Thermodynamics and Entropy

Anfang wrote:

I have been saying this for years - Why bother to think about anything on your own when there is the world wide web and knowledge can be copy-pasted - Everybody does it, so nobody can tell the difference anymore. Was there ever a difference? I forgot....

You can think whatever you want. However there is a distinct line between thinking for yourself, and just pulling stuff out of your ass. On this subject we can be factual, because science is factual. Until you can demonstrate that you understand the difference between a model and the actual physical phenomena, replying to you further is a waste of time.

Satyr wrote:

On-Line Dictionary wrote:

en·tro·py
noun \ˈen-trə-pē\
plural en·tro·pies
Definition of ENTROPY

1
:  a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system; broadly :  the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system

2
a :  the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity
b :  a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder

3
:  chaos, disorganization, randomness



Origin of ENTROPY
International Scientific Vocabulary en- + Greek tropē change, literally, turn, from trepein to turn

Here lies the confusion.
Boltzman's model is a statistical model. It uses images such as pool balls and decks of cards to describe statistical odds. To say for example that there is a greater probability that a deck of cards will be found in a "messy" sequence instead of a sequence that goes from 1 to A as a representative model of entropy, is not the same as to say that a messy deck of cards has higher entropy than a sequenced one. For actual matters of thermodynamics, if they are both at room temperature, they both have the same entropy value.
It's just a model for visualizing a concept. Snap out of it.

"Snap out" of the dictionary definition, or your ramblings about how some other mind used the word?

Face, meet palm.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

phono wrote:

You can think whatever you want. However there is a distinct line between thinking for yourself, and just pulling stuff out of your ass. On this subject we can be factual, because science is factual. Until you can demonstrate that you understand the difference between a model and the actual physical phenomena, replying to you further is a waste of time.

This is an excellent opportunity to address your 'facts' and how they are applicable in reality.

'Fact' #1

phono wrote:

Anfang wrote:

Yet there is still this myth that mixing it up is really healthy.
Wouldn't want to become an inbred...
Yeah...

This "myth" is at fact set at the core of Mendelian Genetics. If you don't understand it, read more.

We just gonna have to ask any breeder if he has understood the core of Mendelian inheritance laws and how he needs to mix a Poodle with a Bulldog to get a healthy …. Bulldog or Poodle.
Adding some healthy Poodle genes or some healthy Bulldog genes, depending what one wishes for as a result. One might ask, how does he know what the result will be? Easy! - It's whatever is best for the universe. Health is magic.

Because those breeders have been attentive readers and after reading and understanding Mendel's laws -

Law of segregation
Law of independent assortment
Law of dominance

It became instantly clear to them how mixing it up is how it's done.
That's how one selects for traits and makes them stable (reliably recurring in future generations) within a breed.

Btw. I didn't know those laws by heart, so I just made 'em up. I was too proud to look it up.
You know - it's either/or. Either you pull it out of your ass or you copy and paste without understanding it. That's how this shit works.

'Fact' #2

phono wrote:

Anfang wrote:

I wonder how 50 million people living worldwide in 500 BC, managed to produce healthy people.
Just not enough variability, not enough potential for mixing... obviously.

This is illogical. Can you accept that a population of 10 can be more varied than a population of 100?

Yes, in theory 10 can be more varied that 100.
But thanks to your suggestion we shall treat my example as if it would be a more real thing.

Imagine it was written that way all along…

Like really imagine 50 million people in 500 B.C..
Imagine that not all of them were living in close proximity but more distributed throughout the habitable areas on the planet.
Additionally, imagine they had no cars and no airplanes for fast and easy transportation.
And additionally, imagine that they didn't just drop from the sky in their varied or not so varied forms (whatever that means to you). No, they have lived that way, or in a similar for many many generations.

Maybe you get the idea how those people didn't mix it up as much and were locally very homogeneous. Because of genetic proximity and higher selective pressure.

