Water does not decrease its own entropy. If you can’t understand the distinction I’m making then you do not have the imagination and creativity to create new understanding.
A glass of water in a cold environment radiates away heat until it freezes, decreasing its local entropy and increasing global entropy.
> If you can’t understand the distinction I’m making then you do not have the imagination and creativity to create new understanding.
Perhaps you could explain your distinction instead of insulting people. It’s possible you have some interesting and insightful distinction but as of now you’ve not explained it nor given any examples of this “more abundant” life.
I’m not insulting you. I’m pointing out a reality. You’re reading comprehension is failing you right now.
Water does not freeze itself. That is the distinction. But myself, as a living being, can turn water into ice. And I can create an organize materials inside of my own body.
I pointed out something interesting. The least thing you could do is actually look up to see if there’s any validity or research on what I’m talking about.
By more abundant life, I’m talking about how the definition of life we have is limited, but it’s ever expanding based on the papers of the original post. I’m talking about a greater expansion of our understanding of life that’s discussed in papers that deal with entropy and life.
Can you just lay down exactly what mean in your apparently genius statement that went over our silly heads. "Life is decreasing entropy". I pointed a very direct counterexample that showed your definition needed refinement at the very least. So, one last chance to educate the commoners. What do you actually mean?
You were asked to make a distinction, the opportunity to provide some specificity to your fundamentally flawed You came back with snarkiness and
Yes, intimately familiar with England's work. My physics PhD was in statistical mechanics + biophysics.
Perhaps you don't know how thermo works? Your definition at the very least should define the environment to even be worth consideration. As is, I can either take it face value. In which case it's wrong. Or I can try to get a refined definition out of you, giving you the benefit of the doubt you know what you're talking about. Your attitude and answers don't give me confidence.
This is physics. Define things. We can't read minds.
At least own it. Saying someone lacks imagination and creativity and now reading comprehension is absolutely insulting.
> I pointed out something interesting. The least thing you could do is actually look up to see if there’s any validity or research on what I’m talking about.
I can’t look up anything based on your vague comment. That’s why I asked what you mean.
> Saying someone lacks imagination and creativity and now reading comprehension is absolutely insulting.
I said: "You’re reading comprehension is failing you right now." The "right now" part menas that I am not saying it does not exist, just that they are not understanding what is written.
Why is it an insult to say someone lacks creativity? It was objectively true to me and it is not an insult, just a truth. Like if someone has red hair. At worst it was my opinion.
You know what an insult is? To take what I said to think that I meant that water turning to ice was life.
