[extropy-chat] Extropic (was: Extropy and libertarianism)

[The Avantguardian]

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:

> This represents a poor understanding of both entropy
> and extropy. While
> it is a common gutter definition that entropy is a
> measure of disorder,
> more accurate definitions are:
> 
> a) the amount of energy in a closed thermodynamic
> system that is
> unavailable to do work. Typically because it is
> degraded to an ultimate
> ground state of inert uniformity.
> b) the amount of information loss in communication.

I understand what you are saying, Mike, in that the
popular definition of entropy is NOT thermodynamic
entropy. But I would not go so far as to say that it
is the gutter definition of entropy anymore than I
would say that calling gravity a force is a gutter
definition of gravity. In doing so, you are succumbing
to a historical revisionism of science, that you would
not condone in regards to politics.

The concept of entropy was a mathematical abstraction
invented by a 19th century mathemetician named
Boltzmann. He defined entropy as a number proportional
to the natural logarithm of a virtually infinite (and
thus unmeasurable) number of possible arrangements of
the microscopic constituents (microstates)of a system
that correspond to an actually measurable macrostate
of a system. This is the MATHEMATICAL definition of
entropy in statistical mechanics. Since disordered
states are much more likely to spontaneously occur
than ordered states because there simply are MORE
disordered states than ordered states, this
mathematical definition of entropy is self consistent
and still valid. Scientists that came after Boltzmann
applied Boltmann's mathematical abstraction to the
physical concepts of energy, heat, and work and
formulated the laws of thermodynamics.
 
Thus thermodynamic entropy is the application of the
mathematical abstraction known as entropy to describe
the energy of a chemical process that becomes
unavailable to do work. To say that simply because our
modern understanding this "unavailable work" has
become more sophisticated than Boltzmann's simple
mathematical abstraction, that Boltzmann was therefore
wrong is grossly unfair. After all mathematics is its
own self-consistent truth regardless of any
applicability to physical processes. 

While gravity, similarly, may be more accurately
described as a curvature of spacetime, this does
render Newton's description of universal gravity,
based on the calculus he invented, wrong . . . just
less accurate. After all, Newton's law of universal
gravitation is still rather reliable in regards to
gravity as it is encountered by most people in day to
day life. 

Boltzmann's mathematical description of entropy was
further applied to information theory and thus
Shannon's entropy, which you also describe, came
about. That Shannon's entropy and thermodynamic
entropy are not the same thing, does not change the
fact that both are derived from a mathematical
abstraction that Boltzmann called entropy. And
Boltzmann's contribution was way too valuable to be
thrown in the gutter at the hands of some guys that
like to stroke their egos because they know more about
thermodynamics today than some genius that lived 150
years ago. So IMHO the "gutter" definition of entropy
as "disorder" was actually the orginal conception of
entropy and the two conceptions of entropy you speak
of came about later. 

I for one am a proponent of considering those that
first define a concept to be the highest authority on
that concept. Thus to say that Boltzmann was wrong
about entropy is like saying Marx's definition of
communism was wrong or that Lucas` portrayal of Darth
Vader was wrong. Thus I for one think that Max More's
definition of extropy is the "true" definition because
he came up with it in the first place. Most
revisionists at least have the courtesy to wait until
the creator of a concept dies before they start
pissing in it.       

> For this reason, there will be less and less room
> for fascism/socialism
> in the lives of the average person: such
> philosophies cannot continue
> to provide solutions for people even at the local
> level. How can one
> polity decide fairly such things as land and water
> use issues for
> intelligent species of water dwellers, plant people,
> homo sapiens
> ruminatus, cat people, human birds, rock people,
> nano people, space
> people, and energy people? It can't. The only
> solution to such vast and
> diverse conflicts of interest are open and free
> markets, to allow all
> types of people to peacefully determine the best and
> fairest use of all
> resources according to their needs and capabilities,
> thereby minimizing
> entropy in the human social system deep into the
> future.

All that I have said in defense of Boltzmann and More
notwithstanding, I agree with you that thermodynamics
is not an appropriate way to describe polities and
social systems. 

The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com