Faith Across the Multiverse, Parables from Modern Science- Part 2, The Language of Physics, Chapter 6: The Entropic Principle By Andy Walsh

Faith Across the Multiverse: Parables from Modern Science

Part 2, The Language of Physics, Chapter 6: The Entropic Principle

By Andy Walsh

We are blogging through the book, “Faith Across the Multiverse, Parables from Modern Science” by Andy Walsh.  Today is Chapter 6: The Entropic Principle. The Entropic Principle refers to Second Law of Thermodynamics.  From LiveScience: The laws of thermodynamics describe the relationships between thermal energy, or heat, and other forms of energy, and how energy affects matter. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; the total quantity of energy in the universe stays the same. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about the quality of energy. It states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state. The Second Law indicates that thermodynamic processes, i.e., processes that involve the transfer or conversion of heat energy, are irreversible because they all result in an increase in entropy.

Walsh thinks that it is helpful to think about entropy and order in terms of symmetry and asymmetry, because those words carry less colloquial baggage that can give us the wrong intuition.  Symmetry refers to the ability to swap things around and get something equivalent to what you started with.  A box of air is symmetrical because you can swap around the molecules into all kinds of different arrangements and the result would be indistinguishable in terms of what we can measure like temperature.  An asymmetrical box could have all the molecules squeezed to one side and the rest just empty space.  Now there are far fewer equivalent arrangements because we’ve ruled out all the options where some molecules are in the now-empty side.

Asymmetrical arrangements are useful precisely because changes matter.  When an asymmetrical system changes to a qualitatively different arrangement, there is an opportunity to do something useful.  For example, imagine our box changing from the squished-to-one-side state to the all-spread-out-state.  This transition will generate a net movement from one side of the box to the other, akin to a gust of wind.  We could harness that wind with a turbine and generate electricity until the box reaches the all-spread-out-state, at which point the turbine will stop spinning.  Walsh says:

Asymmetry is thus a structured or organized arrangement that can be qualitatively distinguished from other arrangements.  These distinctions between arrangements imply that changes are meaningful and potentially useful.  Symmetry by contrast is a state with a number of indistinguishable arrangements, rendering changes meaningless.

Walsh cautions that we need to be careful of two things in thinking about entropy or order and disorder or symmetry and asymmetry.  One is that thermodynamic entropy deals specifically with the order or symmetry of molecules.  An unsorted DVD collection may be more disordered than an alphabetized one, but the differences between the two are at the macroscopic level.  At the molecular, there is likely no difference and so the thermodynamic entropy will be the same.  We can apply our definition of symmetry to various levels, making it useful metaphorically, but we can’t work backward from it to thermodynamic entropy.  We also need to be careful because our intuition of what makes something ordered or symmetrical may not always be accurate.

Walsh then points out that even though an isolated system increases in entropy, the Earth doesn’t qualify as an isolated system because it receives an input of energy from the sun.  That is why life is possible on Earth.  Plants are able to overcome the tendency to disorder by applying the sun’s photon through photosynthesis to convert high entropy substances from their environment, like carbon dioxide and water, into more structured, low entropy compounds.  By this process, plants are able to use the order from the sun to build and maintain their own highly organized, asymmetrical structures.

The asymmetry of that organized state of the plant can then be transmitted up the food chain.  Animals and people eat those plants, taking in organized molecules and using them to maintain their own ordered states.  From this picture, we get a useful definition of life and death.  Defining life, however, can be somewhat tricky; try coming up with a definition that includes bacteria but excludes viruses, ideas, and fire.  The physicist, Edwin Schrödinger popularized an entropy-based definition; life is the process of keeping yourself ordered by making use of the asymmetry in your environment; conversely, death is the process of giving your internal asymmetry back into the environment.

