# Constructal Theory Unifies Life and Non-life



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructal_theory

In relatively recent science, a new law of thermodynamics has been proposed that would unify all flow systems. Meaning that it would describe the evolution of rivers, stars, lightning bolts, organisms, computers, vehicles, economies, engines, biospheres, etc! :shocked:

Mind = blown.


----------



## Bote (Jun 16, 2010)

Not bad, about time they started thinking about this possibility. Pythagoras and Heraclitus nod and say: 'Yo nabs.'


----------



## dusttrust (Mar 4, 2011)

Very interesting! Makes something to ponder as well. Many thanks


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

Fascinating.


----------



## AJ2011 (Jun 2, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructal_theory
> 
> In relatively recent science, a new law of thermodynamics has been proposed that would unify all flow systems. Meaning that it would describe the evolution of rivers, stars, lightning bolts, organisms, computers, vehicles, economies, engines, biospheres, etc! :shocked:
> 
> Mind = blown.


This theory is very interesting. I wish there were some theory of persistence (analogous to current/flow, i.e., resistance). That way we could solve the pesky problem of turbulence in fluid flows.

From what I've read of Bejan's work, constructal theory provides a new perspective/approach on the flows of systems, but not necessarily any new set of techniques to solve problems. If you combine this with something like behavioral modeling of systems:

http://homes.esat.kuleuven.be/~jwillems/Recentlectures/Lectures.html

then we have a way to systematically/usefully model the flow of systems. Willems is an extremely insightful control theorist.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

The constructural theory makes sense because certain shapes and configurations tends to naturally be conducive for certain purposes. 

My question is: Does the constructural theory require the universe to be a closed system or the system (earth) to be finite in size?


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

RobynC said:


> The constructural theory makes sense because certain shapes and configurations tends to naturally be conducive for certain purposes.
> 
> My question is: Does the constructural theory require the universe to be a closed system or the system (earth) to be finite in size?


I'm not sure what you mean by "universe"

Yes, the theory applies only to finite systems.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Psychosmurf



> I'm not sure what you mean by "universe"


The universe as in the universe



> Yes, the theory applies only to finite systems.


And to be clear finite means a closed system?


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

RobynC said:


> @Psychosmurf
> 
> 
> 
> The universe as in the universe


Well do you mean the universe as in the observable universe, the visible universe, all mass and energy + space-time?




> And to be clear finite means a closed system?


No. In a finite system is not necessarily a closed system.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Psychosmurf

Can you give me an example of a non-closed finite system?


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

RobynC said:


> @Psychosmurf
> 
> Can you give me an example of a non-closed finite system?


Just about anything can be a closed or open system depending on how you choose to carve up reality. An open system is simply one that exchanges energy with its environment.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

Are you sure your definitions are right?


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

RobynC said:


> Are you sure your definitions are right?


Pretty sure. We are talking about physical systems, right?


----------



## PseudoSenator (Mar 7, 2010)

Reading about this theory was a sublime experience. Thank you so much for the link.

Viewing something through the prism of the Constructal theory offers up so many new, fascinating definitions.

_"The constructal law also provides a new definition of what it means to be alive. It states that life means flow and the free generation of design. If the flows stop, the system is dead (in thermodynamic equilibrium). The constructal law is the physics law of life and evolution."_

I wonder how this theory could be used to interpret the Big Bang. I also wonder how this theory could be merged with mathematics, specifically the natural log. I couldn't help but think of limits and the _approach_ to optimality (at an instant) when I read the following:

_"Evolution never ends. Optimality statements (minimum, maximum, optimum, end design, destiny), have no place in constructal theory. Nature does not move toward an optimal end design. The natural phenomena is not the elimination but the distribution (better and better over time) of imperfection. The distribution of imperfection generates the geometry (shape, structure) of the system."_


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

> The constructal law states that every flow system is destined to remain imperfect. The direction of design evolution is toward distributing the imperfections of the system, such that the “whole” flows easier (e.g., river basin, animal body, human vehicle). Evolution never ends. Optimality statements (minimum, maximum, optimum, end design, destiny), have no place in constructal theory. Nature does not move toward an optimal end design. The natural phenomena is not the elimination but the distribution (better and better over time) of imperfection.


And here I have the reason why the universe is imperfect. A perfect system can't ever _exist_,because existence is maintained by imperfection! A perfect system can't flow! :shock:

I have to wonder what this says about determinism as well. Are our wills simply subject to this law of flow, or could we have a sort of "free will" that arose because it works better for us that way?


----------



## 22575 (May 23, 2011)

This isn't very novel... it basically says that systems tend to the lowest point on their potential energy curve. Objects don't stand in resistance to any sort of "flow" because it would place them in a higher state of potential energy.


