(http://i.imgur.com/Gf2Yg.png) | (http://i.imgur.com/QbxjR.png) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Why does the unupped use gravity?1) because he explained gravity=order and entropy=chaos ;)
I understand what he said, but it still doesn't make sense. The resulting card is a random one of the element. life isnt orderly. and neither generation nor evolution fit gravity. That doesn't mean it can't.<-- Not for nor against :gravity and :entropy
5) I understand what he said, but it still doesn't make sense. The resulting card is a random one of the element. life isnt orderly. and neither generation nor evolution fit gravity.I can see the cards, i read the notes. your point is you're taking something non alive and making into a (random) living creature. I know that if you look hard you can find patterns and regularity, and even create working parts for something already living, but order doesnt create life. If everything were orderly, everything would be dead (the Auditors from terry pratchett at least support that idea). Anyways, my point is I dont think gravity in Elements is capable or should be allowed to create life from something not alive. Thats making something chaotic (entropy) or making something live (life) or animating something non alive (death...or air, according to animate weapon).
abiogenesis is taking non-living and making it living, life is very, very ordered relative to non-living. in the medical field we are trying very hard to figure out all of the regulations that are necessary within biology. -and i am not trying to fit gravity to evolution. check the cards again.
I would agree that in real life :gravity wouldn't be a good fit for the unupped card, but in this game :gravity is the opposite of :entropy. One of the main arguments against evolution trotted out by Creationists is that the Second Law Of Thermodynamics (or, at least, the truncated version they misquote) doesn't permit life to evolve by natural means. Or, in other words, entropy disallows evolution. And it's true that evolution acts in opposition to entropy, although it doesn't make it impossible (obviously). So, within the thematics of the game, :gravity is actually a good fit as being an agent of evolution.Except that argument is refuted. The entropy of a CLOSED system will tend to increase. Once you remember to include the energy from the sun in the system you will note that Evolution obeys the Second Law to a T.
The elements aren't perfect fits for what they represent - entropy and antimatter are not the same thing at all, yet Antimatter the card is :entropy. There's no reason why :gravity cannot be order. I can think of no other element which fits the idea of order, and order is in opposition to entropy making :gravity, as the opposite of :entropy, the logical choice.
Except that argument is refuted. The entropy of a CLOSED system will tend to increase. Once you remember to include the energy from the sun in the system you will note that Evolution obeys the Second Law to a T.I didn't mean to imply that the Creationists' argument was right. That's why I explicitly stated that they misquoted and truncated the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The point is that in the world of this game order falls under Gravity and chaos falls under Entropy. Evolution is an ordering of nature (in the short term, the solar system itself is a closed system and entropy will eventually win out and all life in the solar system will die), so using :gravity and :life for Abiogenesis does make sense within the context of the game, even if it would not in the real world.
While Abiogenesis and Evolution are separate, they are not opposites.I didn't imply they were.
Evolution without added energy is entropic. Evolution with added energy and noticing the source of the energy is entropic. In both cases the process of Evolution is entropic. This should be obvious by the trend towards increased biodiversity rather than less biodiversity.Except that argument is refuted. The entropy of a CLOSED system will tend to increase. Once you remember to include the energy from the sun in the system you will note that Evolution obeys the Second Law to a T.I didn't mean to imply that the Creationists' argument was right. That's why I explicitly stated that they misquoted and truncated the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The point is that in the world of this game order falls under Gravity and chaos falls under Entropy. Evolution is an ordering of nature (in the short term, the solar system itself is a closed system and entropy will eventually win out and all life in the solar system will die), so using :gravity and :life for Abiogenesis does make sense within the context of the game, even if it would not in the real world.
In both cases the process of Evolution is entropic. This should be obvious by the trend towards increased biodiversity rather than less biodiversity.That's a good point. I suppose we should be making the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. I'd agree that evolution is entropic, but I think you'd have to make a particularly persuasive case to get me to agree that abiogenesis is.
Order has 2 meanings. Order vs Entropy and Order vs Chaos. These dimensions are perpendicular to each other. In EtG Gravity is related to the first type of Order. Entropy can be chaotic or not. Gravity can be chaotic or not.This may be true in reality, but in this game Entropy is firmly in the camp of chaos. Just look at how many :entropy cards involve randomness or, in a more general way, involve concepts from quantum physics which have nothing to do with entropy, but which are associated by the way that quantum physics and chaos theory are connected in the public consciousness. The only exception to this I can think of is Fractal being :aether
A plasma membrane is less ordered than a soup of H2O and amphipathic lipids. Entropy favors the creation of lipid bilayer vesicles. Should I go on?In both cases the process of Evolution is entropic. This should be obvious by the trend towards increased biodiversity rather than less biodiversity.That's a good point. I suppose we should be making the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. I'd agree that evolution is entropic, but I think you'd have to make a particularly persuasive case to get me to agree that abiogenesis is.
Nova, Antimatter, Maxwell's demon. In science Entropy does not always appear chaotic. The same is evident in the Entropy cards. Chaos usually increases Entropy thus many chaotic effects will be found in Entropy. This makes chaos a sub theme but is not a sufficient argument for Entropy not having a primary theme of Entropy.QuoteOrder has 2 meanings. Order vs Entropy and Order vs Chaos. These dimensions are perpendicular to each other. In EtG Gravity is related to the first type of Order. Entropy can be chaotic or not. Gravity can be chaotic or not.This may be true in reality, but in this game Entropy is firmly in the camp of chaos. Just look at how many :entropy cards involve randomness or, in a more general way, involve concepts from quantum physics which have nothing to do with entropy, but which are associated by the way that quantum physics and chaos theory are connected in the public consciousness. The only exception to this I can think of is Fractal being :aether
A plasma membrane is less ordered than a soup of H2O and amphipathic lipids. Entropy favors the creation of lipid bilayer vesicles. Should I go on?A plasma membrane is not a life form. If you do believe you can make a good case for a life form being less ordered than a soup of any kind, then please do.
This makes chaos a sub theme but is not a sufficient argument for Entropy not having a primary theme of Entropy.I have not argued that Entropy is not the primary theme of :entropy.
I have not argued that Entropy is not the primary theme of :entropy.Off topic: