Different races do not all exist in the same state of entropy, and I think it's not possible entirely to differentiate the affects of entropy from what we call evolution.
Do you understand what you have written above. I would like you to elaborate further on this and then, direct me to your source of information, i.e. what you have read on this, is it the same old story, Niggers and Nazis.
Entropic processes are at work in evolution when it comes to preserving and dissipating heat in order to better suit the needs of the environment. I don't understand what point you are trying to make, though. Are you saying that species fit for surviving in arid environments contribute more to entropy than species fit for surviving in frozen environments?
What I'm doing is treating species as evolutionary engines, having some initial condition of low entropy, but gradually dissipating energy and information over time.
Each reproduction of the DNA potentially increases entropy in the form of random mutations, genetic drift and replication errors. One can also take into account damage to the DNA from the local environment. The species as a whole experiences increasing disorder.
Different races do not all exist in the same state of entropy, and I think it's not possible entirely to differentiate the affects of entropy from what we call evolution.
Once again, this is not a comparison that can be taken very far. If you consider entropy in the classical sense, there is no correlation between high or low potential for heat transfer versus high or low level of evolutionary order. Species don't transfer heat more or less based on how evolved they are. They do so based on the environment's requirements. A polar bear is an expert at conserving heat. A sloth bear isn't.
Information entropy also can't be compared to DNA information very adequately. As you know, in information entropy, copy/transfer always results in data loss. The post peculiar thing about the DNA molecule is its ability to create a perfect copy of itself, which it does in most cases without any data loss whatsoever.
Quote :
Although the individual organism can repair itself in early life and appears not to be subject to the aging process, this is only because of the excess energy stored in the body, more efficient transfer of food into energy, and the healthy, ordered state of the DNA, but this begins to wane in adulthood, and the inevitable aging process (entropy) sets in.
Aging does not change the fact that you are still able to create perfect copies of DNA without any data loss up to the moment when you die. It isn't an entropic balance, in this example a complete diffusion of data, which ultimately makes this regeneration impossible.
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
The best course of action is to encourage X to go on breeding amongst itself or with other healthy populations, and let Y slowly die out.
Putting this idea into the minds of people is a key element. The realization that for people to remain healthy, they have to conserve their patterns rather than accelerating the natural increase of disorder in their DNA + a decent rate of selective pressure immediately opens the floodgates for mimetic dissent.
Once the importance of discriminative mating is established, having shared values which support those mating criteria, heterogenous believes rooted in the continuation of ones' kind, follows suit.
Do you understand what you have written above. I would like you to elaborate further on this and then, direct me to your source of information, i.e. what you have read on this, is it the same old story, Niggers and Nazis.
The.... official... reponse.. of.. God.
Anfang
Gender : Posts : 3989 Join date : 2013-01-23 Age : 40 Location : Castra Alpine Grug
Information entropy also can't be compared to DNA information very adequately. As you know, in information entropy, copy/transfer always results in data loss. The post peculiar thing about the DNA molecule is its ability to create a perfect copy of itself, which it does in most cases without any data loss whatsoever.
We take a population of exclusively healthy people who are not clones. They are the most healthy individuals of distinctive tribes/races, there are no mutagens and all DNA strands are always copied perfectly, and we mix them with each other.
The rules are that there are no premature deaths, all do form couples during their lifetimes and get two children but no more, before they both pass away at some point.
So we have a steady population which is mixing their perfect DNA via exchanging chromosomes. The result will be that the average health of this population will decline until it reaches its maximum point of entropy. In other words, until it reaches the point where all chromosomes are well shuffled throughout the population.
See - Starting individual A is well optimized. Its lungs, heart, bodily features and so forth are well optimized. All of its organs are well proportioned in relation to each other and so forth.
Starting individual B is also well optimized. Its bodily parts are well proportioned but overall it is different from individual A. Yet both by themselves are very healthy, have well optimized bodies by themselves.
Now, let's say A is rather large, tall, muscular, while B is rather slender and shorter. When A and B get a child then it may inherit more or less the size of individual A but gets more or less the lung and heart from B (and yes, that's how it works with humans, not all organs are a perfect blend between A and B). Now the child is much less optimized in its bodily physique though it came from two very healthy parents.
Health comes with a price in nature - with high selective pressure. Knowing all this, it becomes pretty straight forward that trying to preserve patterns by mating with someone who is similar is preferred in nature. It's probably the main reason why social organisms became social in the first place - the advantage of recognizing similarities in others by recognizing parts of oneself in others and feeling attracted to that.
Yet there is still this myth that mixing it up is really healthy. Wouldn't want to become an inbred... Yeah... 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.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Didn't Nietzsche, Foucault or Baudrillard or Bernays argue the sophisticated kind of slavery is letting the slaves think they are free? To think that subtle coercions are not tending towards [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] exposes the success of that sophistication.
Even forgetting that, lets assume free-will trumps all memetic warfare,,,don't DNA replications depend on nourishment and can't we see the perversion that HAS already occured in food-crop manipulation? As if, even assuming the copying mechanism works to the dot and there are no increasing structural damages, the Quality of information loss can be prevented when the food chain is being tampered with? We are what we eat. And new infections and diseases and new vaccines/meds. entering the body dont make a difference to info. entropy?
Didn't Nietzsche, Foucault or Baudrillard or Bernays argue the sophisticated kind of slavery is letting the slaves think they are free? To think that subtle coercions are not tending towards [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] exposes the success of that sophistication.
Even forgetting that, lets assume free-will trumps all memetic warfare,,,don't DNA replications depend on nourishment and can't we see the perversion that HAS already occured in food-crop manipulation? As if, even assuming the copying mechanism works to the dot and there are no increasing structural damages, the Quality of information loss can be prevented when the food chain is being tampered with? We are what we eat. And new infections and diseases and new vaccines/meds. entering the body dont make a difference to info. entropy?
Intervening upon nature leads to intervening upon the foods we consume, altering them, enhancing them, turning them into something that does not emerge in nature spontaneously. From there intervening upon data, knowledge, words becomes obvious.
Superfluity in product: data, nutrition, feeding mind/body. Decline in health = psychosomatic. Atrophying do to the ease, and mutating due to the foreign elements - collateral effects.
Increasing mass, fat, and atrophying musculature = obesity of the mind/body. Hedonism/Materialism, as self-medication in the Cult of Victims.
A symbolic return to the Garden of Eden, before the fall: sexless, race-less, sinless...pure good; the innocence of man. Man as child.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Recidivist
Gender : Posts : 435 Join date : 2012-04-30 Age : 48 Location : Exile
If you consider entropy in the classical sense, there is no correlation between high or low potential for heat transfer versus high or low level of evolutionary order. Species don't transfer heat more or less based on how evolved they are. They do so based on the environment's requirements.
My point was that by treating a species, hominids for example, as an evolutionary engine with initial starting conditions, it is clear that over time the body temperature of hominids - as they evolve - has been decreasing. The starting point in this case is primates. This is not the same as the thermal entropy we have been discussing, I know, but it may be related to information entropy, or both. The same has happened with other qualities such as bone density, muscle to fat ratio, strength, hair coverage, jaw to cranium ratio, testosterone levels, etc...
But we know from the research of scientists like Rushton et al that the extra time spent in the womb is extra energy going towards brain development, hence some races have longer incubation periods than others. For example, blacks emerge sooner from the womb and are more physically developed, their motor skills are more advanced, whites and Asians later, not as physically developed but with larger, more complex brains. The extra time and energy that has gone into the more sophisticated ordering of the brain may be an example of negative entropy, but it may have been purchased at the cost of increased entropy throughout the rest of the organism.
Taking genetic reproduction alone, whites will die out sooner than blacks all others things being equal, a more primitive organism is in a lower state of entropy, having the majority of its genes still intact. This is observable in its outward appearance, it's physical homogeneity, and it's lower intelligence.
phoneutria wrote:
Information entropy also can't be compared to DNA information very adequately. As you know, in information entropy, copy/transfer always results in data loss. The post peculiar thing about the DNA molecule is its ability to create a perfect copy of itself, which it does in most cases without any data loss whatsoever.
Quote :
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one out of every 33 babies in the United States is born with some type of abnormality that developed in utero (CDC). Birth defects can be minor or severe, and they can affect appearance, organ function, and physical or mental development.
A person's genetic makeup is determined at conception. It is then, during the nuclear events of fertilization, that the genetic causes of many birth defects are determined. For example, chromosomal abnormalities, or large-scale duplications or deletions of chromosomal segments or entire chromosomes, can become apparent during this period. Many zygotes that carry such abnormalities do not develop into embryos, but among those that are carried to term, trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome), and trisomy 18 (Edwards syndrome) are the most frequent birth defects. Embryos with these three conditions will develop severe disabilities regardless of the environmental factors associated with the pregnancy.
One must be wary of the way DNA is represented in the media, an abstracted code in a brightly lit, colored environment, seamlessly dividing itself in a computer simulation. In reality it is a lot messier.
_________________ “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” - - George Orwell
Last edited by Recidivist on Tue Aug 12, 2014 3:58 am; edited 1 time in total
In living organisms there is a balance between conserving patterns and remaining capable of enough variability for adaptation and for circumventing genetic dead ends in the long run. The higher the variability the higher the rate of eventually dysfunctional offspring which necessitates a higher rate of culling. The increase in entropy happens quicker with each generation, requiring more selective pressure.
This does not follow. If I understood correctly, you are assuming a metaphor in which you are replacing heat energy with phenotypic traits, and phenotypic traits are the variable you are tracking for dissipation. However, racial mixing does not promote the creation of "disfunctional offspring". In other words, there is no correlation here between a state of low dissipation and the quality of the the components of the system. In fact the opposite is often true. Because we carry massive amounts of genetic information, particularly recessive, that do not reflect on our phenotypes, we carry in ourselves plenty of potential for disfunction. Racial mixing dissipates these recessive genes, causing them to be unlikely to manifest.
Quote :
On the other side of that spectrum, a higher rate of conserving patterns reduces variability, comes with a lower requirement for culling...
Likewise on the other side of that spectrum, a higher rate of conserving patters, meaning an attempt at preserving those phenotypic traits, prevents the dissipation of the genetic data in such a way that both dominant and recessive genes are concentrated, and often leads to manifestation of those dysfunctional recessive genes onto phenotypes that are often not viable.
Quote :
...but also requires enough foresight by the organisms to make intelligent decisions in terms of mating to select healthy and more compatible mates. This bias of like attract like can be observed in many social animals.
I think this is regardless of any considerations on entropy I don't think there is anyone out there, human, ape, reptile, bird, who chooses mates indiscriminately. The things people see in one another as qualities is what varies, but ultimately everyone is doing what they think is best.
Keeping that in mind, that is another reason why you can't apply an entropy metaphor to racial/ethnic models accurately. There is a natural bias to stick with your own that works against the free dissipation that would occur in a thermo model.
Recidivist
Gender : Posts : 435 Join date : 2012-04-30 Age : 48 Location : Exile
1. Entropy. Historically, the idea about entropy got formed by observing thermal processes. In particular the observation of volume, pressure and temperature and how they are related with each other in a heat engine.
A heat engine requires a difference in temperature between two reservoirs. This difference in temperature on a macroscopic level (like a hot water reservoir and the relatively cool exterior of the machine) provides the energy for the engine to perform mechanical work. When the temperature of the hot water reservoir gets closer and closer to the temperature of the other reservoir (like the exterior of the machine) then it stops working. This is the state of maximum entropy when both reservoirs have the same temperature.
On a microscopic level temperature is the kinetic energy of a material's comprising particles. Temperature is internal energy. When energy is evenly distributed among both reservoirs then maximum entropy is reached.
But it's critical to understand that entropy is not about temperature, about the kinetic energy stored in particles, no - It's a stochastic observation and applies to many processes…. all natural processes known to man.
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.
