Time and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

[Zarathustra]

I've said much of this in the Tale of Two Cosmologies thread, but I feel I might be derailing Wayfriend's topic. So I'm moving this particular discussion here. Feel free to talk about chaos, disorder, entropy, time, creation/destruction, etc. as it relates to the Last Chronicles.

Concerning one of the major themes of the Chronicles, Donaldson said in the GI:

On a conscious level, I was more concerned with trying to tell the truth about the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy, everything always runs down), and to suggest that it is the task of every caring being (that perhaps it is the entire purpose of life) to resist the process as much as possible; to preserve as much as we can for as long as we can.

I have suggested that Lord Foul is, in part, a symbol of this chaotic, destructive "force" in nature, and his desire to escape his prison is the natural tendency for entropy to increase chaos whenever we temporarily create local pockets of order (like the creation of the Land and its world). Anytime we create order in the universe, a greater amount of disorder is "expelled" to the environment.

In addition to this theme, we also know that the Last Chronicles is exploring time as a major theme. So what happens when we put these two together? The 2nd law of thermodynamics is one of the "arrows" of time. In case you've never heard of this, the "arrow" of time is what physicists call the apparent flow of time in only one direction. However, they don't know how to explain this apparent one-way flow, because according to all their equations, there is no mathematically distinguishing factor that would necessitate time only going in one direction. In other words, most of their equations work in both directions without contradiction.

However, we are aware of the flow of time by things running down and becoming more chaotic. For instance, we never experience broken cups suddenly coming together into whole cups and leaping up onto tables. Instead, we always see the opposite sequence: cups falling off of tables and breaking. If we saw a film of this event played in reverse, we would easily be able to tell it was going backwards simply because our experience has taught us that the universe doesn't work this way.

So maybe it is no coincidence that SRD wants to explore both time and the 2nd law in his Chronicles. Maybe LF's destructive attempts on time itself are self-defeating (for Foul), because once you undermine the "arrow" of time, and things don't necessarily have to flow from past to future, then the 2nd law of thermodynamics no longer holds, and chaos doesn't necessarily have to overcome order. Foul may end up killing himself in his attempts to free himself . . . whatever that might mean symbolically. But it would be an incredible end to the series! Foul finally dies because he destroys the very laws that require chaos to increase. It ties perfectly into the paradox theme, because just as there can be no order/creation without chaos/destruction, the reverse holds as well: there can be no chaos without the "law" of entropy and the one-way flow of time.

[Nerdanel]

Well, I disagree about Lord Foul = chaos. I think we have already learned that things like law, beauty, or truth are not the opposite of Lord Foul, whose true domain is things like evil and despair. For example, Lord Foul is not against beauty as such, only people enjoying beauty.

Gettin more on topic, I would say Lord Foul would be Neutral Evil in the D&D alignment system. The Ravers would be Chaotic Evil, ur-viles Lawful Evil; Cavewights Neutral Evil. The Illearth Stone would be the embodiment of Chaotic Evil might in the Land, but it's just another tool to Foul, although a very powerful one. I think Lord Foul in fact likes order very much; it just has to be HIS order. Consider the obsessive symmetry and perfection of Ridjeck Thome. Consider the way the Sunbane combines Law and Chaos to make a truly unpleasant whole featuring both despair-inducing inevitabilities and unpredictable nasty surprises.

I agree about the arrow of time, though. I think Lord Foul is currently hastening entropy, because if the universe winds down by itself, as would naturally occur after a VERY LONG time, he would be free. Naturally he would like that to happen much faster but he has a problem with the Worm awakening and stuff.

I've been thinking that Foul is taking a calculated risk of destroying himself, because he has been in so much pain for so long that the worst thing he can imagine is having to endure that for uncounted eons further. Either he will be free or he will be dead, but he won't be imprisoned any more.

[Zarathustra]

Well, I disagree about Lord Foul = chaos. I think we have already learned that things like law, beauty, or truth are not the opposite of Lord Foul, whose true domain is things like evil and despair. For example, Lord Foul is not against beauty as such, only people enjoying beauty.

I think that LF symbolizes quite a few things. Yes, I agree that despair and hatred are part of this, so that he would symbolize mankind's reaction towards destruction and chaos--one particular way we can react to the unattractive truths of existence.

However, isn't he called Corruption by the Haruchai? Isn't this synonomous with destruction? Why is his chief weapon destruction/corruption?

[Nerdanel]

However, isn't he called Corruption by the Haruchai? Isn't this synonomous with destruction? Why is his chief weapon destruction/corruption?

Considering that I would class the Haruchai as Lawful Neutral on the D&D scale and how they consistently put honor above everything else, I think they would perceive evil as chaos, because chaos interferes with their inflexible, 100%-ordered mindset. If they are insensitive in an ordered and honorable fashion, they do not see anything wrong with it. Similarly they would fail to see external evil that conformed with their love of order.

