Thread: Thermodynamic Civilization

Civilization as a macroscopic thermodynamic system will not form an equilibrium; in fact I think equilibrium is an illusion. The enormous complexity of energy, matter, and existence does not allow for equilibriums; I speculate.


By the way.... does anyone have any clue as to what energy is??? What the hell is existence.





War is a dance within time.

Energy is something that objects have which give them the capacity to do work.

Thats all its defined as really. Also I don't get what your first statement is, are you reffereing to humankind as thermodynamics? If so I'd rather go with Yinyang, more or less the same thing .

It would be curious to know what energy is, but we only observe energy exists because time does, therefore time and energy are linked somehow. Its now up to you to ponder that :wink:.

Is this a metaphysics discussion or what?

I think this was meant to be a reply to the equilibriums forming in society (peace) topic further down the list.

In response to the metaphysics question no it was not intended to be; but because you can't seem to grasp what I am saying either due to its simplicity or because you can't imagine what I am talking about; you attempt to nullify its purpose with a demeaning response.


I actually do not believe in metaphysics...

An actually I have just read an article regarding social equilibriums forming after searching on the internet... it is a form of SOCIOLOGY.... I was just trying to apply a new dimension to it... so you guys who attack what I am saying really do not know what your talking about...

I guess you are not the ultimate powers that be.... huh! HAHA!

Schizo,

I'm afraid that I'll have to disagree with you on this one as you are attempting to apply basic fundamental laws to daily life and in a sense humanise them. It is not possible to define civilization as a system of thermodynamics even if it is energy.
If you were to say that it was, and it could not reach and equilibrium, it would be neglecting many fundamental laws of physics to my understanding.

Secondly, peace depends on the perspective and if you are viewing it from a thermodynamic point of view you must not view humans as people and individuals but vast complex associations of hydrocarbon assemblies.
On this level, killing is merely oxidising changing atomic structures, nothing more.

To recap, you cannot really apply these types of laws to a sociological perspective as they were originally penned for hard physic phenomena.

Barry

Well, Im sorry about the metaphysics statement, it was a bit too harsh, but ill have to agree with Barry on this one.

No, the metaphysics statement was accurate (and also not insulting). After all, Schizo mused in the initial post:

What the hell is existence.

And this is a fundamental metaphysical problem.

Relatedly, Schizo, you can't not believe in a discipline of thought, especially if you're going to ask questions in said domain.

I, too, agree with Barry. Applying the ideas and methods of the physical sciences to the social sciences by means of analogy can be worthwhile (for example, see the marginal revolution in economics), but a literal application often leads to false conclusions (extending the analogy too far). Even a careful application can lead to irrelevant results: the inevitability of the universe's increasing entropy doesn't make the political, economic, and social problems of today moot or easier to handle.

Traditionally the question I had stated about existence is metaphysical; however I am asking not in relation to what our existence is but what all of existence is. I do not think it is a fanciful question. It has nothing to do with speculation or assertions about a truth of an individuals self; it is to question how, all that composes our infinite cosmos can be there. It could be known to us in time, but until then I guess people will have to classify it as metaphysical. It seems in the strict laws of science that if something is unknown it falls into the fanciful.

Secondly ummm.... the guy that wrote about it being metaphysical was actually insulting me... did you not read his later post stating that it was a bit harsh. Regardless of the seeming truth behind the statement it was an insult.

I think he was being apologetic because you took so much offense to the supposed effrontery. In any case, it doesn't seem worth it to me to get in a huff about metaphysics.

Metaphysics doesn't only study the individual's reality, it studies the underlying nature of reality. A physical explanation of the origin of the universe would be a pretty important step toward understanding such.