I realize this is a rather random question, and kind of a weak devil's advocate, but why doesn't the idea of spontaneous order contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that entropy increases in a system unless energy is put into that system?
shazam:ut why doesn't the idea of spontaneous order contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that entropy increases in a system unless energy is put into that system?
And you don't consider the effort, exerted by countless of individuals when engaging in voluntary cooperation, as energy?
High school understanding of thermodynamics: Entropy = disorder = a messy roomActual thermo: 2nd law is probabilistic. At whatever stable energy state, there are n many possible configurations for that system at constant energy. Whichever configuration it is is essentially random. There are many many more spread out / disordered systems than ordered ones, so its very very likely for systems to move from low-"disorder" configurations to high disorder configurations.Consider this example:You have giant cardboard box in zero gravity with 10 marbles in it. You shake it up. The marbles are bouncing around. They could be anywhere in the box. They could all be stacked into a letter of the alphabet, they could be in one corner of the box. It is possible for all these things to happen, but the most likely outcome is for them to be scattered randomly because there are SO MANY MORE WAYS to do this. There is only one way to make a giant "T", and probably trillions of ways to make a random assortment of marbles.So... spontaneous order of actors.... not really seeing how the probable positions of atomic particles has any bearing on politics. Just me though.
shazam: I realize this is a rather random question, and kind of a weak devil's advocate, but why doesn't the idea of spontaneous order contradict the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that entropy increases in a system unless energy is put into that system?
Entropy is a property of a probability distribution. The more equiprobable every state is, the higher the entropy. Entropy is zero when a system can only be in one state. Evolutionists and creationists both get confused at this point - creationists try to say that the 2LoT prohibits orderly states but this is not true. Evolutionsts try to say that the 2LoT says nothing about the probability or likelihood of orderly states and this, also, is not true. In fact, the 2LoT is that the entropy is always strictly non-decreasing with time, that is, the probability distribution of states for a closed system never, ever becomes less equidistributed. Evolution does not change this. A closed system cannot "evolve" to a lower entropy, there are no loopholes to the 2LoT.
That said, the Earth is certainly not a closed system and the biosphere is, indeed, increasing the entropy of the planet. So, neither biology nor the economy violate the 2LoT.
Clayton -
ClaytonB:That said, the Earth is certainly not a closed system and the biosphere is, indeed, increasing the entropy of the planet.
Not to mention that no human society, not even a single guy, can ever be considered a closed system. People change their minds, preferences, external data and all that, all the time. Speaking of stable system configuration in these circumstances would make little sense.
The sun.