Talk:Cosmic Evolution (book)

What's the audience?

I've had this page on my watchlist for some time because I think it the topic is interesting, but the article is missing a crucial piece of information: the book's intended audience. Is this a book for the general public, for scientists broadly, for specialists? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Good question, I'll add something to the article about this. I haven't read the book but my sense it is written for the general public, although there is some science (and calculus) in it apparently, but of course it has attracted attention within the scientific community, and it is a main source for the cosmically expanding topic of Big History. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I know this is 18 months after the initial posts, but having recently taken the authors Harvard Extension class I can say that the book is designed to teach enormously complex concepts to the general reader who may have a limited or minor knowledge of astronomical theories. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Choice of units

I have re-inserted the small section about Chaisson's choice of units, but removed wording which may have implied a subjective value judgement. DaveApter (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

"Chaisson asserts that increases in complexity are consistent with the second law of thermodynamics"

Duh. Of course it is. Why are obvious basic truths treated as if they were controversial? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The "one reviewer" that seems to disagree, if one takes him out of context, is Charles Seife. But actually, if you look it up, he phrases that as a rhetorical question. Seife knows enough about science not to use the old creationist chestnut "evolution contradicts the Second Law". I think the whole "one reviewer" sentence should be deleted, as it is creationist quote-mining. --Hob Gadling (talk)

For me, it's not obvious at all. I am not a scientist, only a handyman, that is, I am coming at this from the perspective of a layman; I believe in evolution, and I've listened to the Big History lectures by David Christian (in which Chaisson is cited), and I think these lectures are basically right -- that is, they make sense to me. And my take is this: that the second law of thermodynamics seems to suggest that, over time, energy levels will tend to even out; but with complex organisms (and complex organs like the human brain) there are greater relative energy flows, that is, the human brain consumes more energy relative to its weight. In other words, the evolution of living things seems to go against the second law of thermodynamics, going against entropy, in that, over time, the concentration of energy, and energy usage, is increasing. So this is somewhat of a puzzle that scientists like Chaisson are trying to understand. How does this happen? So my sense is that the sentence as written is important, and it should remain, that is, for me, as a layman, trying to grasp this stuff, it is helpful.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry for calling it obvious - physicists like me sometimes forget that not everybody is a physicist. Other types of scientists tend to have the same problem; that is why scientists are notoriously bad at explaining.

No, they are not trying to understand it, they are trying to explain it to those who don't understand it. This is true for Chaisson and Seife.

There has never been such a problem because evolution only seems to contradict the Second Law. Everybody who understands the Second Law - that is, every physicist and those non-physicists that have invested the time to study the subject - knows that. The reason is that the Second Law forbids entropy from decreasing only when there is no energy input - and there is energy input, namely from the sun, therefore entropy is allowed to decrease. It is like creationists saying "you are not allowed to drive that fast within city limits!" and scientists answering "I am not within city limits". This probably does not satisfy you, and I admit that it is difficult to find a way to explain it satisfactorily without a huge amount of time investment by both sides.

But the article should not pretend that this is a problem of science when it is only a problem of science popularization. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. I didn't get the sense in the current wording that there was any serious speculation that the Second Law of Thermodynamics was being questioned, but rather, like you say, the seeming contradiction between evolution and the second law. I think of it like hot water in a bathtub in a cool room -- the natural process over time will be for the hot water and the room temperature to equalize, as energy flows between them, establishing an equilibrium. Or, a star, giving off light and heat, gradually cooling, while things nearby warm up. But life bucks this process, to varying extents -- living things have to get increased energy flows to survive, so it means manipulating things in a way to keep an imbalance of energy (which inevitably fails when we die, unfortunately) and to do this, living things re-channel the sun's energy, like you point out. So, yes, there may be some confusion between the smaller system (say, a human) and the larger system (eg, solar system or universe or multiverse etc), and this may be a problem of science popularization, as you point out. At least, that's my feeble attempt to understand this stuff, my apologies if you're rolling your eyes while trying to read this. What entropy is, sheesh; what complexity is, well I may have more of a grasp, but the subject of how all these things relate is (what I think) Chaisson is about, and in the Big History lecture series, this stuff was considered important.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Not rolling my eyes. You are doing fine. Regarding the hot water in a bathtub in a cool room, I'd add that if the hot water is running (energy input) and the window is open (energy output), the equilibrium will not be achieved - the tub will stay hotter than the cool room, seemingly contradicting the Second Law. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus that the title "Cosmic Evolution" should remain a redirect to chronology of the universe. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Cosmic Evolution (book) → Cosmic Evolution – Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 176.88.80.215 (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Leaning to oppose if we want WP:NATURAL the full book title Cosmic Evolution: The Rise of Complexity in Nature might be a better move. While chronology of the universe is the correct destination of the basic topic eg: "..cosmic evolution is derived from just two physical ratios. The constant Energy/ Mass ratio 1/1 of individual electrons and protons and the evolving electron/ proton mass ratio e/p = 1/1836 of today." ... are we certain that removing (book) will help readers find the book? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Btw new IP, worth registering an account. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Chronology of the Universe would be the correct redirect for this wording. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.