James Lovelocks Gaia Theory, you must watch this.

[animartco]

Ceterach, I think I understand what you mean by entropy, and it does have a place in the theory, simply because life, by using fractals and 'living on the edge' is able to beat it. Fractal patterns evolve out from a single root, and are constantly changing, and growing. But they NEVER evolve into chaos. There is a built in ballance in the system. They are as near a model as we can get to life. There is always a new place to go, and it is always a more involved structure.
There is also the fact that life IS a form of energy, and there could be an argument that as the pattern becomes more involved this energy increases. The energy COMES FROM the diversity of the system. Hasn't anyone ever wondered where MIND fits into physics? It has an undeliable impact on the physical world therefore it must fit in somewhere, NO?

[Cotham Marble]

Originally Posted by ceterach

Off the top of my head and without going back and reading Lovelock to see how he addressed it, I seem to remember that the laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems of which Earth is not an example. So what has entropy got to do with it? All the best

Entropy exists in all systems, Isolated, Open and Closed. Measuring entropy is a different issue and requires various mathematical approaches which may or may not be deemed adequate to any given analysis of a particular system. This does not mean that an hypothetical system (which is what Lovelock's Gaia is, albeit an hypothesis about the real universe) should not be tested by its acknowledgement of all know Laws affecting the physical Universe.

While entropy in thermodynamics may well be relevant to the functional aspects of Lovelock's Gaia, of perhaps more interest is the application of entropy in statistical mechanics through which it may then be reasonable to talk about system order/disorder. The point is, Lovelock presents Gaia as a self maintaning system, so it is reasonable to require the hypotheis to be tested as system.

I can't (unfortunately) argue the maths, but I'm sure Gaia is far fom an established theory of anything and that no mater how attractive it is to a 'green perspective', science (and it's slaves) will eventually show the inadequacies in the Gaia hypothesis, not because science is 'anti environment' but because life isn't capable of perpetual motion.

CM

[animartco]

High Cotham Marble "life isn't capable of perpetual motion". I realise that tis is getting away from gaia theory a bit but is it possible to say this with confidence? So far physics has not been able to integrate life into any of its theories. It could be the one example of perpetual motion. Some very ancient religious theories state that if God ceases to 'think' the world every split second the world, the universe, will cease to exist.
This is equivalent to saying that the life in the universe actually 'drives' the universe.
I heard recently that there is more life in th rocks beneath th eart than on th surface, and that 'scientists now believe' (sort of thing they say on TV) that this life could be found in any rocky planet.

[brendaward]

Isn't James' theory similar to the American Indians whom naturally realised that they were just one tiny part of this organism and what they took they gave back in some way. James' argument for Gaia is so simple maybe the educated minds can't absorb the simpleness of it. The volcanic eruption in Iceland could be Mother natures way of cooling herself as the icecaps melt, how do we know. My own simple thinking theory is, we are all part of the universe and nothing in the universe ceases to exist. Maybe we should stop thinking we can find all the answers and listen to our instincts, protection for our children concentrating on sea defences etc. We can not stop time.

[Cotham Marble]

Originally Posted by animartco

High Cotham Marble "life isn't capable of perpetual motion". I realise that tis is getting away from gaia theory a bit but is it possible to say this with confidence? So far physics has not been able to integrate life into any of its theories. It could be the one example of perpetual motion. Some very ancient religious theories state that if God ceases to 'think' the world every split second the world, the universe, will cease to exist. This is equivalent to saying that the life in the universe actually 'drives' the universe. I heard recently that there is more life in th rocks beneath th eart than on th surface, and that 'scientists now believe' (sort of thing they say on TV) that this life could be found in any rocky planet.

Lovelock proposed a 'scientific' hypothesis, although he mistitled his book a ' theory'. The only way to judge a 'scientific' hypothesis is with science, 'belief' is not falsifiable in scientific terms and therefore can not contribute to a test of an hypothesis. Life may well turn out to be abundant throughout the Universe (or indeed multiverse) and will therefore require cosmological (not merely treated as a local phenomenon) consideration. Gaia is shaky on a mere local level, on a cosmological scale , unless there is new science to support it, Gaia looks unlikely to ever make it past the 'nice idea' stage.

