21 Day War over, "mopping up" begins!

[Cyrus]

"Thermo fallacy"

At last. Your own titles in the posts. [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

"The earth is not a closed system because the sun is shining on it."

Come again?!

"Of course there are many processes which decrease entropy, evolution being one, and these do not in any way violate the laws of thermodyamics."

I would truly appreciate learning how one can decrease entropy without violating the laws of thermodynamics. And I don't mean "delay" entropy.

..As to your continuing refusal to acknowledge the finite and discrete nature of human actions (eg treaties between nations), I have nothing to add beyond what I've already written. Suffice to say that the record of History is on my side: why do you think no treaty has lasted for ever? Not because no treaty was ever signed in good faith.

Now, if you honestly believe that the U.S. will defeat entropy and last for ever, I salute your stance -- and the flag in your posts. But the logic fails me.

[BruceZ]

I would truly appreciate learning how one can decrease entropy without violating the laws of thermodynamics.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics: The entropy of an isolated system increases during any natural process.

There are other equivalent statements of the law, but this is the one which is appropriate here. The earth is not an isolated system since, as I said, it receives energy from the sun. Living things self-organize and reduce the entropy of their structures while increasing the entropy of their environment. The entropy of the entire universe cannot decrease by any process, but it can and does certainly increase within particular systems.

[Cyrus]

"The earth is not an isolated system since, as I said, it receives energy from the sun. The entropy of the entire universe cannot decrease by any process, but it can and does certainly increase within particular systems."

You realize of course that, by the above interpretation, entropy occurs only in the totality of the universe and not in any particular topology of it, since only the (Newtonian) universe is a "truly" closed system.

So, whence entropy?

"Living things self-organize and reduce the entropy of their structures while increasing the entropy of their environment."

What about the closed system of (living things & their environment)?

[BruceZ]

You realize of course that, by the above interpretation, entropy occurs only in the totality of the universe and not in any particular topology of it, since only the (Newtonian) universe is a "truly" closed system.

That's correct, the entropy of the entire universe must increase. In fact, that is another statement of the law. It also must increase in an isolated system. This is not an "interpretation", this is what the law says.

What about the closed system of (living things & their environment)?

I just told you that isn't an isolated system because it receives energy from the sun, so it isn't necessary for this system to increase entropy even though it may. If you throw the sun into this system, then that system will increase entropy.

[Cyrus]

"You're talking about treaties that end wars. They say "we'll stop kicking your ass in exchange for you agreeing to these terms". It is in both parties' best interest to accept such treaties. I said earlier that is essentially what we had with Iraq. That is different from an agreement that says "we won't attack you under any circumstances", or "we will never do X under any circumstances". Such agreements are ridiculous, and any nation who would abide by them deserves to be destroyed."

You mean all the non-aggression pacts that have been signed up to now among various nations are "ridiculous" and that the signatory countries should be "destroyed" as punishment for their "stupidity"?! You still fail to understand the relativity of a treaty's value across time frames. (And, by the way, the argument is valid for any kind of agreement, even about corned beef.)

If you remember, the whole thing started when you submitted that it is fine ("legitimate") when the U.S. attacks Iraq but it is not fine (it is "illegitimate") when Saddam grabs power through the same means! This is no logical inconsistency; it is the support for a system of legitimacy whose point of reference is not universal but Americano-centric. Something that Chris Alger (without resorting to entropy-decreasing attributes [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]) already points out in the same thread.

"You're talking about laws we agree to as a society, and this is a completely different thing."

The argument, if you recall, is whether we can actually enforce something (e.g. peace between two nations; the non-rape of women) through legal means, such as treaties or laws. I submitted that peace is not secured through treaties but through interests; I also submitted that rape will not disappear because of a law. What this does NOT imply is that treaties and laws are meaningless!

And it has nothing to do with what you say. In any kind of rational agreement, between nations or between citizens, of course they do that because it is to their best interest.

The signatories of the Geneva Convention protocol were acting (or honestly believed they were acting) in their best interest. And the Geneva Convention becomes useless when you have no fear (or honestly believe you have no fear) of ever being punished for violating it. Full circle back to the United States of America, twenty-first century...