2. Dominant and recessive. Maybe 'dominant' sounds to you like it's healthy and 'recessive' sounds like a disease but they are not about that. Whether or not a trait or gene is desirable (advantageous) for a particular organism's overall constitution has nothing to do with it being recessive or dominant.
For example - Normal blood pressure is a recessive trait. Dwarfism is a dominant trait.
Let's take dwarfism. Because it's a dominant trait, it means that if one of your two alleles has the dwarfism trait encoded then you are a dwarf, no matter what resides on the other of your two alleles. Which is a reason why dwarfism is not that common. See - because it's dominant, it cannot hide. And dwarfs are not even good at running either... Anyway - It's always visible in the phenotype. And people who are not into getting dwarf children, or to be more precise, a more or less 50% chance of getting a dwarf child will know instantly what they are getting into by observing the phenotype.
If it were a recessive gene then it could hide much better and become easily widespread within the population. And then it would happen much more often that parents who are not dwarfs get dwarf children. Much, much more often.
* * *
We all mix when we procreate - that's not the thing which makes us more healthy. Selection, culling is what is required to raise the average health of a population. Do you understand this? I'm not just writing whatever comes into my mind here - this all fits well together and is based on simple deduction of widespread and recognized observations in physics and biology. Nothing fancy, very basic.
But all the culling and selecting is good for nothing when it gets deselected and randomized again when it gets shuffled again without discrimination (that is, to not select for similarities in a mate but to go random).
Mutt, you may want to cast away that chip on your shoulder. This is not just about mixes of races. This decay in human genetics in the absence of selection pressure is particularly pronounced is societies which have low selective pressure (the liberal west since over a century by now). Add to this the popular believe that mixing is good (again, nothing that got invented in the 60s but this was propagated already much earlier) and we see a massive decline. Because of careless mate selection which accelerates the decay of established healthy patterns and because of missing selective pressure to re-inVIGORate them or establish new ones.
Get it? One healthy or two healthy or three healthy…. individuals which came about by chance from happy mixing isn't a healthy society. And not finding a mate with a similar constitution to their own (not just healthy, but healthy and a similar kind of constitution is required) means that their healthy pattern which emerged can't be maintained but is going to disappear again in happy mixing in the next generation.
A swamp of mediocrity. And mediocrity isn't static, it's a downward spiral.
Recidivist
Gender : Posts : 435 Join date : 2012-04-30 Age : 48 Location : Exile
Do you accept the theory of evolution in its mainstream form?
As far as I'm aware evolution as proposed by Darwin and interpreted by the mainstream only applies to mindless organisms or those without enough intelligence to shape their environment. As soon as consciousness intrudes, allied with a high enough degree of intelligence, evolutionary obstacles may be circumvented without the need for physical adaptation.
But that is the point where intelligence itself becomes the trait selected for. Something which liberals, for some reason, are unable to accept. They're still stuck in quasi-religious, dualist modes of thinking.
_________________ “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” - - George Orwell
Information entropy also can't be compared to DNA information very adequately. As you know, in information entropy, copy/transfer always results in data loss. The post peculiar thing about the DNA molecule is its ability to create a perfect copy of itself, which it does in most cases without any data loss whatsoever.
We take a population of exclusively healthy people who are not clones. They are the most healthy individuals of distinctive tribes/races, there are no mutagens and all DNA strands are always copied perfectly, and we mix them with each other.
The rules are that there are no premature deaths, all do form couples during their lifetimes and get two children but no more, before they both pass away at some point.
So we have a steady population which is mixing their perfect DNA via exchanging chromosomes. The result will be that the average health of this population will decline until it reaches its maximum point of entropy. In other words, until it reaches the point where all chromosomes are well shuffled throughout the population.
See - Starting individual A is well optimized. Its lungs, heart, bodily features and so forth are well optimized. All of its organs are well proportioned in relation to each other and so forth.
Starting individual B is also well optimized. Its bodily parts are well proportioned but overall it is different from individual A. Yet both by themselves are very healthy, have well optimized bodies by themselves.
