Fritjof Capra

[youngborean]

In my graduate program we recently recently went over "The Web of Life" by Fritjof Capra. I found myself with a bit of reluctance to accept his particular position on the 2nd law, and found myself using a lot of the same resources to justify my position that are used against Christians on this website who assert that evolution is impossible because it violates the 2nd law. Capra (who is often quoted by creationist websites) seems to use Lovelock's assertion that life is "defined by negative entropy" and goes further to say that biological systems violate the second law, and therefore we need new laws (presumably his view of system theory) to concieve of ecology. I don't want to divert to a conversation on whether or not order and complexity are synonyms (which is one assumption he seems to rely on) or about the real meaning of the second law. What I am more interested in is how "radical empiricists" feel about Dr. Capra? Is he letting his religious zeal cloud his judgement or is he ok because he is a buddhist (for the ToE) and not a christian creationist arguing this position? Or as a more general side question what do "radical empiricists" think about Gaia theory? I am eager to hear a discussion if anyone else has read him. You can get a short bio here if you are not familiar with his work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritjof_Capra

[olivergringold]

Stating that a non-religious evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics (if I take your meaning rightly, if not please correct me) is, for me, mind-bogglingly stupid. Could you clarify exactly what he meant when he said that?

[youngborean]

Well it seems to be based on the foundational work of James Lovelock, who essentially stated that life is defined by negative entropy.

Capra's work as a physicist seems to want to take that further to say that the applicability of the 2nd law does not apply to living systems (which I would agree with in isolation) because of this nature of life. The perception I got from his work is that he is trying to discount Newtonian Physics to the general public to push the significance of his systems theory perspective. He may certainly know about and support the applicability of the 2nd law to the larger solar - earth system. However, I could not directly find it in his book(s). He seems to be more on the bent of trying to show the difference of life in representation to the 2nd law. I don't have the text of "The Web of Life" in fron of me but here is a quote from "The Turning Point" an earlier work of his which highlights some of the more potenially difficult implications of his perspective.

"Thus in an isolated system, made up of a large number of molecules, the entropy - or disorder - will keep increasing until, eventually the system reaches a state of maximum entropy, also known as 'heat death'; in this state all activity has ceased, all material being evenly distributed and at the same temperature. According to classical physics, the universe as a whole is going toward such a state of maximum entropy; it is running down and will eventually grind to a halt.

This grim picture of cosmic evolution is in sharp contrast to the evolutionary idea held by biologists, who observe that the living universe evolves from disorder to order, toward states of ever increasing complexity. The emergence of the concept of evolution in physics thus brought to light another limitation of the Newtonian theory"

From
Capra, F. (1982) The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the Rising Culture. Bantam Books: Toronto.

Perhaps he is another example of the dangers of the applicability of science-based texts when they are applied to more general audiences, I was more hoping to see if others had read his work(s) and what there opinion was of him in particular, it is more than possible that I am being unfair to him. I did find an interesting response to the general idea of calling entropy "disorder" here:

http://www.entropysite.com/cracked_crutch.html

[olivergringold]

So what he asserts, more or less, is that there is a "life quantity" intrinsically present in all living things which disobeys the second law of thermodynamics? This sounds a bit like the introduction to an alternative medicine claim. Every function of the human body, as well as the functions of all other living organisms, are thermodynamically sound. Unless he has the figures which state otherwise then he's talking about spiritualism with the presumption that spiritual phenomena occur. No dice.

[Cathar1950]

I read "The Tao of Physics" many years ago and still have it.
Like the "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" it gives an overview of physics and introduces some Eastern concepts.
He might have over stated his case in many areas but it is interesting.

[youngborean]

So what he asserts, more or less, is that there is a "life quantity" intrinsically present in all living things which disobeys the second law of thermodynamics? This sounds a bit like the introduction to an alternative medicine claim. Every function of the human body, as well as the functions of all other living organisms, are thermodynamically sound. Unless he has the figures which state otherwise then he's talking about spiritualism with the presumption that spiritual phenomena occur. No dice.

I tend to agree with you about your last point, so do you think assertions like this are scientific or is this simply a question of choice of language? For instance, living systems do seem to be constantly out of equilibrim, which is the basis for Lovelock and Capra's claim. A good analysis is found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life

I never really attributed the apparent lack of equilibrim to Gibbs free energy, I always ascribed the possibility for the seemingly negative entropy of life to be to the energy of the sun (which may contribute to Gibbs Free energy)


After reading Capra and the ensuing discussion I always wondered again if people within the academy get more credit than those outside the academy? And simutaneously if there is a heirarchy of potentially religions that "good" scientists are allowed to adhere to with Christianity being at the bottom?

[olivergringold]

I'm not sure what equilibrium it is that we're talking about. There are chemical imbalances everywhere in nature, including in non-living things, but this imbalance of chemistry does not imply an imbalance of energy, and in order to argue that life is intrinsically special, that's what need be proven. Reading up on negative entropy is interesting and all, but it doesn't justify making the completely unbased claim that living organisms are somehow set apart from other measurable sources of chemical reaction.

If you want "free energy" then Google "Steorn." Apart from them scientists have yet to discover anything that even remotely qualifies...and for that matter, the jury's still out on Steorn. Literally.