Their health must have been terrible compared to moderns. I mean, we have modern medicine - of course our genetic health is better. That's how this works… LOL

phoneee wrote:

Face, meet palm.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

All you have is reference points to text.

I would use the word "ego" but Freud has appropriated it and it can only mean what he says.

And I use Will as the focus of aggregate energies upon an object/objective, making the will only a brain agency nonsense outside an organism, when Schopenhauer and Nietzsche used it otherwise.
I should apologize.


This is how i think of entropy as it relates to ordering/disordering.....

Pattern = Order.
Order = Pattern
A Pattern is a restriction to the possible - a higher probability.
Pattern/Order = a repeating, predictable, consistent, behavior/activity (interactivity).

Random = A non-repeating, inconsistent, unpredictable, behavior/activity (interactivity).
Given that no absolutes exist - as this is the very definition of non-existence, as I use the term - Order/Disorder is only experienced in degrees...more/less, superior/inferior, higher/lower.
Just as strength is a measure of weakness and gnosis is a measure of ignorance (beginning from the negative in relation to human needs), so too is order a measure of disorder, or randomness.
Given the linear conception of existence we call time, we begin with a theoretical state of near-absolute order (singularity) and all is tending towards increasing multiplicity, chaos, and, in my metaphysical positions, towards increasing randomness.
Order > Entropy/Randomness is the human existential condition.
To think/imagine of the cosmos as a closed system is to place man "outside" of it, conceptualizing the world as a "thing", or a whole, of which man has no experience with, and is a purely hum,an construct - a byproduct of the way the human brain works, conceptualizes (binary, dualism).

There is no "whole" on "one" no "thing", and most certainly no "outside" existence - which would mean, by definition non-existence.
Man cannot exit existence to conceptualize existence as a thing, a one a whole.

Absence of pattern = chaos.
Whether this absence is due to the observer's limitations, or because there is no pattern, is a secondary matter.
An absence of patterns/order is an increase in possibilities, tending towards infinite/absolute possibility (space/time).

Energy = pattern.
Matter = pattern.

Different types of energy/matter are different patterns.

Difference between matter/energy is only in relation to the observer - in this case the human mind - and the particular pattern's rate of (inter)activity, in relation to the observer.


When I use the word I use it the way I define it in reference to a general dictionary reference point.
For example when I use the word "ego" I care not how Freud used it, nor am I obliged to remain true to his definition, and when I use the word "will" I need not use it in exactly the same way Nietzsche or Schopenhauer did.

In my case my first priority in using a word is to connect it to the world, and not to anothers conception/interpretation of the world.

How a science or a scientist, uses a term, does not make the term stuck in that context...no more than how a Religion or a priest uses the word "god" makes the word eternally stuck in that context.

A word is a tool.
It is an art-form.

The dictionary definitions were given, knowing that you are dependent on reference points and texts:

On-Line Dictionary wrote:

en·tro·py
noun \ˈen-trə-pē\
plural en·tro·pies
Definition of ENTROPY

1
: a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system; broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system

2
a : the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity
b : a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder

3
: chaos, disorganization, randomness


Origin of ENTROPY
International Scientific Vocabulary en- + Greek tropē change, literally, turn, from trepein to turn

I've underlined the reference points I use in my application of the word "entropy".
The "problem" is you, dear.
Your dependence on other minds to apply the word for you.
Your evaluation of an application using popularity or authorities.

Here is another example of YOUR "problem", which you cannot "snap out" of:

phoneee wrote:

Richard Lynn is a psychologist.
I am more inclined to indulge the genetic theories of molecular biologists.

In this case your thinking becomes stringent to exclude a famous academic who contradicts the ideals you want to be true.
But instead of thinking about the ideas you focus, as usual, on the person,. in this case you do not make aspersions about his character, his psychology or mental state - although I think you were tempted - but you pretend objectivity, by focusing on his expertise to dismiss him as irrelevant.
His positions, as they relate to experiences of the world, do not matter...but only his social standing, and how what he says relates to YOUR desired experiences with the world.

