Re: Entryopy and Order being born from disorder?

[rgrandy@ruf.rice.edu (Richard E. Grandy)]

> Ludwik Kowalski writes:
>
> > 1) I am sorry the word "entropy" was introduced into my message. The
> >   terms "order" is "disorder" would certainly be sufficient (see below).
David Bowman wrote

> > BIG SNIP
..
> When Leigh says that thermodynamic entropy is not related to order/disorder
> what he means (I think) is that any increase in the order in a
> *macroscopic* pattern seen in a system (such as in the arrangment of
> floating whisker fragments in a toilet bowl) is not related to the system's
> *thermodynamic* entropy.  The thermodynamic entropy measures uncertainty (or
> disorder if you will) at the level of the individual (atomic) microstates
> for the system, *not* at the level of any possible macroscopic patterns.
Thank you David, for a very thorough explanation of the different uses of
entropy.  I am not sure I fully understand, but it seems to me that Ludwik
could perfectly well use "entropy" in the toilet bowl case, so long as it
is distinguished from the thermodynamic.  You could define a grid on the
surface of the water and describe the distribution of the (centers of) the
hair particles.

The most ordered distributions would have many hairs in a few grids and
none elsewhere--the least ordered would mostly grids that were empty or
contained 1 or 2.  Clearly the first kind has a much shorter description
and thus a lower Kolmogoroff entropy.  And I think that is wwhat Ludwik had
in mind.

Richard Grandy
Philosophy
Rice University