One says “anti-entropisch” or “antientropisch” (“sch” is as spoken as “sh” in English, and as a morpheme of adjective forms “isch” is like “ic” in English). This word is not often used - both in German and in English.
When I use “X” and “Anti-X” I may sometimes refer to Hegel’s “Dialektik” in which the “Thesis” and the “Antithesis” as the Thesis’ antagonist lead to a “Synthesis”.
In our “case” we perhaps have to find the “Synthesis” of entropy and antientropy. But I don’t know whether the physicists agree to that.
If something is growing, the word “anti-entropic” is proper because it is doing the exact opposite of what entropy would dictate.
That is exactly what I mean.
It is a process. If we try to find out which is stronger or weaker, higher or lower, we have to halt or break this process artificially because in reality it is always a process - until its end which is unknown because we don’t know, wether, and if yes, when and how the universe ends, and we also don’t know very much about black holes, even nothing about its interior.
But what if it isn’t growing, but neither is it shrinking? What if it is merely not changing size? That would be “void of entropy” = “anentropic”.
That’s absolutely correct.
A sub-atomic particle neither grows nor shrinks. It is stable in its size relative to its ambient. If its ambient changes, it changes just enough to compensate and then is stable again. Thus it is “anentropic”.
Yeah.
But if the ambient gets too extremely dense
- AND of course too extremely HOT! -
the particle will be inspired to grow beyond stability and continue growing and growing.
Yes.
At that point
- which point, James? -
it is no longer anentropic, but anti-entropic. But we no longer call it a “particle”, but rather a “Black Hole”, forever growing.
With life, you have been taught that life seeks to expand indefinitely, to simply replicate its DNA. But has that really been true? It is true that the DNA replicates. But note that after an adult body has been formed, the body stops growing. While it was growing, it was alive and anti-entropic. And when it stops growing, it is merely anentropic at best. But would you say that a man who has stopped growing is not alive? Is everyone over 30 dead?
I would not say that a man who has stopped growing is not alive. When he has stopped grwoing he is more entropic than antientropic - before he stopped growing he was more antientropic than entropic. The point of “stop growing”, as you said, is - unfortunately or fortunately (who really knows?) - nearly a static point, isn’t it?
The DNA is not replicating in order to be anti-entropic and fill the universe with itself, but rather it replicates itself merely as a means to surround itself with something compatible with itself in an effort to stop entropy, to be void of entropy. It is not trying to accumulate more. It is trying to stop losing any more. When any living thing senses that it is no longer being defeated by entropy, it stops growing automatically. That is conceptually why the body stops growing. It reaches a limit of benefit wherein more growth wouldn’t help.
That’s right.
Of course this is in the form of biochemical reactions, but evolution has arranged them to cause that effect, “stop growing when it is no longer of anentropic benefit”.
Okay, but “evolution” is a word which is conceptually very much spreaded. Nevertheless I agree.
Thus the DNA process is actually an anentropic process, not really an anti-entropic process, except during growth against continued entropy.
After growth the process is “not really an antientropic process” because the entropic process is stronger (entropy “wins” at last), but nevertheless after growth the antientropic process doesn’t end, but is merely weaker, the end of antientropy is death. Anentropy means (linguistically) the absence of entropy, but antientropy needs entropy because of fighting against it. Anentropy is more than less a metaphysical concept, you can’t hardly prove it physically.
So I don’t wonder that your concept of “anentropic harmony” is a metaphysical concept.
Anentropy is more or less an ideal. One can or shall reach or attain it, if one is able to remain in the state of timelessness or eternalness. So it reminds me of the Buddhistic concept of “nirvana”.
Where something is, there is entropy, and even there, where nothing is, will be soon entropy.
Exceptions prove the rule.
Life on Earth merely keeps expanding because it is always being attacked (by human design). It can’t find its anentropic state. Societies that find peace, stop growing automatically. Overpopulation ends simply by finding harmony. No one needs to be killed off. That process is automatic and natural. The fear of overpopulation is specifically to justify specific people being killed off, “The Unchosen”.
That is true.
The first impression that one of the naive believers (e.g. the naive believers in progress) has is that “peaceful societies grow”. No! They do NOT grow. They stop growing and shrink automatically.
Because societies don’t find sufficient anentropic cause to keep individuals alive, the individuals get replaced by continued DAN replication (or these days by androids). If they had found the cure to aging, and all other entropic effects, people would automatically stop reproducing any more than the environment required.
When I speak of “Anentropic Harmony”, I am referring to a momentous harmony that does not keep growing, but is stable against entropy. It is in harmony with its surroundings as well as being in harmony within its “body”. All need to grow has been exactly compensated. It is ecologically balanced. And it chooses to grow only when the environment demands growth in order to remain stable. It is very much like the anentropic sub-atomic particle, not the anti-entropic Black-hole.
You can be “anentropic” then - and only then -, if you are in a void or static state or condition.
I think, in the matter we are agreed, we merely differ in concepts, definitions, thus words, exactly: lexemes.