You postpone judgment, not applying your desperate emotional own, to some future date...from an authority you can take seriously, knowing, in the back of your mind, that it is rare enough to have an academic make such bold, anti-modern, non-politically-correct, propositions.
The average academic is dependent on funding, is usually in the service of an established institution, or wished to become part of the faculty; those already working would risk family, career, their reputations assaulted, by buffoons, like you, interested more on the desirable outcome and not on the reality of the thesis.

When evolution theory can be so warped to fit into Modern moralities and social norms, then we can imagine how peer pressure works. we've all heard of those rare few daring to speak openly about some ideas relating to humanism and judo-Christian "realities", or what happens to them.
Some moderns insist, as all moderns throughout history, that they live in the freest, most open and knowledgeable period in the history of mankind.
I wonder how many academics one could have found defending Galileo in his Modern age of enlightenment.
To this day Evolution does not apply to the human species, except selectively, and spieciation does not touch the human genome.

I hope phoneee skimmed through this, because she's NOT my intended audience.

DISCLAIMER: this has nothing at all to do with entropy. If a reader is interested in discussing entropy, skip this post.

Anfang wrote:

phono wrote:

You can think whatever you want. However there is a distinct line between thinking for yourself, and just pulling stuff out of your ass. On this subject we can be factual, because science is factual. Until you can demonstrate that you understand the difference between a model and the actual physical phenomena, replying to you further is a waste of time.

This is an excellent opportunity to address your 'facts' and how they are applicable in reality.

'Fact' #1

phono wrote:

Anfang wrote:

Yet there is still this myth that mixing it up is really healthy.
Wouldn't want to become an inbred...
Yeah...

This "myth" is at fact set at the core of Mendelian Genetics. If you don't understand it, read more.

We just gonna have to ask any breeder if he has understood the core of Mendelian inheritance laws and how he needs to mix a Poodle with a Bulldog to get a healthy …. Bulldog or Poodle.
Adding some healthy Poodle genes or some healthy Bulldog genes, depending what one wishes for as a result. One might ask, how does he know what the result will be? Easy! - It's whatever is best for the universe. Health is magic.

Because those breeders have been attentive readers and after reading and understanding Mendel's laws -

Law of segregation
Law of independent assortment
Law of dominance

It became instantly clear to them how mixing it up is how it's done.
That's how one selects for traits and makes them stable (reliably recurring in future generations) within a breed.

Btw. I didn't know those laws by heart, so I just made 'em up. I was too proud to look it up.
You know - it's either/or. Either you pull it out of your ass or you copy and paste without understanding it. That's how this shit works.

Bulldogs suffer from a number of types of dermatitis, cataract among other eye conditions, cleft lip, cleft palate, elongated soft palate, brachycephalic upper-airway syndrome, a number of heart diseases, birth complications, and a number of brain and gland conditions. All congenital and due to inbreeding.

Poodles suffer from bloat and torsion, a number of blood conditions, epilepsy, hypothyroidism, addison's disease, renal disease, retinal atrophy, cataracts, sebatious adenitis, hip dysplasia, luxating patella, and a number of other conditions, all congenital and due to inbreeding.

I googled this for you. 334 known congenital diseases of purebred dogs: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Congenital diseases arising from dog breeding are a very well known problem and there are even lobbys within dogbreeding organizations aimed at changing breed standards so that they are less strict about certain shapes and features in phenotype which are known to be associated with diseases which cause breeders to actively breed animals which are destined to live a life of pain.

Quote :

'Fact' #2

phono wrote:

Anfang wrote:

I wonder how 50 million people living worldwide in 500 BC, managed to produce healthy people.
Just not enough variability, not enough potential for mixing... obviously.

This is illogical. Can you accept that a population of 10 can be more varied than a population of 100?

Yes, in theory 10 can be more varied that 100.
But thanks to your suggestion we shall treat my example as if it would be a more real thing.

Imagine it was written that way all along…

Like really imagine 50 million people in 500 B.C..
Imagine that not all of them were living in close proximity but more distributed throughout the habitable areas on the planet.
Additionally, imagine they had no cars and no airplanes for fast and easy transportation.
And additionally, imagine that they didn't just drop from the sky in their varied or not so varied forms (whatever that means to you). No, they have lived that way, or in a similar for many many generations.

Maybe you get the idea how those people didn't mix it up as much and were locally very homogeneous. Because of genetic proximity and higher selective pressure.

Their health must have been terrible compared to moderns. I mean, we have modern medicine - of course our genetic health is better. That's how this works… LOL

If you have granted that 50 million people can have a more varied genetic construct than 6 billion, than I don't see your point. Elaborate if you care to.

Satyr wrote:

All you have is reference points to text.

No, I already explained this at least a dozen times in this very thread.
I am not your teacher or your mother, and I have nothing to lose from your ignorance.

phoneutria wrote:

Satyr wrote:

All you have is reference points to text.

No, I already explained this at least a dozen times in this very thread.
I am not your teacher or your mother, and I have nothing to lose from your ignorance.

Like shit-Smears, you give out homework, refuse to display your understanding because it is never outside conventional thinking, or in deference to "experts"; one week you are defending a view which is contradicted the next; you indulge in word-games with no interest in connecting concepts to the world, but only to maintaining their connections to popular, established text; you think you are clever because you manipulate simpletons, which are only slightly less intelligent than you are; you are more interested in image than in substance; when cornered, or threatened with being exposed as simple you focus on individuals rather than ideas (I am reciprocating in kind), using "ad hom" as a defensive measure; you are hedonistic, if not openly materialistic; and you pride yourself as being something which you are not (he, a worldly playa, brilliant because compared to idiots his word-games are effective; you as a worldly playa, brilliant because you get noticed even though you have nothing interesting to say).

Your protege, the bovine-boy, is not a hedonist this month...next month he might reinvent himself as a more effective race-realist.
Now, he's critiquing the writer's motives.
A writer not spilling his guts, not being arrogant and narcissistic enough to think he has something to say that others will find interesting; a writer, like him, to be appreciated in the cool cellar, amongst the cob-webbed bottles of a wine collection - an acquired taste, for those with the palate to appreciate refinement.

By the way...nothing said can help you escape the consequences of a being a mutt.
All you have now is the collective unconscious, or the collective "genius", accessible to all...idiot or not.

I have displayed my understanding in every post I've made.
If you want to address my understanding, do it by quoting what I wrote and replying directly to the text as it pertains to physical facts.
I have no interest in your analysis of me.

phoneutria wrote:

Here lies the confusion.
Boltzman's model is a statistical model. It uses images such as pool balls and decks of cards to describe statistical odds. To say for example that there is a greater probability that a deck of cards will be found in a "messy" sequence instead of a sequence that goes from 1 to A as a representative model of entropy, is not the same as to say that a messy deck of cards has higher entropy than a sequenced one.

You're almost there.
Now go back to your criticism of what Anfang wrote here:

Anfang wrote:

Take this illustration

[url][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [/url]

When the gate is opened then it's a question of time and probability.
Over time these two molecules are going to mix. Towards disorder, an increase in entropy.

It doesn't take long to bring disorder into a system. Especially not into a highly ordered system. The process of creating order is much more energy intensive and time consuming. See crystals, which become more perfect when the growth rate is slow and they take their time.

Again:

Boltzman wrote:

The second law, he argued, was thus simply the result of the fact that in a world of mechanically colliding particles disordered states are the most probable. Because there are so many more possible disordered states than ordered ones, a system will almost always be found either in the state of maximum disorder – the macrostate with the greatest number of accessible microstates such as a gas in a box at equilibrium – or moving towards it.

