you suggesting that humans can "create" particles?
(I got lost in the threads at http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2005-06/msg0069755.html)

Originally Posted by island ... You guys want a real ToE? I'm the guy that you're looking for.

Do you have it on-line?

[island]

Originally Posted by JAK Interesting site - I'll keep reading it.

Yeah, these guys have independently derived one aspect of this theory, and are constantly referenced on my website. Dorion Sagan is Carl's boy...

Eric Schneider, and James Kay, (whom, unfortunately, is deceased), also wrote this paper which is commonly cited from the EvoWiki as a as source of rebuttal for creationsts common abuse of the second law of thermodynamics:

Schneider, Eric D. and James J. Kay. "Life as a manifestation of the second law of thermodynamics." Mathematical and Computer Modelling 19(6: 25-48. http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/Life_as/lifeas.pdf

This is a very clear laymans terms article that cuts to the chase, but that of course means that it's open to a lot more criticism, since it's not supported in the article... and it's funny how people will latch onto that, like it's some kind of weak spot or something.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit.../30/2003204990

Originally Posted by JAK Did I read that right? Are you suggesting that humans can "create" particles?

Yeah, we do it all the time in the lab.

See: Antimatter, Pair Creation, Dirac's Hole Theory, Quantum Theory, etc, I'm guessing that you must think that I'm saying something that I'm not.

Originally Posted by JAK (I got lost in the threads at http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2005-06/msg0069755.html)

That bad, because it's important. Imagine that you had a vacuum inside sealed jar so that pressure was zero. Now imagine that you could condense some of the remaining energy down over a finite region of space, until you achieve postive matter density and pressure, (locally).

TaDa... you have successfully created a virtual particle pair from vacuum energy, but you also increased negative pressure, as well, and if there were no walls to the container, then the vacuum would expand naturally as a result of particle creation. You have to hit it with a 1.2 MeV photon to make it a real permanent thing.

Einstein didn't know about this, was the point of the post, or he never would have abandoned his finite closed universe, because the process holds the vacuum flat and stable as it expands, so it isn't unstable at all. Instead, tension grows between the vacuum and ordinary matter, which will eventually compromise the integrity of the forces and we'll have another Big Bang, so... causality is not violated when the effect is the cause of the effect.

You can learn all about how what I've described works by studying Ned Wright's very clear treatment of Einstein's abandoned static model, here:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html

Originally Posted by JAK Do you have it on-line?

Yeah, but you aren't going to like it anymore than I like being honest about it, and if you didn't understand my post to the physicist screened research group, then you might want to skip most of the first page:

www.anthropic-principle.ORG

[jim barlow]

I would like to believe #2. My ingrained prudence tells me to pursue #1 until I reach some signal that says "can't compute." In which case I can return to #2 with a clear conscience and be, let's say, happy.
My personal evolution (if there is one) suggest not only that both options may be true in a LARGER SENSE, but that they support each other in creating a continuum such that both questions become sort of irrelevant. A less fortunate example is the free will and predestination combo. One answer is that "free will" does not compute, it is "free action" that we are after and there is no such thing only choices from a predetermined list.
Returning to our chicken/egg situation it looks to me like a book looking for a writer and presumably finding one. So the interesting thing here is querying the yet unwritten book which is also a product of the eons and possibly a fraction of the story.