----------



## Snow (Oct 19, 2010)

I don't see how this is revolutionary; the article seems to reiterate what evolution is, and doesn't cover how there is useful application of the theory. Perhaps there is more to this theory then what appears? I used to spend quite a bit of time considering how plants and animals evolved, but not _wondering_--just considering. It's already known that evolution, essentially by definition, is that systems form based off of the best ability for them to exist and develop with the least amount of friction.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Psychosmurf

I found a different definition on wikipedia


----------



## dusttrust (Mar 4, 2011)

Is culture propagation orchestrated by constructal theory?


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

RobynC said:


> @Psychosmurf
> 
> I found a different definition on wikipedia


What is it?


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Psychosmurf

It's on wikipedia... just go there and you'll find it.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

dusttrust said:


> Is culture propagation orchestrated by constructal theory?


If I remember correctly, I think I read something like that being the case.

Amazon.com: Constructal Theory of Social Dynamics (9780387476803): Adrian Bejan, Gilbert W. Merkx: Books


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

RobynC said:


> @Psychosmurf
> 
> It's on wikipedia... just go there and you'll find it.


"In open systems, matter may flow in and out of the system boundaries."

"An *open system* is a system which continuously interacts with its environment. The interaction can take the form of information, energy, or material transfers into or out of the system boundary, depending on the discipline which defines the concept (see below). An open system should be contrasted with the concept of an isolated system which exchanges neither energy, matter,nor information with its environment."


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

Well this constructural theory would describe a finite system and a closed system correct? 

Since this describes fundamental shapes that occur in nature, that would by necessity include the universe as I understand it...


----------



## Bote (Jun 16, 2010)

"An *open system* is a system which continuously interacts with its environment. The interaction can take the form of information, energy, or material transfers into or out of the system boundary, depending on the discipline which defines the concept (see below). An open system should be contrasted with the concept of an isolated system which exchanges neither energy, matter,nor information with its environment."

Huhu, is there such a thing as an isolated system in the Universe? I can't think of anything like that. Some examples would be helpful.


----------



## Bote (Jun 16, 2010)

Bote said:


> "An *open system* is a system which continuously interacts with its environment. The interaction can take the form of information, energy, or material transfers into or out of the system boundary, depending on the discipline which defines the concept (see below). An open system should be contrasted with the concept of an isolated system which exchanges neither energy, matter,nor information with its environment."
> 
> Huhu, is there such a thing as an isolated system in the Universe? I can't think of anything like that. Some examples would be helpful.


EDIT: Aha I read the link. They don't exist in the current observable Universe - all I needed to know.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

RobynC said:


> Well this constructural theory would describe a finite system and a closed system correct?
> 
> Since this describes fundamental shapes that occur in nature, that would by necessity include the universe as I understand it...


Yes the theory would describe a finite and a closed system. The trouble is, the universe may be either isolated or closed, so I don't know whether or not it would apply to the universe as a whole.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Psychosmurf

Well if the theory works, and it's for a closed system... well connect the dots


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

RobynC said:


> @Psychosmurf
> 
> Well if the theory works, and it's for a closed system... well connect the dots


Sorry I have an incredibly short attention span, but what is it that you're trying to say?


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

I have to agree with some of the others that this theory doesn't seem to really say anything and doesn't appear to be really testable. Other theories like Quantum Darwinism have even more sweeping implications and are testable, so I'm not exactly overwhelmed by this one.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

wuliheron said:


> I have to agree with some of the others that this theory doesn't seem to really say anything and doesn't appear to be really testable. Other theories like Quantum Darwinism have even more sweeping implications and are testable, so I'm not exactly overwhelmed by this one.


I don't think anyone has said that it isn't testable, because it seems to be the case that it is.

http://www.mems.duke.edu/files/mems..._flow_systems_develop_shape_and_structure.pdf


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

@unsung truth

@Revenant

The theory doesn't simply re-iterate what is already known. It's claims should sound familiar because it does have a basis in current physics. 

It is true that it has been known for a very long time that systems are selected, and therefore evolve, on the basis of their persistence, but for the first time we have a theory that gives us some of the specifics of what such systems will look like.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

@RobynC 

Are you perhaps implying that if the universe is not an isolated system, that it can therefore avoid heat-death?


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> I don't think anyone has said that it isn't testable, because it seems to be the case that it is.
> 
> http://www.mems.duke.edu/files/mems..._flow_systems_develop_shape_and_structure.pdf


Even that paper doesn't say the theory is testable, all it says is the theory has useful applications.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

wuliheron said:


> Even that paper doesn't say the theory is testable, all it says is the theory has useful applications.


Well of course the paper isn't gonna say "this theory is testable". This is simply expected in the scientific literature. The theory is testable because it makes definite predictions.


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> Well of course the paper isn't gonna say "this theory is testable". This is simply expected in the scientific literature. The theory is testable because it makes definite predictions.


Scientific standards are that it must make _unique_ predictions. If it merely provides a more convenient way to design a better mouse trap its just another theory among countless others.


