The Second Law of Thermodynamics

Originally posted by dj2becker
That is where I don't agree with your definition of complexity. Would you say that a cell phone with less functions is more complex than a cell phone with more functions?

Are you talking about complexity of the design, complexity of using it or some property called complexity that is based on the configuration of the atoms?
For all of the above I don't think you have given enough information about your cell phones to give an answer.
I am still waiting for a formal definition of the word complexity.

Originally posted by dj2becker
You said: "The earliest life would have been incredibly simple..."

In comparison with current life forms. Although they too may have been very simple only. But life nowadays is not simple. You stipulated that I said it was.

Originally posted by dj2becker
That is where I don't agree with your definition of complexity. Would you say that a cell phone with less functions is more complex than a cell phone with more functions?

I would say that this is entirely irrelevant.

Something can have huge functionality, yet be very simple. For example, a Swiss army knife has more functionality than a digital watch, yet is far simpler.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I am afraid you are the one that needs to go back to school...

The total change in entropy for any Carnot engine is thus:

dSc + dSh = Qc/Tc - Qh/Th = 0

The fact that the total change in entropy in a Carnot engine is a specific illustration of a general result. It can be proved that when any reversible process occurs, the change in entropy of the ...[text shortened]... rocess, but if so, the entropy if another part changes in the opposite way by the same amount.

So your hypothetical Carnot Engine operates in the absence of friction, for example?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'm not sure that "functionality" equates with "lots of functions".

So you are also not sure whether a cell phone with more functions is more functional than a cell phone with less functions?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you talking about complexity of the design, complexity of using it or some property called complexity that is based on the configuration of the atoms?
For all of the above I don't think you have given enough information about your cell phones to give an answer.
I am still waiting for a formal definition of the word complexity.

Do you mean to say that you are incapable of using a dictionary, or just plainly too lazy to look up the word?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
In comparison with current life forms. Although they too may have been very simple only. But life nowadays is not simple. You stipulated that I said it was.

How do you know that life was simpler in the past than it is today?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I would say that this is entirely irrelevant.

Something can have huge functionality, yet be very simple. For example, a Swiss army knife has more functionality than a digital watch, yet is far simpler.

You are comparing sticks and stones.

A Swiss army knife is more complex and more functional than an ordinary pocket knife.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you mean to say that you are incapable of using a dictionary, or just plainly too lazy to look up the word?

No, I mean that you are not using it in the common usage of the word so I would be wasting my time looking it up in a dictionary as you are obviously not using the standard English meaning.

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you are also not sure whether a cell phone with more functions is more functional than a cell phone with less functions?

How functional something is, is not in general related to the number of functions it has. How functional something is means how well it performs its functions.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So your hypothetical Carnot Engine operates in the absence of friction, for example?

The hypothetical Carnot engine is the most efficient possible heat engine.

Originally posted by dj2becker
How do you know that life was simpler in the past than it is today?

Is that really a relevant question or just another of your attempts to avoid admitting that you were wrong.
It amazes me to what lengths you will go to avoid admitting that you are wrong even to the extent of making yourself look extremely foolish.

Originally posted by dj2becker
You are comparing sticks and stones.

A Swiss army knife is more complex and more functional than an ordinary pocket knife.

Again you show your ignorance of the English language. Functionality is not equivalent to functional. An ordinary pocket knife can easily be more functional than a swiss army knife, depending on the use (function) you wish to put it to. One of its main functions is to be small an easy to carry in which case an ordinary pocket knife could be more functional.

Originally posted by twhitehead
How functional something is, is not in general related to the number of functions it has. How functional something is means how well it performs its functions.

The greater variety of functions something has, the better its functionality is at solving a variety of problems. Therefore a multi functional item will be more functional than a uni functional item in the sense that it has a greater functionality of solving a greater variety of problems.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Again you show your ignorance of the English language. Functionality is not equivalent to functional. An ordinary pocket knife can easily be more functional than a swiss army knife, depending on the use (function) you wish to put it to. One of its main functions is to be small an easy to carry in which case an ordinary pocket knife could be more functional.

Functionality can be equivalent to functional. A calculator with greater functionality will be more functional then a calculator with less functionality.