# Order from disorder

• Loren Booda

#### Loren Booda

Entropy (disorder), S, is defined by S=k(ln[0]), where k is Boltzmann's constant, and [0] is the number of states in the closed system. Anentropy (order), A, arises from the entropy of the system as A=k(ln(ln[0]))=k(ln(S/k)) and represents a subsystem of continuous, maximally unchanged states.

Life may originate with the infrequent occurence of substantial anentropy. For instance, the universe has an entropy SU~1086 erg/deg (Guth). Its anentropy involves an unchanging maximum ln((1086 erg/deg)/k)=[0]A,U~235 continuous states, enough to occasion sufficient order for at least one system to evolve biologically.

I'm not sure I see your point. Often entropy is used as an argument against evolution. Is that what you are getting at?

russ-

I'm saying that every system with sizable entropy has statistically some anentropy ("anti-entropy," a measure analogous to order), representing a subsystem unaffected by surrounding entropic change. Anentropy may be read loosely as the "entropy of entropy."

Biologically speaking, anentropy is complementary to living order, whereas entropy is concomitant with (heat) death. If such an animate anentropic system were feasible, it would show in the measure of anentropy available locally in the universe.

I'm still not getting it. Why the need for "anentropy"? Why not just call it what it is: localized decrease in entropy?

Originally posted by russ_watters
Why the need for "anentropy"? Why not just call it what it is: localized decrease in entropy?

Because "Anentropy" takes less time to say and write down??

I find the emphasis provided by the term "anentropy", rather than "order" or "decrease in entropy" is valuable to highlight its relationship with the life phenomenon. I appreciate the way that Loren Booda has directly described such a relationship.
Has Loren written anything about the relationship between anentropy and information content?

I find the emphasis provided by the term "anentropy", rather than "order" or "decrease in entropy" is valuable to highlight its relationship with the life phenomenon. I appreciate the way that Loren Booda has directly described such a relationship.
Has Loren written anything about the relationship between anentropy and information content?

For my particular take on "anentropy," please visit part 2. of the essay Configuration Complementarity or search for the term elsewhere on my web page, linked through my signature below.

Thank you heartily for your interest, Chromacon.

Hello Loren,
Thanks for responding to my comment.
First a little disclosure. In college I dropped my physics major for an art major. I recently retired from teaching physics in high school after 23 years, and I have a pretty good understanding of Newtonian, but I am a bit sketchy after that. I am what you-all would call a “layman”. I retired to work on art again. (www.chromaccord.net)
I looked at Configuration and Complementarity and I may have picked up some intuitive understanding of points. For example, when you say, “It follows that there exists an upper bound of complexity within our finite universe where at most two macroscopic configurations of maximally identical quantum numbers occur.” I take it to mean that depending on the size of the universe, there is a degree of complexity above which there is virtually no chance that two identical (in a quantum sense) objects will exist. I enjoyed your note that humans exist at the average of the Hubble radius and the Planck length.
I know enough of physics to understand the danger of careless use of physics terminology in common usage. However, I am interested in re-contextualizing meditation experiences out of religiously burdened Sanskrit terms. I joined PhysicsForums yesterday because I wanted to read about anentropy, and I was impressed at your effort to humanize cosmology.
It seems to me that there are two conditions of anentropy depending on information content, which I might call crystal and biological. A crystal has high order, but little information. Biological systems have very high order (e.g. multiple organs with coordinated functionality) AND high information (like genetic code). Is this a valid distinction, or is there better language to describe what I am considering?
I have used up a lot of space, and I do not want to press my direction of inquiry if it is not interesting to you so I will stop for now, but I have a couple other questions.

Chromacon,

I appreciate your feedback and confirmation of my work through your own understanding. I had once aspired to be a physics teacher but found my relating under stress was confused.

Btw, for their size, a black hole may be considered the potentially highest density of infalling information, while the "No Hair" theorem would have the black hole be a near lowest density of observable information.

As you may have interpreted, I am enamored of Escher, Magritte (and Dali). Together they incorporate for me dreams, spatial relations and spirituality.

I have a pocket book Teach Yourself Meditation which has given me practical insight into achieving concentration by accessible, natural means. Last week on National Public Radio I heard a well-received book review on a Bhagavad Gita translation from the original Sanskrit.

Where does the moniker "Chromocon" originate? "Booda," my surname, actually comes from the German! Soon to visit your website.