Lord Foul uses many kinds of weapons. The Clave, for example, is hierarchical and dogmatic in nature and I would classify it as Lawful Evil. In the First Chronicles there was the matter of the Illearth Stone equalling a very big amount of power, making it a natural choice for Foul. However, if you define any "change for the more evil" as corruption, Foul could hardly do otherwise in promotion of evil.

[wayfriend]

Is it necessarilly true that Lord Foul is symbolic of destructive force? Need he be the demiurge for destruction that is inherent in any creation?

The Worm is sufficient destructive force to fill the requirement. (Whatever the Worm may also be.)

It may be that Foul is only an agent whose morbid desires lead him to find destructive forces and unleash them, forces outside of himself. He's not the keg of dynamite, he's the guy with matches. He's not death, he just likes watching death on TV.

Foul has enough of a job being despite personified, if you ask me.

Leprosy is a strange turn in the natural order, but natural nonetheless. Despite doesn't arise from leprosy, it arises from those who make leprosy hell for a leper. It's not nature, it's a choice.

[edit] Remember that Donaldson calls Foul 'archetypal evil'. He also says that everything alive carries within it the seeds of it's own destruction. I think it's a leap to suggest that those seeds are evil. Destructive, yes, but destruction has it's place in the order of things. Anyone whose defeated a Sunbane knows that. I think we shouldn't be mistaking destruction for evil. Or chaos, for that matter.

[Tulizar]

Maybe LF's destructive attempts on time itself are self-defeating (for Foul), because once you undermine the "arrow" of time, and things don't necessarily have to flow from past to future, then the 2nd law of thermodynamics no longer holds, and chaos doesn't necessarily have to overcome order. Foul may end up killing himself in his attempts to free himself . . . whatever that might mean symbolically. But it would be an incredible end to the series! Foul finally dies because he destroys the very laws that require chaos to increase. It ties perfectly into the paradox theme, because just as there can be no order/creation without chaos/destruction, the reverse holds as well: there can be no chaos without the "law" of entropy and the one-way flow of time.

Interesting idea. I love the irony!! Foul dies thanks to his inability to properly manage his chaos in an orderly fashion.

In most bad fantasy stories the worst thing about time travel is that the writer can make up the rules as he goes. Let's jump back a hundred years, kill Hitler then enjoy a thousand years of peace and prosperity.

When a good writer is constrained by scientific theory that's another matter. I understand (as much as my scientifically challenged mind is able) entropy and the arrow of time. Entropy is unusable (chaotic?)
energy in a given realm. I understand that things naturally break down.
I'm not sure if moving from the present to the past would actually reverse anything or undermine time. It could even be a natural process that doesn't affect the future at all. If I go back in time, how much can I disrupt if I'm able to make it to the point when I am able to go back in time?

The notion of reversing the arrow of time--moving from present to past--appears to be unnatural, but is the physical act any different than moving forward in time? Will time travel reverse the process of things breaking down, or would it simply have the same effect as following the arrow of time only in the opposite direction? Is it the actual movement into the past that is disruptive, or is it the ability to do so that will harm Lord Foul?
Is anything actually being disrupted by simply following the arrow of time in a different direction? I'm not sure. I know moving backwards in time is not natural, but is it necessarily disruptive?

When Linden rode the caesure into the past, she might not have disrupted anything, she simply utilized an unorthodox means of transportation. Sure, she might pick up a piece of evil green stone and bring it back to the Haruchai stronghold, but is this specific act disruptive, or is it the idea that she can travel beyond the constraints of the forward moving arrow of time the problem? I wonder.

[KAY1]

I don't think Foul is so much about destruction as corruption. he seems to depise the natural order of things so I don't know where that fits in with the theory of him being I suppose, a natural phenomenon himself.

Can Foul's nature ever change or is he who he is because he has to be? I think this has been discussed in several threads already. Can true evil ever change?

As for the time paradox, I put forward the idea that if Foul destroyed the Arch it would break the Law saying that no action can ever be undone and allow his actions to be undone. I think someone pointed out though that this wouldn't quite work.

If you have ever seen the film 'The Butterfly Effect' it deals quite well with time travel in a sense and how changing things in the past can affect the future.

[Buckarama]

I always thought of Foul as the imperfection in a perfect creation. Like the magic guy in the sand place you know!

Kerasyn and Sandgorgons Doom

[Zarathustra]

Hmm . . . maybe I didn't think this out or express it very well.

It is not just the fact that Linden went backwards in time. That didn't reverse the arrow of time. I was talking more about Foul's goal: the destruction of the Arch. If he ever achieves this goal (which is possible--this is the LAST Chronicles), it would mean that the order, the structure of time itself would be shattered.

Remember, SRD said:

Like sequence, linearity: sentences don’t actually mean anything unless the words are arranged in a very specific order. If you change the order, you change the meaning. And if you remove “order” itself, you remove all meaning. *That*, in its simplest terms, is the Arch of Time. It both imprisons and enhances each individual word, each individual character, each individual situation; each LIFE.

The Arch is the order or structure of time, the one-way linear nature of time. Destroying it is essentially destroying its structure (because that's all it really is).