Originally Posted by brendaward

Isn't James' theory similar to the American Indians whom naturally realised that they were just one tiny part of this organism and what they took they gave back in some way. James' argument for Gaia is so simple maybe the educated minds can't absorb the simpleness of it. The volcanic eruption in Iceland could be Mother natures way of cooling herself as the icecaps melt, how do we know. My own simple thinking theory is, we are all part of the universe and nothing in the universe ceases to exist. Maybe we should stop thinking we can find all the answers and listen to our instincts, protection for our children concentrating on sea defences etc. We can not stop time.

Lovelock has argued for a scientifically validated position on Gaia, what anyone happens to believe or think up or guess at doesn't meet the test that Lovelock himself has sought. And he didn't propose anything that was 'too simple' for educated minds. We can know what effects volcanoes and melting ice caps have on the earth, we can calculate what impact geological events or changes in the solar cycle will have, not to mention the effects of human activity. Personally I doubt there's any human being that can use the faculty of instinct to negotiate the complexities of protecting against the effect of sea level change upon large and sophisticed societies. Science is the only common arbiter that is in any way broadly trusted both within modern societies, and between countries. Not only do we need science to give us data on which action we can usefully follow, scientific discourse is the only context in which large numbers of humans are prepared to consider difficult propositions. Science is imperfect, but at a societal level it's pretty much all we've got. IMO it's way preferable to having societies directed by blind religious belief or the worship of charismatic messiahs, which so far are the only alternatives to science that humans have come up with for dealing with 'facts' that affect as 'groups'.

CM

[animartco]

Here is an intresting thought. The volcano will cool the world by blocking out the sunlight. That is obvious, but it is only doing this because the winds have been east and north up till now. If the wind comes from the south it will blow the ash over the polar ice and darken it, thereby HEATING the planet.
The wind is turning south now so... lets see what Gaia does about this.
Cotham Marble, yes it is possible to calculate the effect of a single occurance all other things being equal. The trouble is though, that in nature all other things are never equal.

[Cotham Marble]

Originally Posted by animartco

Cotham Marble, yes it is possible to calculate the effect of a single occurance all other things being equal. The trouble is though, that in nature all other things are never equal.

From which we are to deduce that it is imposible to calculate anything that is not a mathematical abstraction ? The whole history of physics has been concerned with the calculation of the laws that operate within the Universe, none of which occur in isolation from all other aspects of 'nature'. And it is precisely such calculations on which Lovelock was reliant for his 'proofs' of Gaia.

CM

[animartco]

Of course calculations work. But they only work within a limited framework. You cannot ever make extrapolations from them. This is why there is so much argument about conservation methods, or indeed everything else. You have to build up a network of calculations, all supporting each other, before you even have a theory. No?
What I was saying- I think- was that people tend to dismiss coincidences because they can't be calculated. We haven't had much south wind so far this summer have we? Could this possibly be Gaia acting in some way? No of course not it doesn't fit in with any physical theory does it? But we have no idea how weather systems work or what fuels them.

[brendaward]

Precisely what I was saying. James Lovelock is a brilliant scientist who is also an observer of nature. How easy it was for me with no education in science to provoke a bit of controversy amongst the established scientifically educated by expressing my own personal observations and primal conclusions. However this was not malicious but a genuine interest in our universe. We should never dismiss anything because it is not proven. We all accept one add one is two but is it. One ball hitting another could be two, but if the ball is made of particles the answer could be millions, how deep do we go, maths and physics can answer most things but nature seems to throw in something else to upset the equasion. I hope James Lovelock will go down in history one day as the man who changed the direction of science. James Lovelock said that the earth is like a lady who is getting on a bit who takes a bit longer to put thing right. If she is having a hot flush I hope that she doesnt knock a few of us off in the process of fanning herself down!

[animartco]

Well put Brenda. I think science is rather hamstrung by the necessity of using the scientific method. Anything which cannot be repeated experimentally cannot be quantified, and without that link with maths, science is powerless in constructing laws. I can quite understand the frustration of scientists, when people come up with theories that are pure speculation based on observation and empirical extrapolation alone, and they are right in asserting that these things (for the moment) cannot be proven. But they are not right in saying they are all bunk! After all, a constructive approach, of seeing if there could be a way of subjecting the theory to scientific method of proof could earn them the Nobel prize!