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

However, I must say it sounds like a terrific advancement for systems theory. The biggest problem with a lot of more holistic theories is that their foundations can be incredibly broad and difficult to figure out. For example, Chaos theory made rapid advances for a few years, but almost nothing since. We catch a glimpse of the foundations of such approaches, but not enough of the big picture for them to be nearly as useful as they could be if we had a better idea of all the fundamentals involved. Because it involves so many variables even brute force approaches such as number crunching can lead nowhere. I'd say its the potential applications of this theory to other theories and philosophies that is more exciting then any implications the theory itself might have.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

wuliheron said:


> Scientific standards are that it must make _unique_ predictions. If it merely provides a more convenient way to design a better mouse trap its just another theory among countless others.


So what other theories make these same predictions?


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> So what other theories make these same predictions?


What predictions? The paper itself describes the theory as "...just a different point of
view of things, which constructal theory proposes." It doesn't make any unique predictions and doesn't claim any unique point of view. You can think of it as similar to comparing addition to multiplication. Multiplication doesn't produce any unique answers you can't get using addition, but its certainly faster and easier to use in many cases.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

wuliheron said:


> What predictions? The paper itself describes the theory as "...just a different point of
> view of things, which constructal theory proposes." It doesn't make any unique predictions and doesn't claim any unique point of view. You can think of it as similar to comparing addition to multiplication. Multiplication doesn't produce any unique answers you can't get using addition, but its certainly faster and easier to use in many cases.


First of all, what exactly are you contesting here? Because you've switched from saying it's untestable to saying it doesn't make unique predictions and then switching focus back to testability. If it makes specific predictions it can't be untestable. I'm not sure why you're requiring "unique" predictions. Unique among what other theories? You still haven't provided any examples of such with the scope of this one. 

As to your current contention to the first point, read the abstract of the paper, and put that quote in its proper context instead of quote-mining. The abstract clearly states that "Constructal theory and its applications to various fields ranging from engineering to
natural living and inanimate systems, and to social organization and economics, are reviewed in this paper." Meaning that the paper will not actually propose constructal theory as a means of explaining organization phenomena in flow systems, but that it will give the reader an overview of the theory along with some of its applications. In the section you took the quote from it is evident that the subject of the sentence in your quote is the subject of the paper and not constructal theory itself.

Secondly, what do you think is more likely, that you've noticed a very serious issue with the theory (and as obvious an error as untestability at that!) that was missed by just about every physicist who works full time in the field for years and years, or that your disagreement with the scientists stems from an error in your own thinking? I think the choice is obvious. And if you want to argue that the theory is untestable, you're going to have to present some very specific and strong examples of untestable claims made by the theory.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

@wuliheron

(It won't let me edit)

I want to add that the theory makes a very strong prediction, the constructal law. If that isn't testable, I don't know how you can maintain that any of the other laws of thermodynamics are.


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> And if you want to argue that the theory is untestable, you're going to have to present some very specific and strong examples of untestable claims made by the theory.


Sorry, but this is flat out wrong. Its up to the theorists to provide potential tests for the theory and, if they can't, its relegated to the same category as the toothfairy. As for the rest of your diatribe its pretty much the same thing. The theorists either provide unique predictions or they don't and, if they don't, its at best another useful conceptual tool. Its totally up to the theory and theorists to prove their point and I don't have to do anything anymore then I have to disprove the existence of Santa Claus.

Like I said, this theory looks to be very useful which is why I assume all these professionals are working so hard on it. Not because they necessarily believe it has some deep metaphysical meaning about life, the universe, and everything. If it turns out it does have something profound to tell us about the meaning of life that's great, but so far it looks to me like just a great shortcut for finding answers no different essentially then multiplication compared to addition.


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> @wuliheron
> 
> (It won't let me edit)
> 
> I want to add that the theory makes a very strong prediction, the constructal law. If that isn't testable, I don't know how you can maintain that any of the other laws of thermodynamics are.


That's not a prediction and the laws of thermodynamics are not predictions. They are axioms that hopefully can be used to make unique predictions. The already accepted laws of thermodynamics do make unique predictions and its up to this proposed "constructal law" to make unique predictions of its own.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

wuliheron said:


> Sorry, but this is flat out wrong. Its up to the theorists to provide potential tests for the theory and, if they can't, its relegated to the same category as the toothfairy. As for the rest of your diatribe its pretty much the same thing. The theorists either provide unique predictions or they don't and, if they don't, its at best another useful conceptual tool. Its totally up to the theory and theorists to prove their point and I don't have to do anything anymore then I have to disprove the existence of Santa Claus.


This would be the case if and only if there existed no evidence in support of the theory, as is the case with Santa Claus. As it is, however, there are plenty of peer-reviewed papers on the theory in scientific journals. Just grabbing a random link from wikipedia, here is an example of the theory making many many testable predictions: http://www.constructal.org/en/art/C...f configuration in nature and engineering.pdf

Sorry buddy, but you either have to present evidence otherwise, or else relinquish your belief. 



> Like I said, this theory looks to be very useful which is why I assume all these professionals are working so hard on it. Not because they necessarily believe it has some deep metaphysical meaning about life, the universe, and everything. If it turns out it does have something profound to tell us about the meaning of life that's great, but so far it looks to me like just a great shortcut for finding answers no different essentially then multiplication compared to addition.


