Matter that acts in a manner inconsistent with the matter around it necessitates another law acting upon that matter (an airplane under the law of aerodynamics in contrast to raindrops falling to the ground due to gravity). Matter existing in the universe under universal law tends to be broken down into its simplest components. However, one type of matter (living matter) does not break down; it adapts. It, in fact, tends to become more complex (a living seed will become a more complex tree but a non-living seed will decay). So we say there is another principle or law brought into action. We call that principle or law innate intelligence.
Great examples Joe! Easily understandable thanks.
It seems that principle #6 is a factor in the break down of ALL matter. For example a 2000 year old roman coin is still not broken down to its simplest components… while there is not much living matter that is not broken down to its simplest components after 2000 years. The question is WHY are living things broken down to their simplest components in lesser time than non-living matter? In other words, the rocks of the grand canyon have been in existence for many years and are barely broken down to their simplest components… while the wild life and vegetation decay within few months or years? WHY is that?
Is that a rhetorical question Claude? I’d enjoy reading your explanation, mine is a bit simplistic.
My understanding is that rocks & such are at such a low energy level that entropy is not observable in historic terms. That which was recently being used in a living organism is at base organic (carbon-based) and, as recently being used in a complex organism, has lots of energy to give up quickly in the form of less complex tissues, cells and molecular structures.
Simplistic, no?
Dan,
Your explanation is worthy of the law of ACTIVE organization! 😉
It is sometimes called vitality, which is true, but it is not a
storage of forces; it is a storage of material resources. Vol. 14
I was going to comment on the differing levels of organization requiring associated levels of energy until I read this (above) in the GBs.
It would seem that the more complex the material, the less stable it is.
Steve, smart guy that Stephenson. He published that in 1927, probably learned it from BJ even before. In 1964 Reggie Gold held up a piece of chalk (blackboards and chalk in ’64, no dry erase) and told my class that there was enough energy in that piece of chalk to blow up the world. November 30, 2012 I diagrammed what he and Stephenson essentially said and posted it on this blog. Universal forces break down matter into its simplest and most stable state and we have the temerity to call that being “destructive toward structural matter”. We might as well call catabolism “destructive”. Were Stephenson and Reggie smarter than me? Probably, but not because they said it first but because they were.:)
We need to be careful not to assume that “the differing levels of organization’ require associated levels of energy. Energy is just matter in another form. It is not force and not intelligence. The Law of Aerodynamics is not higher or lower than the Law of Gravity, just different. The speed limit law of 55 mph is not a higher law than 15 mph, just different (only the numerical value is higher) If you are pulled over for driving 55 in a 15mph school zone, you better not tell the police officer that you were obeying a “higher law.”
Thought for the day: human life is more complex and hence less stable than a piece of chalk. Are we drawing hopscotch boxes on the sidewalk when we should be removing an interference to life?
Steve,
Joseph makes an outstanding point! I hope everyone gets it!
… and what is the point that Joseph is making so clear? 😉
Hopscotch boxes.LOL! …hopscotch box application of laws..I’m going to use that one!
Love it Joe! Thanks!
It is not matter that breaks down, it is organization. Deconstruction reveals organization at a less complex level.