entropy for outrspacia at aol.com

[Hartwin Alfred Gebhardt]

outrspacia writes:

> re: your remarks: "What absolute bullshit.  . . .I'm getting a little tired
> of this. ." and so forth, doubting, I presume some link between entropy and a
> dying universe and the world evoked by GR, or the inclination for finding
> meaning in the "laws of nature."
> 
> I don't know how I could have gotten it so wrong. After taking a closer look,
> I see your point.
> 
> The rocket screaming across the sky on page one, is not a harginger of death,
> but rather a holy vessel, spreading a life-affirming arc of color and light
> and hope across the sky.

And some top secret messages about the latest synthetic fuel research 
at Shell International.
Sorry for snipping the rest of your witty sarc short. I apologize if 
the bad words I used upset you. Maybe I should reformulate my 
objections to your theses. You started with this quote from Paul Davies  
>"In the year, 1856, German physicist Hermann von Helmholz made what is
> probably the most depressing prediction in the history of science. The
> universe, Helmholz claimed, is dying. The basis of this apocalyptic
> pronouncement was the so-called second law of thermodynamics."
This is an example of extremely 'sloppy' science. Or, to be more exact, 
of extremely sloppy exegesis, or reasoning.

Then you said:
> One can argue that if GR describes anything, it is a dying universe.
> Throughout the book, people, places, events and things are truncated,
> disordered, disintegrating. They're dying. The word and the idea of "entropy"
> is more than trendy, thanks to Pynchon, it's utterly appropriate, for the
> book and the world in which we readers live. Fear and  paranoia, other
> Pynchon themes are easily at home in such a world.

Maybe the universe _is_ dying. Maybe it will be 'dead' in, oh, a 
hundred billion years. But then, it was dying already before there 
was any life on this planet, or even a planet. So how did life evolve 
in this dying universe? And why should the " truncated, disordered, 
disintegrating" people be in any way connected to this 'Death of the 
Universe'? And how on earth do "fear and paranoia" relate to the 
tendency of a closed system to do less work over time?

Then you go on:
> So if the central theme is entropy, it must also be death.

Pray, why? They have nothing whatever to do with one another. When a 
life-form dies, it's energy is not lost, but converted (the first Law 
of Th.), and ploughed back into the system. Just like dead trees are 
recycled, some becoming coal, (those "memories"). Life only needs a
little heat in order to beat heat-death - individual deaths of life-forms 
have absolutely nothing to do with it. The question TRP asks is why, 
if entropy is no problem that could ever concern us in the next 
100000000000 years, are we heading for disaster in the next 100 
years. Saying "entropy is the devil!" is nonsense.

You proceed:
> If you buy the idea that entropy equals death, then you either 
> give up, or you put some tolerable face on existence, which is 
> what TRP has done with GR.

But you see, TRP does not accept it in the least. First he offers a 
significantly detailed cultural critique, then he says life can be 
fun and meaningful even in the insanity of WW2, and finally he states 
that not even we, with our consciousness, "that poor cripple,  that deformed 
and doomed thing" have life licked, since it is only "nearly as strong as 
life, holding down the green uprising. But only nearly as strong. 
Only nearly,  because of the defection rate. A few keep going over to 
the Titans every day." 'Only nearly' is the key here. How much more 
'positive' can it get?

Finally you say:
> He's painted a bleak world, but he's done so in an almost absurdist manner.
> He's made the dying universe as entertaining as it is haunting. Seems like
> he's going to make the best of it, take advantage of it while it lasts --
> which could be a gazillion years, unless we manage to end it all ourselves
> before entropy fulfills its grim promise.
 
Maybe, in the end, we were agreeing all along, a little  I agree with the 
"gazillion" part and the "unless we manage to end it all ourselves" 
bit, but forget the dying universe and entropy's grim promises - they do 
not apply to us.

> Which leads to one other thing, about which you are absolutely right,
> hag at iafrica. It's time to stop talking about the book. It's time to read it
> again. The man can speak far better for himself.

Can't we do both?

> This list may merely be moving in a circle, becoming more vicious with the
> inevitable return of each over-simplified topic. 

Or maybe we are circling towards something else, maybe at the very 
least some personal clarity, our own tail, an act of physical grace, even, 
such as a silicon-aided companionable flapping of the larynx. Though it 
might be as fleeting as a decent hangover.
     In the Parliament of Life, the time comes, simply, for a division. We 
are now in the corridors we have chosen, moving towards the Floor... 
(GR, 536).

hg 
hag at iafrica.com