2.0 The Big Picture

There is too much.. for the time I give to this.! I am aware a few of you really want to understand.. truth should be like that.. available to everyone.. hence my Wikipedia involvement. I truly and deeply despise ignorance and particularly when its deliberate. That's a justice issue and I honestly believe I have a responsibility to tell what I know and yes invite anyone to tell me I'm wrong or out with the fairies etc..

There is a much 'bigger picture' to all this.. WHY.. am I discovering stuff that should already be there in our education system, open for discussion and question without cover-up or fear..

Well we don't actually have "truth'.. the best we can do is what I call "verified knowledge".. There is an underlying truth to knowledge, its just that we can never say we actually have it.. However truth can and would be known to an infinite mind.. and if that mind chose to reveal it.. please just hold that thought. 

I am now reading James Gleick's "The Information".. he is a very good writer and does his homework very thoroughly. BUT.. How does he end up concluding (haven't finished the book yet but this was given on a radio interview with the author)

          INFORMATION  (now) =    UNCERTAINTY

Whatever he means by information it's not 'semantic information'.. but surely he knows that.. a couple of quotes..

pp44 (In regard to the deciphering of cuneiform mathematical tablets)

"They were like maps of a mysterious city. This was the key to deciphering them, finally; the ordered chaos that seems to guarantee the the presence of meaning."

'ordered chaos' is an oxymoron.. 'ordered' means by definition not chaotic..?

Here's a hint.. of the problem for the naturalist..

pp32 "The paleographer has a unique bootstrap problem. Its only writing that makes its own history possible".

Pointing to my much earlier conclusion.. semantic information is recursive.

next time.

1.5 The Problem

Get this.. Here is how the Wikipedia editor in contention with me defines the second law..

One may consider an initial set {i } of several thermodynamic systems each its own state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium with entropy {S_i }. There may then occur a thermodynamic operation by which the walls between those systems are changed in permeability or otherwise altered, so that there results a new and final set {f } of physical systems, at first not in thermodynamic equilibrium. Eventually they will settle into their own states of internal thermodynamic equilibrium having entropies {S_f }. The second law asserts that

and that's supposed to explain why a sandcastle will fall down and not back up..!!

The above is absolute BS because it takes no account of 'logically' ordered states like 'information',  only physically ordered states like where one part is hot and another cold. I can't hardly believe such ignorance.. this guy is supported by over 460 observers.. we are in deep trouble.

The best and most meaningful statement of the Second Law is..

  Any system left to itself will tend to move to its most probable state..!

I did finally manage to put a {further explanation needed} tag on the misuse of the word "evolve" (dictionary synonym 'develop') where it should read "decay" hopefully directing people to the 'talk' page to see why.

I also got some clarification into the page on 'Introduction to Entropy'.. but there is a glaring confusion still there to be dealt with.. in particular use of the term "information entropy".. suggesting there are different types of entropy.. there are not..
                       There is only ONE entropy..!

 What I am telling you here is only the tip of the iceberg..

1.4 The Problem

Well in all that effort on the Wiki.. I have now written 18458 words in contributions to the 'talk - Entropy' page all about changing ONE WORD in the entropy article.. simply because it is being used in a manner contrary to its dictionary definition.!! That ought to tell you something.

In that context I have raised another word which is likewise kept in a seriously darkened state as to its real meaning..    COMPLEXITY

You see it is argued that 'evolution by natural selection' is the 'mechanism' by which complexity increases in nature. (ref Bill Nye debate with Ken Ham). But what does that mean if you don't define complexity?

The truth is they don't want to define it in any rigorous way because it would present such a huge problem for any proposal it can evolve by any natural process. Go ahead look up "define complexity".. you will see what I mean.

There is another word before I leave this introduction and it is..

                            INFORMATION

If you look this up you will be directed to a theory analyzing data transfer in a noisy environment by Claude Shannon and all I need to say about that is you will be mislead because Shannon was not interested in the significance or content of the signal. Only how the limits of error tolerance affect transmission. So in his terminology a message with the highest level of 'information' would be a random stream of characters ie with no expectation of the next character like the next letter in a word. Here's the quote from 'The Mathematical Theory of Communication' by Claude Shannon "meaning.. is irrelevant to the engineering problem". The best reference I can give you is the following..

[http://schneider.ncifcrf.gov/information.is.not.uncertainty.html]

This is the actual inverse of what the thermodynamic term entropy means for semantic information. Shannon's work is important but it is unfortunate that he chose to use the word 'entropy' for both information and uncertainty.. As a result the literature abounds with "Information = entropy and entropy = uncertainty".. The resolution is simple Shannon information is NOT semantic information (with meaning) as I am referring to.


So these three words are at the root of the problem..

           ENTROPY    -    COMPLEXITY    -    INFORMATION

(Which causes problems with another word..     DESIGN )

This is the 'no man's land' between two apparently very unequally matched sides..


We all have a list.. 'truth we don't want to know'. My advice keep it as small as possible

Have a very good day

1.3 The Problem

I recently tried, once again, to correct misleading information on the Wikipedia article 'Entropy'.. the article reads as follows.. (yellow highlight mine)

According to the second law of thermodynamics the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the configuration with maximum entropy.

Note the use of the word "evolve".. Here are the dictionary definitions for the word 'evolve'..

The Science Dictionary
    To undergo biological evolution, as in the development of new species or new traits within a species.

    To develop a characteristic through the process of evolution.

    To undergo change and development, as the structures of the universe.

