It will be known as the "self-proving" theory, once it has lost it's meaning and order.

Humor aside - I do agree with you about non-existence of closed systems. I came to the conclusion after a lot of thinking, not about entropy or closed systems specifically, but it just seems like an impossible idea and not reality.

YES!

I can't help but find it obvious that the forward progress of the cosmos is towards ever greater levels of complexity and wholeness. We are not winding down -- we are winding up. The 'big bang' was more like the opening of a seed than an explosion -- and like any growth, the universe will continue to branch out indefinitely. If further growth seems beyond our comprehension, it is only because it is further expanding into dimensions we cannot yet fully understand or imagine.

I agree -- there are no closed systems. Only closed minds.

--Upwinger

Very well put to words.

Personal comment on that article: That is how I view entropy too.

I have to disagree on several points. I can agree that at a cosmological scale there is plenty of room for debate about the role/definition/usefullness/reality of thermodynamic entropy. However, the definition of entropy is partially philosophical but mostly technical. A dictionary definition is not the proper source of a technical definition for argument. While it may be true that the usefulness of the definition is limited, I would argue that many of the concepts in physics are like this. Likewise, the definition of what is meant by closed is also specific. Saying the universe is 'open' or 'closed' without a very specific definition is totally meaningless. Infinite in extent doesn't necessarily imply open. For example, the real line is infinite in extent but is considered closed mathematically (and open actually). An infinite universe could be considered closed in analogy to those mathematical definitions (as almost all concepts in physics are) as in if the definition of the universe it is meant to include everything. The definition of entropy refers to a 'thermodynamically closed' system. You could similarly argue that by definition, since it is everything and hence does not exchange anything with its "environment" the universe is closed thermodynamically. Semantic games i think. From what i can tell, the third definition is suggesting the definition from information/coding theory and probability and is not stated precisely. That concept of entropy does not require a closed system and is not (though related to) a thermodynamic concept. In fact, when Claude Shannon originally derived that definition of 'information' for use in communication theory, Norbert Weiner suggested that he call it entropy because "nobody really knows what that is anyway" and it had a similar mathematical form. Entropy in that context can be thought of strictly as a measure of uncertainty or 'information' content when transmitting messages etc. As a mathematical concept it is as real as calculus, and certainly useful.

bhall,

I kind of lost you there in your argument... and I believe I lost you as well... we are talking apples and oranges.

First of all, the technical concept of entropy does depend on a thermodynamically closed system. THEY DON'T EXIST. Case rested.

As for your argument about information, you are incorrect. The uncertainty or 'information' of a transmitted message is not entropy, but negentropy - the opposite of entropy. This brings my argument full circle - the only thing that persists is the message, the information, the extropy of said system/message.

As for your argument about the utlitiy of entropy on mathematical grounds - that's fine. But the problem is people make sweeping claims and conclusions about REALITY, when all we are talking about is a mathematical CONCEPT. BIG difference. Lets not mistake the map for the territory. When it comes to entropy, way too many decisions and problems are being perpetuated because of this false belief in the reality of entropy. It's a myth that has outlived its usefulness. Time to embrace extropy.

Ad Astra

No, I didn't misunderstand you, I just don't completely agree with you on the uselessness of entropy. Let me restate.

You argue that thermodynamically closed systems don't exist and that the universe is not closed. But you do not make a clear argument for this second point. You just say obviously not true. As stated, there is good reason to argue that the universe is thermodynamically closed. I would say this is an open problem. You certainly have not made a convincing argument.

You argue that the third definition requires a closed system. It does not. It is a probabilistic concept and should not be addressed in your argument. It is as real as math is real and is useful and should not be abandoned (and as said isn't particularly relevant here). You are correct that negentropy is sometimes used (typically as a measure of the 'non-gaussianness' of a random variable) in an information theoretic context and in many statistical applications such as ICA. But entropy is a standard tool and definition of uncertainty in both probability and information theory. As an applied mathematician I would be more than happy to provide you with references here.

Again, if you think the usefulness of thermodynamic entropy on a cosmological scale is questionable fine. But, as a concept, it has shown clear utility as an approximation in 'almost' closed systems, and has found wide application in physical chemistry and engineering. Physics is modeling reality and is full of approximation. I now model biological systems, so I am always skeptical when physicists (my original field of study) say that their mathematical reality is physical reality. There we do not disagree. But most of science/technology we have is based on mathematical assumptions that not real and are just approximations. I just don't think that the fact the the assumptions made for the sake of mathematical analysis not being EXACTLY true in reality is grounds to throw away a concept with a history of usefulness. You will have to make a more compelling argument for that. Else you would have to throw away decades of work in many fields.

maybe im missing some argument here... but i think it's obvious that the universe is, and has been becoming more and more complex over time, from all we can see. why would it suddenly turn towards entropy because humans made up the concept? perhaps we could make it entropic if we wanted to some day, but what's the fun in that? Creative energy is generally more and more diverse and novel, and interesting.

Brilliant summary, Liquis!!!