They think it is useful because it is supported by evidence. And since when has the truth of scientific claims been determined by someone's subjective opinions on "deep metaphysical meaning about life" and not by empirical tests?



> That's not a prediction and the laws of thermodynamics are not predictions. They are axioms that hopefully can be used to make unique predictions. The already accepted laws of thermodynamics do make unique predictions and its up to this proposed "constructal law" to make unique predictions of its own.


Agree with you here 100%, see the above.


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> This would be the case if and only if there existed no evidence in support of the theory, as is the case with Santa Claus. As it is, however, there are plenty of peer-reviewed papers on the theory in scientific journals. Just grabbing a random link from wikipedia, here is an example of the theory making many many testable predictions: http://www.constructal.org/en/art/C...f configuration in nature and engineering.pdf
> 
> Sorry buddy, but you either have to present evidence otherwise, or else relinquish your belief.


Still pounding away at the fact its useful. An umbrella is useful, but that doesn't mean it has some sort of metaphysical meaning or will replace existing physical laws. Again, it must make demonstrably unique predictions or it is merely considered another useful tool.

There, that's my evidence. An umbrella is useful. Go ahead, refute it.



Psychosmurf said:


> They think it is useful because it is supported by evidence. And since when has the truth of scientific claims been determined by someone's subjective opinions on "deep metaphysical meaning about life" and not by empirical tests?


They think it is useful because it is demonstrably useful! Stories about Santa Claus and the toothfairy can also be useful. That doesn't make them true and it doesn't mean they will replace existing physical law. Being useful is simply not enough. They must prove themselves uniquely useful for predicting things other theories cannot.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

wuliheron said:


> Still pounding away at the fact its useful. An umbrella is useful, but that doesn't mean it has some sort of metaphysical meaning or will replace existing physical laws. Again, it must make demonstrably unique predictions or it is merely considered another useful tool.
> 
> There, that's my evidence. An umbrella is useful. Go ahead, refute it.
> 
> ...


I've already given you tons of examples where the theory makes testable predictions, whereas you have provided no examples where the theory makes untestable claims. I've also provided many specific examples where the theory makes predictions no other theory has so far, and you have not yet provided any examples of theories that make similar and better predictions. 

I'm not about to get into a pointless semantics debate over the different connotations of the word "useful". 

Either give me evidence that supports your claims or admit that you have no case.


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> I've already given you tons of examples where the theory makes testable predictions, whereas you have provided no examples where the theory makes untestable claims. I've also provided many specific examples where the theory makes predictions no other theory has so far, and you have not yet provided any examples of theories that make similar and better predictions.
> 
> I'm not about to get into a pointless semantics debate over the different connotations of the word "useful".
> 
> Either give me evidence that supports your claims or admit that you have no case.


The existence of Santa is a testable theory! Go ahead, see if there are presents under the tree on Christmas morning. Once again with emphasis for the hard of hearing:

*It must make unique predictions.*

Otherwise all you have proven is the theory is useful.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

wuliheron said:


> The existence of Santa is a testable theory! Go ahead, see if there are presents under the tree on Christmas morning. Once again with emphasis for the hard of hearing:
> 
> *It must make unique predictions.*
> 
> Otherwise all you have proven is the theory is useful.


Once again, I'll say that I've already given you many examples where the theory has made predictions that no others have.


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> Once again, I'll say that I've already given you many examples where the theory has made predictions that no others have.


Not unique in the sense that no other theories have been used to make those predictions, unique in the sense that no accepted theory can make those predictions. For example, Einstein's Relativity predicted such things as time dilation and lasers that the accepted theories could not even begin predict or explain. Without unique predictions that can't be explained using current theories the only thing constructal theory might have in its favor its parsimony, but that's a harder case to prove.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Psychosmurf



> Sorry I have an incredibly short attention span, but what is it that you're trying to say?


Well if the theory works for a closed system and this includes natural shapes that exist in the universe which are dictated by the laws of pysyics in the universe -- well that would mean the universe is a closed system.

That actually means that the universe has a total energy of zero -- all closed systems do. Basically you have positive and negative energy in equal amounts and that means with enough time not only would all the heat bleed out of the universe, all the energies (matter is a form of energy) would neutralize out to zero and you'd have nothing left.

Think about it



> I don't think anyone has said that it isn't testable, because it seems to be the case that it is.
> 
> http://www.mems.duke.edu/files/mems..._flow_systems_develop_shape_and_structure.pdf


Has the theory been validated or are they devising tests to validate or falsify?


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

wuliheron said:


> Not unique in the sense that no other theories have been used to make those predictions, unique in the sense that no accepted theory can make those predictions. For example, Einstein's Relativity predicted such things as time dilation and lasers that the accepted theories could not even begin predict or explain. Without unique predictions that can't be explained using current theories the only thing constructal theory might have in its favor its parsimony, but that's a harder case to prove.


