|
Author
|
Topic: Werewolves and Richard Dawkins
|
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425
|
posted 30 August 2002 05:41 PM
In the transcript of a wonderful lecture I happened across on the internet:Richard Dimbleby Lecture, November 12th, 1996 by Richard Dawkins, the noted evolutionary biologist and atheist states: quote:
Even science fiction, though it may tinker with the laws of nature, can't abolish lawfulness itself and remain good science fiction. Young women don't take off their clothes and spontaneously morph themselves into wolves. A recent television drama is fairytale rather than science fiction, for this reason. It falls foul of a theoretical prohibition much deeper than the philosopher's "All swans are white -- until a black one turns up" inductive reasoning. We know people can't metamorphose into wolves, not because the phenomenon has never been observed -- plenty of things happen for the first time -- but because werewolves would violate the equivalent of the second law of thermodynamics. Of this, Sir Arthur Eddington said.
"If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations -- then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation -- well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
Now, I don't mind Dr. Dawkins' contempt for the idea of God (He has called religion a "virus of the mind"), though his certitude in this respect is a little off-putting. I can live happily in a godless universe, but a universe that rules out even the possibility of werewolves ????  NEVER! Now, as I understand it, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states (more or less) that the entropy of any closed system can only stay the same or increase for any particular event occurring within the system. As I understand it, one way to imagine what entropy is, is as that portion of the total energy of a system that can not be harnessed to do work. Entropy also has an intuitively appealing aspect where the probability of an event occurring is proportional to the extent that it will increase the entropy of the smallest closed system in which the event occurs. I'm purposely staying away from the order/disorder definition, because I don't like it. Also, I'm going to consider the Earth as a closed system (in this case, no photosynthetic werewolves...no, not even in full moon light). So, how do werewolves violate the 2nd Law? Perhaps Dr. Dawkins imagines that the human structures have to break down and then assume their wolf-like character? The break-down seems to be O.K., but the build up might break the 2LOT. If the issue is just "morphing", I can't see a violation. The only objections I can see, in fact are practical, not formal at all. First, the timescale traditionally allowed for the werewolf to appear is pretty short. I don't know if anyone has determined how many calories are required for a leopard gecko to regenerate a tail that has been pulled off, but it takes a month or so under the best conditions and won't occur unless the animal gets enough food. I recxkon, the human/wolf transformation, which appears in the movies to take at most 30 min. would require a HUGE expenditure of energy in a very short time. It's not so dramatic, but lets say the "change" is triggered by the full moon in August, but that the transformation takes place over the next two months in a big cocoon or chrysalis, so that we see our werewolf around Hallowe'en. Let's also say that our lycanthrope will put on 100 kilos of excess fat in the months leading up to the transformation and that this is enough to power it. O wise, speculative babblers, is there something I'm missing in this scenario? Is Richard Dawkins right? Is there still an insurmountable violation of the 2LOT? Please, say it ain't so! 
From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