Now, let's say A is rather large, tall, muscular, while B is rather slender and shorter. When A and B get a child then it may inherit more or less the size of individual A but gets more or less the lung and heart from B (and yes, that's how it works with humans, not all organs are a perfect blend between A and B). Now the child is much less optimized in its bodily physique though it came from two very healthy parents.
Health comes with a price in nature - with high selective pressure. Knowing all this, it becomes pretty straight forward that trying to preserve patterns by mating with someone who is similar is preferred in nature. It's probably the main reason why social organisms became social in the first place - the advantage of recognizing similarities in others by recognizing parts of oneself in others and feeling attracted to that.
Your fault is in taking this to be a deterministic process, rather than a probabilistic one. In fact, I would be interested in taking a look at the literature you based your affirmation on, the one in bold. I want to see some numbers.
Quote :
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.
Quote :
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?
Didn't Nietzsche, Foucault or Baudrillard or Bernays argue the sophisticated kind of slavery is letting the slaves think they are free? To think that subtle coercions are not tending towards [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] exposes the success of that sophistication.
Even forgetting that, lets assume free-will trumps all memetic warfare,,,don't DNA replications depend on nourishment and can't we see the perversion that HAS already occured in food-crop manipulation? As if, even assuming the copying mechanism works to the dot and there are no increasing structural damages, the Quality of information loss can be prevented when the food chain is being tampered with? We are what we eat. And new infections and diseases and new vaccines/meds. entering the body dont make a difference to info. entropy?
1. Entropy. Historically, the idea about entropy got formed by observing thermal processes. In particular the observation of volume, pressure and temperature and how they are related with each other in a heat engine.
A heat engine requires a difference in temperature between two reservoirs. This difference in temperature on a macroscopic level (like a hot water reservoir and the relatively cool exterior of the machine) provides the energy for the engine to perform mechanical work. When the temperature of the hot water reservoir gets closer and closer to the temperature of the other reservoir (like the exterior of the machine) then it stops working. This is the state of maximum entropy when both reservoirs have the same temperature.
On a microscopic level temperature is the kinetic energy of a material's comprising particles. Temperature is internal energy. When energy is evenly distributed among both reservoirs then maximum entropy is reached.
But it's critical to understand that entropy is not about temperature, about the kinetic energy stored in particles, no - It's a stochastic observation and applies to many processes…. all natural processes known to man.
Yes, thank you anfang. I know what entropy is. Do notice that I have not been using the word temperature. The word is heat.
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.
What I have been trying to get across is that associating entropy with order/disorder is erroneous. You may as well do yourself the favor of stopping the use of these terms altogether. It's about energy transfer/dissipation, and that is all there is to it.
Quote :
2. Dominant and recessive. Maybe 'dominant' sounds to you like it's healthy and 'recessive' sounds like a disease but they are not about that. Whether or not a trait or gene is desirable (advantageous) for a particular organism's overall constitution has nothing to do with it being recessive or dominant.
For example - Normal blood pressure is a recessive trait. Dwarfism is a dominant trait.
Let's take dwarfism. Because it's a dominant trait, it means that if one of your two alleles has the dwarfism trait encoded then you are a dwarf, no matter what resides on the other of your two alleles. Which is a reason why dwarfism is not that common. See - because it's dominant, it cannot hide. And dwarfs are not even good at running either... Anyway - It's always visible in the phenotype. And people who are not into getting dwarf children, or to be more precise, a more or less 50% chance of getting a dwarf child will know instantly what they are getting into by observing the phenotype.
If it were a recessive gene then it could hide much better and become easily widespread within the population. And then it would happen much more often that parents who are not dwarfs get dwarf children. Much, much more often.[/]
There is nothing in my text to indicate that I think all recessive traits are bad. I focused on negative recessive traits because we were talking about "disfunctional" phenotypes. And appreciate your definitions, but you don't have to worry about that, at least when it comes to talking to me. I've got the world wide web at my fingertips and a background in biomedical engineering/microbiology research.
Quote :
We all mix when we procreate - that's not the thing which makes us more healthy. Selection, culling is what is required to raise the average health of a population. Do you understand this? I'm not just writing whatever comes into my mind here - this all fits well together and is based on simple deduction of widespread and recognized observations in physics and biology. Nothing fancy, very basic.