What if our use of 'entropy' in modeling the universe has perpetuated a fundamental flaw in our comprehension of reality?

How many centuries of work was "thrown away" with the Copernican revolution? Or the unveiling of quantum mechanics? Are we to regret the loss of all the mistakes that were perpetuated before?

Once we begin to thoroughly apply extropy into our models, then we will behold how utterly fantastic the universe and its creations really are!

--Upwinger

Personally, I like the notion of a dialectic process between entropy and extropy. There are certainly emergent organizational properties of the universe that impel it towards greater complexity. The implication of entropic thermodynamics is that at some point in the far distant future the universe with run out of steam and relax into the eternal equilibrium of heat death. Given that by our measurements the universe is on the order of ~15 billion years old, just how long will it take to reach universal entropy? Is the universe really doomed to cool off into scenescence, or perhaps be gobbled up by hungry black holes? How can we make such predicitons when we don't even understand 90% of the matter in the universe? Maybe black holes feed dark matter which feeds stellar genesis...

For closed systems, entropy is clearly existent. This lends proof to the notion that it exists in nature but it doesn't lend any credence to an entropic heat death of the universe.

I would add as well that since no-one knows the size of universe (as Bucky Fuller would say..not "the" universe)--it can't be proven to be a closed system--so the concept of entropy in regards to universe would seem to be untenable.

There would seem to be a meta-cosmic balance (if not, indeed, **surplus**) of NEGENTROPIC, information-rich, complexity-rich processes going-on since at least the inception of this particular space-time continuum (i.e., "universe"). An amoeba, let alone a human being (or chimp or dog, for that matter) is many, many orders-of-magnitude more complex and inFORMation-rich than the plank-fermi-scale hyperplasma of a few atto-, femto-, and even nano-seconds after this particular universe's "big-bang" (IF there even ever was a "big bang", btw--see the book *The Big Bang Never Happened*...). But how best to model cosmic (and, indeed, meta-cosmic, meta-multiverse) evolution and development? One of the best I've encountered is Saul-Paul Sirag's model of a hyperuniverse of almost infinite dimensions, but against an ultimate backdrop of one super-space (mathematically modelled, roughly, on Hilbert Space). In this sense, it is ultimately ontologically monistic (which scientific naturalists like), BUT the stirring of the pot, so to speak, is accomplished as a consequence of the fact that this hyperspace is the backdrop for 2 distinct, yet intersecting, algebras (very Pythagorean here...), one algebra describing the influx of consciousness, the other one, the "material" or "physical" world. Thus, algebraically, it is *dualistic*. Similar to the McKenna model, "Reality" is a progrssive, evolving "wave-form" cresting atop these intersecting algrbras.

So no wonder how/why we see ingression of novelty, higher awareness, technology exponentially accelerating---this is exactly what one would expect as "fallout" or "side-effects" of this prgressive algebraic goings-on...

But I'm not a mathematician...gotta go back to wage-slavery...for now...

The reason we're ordered is simply because the Earth itself is not a closed system.

All of our life literally comes from the sun, which is constantly dumping energy on us.

Solar power and a freaking long time accounts for our complexity.

There's no contradiction with entropy.

To use the messy room analogy (there's no order without energy put in,) the sun is constantly walking in on the room and adding energy to it.

I think the problem, in terms of the universe and all the effects observed, is that humans aren't really ready to throw out complete theories or explanations yet. We don't even fully understand how the body and brain work, or even what consciousness is assuming it is something. Point being is, it seems best to figure out the simple things first using science and let that progress, but you also need a way of seeing the bigger aspects at the same time, otherwise a lot of the simple things may be going in the wrong direction. If you're trying to explain something as complex and mysterious as the universe and it's effects you should rely on your own feelings and intuition. Let the science slowly build up the "real" explanation, but don't project the things science is currently discovering too far, otherwise you run into incomplete conclusions that are probably far from reality. There's no point in comparing science with imagination, they work together.

There is no contradiction with entropy, because entropy doesn't exist. There are tendecies towards something akin to entropy, but it really is a highly conceived abstraction that doesn't account for the reality of what is in fact happening. Entropy is all about IF's, not ACTUALS. IF we have a closed system, then yes thermal systems move towards a state of homeostasis. The reality however is far different, entropy is like a transient phenomona, that given sufficient time, completely evaporates. There are no true homeostatic systems that remain so indefinetly. In time all "entropic" systems get swept away by the rising tide of extropy that is the bedrock of all known systems in the universe.

I respectfully disagree. Physically speaking, everything runs down: people, machines, stars. The only source of extropy in the universe is intelligence, because only through its application can anything resembling the future you describe be achieved.

Perhaps, the universe created us (and any other lifeforms out there) for the express purpose of saving itself.

Phsycially speaking, all the matter that supposedly runs down, the transient forms that it takes are just that, the matter itself is continuing to become more complex, take on new, greater and more evolved forms. The dead stars you speak of, now in part compose you and me, tha brain tissue that composes these words of yours and mind and gives life to all that is aroudn us, ever expanding outward. Yes, intelligence is the key! :)