Boltzman is the quintessential figure when it comes to theoretical thermodynamics in physics.
Doesn't matter that a chemist in LA (phono's link) thinks it's best to not confuse students with too universal theories on entropy but to keep it simple yet also limited in scope.

What are the implications of entropy in an expanding cosmos?

Clearly it does matter, as evidenced by this thread.

There is nothing wrong with Boltzman's construct. It's brilliant. The problem is that people tend to completely misinterpret it due to his use of words, as evidenced by this thread.

Satyr wrote:

What are the implications of entropy in an expanding cosmos?

In an expanding cosmos, entropy tends to infinite as there are ever increasing states with the expansion of space/time.

phono wrote:

Poodles suffer from bloat and torsion, a number of blood conditions, epilepsy, hypothyroidism, addison's disease, renal disease, retinal atrophy, cataracts, sebatious adenitis, hip dysplasia, luxating patella, and a number of other conditions, all congenital and due to inbreeding.

I agree.
They are not very healthy because the ideal, the standards which are selected for are often not oriented towards overall health and fitness.
I used Poodles and Bulldogs as an example of two very distinct breeds.

Doesn't change that Mendel's laws are not about mixing it up.

Mixing it up is about destroying patterns. Whatever they may be.

And since we have modern medicine which is lowering the selective pressure on physical health, mixing it up is accelerating the decline in health until that selective barrier where we can't afford the required degree of modern medicine anymore (or are not willing to) is reached.

phone wrote:

If you have granted that 50 million people can have a more varied genetic construct than 6 billion, than I don't see your point. Elaborate if you care to.

Makes no sense what you wrote, unless you are willfully ignorant.

Anfang wrote:

phono wrote:

Poodles suffer from bloat and torsion, a number of blood conditions, epilepsy, hypothyroidism, addison's disease, renal disease, retinal atrophy, cataracts, sebatious adenitis, hip dysplasia, luxating patella, and a number of other conditions, all congenital and due to inbreeding.

I agree.
They are not very healthy because the ideal, the standards which are selected for are often not oriented towards overall health and fitness.
I used Poodles and Bulldogs as an example of two very distinct breeds.

They are not very healthy because they are inbred. It doesn't matter what you're selecting for. The problem is the unintended consequences.
Take border collies for example. They are bred to be very active, fast, intelligent work dogs, and they are. Unfortunately, selecting for these traits also selects for hip dysplasia, and a disease known as collie eye anomaly which is a malformity of the retina.

Quote :

Doesn't change that Mendel's laws are not about mixing it up.

Mendel's laws are about understanding the results of mixing up.

Quote :

Mixing it up is about destroying patterns. Whatever they may be.

If the pattern is hip dysplasia, why would you not want to destroy it?

Quote :

And since we have modern medicine which is lowering the selective pressure on physical health, mixing it up is accelerating the decline in health until that selective barrier where we can't afford the required degree of modern medicine anymore (or are not willing to)

There is, as far as I know, no scientific basis for what you are saying. That is why I asked to see the literature you are basing yourself on to affirm that mixing races is causing health decline.

Quote :

phone wrote:

If you have granted that 50 million people can have a more varied genetic construct than 6 billion, than I don't see your point. Elaborate if you care to.

Makes no sense what you wrote, unless you are willfully ignorant.

Then elaborate if you care to.
However this is out of the scope of the thread and I would rather we spoke about this in one of the dozens of race threads. Or not, whatever. Just rename the board to know thy race or something.

phono wrote:

They are not very healthy because they are inbred. It doesn't matter what you're selecting for. The problem is the unintended consequences.
Take border collies for example. They are bred to be very active, fast, intelligent work dogs, and they are. Unfortunately, selecting for these traits also selects for hip dysplasia, and a disease known as collie eye anomaly which is a malformity of the retina.