In that case, yes. The constructal law has been proposed precisely to explain the evolution of flow systems. This is something that the current laws of thermodynamics have not been able to do.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

RobynC said:


> @Psychosmurf
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure tests have been done, but I don't have access to any specific studies.


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> In that case, yes. The constructal law has been proposed precisely to explain the evolution of flow systems. This is something that the current laws of thermodynamics have not been able to do.


"Flow systems" is merely a catch phrase for a metaphysical proposition. Science isn't in the business of proving or disproving metaphysical propositions. Again, either a theory proves itself uniquely valuable, more parsimonious then existing theories, or its just another religion. As far as I'm concerned all this "flow systems" refers to is the tendency of any system to seek the lowest possible energy state. 

Its a nice engineering view that makes it easier to conceptualize a lot of things, but until its proven itself uniquely valuable its just so much mystical mumbo jumbo dating back at least as far as Heraclitus. There are even Taoists known as "Energetic Taoists" whose basic motto is, "change is the only constant". It makes for a great simplistic philosophy and mysticism, but its limitations and flaws are extremely well known.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

wuliheron said:


> "Flow systems" is merely a catch phrase for a metaphysical proposition. Science isn't in the business of proving or disproving metaphysical propositions. Again, either a theory proves itself uniquely valuable, more parsimonious then existing theories, or its just another religion. As far as I'm concerned all this "flow systems" refers to is the tendency of any system to seek the lowest possible energy state.
> 
> Its a nice engineering view that makes it easier to conceptualize a lot of things, but until its proven itself uniquely valuable its just so much mystical mumbo jumbo dating back at least as far as Heraclitus. There are even Taoists known as "Energetic Taoists" whose basic motto is, "change is the only constant". It makes for a great simplistic philosophy and mysticism, but its limitations and flaws are extremely well known.


"Flow system" isn't a catch phrase. It's a technical term with a precise definition. It's simply a physical system through which something flows. I'm not sure what "metaphysical propositions" you're referring to here.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

@wuliheron 

To the last sentence in the first paragraph, the constructal law does not simply state that systems tend to seek the lowest possible energy state, it describes _how_ a system seeks the lowest possible energy state. See the difference?


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> "Flow system" isn't a catch phrase. It's a technical term with a precise definition. It's simply a physical system through which something flows. I'm not sure what "metaphysical propositions" you're referring to here.


That's the mystical mumbo jumbo I'm talking about. If I talk about a water flow system its a technical term with a clear context and a clear meaning. When you start talking about it applying to life, the universe, and everything the context is so vague and meaningless it becomes mystical mumbo jumbo. Along the lines of saying everything is "energy" or "spirit" or "flux". 

In this case they're attempting to extend the idea to thermodynamics where the concepts are order and chaos, both relative concepts like up and down. Again, too vague to be meaningful outside of specific contexts unless they can show the principle actually makes unique predictions or is more parsimonious then the already existing laws of thermodynamics.


----------



## FlatteringlyDerisive (Dec 7, 2011)

Well, I'd like to say that you can give a statement that easily explains many things if it's universal enough. Another example, say that your teacher asks you for the solution of what the sum of three and four is. You'd be expected to say "seven", but say you haven't learned about math and you don't want to be wrong, so you say "a number". You are not technically wrong, but very general with your answer. The Constructal Theory pretty much says that in life, there are systems that are likely to evolve. It is merely a way of organizing our perception of reality. So of course it will explain a lot, because it says very little. If it was more specific, than it wouldn't be so "amazing". This theory is like a drunk INTJ's realization, or perhaps of a stoned ESFP.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@wuliheron



> As far as I'm concerned all this "flow systems" refers to is the tendency of any system to seek the lowest possible energy state.


True, but doesn't that describe thermodynamics and entropy?


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

wuliheron said:


> That's the mystical mumbo jumbo I'm talking about. If I talk about a water flow system its a technical term with a clear context and a clear meaning. When you start talking about it applying to life, the universe, and everything the context is so vague and meaningless it becomes mystical mumbo jumbo. Along the lines of saying everything is "energy" or "spirit" or "flux".
> 
> In this case they're attempting to extend the idea to thermodynamics where the concepts are order and chaos, both relative concepts like up and down. Again, too vague to be meaningful outside of specific contexts unless they can show the principle actually makes unique predictions or is more parsimonious then the already existing laws of thermodynamics.


You're confusing vagueness with generality. A very general principle applies to many different kinds of phenomenon. This is the case of the constructal law. It just so happens that the universe contains many different kinds of flow systems, and among these are both living and non-living things. 

A vague statement would be one that isn't clear about the outcomes we're supposed to see. For example, let's consider various versions of the second law of thermodynamics. If it said something like "An isolated system can either lose or gain entropy, I don't really know it just does what it wants", that would be a law that is very general and extremely vague, and therefore completely untestable and useless.
What it actually does say is that an isolated system will _always_ tend to increase its entropy. Now that is being very specific about the behavior of phenomena while still being applicable to many kinds of systems.