[Cyrus]

"If you throw the sun into this system, then that system will increase entropy."

What was I just saying?

"The entropy of the entire universe must increase. In fact, that is another statement of the law. It also must increase in an isolated system. This is not an "interpretation", this is what the law says."

But I know and agree with this! If you recall, I submitted that what we have been witnessing so far in human history, is entropy working non-stop. (If this needs further elaboration, here it is: civilisations come and go not because man is inherently destructive, but because, crudely, entropy begins work as soon as a civilisation reaches a certain level. And that's as crudely as it gets. Historicism for the rest of the story.)

You rebutted this by arguing that what we have been seeing is evolution, instead, which "decreases entropy". We may be talking about different things : I am talking about political history and you may be talking only about biology. Either way, evolution, in political systems or physical beings, is achieved at the expense of the rest of the elements of the system around the subject of evolution. Which ultimately begets the decline of that subject, be it a country or a flower. (The successful evolutionary model of the cockroach will also go down when the sun bursts -- unless they will have migrated in cockroach-built and cockroach-infested spaceships elsewhere. Now, there's a thought to take to bed.)

[BruceZ]

You mean all the non-aggression pacts that have been signed up to now among various nations are "ridiculous" and that the signatory countries should be "destroyed" as punishment for their "stupidity"?!

I mean just what I said, and it sure isn't that.

You still fail to understand the relativity of a treaty's value across time frames.

I don't fail to understand anything. An agreement that says "we will never do X" has no time frame.

If you remember, the whole thing started when you submitted that it is fine ("legitimate") when the U.S. attacks Iraq but it is not fine (it is "illegitimate") when Saddam grabs power through the same means!

I never said that. I don't believe in the concept of legitimacy, and this was simply an example to show the uselessness of that concept.

[BruceZ]

I am talking about political history and you may be talking only about biology. Either way, evolution, in political systems or physical beings, is achieved at the expense of the rest of the elements of the system around the subject of evolution. Which ultimately begets the decline of that subject, be it a country or a flower.

No matter what kind of system you are talking about or how you draw the boundaries of the system, the entropy of the system needs not increase unless the system is isolated. The 2nd law of thermodyamics only applies to isolated systems. Countries, flowers, and political systems are not isolated systems, so the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not require that they increase the entropy of themselves or of any system in which they sit including the whole planet if that system is not isolated. Now they very well may increase the entropy of some non-isolated system, but the 2nd law has nothing to say about that, so that law cannot be used to establish that does in fact occur. Evolution is an example of a decrease in entropy in flowers and in political systems as well.

[BruceZ]

I said the US action was not illigitimate. If you adopt the notion of illigitamacy, which I do not, then Saddam's action was at least equally illigitimate. "American-centric" or not, the actions are the same. The reasons were different as we were enforcing peace agreements, acting in self defense, alleviating human rights violations, etc.

[Cyrus]

"An agreement that says "we will never do X" has no time frame."

Sure it has. A(x) says "we will never do x". Peace treaties do not contain time limits, they are at best evergreen agreements, which is another way of saying "never". At the time A(x) gets born, it is True in its time frame. When it (inevitably) gets violated, it proves worthless, in other words False. But does that make it worthless/False in the time frame it was born? I say "No". If you say "Yes", we are back to my question about all 'em treaties bein' null and void 'fore the ink gets dry.

"I said the US action was not illigitimate."

There's no such word as "illigitimate". [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

"If you adopt the notion of illigitamacy, which I do not, then Saddam's action was at least equally illigitimate. "American-centric" or not, the actions are the same. The reasons were different as we were enforcing peace agreements, acting in self defense, alleviating human rights violations, etc."

There is no logic and no specified point of reference to the system you are trying to impose here. Who decides what action is legitimate or not? Usetabe the U.N. Now, it's the U.S. Whose criteria are used for said legitimacy? Usetabe the U.N. Charter. Now, it's stricly American interests. (Hence, Americano-centric world order. Happy trails.)