I would add that some have termed the Maximum Power Principle the Fourth Law of thermodynamics, stating that organisms and ecosystems which maximize the flow rate of ER/EI, quality adjusted have had an adaptive advantage. My new years resolution is to finish the paper I've started on this topic and post a draft here next week...;-)

Its place as in the three laws of thermodynamics is ill-fitting and doesn't really lend itself to actual understanding of thermodynamics.

Perhaps not, but to know WHY things are the way they are is almost as important.

The "Maximum Power Principle" is endlessly fascinating to me. It somehow attempts to address how you can have turtles and cheetahs both in the same environment.

It has found it's way into literary and philosophical explorations, with folks like Thomas Pynchon and Robert Pirsig dealing with the subject either directly or indirectly. Pirsig in his philosophical explorations in the novel "Lila" attempts to grasp how it is that nature seems to move (if you accept both big bang theory and Darwinist natural selection) from the simple to the complex, i.e., it converts raw simple energy from the simplist atom (hydrogen)upward into increasingly complex structures.

Interestingly, this seems to run backwards to the ideas of good engineering. While engineers attempt to build "elegant" devices with fewer and fewer parts and by way of reducing elaboration(motto of the modernist architects, "less is more") nature seems to make a project of moving from simple to ever more elaborate (from the single celled organism to the complicated multi-celled mammals, again if you accept Darwinism)

The arts while claiming to be more in touch with nature as it progresses actually runs backwards to nature, which is all about elaboration and variety as it develops, while in the arts "minimalism" is "modernism",
Fascinating fundamental stuff I could talk about all day, but I am trying to comply with leanen of TOD US's request for brevity! :-)

RC

Re: Engineering tends towards simpler

It easy to explain really. Nature is built to account for failure through trial and error, engineering is built to avoid failure through predictable design. Engineering has become much more complex over the years, but the idea that reducing failure points increasing predictability of failure has been a tenet of the profession for decades (perhaps centuries). As we become better able to understand and design for the complex, we do, but at any point in time, we try and simplify the design to maintain within the parameters we understand best so that life span of a product is longest and most predictable.

Very old quote:

"An engineer is someone who can do for a pound what any fool can do for five."

I'm not one, btw.

I hope you do finish and post. I am really looking foward to it now. I read a book titled 'Into the Cool' about life from a thermodynamics point of view. The book wasn't that great, but the subject matter is absolutely brilliant.