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> You're confusing vagueness with generality. A very general principle applies to many different kinds of phenomenon. This is the case of the constructal law. It just so happens that the universe contains many different kinds of flow systems, and among these are both living and non-living things.
> 
> A vague statement would be one that isn't clear about the outcomes we're supposed to see. For example, let's consider various versions of the second law of thermodynamics. If it said something like "An isolated system can either lose or gain entropy, I don't really know it just does what it wants", that would be a law that is very general and extremely vague, and therefore completely untestable and useless.
> What it actually does say is that an isolated system will _always_ tend to increase its entropy. Now that is being very specific about the behavior of phenomena while still being applicable to many kinds of systems.


Scientific laws are not general principles.

"A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning. As well, factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered to be too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing scientific laws from principles that arise merely accidentally because of the constant conjunction of one thing and another.[1]" Wikipedia

As for vagueness, I don't hear you actually offering a concrete scientific definition for "flow" or anything. All I hear is you again obfuscating and avoiding addressing the issue directly. Talking about generalities and principles and debating semantics rather then presenting a simple straightforward argument of your own. Get a grip already! Science isn't about who is the best debater.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

wuliheron said:


> Scientific laws are not general principles.
> 
> "A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning. As well, factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered to be too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing scientific laws from principles that arise merely accidentally because of the constant conjunction of one thing and another.[1]" Wikipedia
> 
> As for vagueness, I don't hear you actually offering a concrete scientific definition for "flow" or anything. All I hear is you again obfuscating and avoiding addressing the issue directly. Talking about generalities and principles and debating semantics rather then presenting a simple straightforward argument of your own. Get a grip already! Science isn't about who is the best debater.


You pointed to the general applicability of the theory to a wide range of phenomena and called it vagueness. My argument is that the two are very different things though they may look alike. I don't see how it can get more straightforward than that.

As for giving concrete definitions of scientific concepts, is it too much trouble just doing the research? The concept of flow in physics has been well understood for centuries. Flux, a scientific term describing the rate of flow of something through a surface.


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> You pointed to the general applicability of the theory to a wide range of phenomena and called it vagueness. My argument is that the two are very different things though they may look alike. I don't see how it can get more straightforward than that.
> 
> As for giving concrete definitions of scientific concepts, is it too much trouble just doing the research? The concept of flow in physics has been well understood for centuries. Flux, a scientific term describing the rate of flow of something through a surface.


Its not up to the scientific community or anyone else to do your research for you. Again, its up to you to prove your own point instead of obfuscating and insinuating others are avoiding the issue. So we have popular definitions for "flow" Duh! We also have an assortment of scientific definitions for "flux" despite your only presenting one here! Present your definitions for the terms as used in this context or admit you don't have any.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

wuliheron said:


> Its not up to the scientific community or anyone else to do your research for you. Again, its up to you to prove your own point instead of obfuscating and insinuating others are avoiding the issue. So we have popular definitions for "flow" Duh! We also have an assortment of scientific definitions for "flux" despite your only presenting one here! Present your definitions for the terms as used in this context or admit you don't have any.


The terms used in scientific papers are standard unless stated otherwise.

Flow- the quantity passing a given area per unit time.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Psychosmurf said:


> The terms used in scientific papers are standard unless stated otherwise.
> 
> Flow- the quantity passing a given area per unit time.


That doesn't say _what_ is flowing or _why_ it is flowing, though. I can understand the point @wuliheron is making there. 

Saying that something flows does not make it scientific. Like I could talk about waves traveling across a bucket, but that doesn't mean anything unless I also talk about what is _carrying_ the waves - is it water? Is it pudding? Are they sound waves? Microwaves? What kind of wave am I talking about, and how would these waves act?


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

sprinkles said:


> That doesn't say _what_ is flowing or _why_ it is flowing, though. I can understand the point @wuliheron is making there.
> 
> Saying that something flows does not make it scientific. Like I could talk about waves traveling across a bucket, but that doesn't mean anything unless I also talk about what is _carrying_ the waves - is it water? Is it pudding? Are they sound waves? Microwaves? What kind of wave am I talking about, and how would these waves act?


Its a purely abstract topological argument and it might be useful, but so is the concept of Yin and Yang. Without proof that it provides unique predictions that the existing laws of thermodynamics cannot provide or is more parsimonious its just another useful concept. At the very least it requires more explicit definitions if all anyone can do is argue it from a philosophical viewpoint. Otherwise we're reduced to mumbling mystical mumbo jumbo.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

sprinkles said:


> That doesn't say _what_ is flowing or _why_ it is flowing, though. I can understand the point @wuliheron is making there.
> 
> Saying that something flows does not make it scientific. Like I could talk about waves traveling across a bucket, but that doesn't mean anything unless I also talk about what is _carrying_ the waves - is it water? Is it pudding? Are they sound waves? Microwaves? What kind of wave am I talking about, and how would these waves act?


The whole point of the theory is that it applies to _any_ flow system. Whether it's blood flowing through vessels, water going through a pipe system, a gas cloud expanding in space, etc. Why would a definition need to specify a single element if it applies to an entire class?