But all the culling and selecting is good for nothing when it gets deselected and randomized again when it gets shuffled again without discrimination (that is, to not select for similarities in a mate but to go random).
Once again, it is a strawman to even suggest that there are individuals out there shuffling without discrimination. Bad criteria is not the same as no criteria. If you want to argue that, I suggest you find someone else to talk to.
Quote :
Mutt, you may want to cast away that chip on your shoulder. This is not just about mixes of races. This decay in human genetics in the absence of selection pressure is particularly pronounced is societies which have low selective pressure (the liberal west since over a century by now). Add to this the popular believe that mixing is good (again, nothing that got invented in the 60s but this was propagated already much earlier) and we see a massive decline. Because of careless mate selection which accelerates the decay of established healthy patterns and because of missing selective pressure to re-inVIGORate them or establish new ones.
Get it? One healthy or two healthy or three healthy…. individuals which came about by chance from happy mixing isn't a healthy society. And not finding a mate with a similar constitution to their own (not just healthy, but healthy and a similar kind of constitution is required) means that their healthy pattern which emerged can't be maintained but is going to disappear again in happy mixing in the next generation.
A swamp of mediocrity. And mediocrity isn't static, it's a downward spiral.
I don't understand why you are so concerned for the future of mankind. We're not your buddies, we're competitors for resources. May you and your own make good choices and may everyone else fail. Evolution will favor you if you are fit. Smart people use smart criteria and make smart decisions. Stupid people use stupid criteria and make stupid decisions. Let nature do its work.
Recidivist
Gender : Posts : 435 Join date : 2012-04-30 Age : 48 Location : Exile
What I have been trying to get across is that associating entropy with order/disorder is erroneous. You may as well do yourself the favor of stopping the use of these terms altogether. It's about energy transfer/dissipation, and that is all there is to it.
Quote :
There are close parallels between the mathematical expressions for the thermodynamic entropy, usually denoted by S, of a physical system in the statistical thermodynamics established by Ludwig Boltzmann and J. Willard Gibbs in the 1870s, and the information-theoretic entropy, usually expressed as H, of Claude Shannon and Ralph Hartley developed in the 1940s. Shannon, although not initially aware of this similarity, commented on it upon publicizing information theory in A Mathematical Theory of Communication.
Your fault is in taking this to be a deterministic process, rather than a probabilistic one.
I have determined that you don't understand probability. Tis' must be so.
Quote :
The word is heat.
Haven't we been over that one before. Go find where I explained tis to you.
Quote :
It's about energy transfer/dissipation, and that is all there is to it.
No, the word is heat.
Quote :
I've got the world wide web at my fingertips and a background in biomedical engineering/microbiology research.
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....
A background in biomedical engineering and microbiology research? Amazing! Yet you are so modest and hold back all this wealth of understanding and knowledge.
Quote :
I don't understand why you are so concerned for the future of mankind. We're not your buddies, we're competitors for resources.
'We' - I see... Gotta keep it short.
Recidivist
Gender : Posts : 435 Join date : 2012-04-30 Age : 48 Location : Exile
Thermodynamics - heat transfer/dissipation. Information entropy - data transfer/dissipation.
Nothing to do with order and disorder.
Well, at least you've admitted that entropy is not only about energy transfer/dissipation which you stated previously.
Quote :
The Second Law as a law of disorder
The idea that the second law of thermodynamics or "entropy law" is a law of disorder (or that dynamically ordered states are "infinitely improbable") is due to Boltzmann's view of the second law. In particular, it was his attempt to reduce it to a stochastic collision function, or law of probability following from the random collisions of mechanical particles.
......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.
Classical entropy is, as originally coined, by definition. Informational entropy borrows the term.
You might have read in that same wiki that there has been a great effort to remove the words of order/disorder from didactic literature, due to the sheer amount of confusion it has caused.
Satyr Daemon
Gender : Posts : 37274 Join date : 2009-08-24 Age : 58 Location : Hyperborea
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
