Joined: June 2006
The Granville Sewell defenders are starting to emerge, none of whom have taken the time to understand Sewell's argument. Pixie's post is 100% correct, and Sewell knows it. Sewell now has a chance to demonstrate his integrity by correcting his defenders. Will he do it?
|[Quoting Pixie]The rearrangement of atoms into human brains and computers and the Internet clearly does not violate any law of nature, recognized or not.|
Predictably, we see a pouncing on a minor error, in a context where the material point was already noted and corrected: SPONTANEOUS. (So, I have reason to say that we see here the knocking over of a convenient strawman. The PCs and net are DESIGNED, and the DNA that largely controls the production of the human brain etc evinces all the characteristics that we would at once infer to be designed were not a worldview assertion in the way.]
Predictable . . . and, sad.
But since the 2nd Law makes no distinction between SPONTANEOUS and DESIGNED, Sewell's assertion is wrong no matter how you slice it. Brains and computers are not a violation of the 2nd Law, and anyone who says that they are is a crackpot.
"I wasn't aware that classical physics had established a position on whether intelligent agents exercising free were constrained by 2LOT into increasing entropy." -DaveScot