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

wuliheron said:


> Its a purely abstract topological argument and it might be useful, but so is the concept of Yin and Yang. *Without proof that it provides unique predictions that the existing laws of thermodynamics cannot provide* or is more parsimonious its just another useful concept. At the very least it requires more explicit definitions if all anyone can do is argue it from a philosophical viewpoint. Otherwise we're reduced to mumbling mystical mumbo jumbo.


I've already given you many examples where the theory makes unique predictions that the existing laws of thermodynamics can't.


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> I've already given you many examples where the theory makes unique predictions that the existing laws of thermodynamics can't.


No, you've merely provided proof that it makes predictions easier just as multiplication makes some problems easier to solve then addition.


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR (Jun 18, 2011)

Ok I`m not a scientist but just from an instinctual view I`d say this:
An Open system can surely be the only unifying universal system. If a system isn`t open then it will eventually wear out. A principle of weighing energy use of an open has also been applied to towns and cities - the amount of energy used, in relation to the amount produced, and the fact that energy can be replaced. However ultimately it intuitively demands IMO that the Open system is also organic because they are self renewing and self replicating ...
I read that although the amount of energy in a star is greater than say a human being - it is not greater on a pro- rata basis ... the human being in ratio to size is far denser energy wise ... ?


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Psychosmurf said:


> The whole point of the theory is that it applies to _any_ flow system. Whether it's blood flowing through vessels, water going through a pipe system, a gas cloud expanding in space, etc. Why would a definition need to specify a single element if it applies to an entire class?


But what is it really showing? A river flows where it flows and not anywhere else. What causes it to be where it is? Physics? Would physics have prevented it from being 2km to the west if that's where it would have originated?

Of course things flow, but this is like the theory of nothing - things simply go where they can (into spaces, typically) and this happens because of all of the places they _can't_ go into.

Did the cliff shape itself to allow the waterfall to pour out, or is the water pouring out in the place that it can?

Not everything is optimized for flow. The job of some things is to impede flow - like your blood vessels. They allow the blood to flow through, yes, but they impede flow as well such that they prevent the blood from _escaping_ from where it needs to be. i.e. it flows but only where it is allowed to, it goes where it can.


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

RRRoooaaaRRR said:


> Ok I`m not a scientist but just from an instinctual view I`d say this:
> An Open system can surely be the only unifying universal system. If a system isn`t open then it will eventually wear out. A principle of weighing energy use of an open has also been applied to towns and cities - the amount of energy used, in relation to the amount produced, and the fact that energy can be replaced. However ultimately it intuitively demands IMO that the Open system is also organic because they are self renewing and self replicating ...
> I read that although the amount of energy in a star is greater than say a human being - it is not greater on a pro- rata basis ... the human being in ratio to size is far denser energy wise ... ?


A completely closed system is impossible according to quantum mechanics which is one of the things I don't see this theory addressing at all. Quanta can tunnel right through anything making it necessary, for example, to recharge refrigerators no matter how well sealed the pipes are. They can also tunnel right through the "surfaces" this theory proposes and unless it can address quantum mechanical effects it remains a purely classical theory of limited use. Even the evidence collected over the last thirty years has demonstrated that naive realism, which is what this theory is based on, is incorrect and we need a better theory.


----------



## RRRoooaaaRRR (Jun 18, 2011)

Yes, I think this is sort of my point - that the only real chance is an organic system. I have a friend who is currently trying to come up with a solution to get a more efficient flow of electricity over greater distances - principally looking at using the lotus principle to deflect raindrops which take out a lot of the energy from the wires.

In other words everything has got to lose energy to the universe - it is only down to whether it can also take in energy ... and then also evolve to a more involved system to carry more chaos ... ?


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

RRRoooaaaRRR said:


> Yes, I think this is sort of my point - that the only real chance is an organic system. I have a friend who is currently trying to come up with a solution to get a more efficient flow of electricity over greater distances - principally looking at using the lotus principle to deflect raindrops which take out a lot of the energy from the wires.
> 
> In other words everything has got to lose energy to the universe - it is only down to whether it can also take in energy ... and then also evolve to a more involved system to carry more chaos ... ?


It all falls under the category of systems science. Instead of focusing on mechanical reductionist approaches the idea is to focus on the system as a whole whether it be defined as mechanical or organic or even undefined. Such holistic theories are by definition more descriptive and complete then reductionist ones and, therefore, more broadly applicable. Hence the reason every science has steadily adopted their own holistic theories since the advent of relativity and quantum mechanics a hundred years ago. However, they tend to be less immediately useful and easily applied then theories like this one.

One interesting theory that has passed its first test is Quantum Darwinism which suggests that evolution is a basic physical law that applies to everything. According to the theory even quanta reproduce after a fashion and evolve giving us all the other laws of physics and the classical physical world as we know it. Thus its not so much a question of chaos verses order, but of the system being able to evolve to take advantage of or suppress either as the need arises on different scales.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

Would the constructural theory be invalid if the universe was an open system? It sounds like it would...