That explains it - when there are no intentions, as in random breeding, then there are no unintended consequences. Hah!
When there are no intentions then health magically emerges and spreads through the population. No selective pressure required. It's kind mother nature which is gonna make it all right. Gonna make it perfect.

phono wrote:

There is, as far as I know, no scientific basis for what you are saying. That is why I asked to see the literature you are basing yourself on to affirm that mixing races is causing health decline.

Race mixing, or any mixing actually, causes the destruction of established patterns.
The more different the two individuals are the more destructive for their respective patterns.
So far this should be obvious.
I haven't said yet whether the pattern was more or less healthy than the mixed result.

Now, increasing degrees of health are increasingly difficult to obtain.
This should also be obvious. This is known as regression to the mean. Like in a Gauss-bell curve, the exceptional results in breeding whether very positive or negative are rare. Averages dominate.

But, you see this is very much simplified. What is health? It's a multi-dimensional problem.
Health is not just about good muscles, it's also about many other variables, proportions and so forth.

And now, here comes Boltzman with his probability into play. Bad health can manifest in many combinations, for example, all is fine with the body but the eye-sight is comparable with that of a mole. There are so many things which can mess up overall health, what we'd call good health. Yet the number of combinations which we'd call good health is much lower.

This is why the absence of selective pressure makes health decline from generation to generation.
Mixing of very distinctive individuals accelerates this disintegration (should also be clear, because the more differences the more potential combinations, with most of them being unfavorable).

Btw. we live in a world with selective criteria. It's gonna be the perfect world, or so I've heard. It's gonna get better - into infinity.

If your assertions that "result will be that the average health of this population will decline" and "mixing of very distinctive individuals accelerates this disintegration" are as straightforward as you say they are, you should have no trouble quoting scientific literature to support it.

phoneutria wrote:

Clearly it does matter, as evidenced by this thread.

There is nothing wrong with Boltzman's construct. It's brilliant. The problem is that people tend to completely misinterpret it due to his use of words, as evidenced by this thread.

You prematurely criticized Anfang's example of the atoms in two chambers mixing as having nothing to do with increasing disorder, when it corresponds exactly with Boltzman's law and thought.

Evolution does not happen within a vacuum.

Inbreeding is another way of saying genetic isolation.
Both produce species, and evolve specific traits within a population group, as these are selected within an environment.

The traits that manifested in the Indo-European tribes or the Aryan tribes - centuries of stress, naturally selecting particular traits, which were not diluted by the mixing in of external genes, naturally selected within different environmental conditions, resulted in the cultures and the ideals produced within these Indo-European tribes.

The binding meme is the spiritual relationship between man and the world which produced the pagan spirit.
Mixing into that inheritance bloodlines that evolve in less demanding environments which naturally selected other traits, dilutes centuries of evolution.
It does not result in the accentuation of the traits already evolved, particularly if we consider the effects of environments which are now less austere and more sheltering.

The absence of stressors, necessary to develop muscle, creativity, imagination, coupled with the infusion of the bloodlines with genes that lack the consequences of these stressors, results in a dilution.

Does this mixing mean that other traits might merge?
Yes.
Does it mean that intelligence will increase, if intelligence is our values trait?
No.

Not only does history show that the tribes that remained in less challenging environments did not evolve much, because they did not have to, but it also shows that when the conditions that produce the potential are absent the potential is never attained...and it slowly decreases.

Phoneutria wants to encourage interracial breeding, as a way of removing harmful mutations. But this says nothing about the other qualities of the organism that will be affected.
Says a lot though about what she is afraid of and what lengths she'll go to to placate it.

Beethoven's father was given the advice that in order to avoid passing on the genes that caused premature hearing loss, he should not marry his intended European bride, but instead choose one from sub-Saharan Africa where the more diverse gene pool would dilute the harmful alleles.
Consequently, young Ludwig had excellent hearing throughout his life, but unfortunately there was no ninth symphony, or any other for that matter.
Maybe he would've been a pioneer of rap. We'll never know.
What a shame.

What's frightening is how social pressure can shape the views of scientists, without them even realizing it.

Steve Donaldson wrote:

Entropy As Diversity
A better word that captures the essence of entropy on the molecular level is diversity. Entropy represents the diversity of internal movement of a system. The greater the diversity of movement on the molecular level, the greater the entropy of the system.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Order is a dirty word in the postmodern world because of its connotations with the past.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

phoneutria wrote:

If your assertions that "result will be that the average health of this population will decline" and "mixing of very distinctive individuals accelerates this disintegration" are as straightforward as you say they are, you should have no trouble quoting scientific literature to support it.

I have seen a study about it.

Link to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I haven't read it myself though.


That the health of a population is going to decline is standard evolutionary theory.
It's not gonna improve without selective pressure, otherwise that would pretty much undermine the whole concept of it.
And it's not gonna stay the same because change is inevitable.
That leaves decline as the only option when there is not sufficient pressure.

That two individuals who are more similar in their pattern when mixed produce again a more similar pattern to the their original one, than people with very different patterns should also be clear.
That's basic breeding selection. If the two are very distinct then the results will be all over the place.
All over the place means it requires much higher selective pressure until the breed has become stabilized - until the patterns within the breed are well established and mixing is happening more or less exclusively within the breed.

The formation of sub-groups is also a natural phenomena - it doesn't require human intervention.
What is a chromosome but a successful established pattern which is more or less preserved during mixing. Either the whole pattern or none of it.
This is a way of limiting variability in nature.
Why did it emerge? Because otherwise more complex organisms could not preserve enough of their functional patterns due to too much variability.

Recidivist wrote:

Phoneutria wants to encourage interracial breeding, as a way of removing harmful mutations. But this says nothing about the other qualities of the organism that will be affected.
Says a lot though about what she is afraid of and what lengths she'll go to to placate it.

In Moderns the schizo-narcissism comes forth in a patting one's self on the back.
Ask her how much of a mutt she is.
Brazilian style race-mixing: the future of man is off-white, beige....

Excelling at kicking an inflated sack around and nothing else.
A state of functional mediocrity, sometimes rising to the above-average, when more Portuguese and Spanish blood is mixed in; a talent for the rhythms of words, and psycho-dancing, but nothing more there.

Recidivist wrote:

Order is a dirty word in the postmodern world because of its connotations with the past.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

LOL, I knew this was coming sooner or later.
They're cleansing the world of the world order! The one little secret THEY don't want you to know!!

Quack

If anyone wishes for a reply, pm me please. I am over and out.

phoneutria wrote:

If anyone wishes for a reply, pm me please. I am over and out.

My dear you've been looking for a way out for a while, I simply gave you an easy exit.
I was being merciful.

Your counterarguments dried up ages ago and you were starting to contradict yourself.
Boltzman was the final nail in the coffin.
You're just trolling people who have real ideas with nothing constructive to add.
Merely acting as a gate keeper for establishment values as Satyr said.

Knock yourself out.
I am not into conspiracies.
If you want to discuss Botlzman's theorem, let me know.

phoneutria wrote:

Knock yourself out.
I am not into conspiracies.
If you want to discuss Botlzman's theorem, let me know.

Don't worry, dear...all is fine.

It's not that bad.
Shit happens spontaneously, just because.

And I am on ILP...good catch dear....good catch.

Energy dissipation is indeed spontaneous.

phoneutria wrote:

Knock yourself out.
I am not into conspiracies.
If you want to discuss Botlzman's theorem, let me know.

We did, remember?
Anfang gave the example of two glass spheres one containing red particles and the other blue.
A state of order I think anyone would agree.

When connected to each other the particles began mixing, becoming more disordered until they were evenly dissipated over the two spheres, a state of maximum entropy.