The metaphor that Walsh reaches for is that Jesus as the “Word” and the “light of the world” (John 1:2-4) is the ultimate organizing principle in the universe and the ultimate bringer of life.  In Him, we move from a disordered state to an ordered one, from higher entropy to lower entropy, from death to life.  Apart from Him, entropy ultimately triumphs, and we move to the most disordered state: death.

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.

Another interesting analogy Walsh brings out is that by consuming plants and animals we maintain our ordered state.  Likewise, by participating in the Eucharist, by consuming the body and blood of Christ, we maintain that life in Christ.

John 6:48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”  52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.

Then we get to the death of Jesus.  Put simply, Jesus died so that we might live, just as the sun is exhausting itself it sustain us.  In addition, we describe death as a process of disseminating stored information.  Likewise the death of Jesus was a key reason why the gospel message spread as widely as it did.  Walsh thinks that this entropic perspective helps us get our heads around one of the more challenging ideas of the gospel—that we are called to die just as Jesus did.  Matthew 16:24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.  By dying to ourselves we are putting more order into the world around us, even at the expense of introducing more disorder into our own lives; being a living sacrifice as Paul says in Romans 12:1.  At the opposite end, when we enrich our own situation at the expense of others, there is an entropic sense in which we are eating or devouring their lives.  Perhaps that’s why the imagery for Jezebel, who was guilty of “devouring lives” is prophesied and eventually comes to having her corpse devoured by dogs (1 Kings 21 and 2 Kings 9).  The circumstances of her death should strike us as a potent reminder that, on way or the other, we will all wind up giving of ourselves so that someone else’s life can be more ordered. Walsh says:

Earlier we said that, in his death, Jesus called us all to die to ourselves.  Doesn’t his resurrection undermine this, by doing the opposite?  My take is that it doesn’t, because we defined dying to ourselves in terms of serving others.  Jesus did not reverse his death at the expense of anyone else.  Instead, he did it to initiate a reversal of the dying process that began when we cut ourselves off from God.  He also did it to demonstrate that God alone can serve as the inexhaustible source of life-giving, entropy-lowering asymmetry, displaying another facet of his status as the ultimate axiom…

So we can die to ourselves by allowing some symmetry into our own lives to bring asymmetry to the lives of others.  We follow God’s example as the vine and “carry one another’s burdens” (Galatians 6:2), bearing away what prevents others from flourishing, and “comfort those experiencing any trouble with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God” (2 Corinthians 1:4).


14 thoughts on “Faith Across the Multiverse, Parables from Modern Science- Part 2, The Language of Physics, Chapter 6: The Entropic Principle By Andy Walsh

  1. “The metaphor that Walsh reaches for is that Jesus as the “Word” and the “light of the world” (John 1:2-4) is the ultimate organizing principle in the universe and the ultimate bringer of life.”

    This is an echo of St Maximos the Confessor.



  2. Hello Adam,
    I don’t think that the Capsula Mundi plan is non-consensual, at least not at the present time. It sounds so bizarre because it is something almost out of a Stephen King novel in ways, but for some folks, it sounds appealing.

    I like the program where people donate their organs after they die. I am the recipient of partial cornea transplants in both eyes and am very grateful for the gift of sight given by the donor(s). At least THAT program is consensual and honorable,
    but I do see what you mean about something like the Capsula Mundi thing being imposed on people . . . . it would be too much to ask of anyone to be forced into such a plan. Such things must be ‘consensual’, yes.
    People should have some say in the way they are laid to rest, if possible. It seems only right.


  3. > but IF our ‘remains’ could be ‘recycled’ back into nature to be used again

    Given enough time our remains WILL be recycled back into nature. 🙂

    The very non-consensual recycling can make one feel somewhat disrespected.


  4. thanks for responding, Susan . . . . I get in trouble all the time on blogs (been kicked off of three so far) and I figure I live on borrowed time here;
    but I don’t mean to be trouble myself, it just happens that I get confused and ‘birdwalk’ into areas that are off the trail so to speak . . . older age doesn’t help my concentration either, so you are not alone . . . . I also get passionate about children in cages separated from their parents, which seems to be cruelty for cruelty’s sake. That is NOT who we are in this country, Susan. This terrible time WILL PASS, soon I hope.