Loren,
Please do not forget my (first) question:
Are there two kinds of order, one with low information - crystal - and one with high information - biological? (As life seems to be highly ordered and have high information.)
Perhaps you answered it with the black hole comment, but that seems like an extreme example with inherent ambiguity, as you say depending on what theory you use. I would have to go with the "no hair" theory: as the black hole in my head is covered with less hair it has lower density of observable information.
I retired largely because of the stress. I did have the best students in my school system, and I do not regret the energy I invested in teaching, but I had to get away.
My '70s experience was that altered consciousness was interesting, but LSD had nothing to do with it if you want to live within it. I am not interested in religion, I am interested in life truths being self-revealed through right consciousness.
There may be "ten easy steps to meditation" or something, and everyone will find what they can imagine it is that they can. When I start, I would sit and wonder "why am I doing this?" and I went ahead on faith that all those yogis had to have something going on - it is not just relaxation. After some time and various experiences and more time, I have come to the conclusion that meditation is about unmediated mind consciousness. (Unmediated by language, for example.) When the mind directly cognizes itself, without circuiting through the senses, or whirling in thoughts, it spontaneously creates awareness of its own anentropic state. The effects seem to include awareness of the interconnectedness of all things (related to ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny), a sense of luminous well-being, fearlessness of death, and stuff like that. It is still not religion, it is just life! In fact some people seem to have related experiences in normal life. (For me it takes patience - concentrating on not concentrating doesn't always work.) Some talk about spiritual "energy", but I think it is not about energy, it is about the brain applying its natural task, finding structure and seeking relationships, to the object with the highest anentropy and the highest information of anything in the known universe, namely the human brain itself; but not through reasoning, rather through direct processing.
I have tried to ask other physicists if the model makes any sense in terms of physics, but I can't say that I have ever gotten as far as actually stating the full case - it is hard to even get started on such things around them.

Dan

Dan,

1. How would your theory interpret Mark Rothko's paintings?

2. Does the human eye exhibit a maximal resonance?

3. Does your model explain a perceived "whiteout" (I once had one while staring into a mirror).

__________

Remember that DNA can be crystallized. I believe your rule of thumb (crystalline/biological) to be generally applicable, though.

A Schwarzschild black hole is best characterized by linear density, 1028gm/cm.

Your best statement: "the brain appl[ies] its natural task, finding structure and seeking relationships, to the object with the highest anentropy and the highest information of anything in the known universe, namely the human brain itself."

Remember that the observer is contained by the objective cosmos, whereas the objective quantum is disturbed by the observer.

"Neither the wind nor the flag but your mind is waving."

To me, religion limits the spirit. Spirit frees me from religion.

Back to physics.

Loren,
Chromacon is a contraction of chroma=color and con="with" (or the first sylable of my last name). A few years ago I decided to accept the fact that I am heavily into color and devised the name for internet.

"1. How would your theory interpret Mark Rothko's paintings?"
(I love Rothko.) Rothko is all about perception, and in the strictest sense my model omits sensory information. Rothko paintings appear to have low information, but the sensory-brain processing of the large space of color, the exactness of the color, the treatment of the edge of the field, associative mentation... introduces information perceptual experience.

"2. Does the human eye exhibit a maximal resonance?"
I would not describe what the eye does this way, but I may not fully understand "maximal resonance". Color vision has peak responses to the three photopsins (Geez, just checked Wikipedia - says there are four), and the visual perception is pieced together in stages from the retina to the multiple parts of the visual cortex.

"3. Does your model explain a perceived "whiteout" (I once had one while staring into a mirror)."
Afterimage is at the heart of my work with chromaccord, and I know exactly what you are talking about. At one time I assiduously practiced complete visual fixation to determine whether afterimage could in fact produce blindness, and I decided it did. A fixed stimulus on the retina causes breakdown of stimulated photopsins (the molecules bend and stop transmitting). To prevent blindness the eye normally has microsaccades - minute involuntary eye movements which cause stimulus patterns to shift to different cone cells. But again this is not part of my model for mind autocognition during meditation, it is a peculiarity of stilling the visual sense.

I am still thinking about crystallized DNA.
Your affirmation of my "best statement: "the brain appl[ies] its natural task,..." is much appreciated as it is the core of my inquiry here.
I know that the effect of the observer on quantum observation is a big topic. I hope Mr. S's cat is OK, but I can't help feeling that my existence in the universe is way too arbitrary and insignificant to affect the noble electron, or any other particle, just by getting voyeuristic on it.

Back to physics...
I have hesitated to continue because I have not made the learning curve on your definition of anentropy, A=k(ln(ln[0]))=k(ln(S/k)). I should go and study it and the definition you gave for entropy more. BUT I have to ask, is there anything about the definition that would support the idea of "entropic resonance"? (Or "anentropic resonance" given that the key factor is order.) In Newtonian physics, the definition of energy has mass and motion in it, so mechanical resonance is implied - any linkage between two masses could cause motion transfer, which could be resonant if the masses shared certain similar properties. Is there any way that two structures with some degree of structural similarity might have a mutual influence, perhaps a tendency toward common structural qualities?

Dan

Dan,

Have you heard of Paul Simon's song "Kodachrome"?

Within the past couple of years, Scientific American had run an article on eye pigmentation in various species.

About those microsaccades: due to my biology, mine seem to be greater than those of others.

__________

Quantum disturbance exists not so much from our willful observation, but from a resonant physical universe of which we are a part.

I believe that, when objects (no matter what size) share more, similar quantum numbers, the more they are likely to interact and likewise resonate.

E=k(ln), where E is entropy, k is Boltzmann's constant, and S are the number of states (e.g., quantum numbers) under consideration. The tendency for a system to maximize entropy (probable states) might compare to favoring possible resonances.

Thinking of a box with two gasses separated, then the partition between them removed. Perhaps entropy is a tendency toward increasing degrees of vibrational freedom there.

Did I write ln[0] somewhere? Its value would approach negative infinity!

Last edited:
This is not math. I'm not even sure it's an appropriate topic of discussion for this site.