quote:
Prigogine also emphasized that "this contradiction cannot be removed as long as one tries to understand living systems by the methods of equilibrium thermodynamics".
It order to solve these "contradictions", Prigogine [29] developed the theory of dissipative structures, i.e., the structures that appearing in systems that are far from equilibrium. Later, it turned out that the theory did not allow overcoming the aforementioned "contradictions." In fact, it made the
imbroglio
quote:
even more intricate. It later became obvious that Prigogine's views do not agree with the second law of thermodynamics [20, 22, 24]. This is so in many respects. Suffice it to say that, in the general case, the Prigogine entropy (S' or S ) has no full differential. Therefore, his theory cannot be regarded as thermodynamic. This is a kinetic theory based on an "entropy" (Prigogine's entropy, S') which can be neither calculated nor measured.
http://
EvC Forum: GP Gladyshev's paper (s)or mine? -->
EvC Forum: GP Gladyshev's paper (s)or mine?THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN SOME DUPLICATION IN THE DOWNLOAD. i WILL correct this. I dont think it lost any info however.
quote:
This debases science and education. Moreover, it can be said that several "second laws of thermodynamics" have appeared, none of which having anything to do with reality. A good example is the aforementioned Prigogine's [29] interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics. This interpretation "extends" the well-known incorrect and indemonstrable statement by the great Boltzmann [31], who underestimated the important concepts put forward by Clausius and Gibbs. The interpretation suggested by Prigogine has practically conquered the "scientific" world and still remains one of the trendiest interpretations of the second law of thermodynamics. I am well aware that it would be hopeless to argue with the visionaries that create or support these concepts: they have developed an excellent method for leading such debates. They unfailingly give lots of arguments, which are mostly quotations from published or oral statements made by other visionaries or by insufficiently informed scientists. It is often emphasized that those scientists are well known or even famous. However, the visionaries forget that scientists that are well known and famous in one field are not necessarily professionals in others. The only way to withstand this conjuncture is to refer the readers to classical works and serious textbooks written in a highly professional milieu of world-renowned scientific schools with centuries-long traditions.
I am sorry I got the letters in your name backward. That only meant I did focus on your posts.
This is not really a stream of consciousness but relevance that requires MUCH discussion lest one ONLY has a probablistic philosophy. I prefer to discuss what physical unification has to do with biology. Von Weisacker had his go in German. This is English but sans a third party interpretation.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-23-2005 08:59 AM