    Those bush fires sound frightening. And so little rain, I guess. But you are safe, which is good to hear. I still think Australia is a magnificent country with great people, as my father was stationed there during the war (WWII) and told us all about it. He had good memories. Be well.


  5. “The physicist, Edwin Schrödinger popularized an entropy-based definition; life is the process of keeping yourself ordered by making use of the asymmetry in your environment; conversely, death is the process of giving your internal asymmetry back into the environment.”

    This comes to mind:

    Capsula Mundi ???

    I like to think that we are greater than the sum of our physical parts, but IF our ‘remains’ could be ‘recycled’ back into nature to be used again, there seems something ‘giving’ about that in spirit . . . something loving and generous and hopeful and RESPECTFUL of all life


  6. It’s very impossible to define “life”, at least beyond the biological world, but one way of understanding it’s parameters might be to look at the different kinds of “death” in cellular biology. Take a look at ” necrosis” as compared to “apoptosis” and you might start to get a glimpse of what Jesus was driving at with his “he who would live must die” motif.


  7. > It’s all about statistics/probability

    Yep, and over vast scales probability approaches something like certainty. Some cooler molecule in that cup of tea gave up some energy to a warmer molecule, but the opposite happened a bazillion more times.


  8. Delta(S) > 0.

    Entropy is one of the neatest and richest topics in all of science. The other way to think of the second law of thermodynamics is to say that heat goes from higher to lower temperatures. If I have a cup of water with ice cubes, we all know what happens over time: the ice melts (heat goes spontaneously from the warmer water TO the ice), while conserving energy overall. But why doesn’t the opposite ever happen (heat goes spontaneously from the ice cubes to the water, making the water warmer and the ice colder)? This would still conserve energy, and it wouldn’t violate any other laws. Is there some mysterious “force” that makes it go that way? Well, theoretically, it could happen, it’s just very unlikely. It’s all about statistics/probability. Same reason why if you’re playing cards it’s far more likely you’re dealt a garbage hand than a royal flush: there are far more possible outcomes of garbage hands (highly disordered) than a royal flush (highly ordered). A system with hot water and freezing cold ice cubes is far more ordered and less likely statistically than a jumbled solution of luke-warm water. The universe seems to be overall heading towards a state of equilibrium. I suppose it’s just like how Jesus lowered himself in order to raise us (not the other way around).

    This has led many to interpret this concept of entropy as the “arrow of time”, namely that it tells us the direction in which time flows. If I showed you the before and after picture of the ice/water, you would know the order in which they were taken.


  9. Hi Christianne,
    I am here, just keeping quiet, (and trying to keep cool)
    I said too much the other day.
    Aust is having a heatwave and bush fires.
    I am safe.


  10. “disassembling” +1

    With death a vast quantity of information is lost; it decomposes to lesser information and disperses.. Lost except the small portion which was transferred to someone else; either genetically, or more profoundly, by friendship or teaching. What portion that might be is one choice we certainly have.

    I’ve found thinking of life in the context of Information Theory, or maybe “Information Theory Lite”, to be more helpful than other ways.

    Miroslav Volf’s writings taught me that sometimes losing Information is also the better thing to do. Younger me instinctively bristled at that suggestion; but I get it now.


  11. Yea, I think he should have wrote “disassembling” instead of “disseminating”. Maybe autocorrect got him 🙂


  12. Shout out to Susan this morning. Hope all is as good as it can be. Please let us hear from you during this stressful time. Sending hug.


  13. In addition, we describe death as a process of disseminating stored information.

    Well, actually, I don’t describe death that way, and I’ve never heard it described that way. I’ll have to think about it, but it seems a tad abstract to me for describing something that is intensely personal.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: