From: robd@cray.com (Robert Derrick)
Subject: Re: Thermodynamics FAQ
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:41:48 CDT

I guess it is about time that I answered my questions.  I can't say
that I followed the technical mathematical theoretical parts of the
post completely.  As soon as I see a formula, I look the other
way.  I much prefer intuitive common sense to deductive raw
intelligenes.

But, even I, an Evo sympathizer, am puzzled.  Are there really
that many problems in content in Henley's post, or is some of
this a reaction the the fact of an FAQ rashly injected into T.O.
by one of them?  Is there really this much wrong with it, or are
some folks responding to what they think is coming rather than
to what is actually here?

As a note: as I understand it 'pure energy' is this:
  Measure the temperature of the Universe at some point in time
  after the heat death, when entropy has increased to its
  maximum.  That temperature represents the 'pure energy'
  of the universe.  It is all of the heat of ineffieciency,
  lost into and spread throughout the universe.  It is,
  ultimately, without purpose of any kind.

My bet is that that is gonna piss Somebody off!


Anyway, James P. Henley asked me.
>(note to RobD - Is matter the ten thousand things of which Lao Tzu spoke?
>                And is pure energy the Tao? )

No.  Maybe.  Sometimes.  Sometimes, when he spoke of matter, he said
matter (or it's Chinese equivalent).

And, definitely no.  Maybe.  But I wouldn't try it.



Well, I guess it would be unfair to leave it like that.

  Chuang Tzu wrote "We speak of 'The myriad things' [ten thousand
things] of the creation, althought we know that there are more
than a myriad of them.  Because the number is so great, we just
call it 'myriad.'  The heaven and earth are the great in form.
The yin and yang are the great in force.  Tao is great in both.
We merely give it the name 'Great' because of its greatness.
But with a given name, it should not be compared with the names
for other things.  One cannot go on and argue that Tao is 
something by that name, as we say that dogs and horses are
animals by those names.  For that would be off the mark."

Tao is un-nameable.  Therefore 'Tao is pure energy' is wrong.
(see Tao Te Ching:25.  see also The Sweeping Leaves Lodge
 Chinese edition of Chuang Tzu: 1.2)*  

I guess I could quote endlessly from Lao and Chuang concerning
Tao, but it will only drive us further from the essence.

But here is an interesting tidbit.  A crazy person perhaps,
quoted by a medical observer?  Ted Holden Clone?  A rabid
New Age Creationist?  Hmmn?

 "He tells us that the pudding that ate Chicago may some day exist;
that duplicates of each one of us may one day wander the universe;
that _anything_ can, and probably will, happen.  He tells us that
the universe isn't lawful, never will be lawful, never can be
lawful; that we _cannot ever_ know enough to predict the totality
of events in this universe; that at best we study local phenomena
that may be predictable for an unspecifiable time.
 And he laughs.
 He tells us that Cthulthu may exist after all."
...
 "He concluded by reminding us that Albert Einstein once said 'God
does not play dice with the universe.'
 'On the contrary', he said, 'it appears that not only does God
play dice, but also that he sometimes throws the dice where they
cannot be seen!'"

What does this have to do with T.O.  It means that if it were
true, then any form of Creation that you would want to envision
is possible.  Probable.  Will eventually happen.  You ultimately
must believe in everything.  In the long run, of course.  In the
short run, Evolution is a fine belief.  Theistic Anti-Evolution(SC)
has as it worst charateristic, that it is a near total void.
It is without content, without information.  Theistic Creation at least
adheres to a body of belief without attempting to buttress itself
by belittling its straw man.  Theistic Anti-Evolution(SC) supporters
may ultimately be more apostate than atheists, or at best, on par.

rob derrick



* look it up, Thessalonian quoters.  you don't expect me to type
  in all these quotes, do you?


Oh, yeah the quote.  The narrator is Jerry Pournelle, and the person
he is quoting is the most brilliant astrophysicist on the planet,
if not in the universe -- Stephen Hawking. -- from an essay called
"In The Beginning", from a book called Black Holes, edited by Jerry.