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

RobynC said:


> Would the constructural theory be invalid if the universe was an open system? It sounds like it would...


Not necessarily, it depends on what it is open to. We'd just have to stop thinking of it as "all there is".

You are an open system, and a subset of the universe, so hypothetically if it could apply to you as an open system in a larger closed system (if the universe is closed) then it could apply to the universe in a larger closed system (if the universe isn't closed)


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

wuliheron said:


> No, you've merely provided proof that it makes predictions easier just as multiplication makes some problems easier to solve then addition.


Me a few pages back in response to a request for unique predictions:


> In that case, yes. The constructal law has been proposed precisely to explain the evolution of flow systems. This is something that the current laws of thermodynamics have not been able to do.


Then you said that "flow system" was too vaguely defined. I gave you a definition. Do you need anything else?


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

sprinkles said:


> But what is it really showing? A river flows where it flows and not anywhere else. What causes it to be where it is? Physics? Would physics have prevented it from being 2km to the west if that's where it would have originated?
> 
> Of course things flow, but this is like the theory of nothing - things simply go where they can (into spaces, typically) and this happens because of all of the places they _can't_ go into.
> 
> ...


If you think about the basic claim :"For a finite-size system to persist in time (to live), it must evolve in such a way that it provides easier access to the imposed currents that flow through it."

So if we take a river, for example, and leave it alone for some time, then what we would expect to see is that either a) water is still flowing through it and more easily than before or b) the river has dried up and its shape has not changed to ease the flow of water through it.

If I could express the idea in Darwinian terms, I could say that flow systems are selected for size and efficiency, because larger and more efficient flow systems are more persistent through time. So in the long run of a part of the universe, we would expect to observe the emergence of a few very large, complex, and efficient flow systems that are extremely durable, and many small, simple, and inefficient ones that form and disappear quickly.


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> Me a few pages back in response to a request for unique predictions:
> 
> Then you said that "flow system" was too vaguely defined. I gave you a definition. Do you need anything else?


It sounds like you are suggesting physicists accept circular logic. You give your definition of flow, and then predict when it will occur. Again, what is required is unique predictions and circular logic does not fit into the category of unique predictions by scientific standards. Either the predictions are shown to not be obtainable by the already accepted methods or they are dismissed.


----------



## Psychosmurf (Aug 22, 2010)

wuliheron said:


> It sounds like you are suggesting physicists accept circular logic. You give your definition of flow, and then predict when it will occur. Again, what is required is unique predictions and circular logic does not fit into the category of unique predictions by scientific standards. Either the predictions are shown to not be obtainable by the already accepted methods or they are dismissed.


Circular logic? How is it circular logic?


----------



## wuliheron (Sep 5, 2011)

Psychosmurf said:


> Circular logic? How is it circular logic?


"Circular reasoning, or in other words, paradoxical thinking, is a type of formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. For example:
"Only an untrustworthy person would run for office. The fact that politicians are untrustworthy is proof of this."
Such an argument is fallacious, because it relies upon its own proposition — "politicians are untrustworthy" — in order to support its central premise." Wikipedia

Again, you define flow and then present examples of predicting its existence. Its a great way to define something and demonstrate that the definition has meaning and can be useful, but nothing more then that. It does not establish the validity of the concept as anything more then sometimes a useful concept. All you have done is provide a definition for an axiom without proving that the axiom actually reflects a fundamental physical law.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Snow Leopard said:


> Unless it was a quantum universe. Such a universe could display asymmetry and phenomena like Baryogenesis (like our universe).


Then wouldn't it simply be closed, not isolated? I don't know.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Oh that's really cool thanks for sharing!


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@Snow Leopard
What's a quantum universe


----------



## Stelmaria (Sep 30, 2011)

RobynC said:


> @Snow Leopard
> What's a quantum universe


You don't like my pseudo-scientific terminology? LOL

It is analogous to the idea that the eigenstate of a wavefunction is only knowable at the moment it is observed. Before or after, the state could be any of an infinite range of quantised states of equal probability.

The system therefore may spontaneously deviate far from the expected values. But is this due to 'hidden' imposed currents? It is impossible to tell.

I think what I was also trying to say is the universe has no (measurably) definable boundaries and so we can't tell whether it is best described as an open or closed manifold. I'd look into this more, but my math skills are not sufficient to go into depth.
Additional edit - to clarify, a closed manifold would imply that the universe has no definable boundaries including no 'initial conditions'. An open manifold would be necessary for the universe to come into existence from nothing. (whether this is described probabilistically or otherwise). But I don't want to get into a teleological argument right now.

This does still mean that it would be difficult to prove whether the Constructal Theory would be a worthwhile model to use to describe perturbations of the universe. (sorry to mislead if my previous comment suggested otherwise)


----------



## Tristan427 (Dec 9, 2011)

It was proposed in 1996. I guess it was shot down. Not to mention the main criticism for it is vagueness.


----------