Example sentences
The world-and the employment marketplace- evolve  and progress. Superbugs evolve  when common bacterial infections develop resistance to the

Dictionary.com

1. to develop gradually: to evolve a scheme.
2. to give off or emit, as odors or vapors.

verb (used without object), e·volved, e·volv·ing.
3. to come forth gradually into being; develop; undergo evolution: The whole idea evolved from a casual remark.
4. Biology . to develop by a process of evolution to a different adaptive state or condition: The human species evolved from an ancestor that was probably arboreal.

Not only is DEVELOP the dominant synonym.. its also tied to PROGRESS both implying improvement in the quality of some given aspect.. re-enforced by

Thesaurus
1. a. To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.

    b. To work (something) out; devise: ...
2. Biology To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes. ...

1. To undergo gradual change; develop: an amateur acting group that evolved into a theatrical company.
2. Biology To develop or arise through evolutionary processes. ...

Let me make it VERY CLEAR isolated thermodynamic systems DON'T IMPROVE in any way.. They DECAY from 'interesting' to 'boring' equilibrium.. where they stay.. However when I point this out.. in jump the hard liners, the old guard rusted on - to evolutionist dogma.

This is the new dark age..

1.2 The Problem

Sorry folks for the long delay in posting.. I am embroiled in a huge mess which resulted in a court case with the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) concerning my J2 gyroplane.. So I'll be brief..

Even though we have difficulty actually saying what 'energy' is.. we all pretty much understand what it can do. It can manifest itself as a property of matter (temperature, speed etc) or it can just propagate itself through space at the ultimate speed of anything as electromagnetic radiation. But even light has a small amount of 'momentum', which is calculated as mass x speed so it seems photons of light either have some mass or apparent mass. And of course everyone knows of Albert Einstein and his equation E = MC^2 which, notwithstanding atomic bombs, is a fairly deep concept.

Well that's all very fine but what about Entropy..? and who has even heard of Ludwig Botzmann let alone his most famous equation..
s = k.ln W (s = entropy)? Hardly any student at high school I have met is remotely aware of it! Yet it is just as important.. Progress in technology is constrained to meet several criteria but three substantial barriers are common to all..

(1) ENERGY.. we do not have an energy crisis, its an entropy crisis, plenty about but most of it is unavailable

(2) RELIABILITY.. how long can it hold off the law of increasing entropy

(3) COST.. can we afford it.

Which is why for instance electric cars struggle to make it in the market.. How to have enough 'light' batteries to give the power required with long enough service life and low enough replacement cost.. for like us, they will die.

If the understanding of entropy is of major importance.. why don't school kids know about it and why is the Wikipedia such a mess?

1.1 The Problem

It is said that 'truth' is the first casualty in war.. well in connection with the confrontation between creationists and evolutionists.. that is no overstatement.. it is a war, which will be fought to the metaphorical 'death' of one or the other. I don't like to can anyone as an 'ist' but in this case there is no simpler way to put it. There are lots of people who don't fit either but these are the key players.

I want the TRUTH. I don't hide my theistic world view, just lower its flag (to half mast if you like)... remembering the poor buggers who fall attempting to advance under a hail of misinformation or get left disfigured by the shrapnel from massive deceit). Its no compromise for me because God, according to the bible is the truth. So my aim is to simplify technical jargon, eliminate technobabble and expose what is false.

Academic papers are privy to the person who writes them and the organisation for whom they work. As such unless you are 'in the club' you cannot get easy access to such other than the published abstract or when a book or appropriate magazine article is published giving that information. However the Wikipedia is the place where the battle generates the most 'heat'.. and one particular subject is pivotal to victory or defeat.. The Second Law of Thermodynamics. This is the 'Hastings' for the empire of secular science based on Darwinian Evolution.

There are a number of key words for which a clear and unambiguous definition is pivotal to the understanding this law.. Entropy is one. In the Wikipedia the topics are.. Entropy, Introduction to Entropy, Entropy Disambiguation and in a Plain English version.. here are some quotes.
 
Introduction to Entropy
First Paragraph
"... I think the present (9 am PST, 26 October is good, but too dense, too many ideas per paragraph ..."

Entropy what is it?
"What IS entropy? I want to have a simple definition: Entropy is "blah and blah". I do not care about what it is "central" to, or what it is "related" to. "Entropy is a thermodynamic quantity" is a good start - but it says nothing as to what it MEANS."

You get the picture..

1 The Problem

This is all about what I rather cautiously omitted to say in "The God Law".. Its now time to tell it like it is. My journey into the depths of the Second Law grew ever more strange as I progressed from one startling revelation to another. The comparison between what I was reading in the general texts summarizing the current state of 'knowledge' on the subject and what I came up with from my own research was deeply disturbing. It was not so much that the material was obscure by virtue of its mathematical or logical complexity but that it appeared deliberately to be made so. The Wikipedia article on the Second Law summarises the appalling mess being used to cover up the truth.

This fact, obvious to any reasonably educated reader of it, should alert you to the existence of a problem. Something, someone finds far too inconvenient to tell, is being concealed. Now the dark secret is obviously the true understanding of the Second Law, but why should this pose such a problem for science? Well I think its rather obvious their science is not just science its naturalistic secular science which cannot as an a priori accept any non material entity. So if I manage to reveal to you the details of the conspiracy, I would suggest that in itself means you will 'know' that those responsible for the confusion 'know' there really is a non material entity responsible for the universe. Now if your world view is shown to be false.. that I would suggest is much more than having to come to terms with a new theory, its massively devastating and obviously too difficult to accept. The stuff of paradigms. The only question for you is do you really want to know about this?

In any rational presentation of scientifically determined conclusions it is imperative that the terms used are clearly and rigorously defined. I am here to tell you that has not occurred concerning the scientific communities answer to the question:

How did we get here?

So what's missing?