However--and here is where the paradox comes in--this linear one-way structure is the very thing that necessitates entropy. If you could violate this one-way linear structure, you remove the necessity of entropy. You remove the necessity of mortality, disease, destruction, etc. And since these are the chief things that people despair about, you remove the power of the Despiser.

I'm not sure if SRD is thinking along these terms. Maybe it's a hole in his logic.

Wayfriend, you make excellent points about Lord Foul. Maybe you are right that he doesn't represent chaos/destruction/corruption, but instead uses those things to achieve depair. It does seem that the Worm would be better suited for that role--entropy "resting." The seeds of the end.

[Nerdanel]

I think Foul isn't supposed to be in the world and doesn't belong there. Banes such as the Illearth Stone already fulfill the necessary role of evil (I think a world could be created without them, it just would be likely to be destroyed at the slightest disruption and would only contain innocents and no heroes), so extra evil in the form of a conscious Despiser wasn't really needed.

I'm viewing Lord Foul as the Creator's dark side that he didn't want to have. Foul is 100% evil because he isn't a full person. I think he will eventually merge with someone, most likely Covenant, to produce something a little more balanced, which will open the door to either rehabilitation or Foul's final destruction (since could a Foul/Covenant merge fight Linden with all his heart?)

[Tulizar]

If you have ever seen the film 'The Butterfly Effect' it deals quite well with time travel in a sense and how changing things in the past can affect the future.

I guess this is the unknown that troubles me about time travel. Will travelling to the past actually alter anything? If changing one incident in the past alters everything in the future, how is the time traveller able to arrive at the point when he is able to travel back in time? Since his future will logically be altered by changing the past, how is it possible that everything falls into place so that he might travel to the past to alter the future? So, by travelling to the past, is anything actually altered? Talk about your paradox.

Hmm . . . maybe I didn't think this out or express it very well.

It is not just the fact that Linden went backwards in time. That didn't reverse the arrow of time. I was talking more about Foul's goal: the destruction of the Arch. If he ever achieves this goal (which is possible--this is the LAST Chronicles), it would mean that the order, the structure of time itself would be shattered.

Remember, SRD said:

Like sequence, linearity: sentences don’t actually mean anything unless the words are arranged in a very specific order. If you change the order, you change the meaning. And if you remove “order” itself, you remove all meaning. *That*, in its simplest terms, is the Arch of Time. It both imprisons and enhances each individual word, each individual character, each individual situation; each LIFE.

The Arch is the order or structure of time, the one-way linear nature of time. Destroying it is essentially destroying its structure (because that's all it really is).

However--and here is where the paradox comes in--this linear one-way structure is the very thing that necessitates entropy. If you could violate this one-way linear structure, you remove the necessity of entropy. You remove the necessity of mortality, disease, destruction, etc. And since these are the chief things that people despair about, you remove the power of the Despiser.

I'm not sure if SRD is thinking along these terms. Maybe it's a hole in his logic.

That makes sense. I understand what you're saying about the destruction of order and liner time. It makes complete sense that the Arch is logically based on a forward moving time scheme, and if this Arch was destroyed, then the order of the time scheme would be disrupted.And since this is SRD's story, he gets to make the rules about what happens when the Arch is destroyed.

I was just wondering if entropy would still exist if a person travels back in time. He's still moving, breaking down energy etc--the only difference is that he's moving in a different direction.

Maybe I should stop here. I think I'm confusing myself!

[wayfriend]

Remember, SRD said:

Like sequence, linearity: sentences don’t actually mean anything unless the words are arranged in a very specific order. If you change the order, you change the meaning. And if you remove “order” itself, you remove all meaning. *That*, in its simplest terms, is the Arch of Time. It both imprisons and enhances each individual word, each individual character, each individual situation; each LIFE.

The Arch is the order or structure of time, the one-way linear nature of time. Destroying it is essentially destroying its structure (because that's all it really is).

Careful ... you may be infering too much from his analogy. "Linearity" was mentioned as a necessary ordering element for sentences ... it's not necessarilly true he's saying it's a necessary ordering element for the Earth. He's just saying that there needs to be order. Which doesn't mean that linearity isn't important. I just don't think SRD's quote makes that statement.

[Zarathustra]

Careful ... you may be infering too much from his analogy. "Linearity" was mentioned as a necessary ordering element for sentences ... it's not necessarilly true he's saying it's a necessary ordering element for the Earth.

I wholeheartedly disagree. What is time if not linear sequence? What other "order" does time impose other than sequence?

Why do ceasures threaten time in the first place? I believe it is because events no longer have to follow a past-present-future sequencing when they flow through a ceasure. Ceasures ARE disruptions in this sequencing--otherwise, how could you use them to go backwards in time?

It is certainly not a coincidence that SRD used linearity in sentences as an analogy to the order of time. Time is one event following another, just as a sentence is one word following another. Just as linear order of words determines their meaning, the linear order of events determine their "meaning." If an effect can happen before its cause, then the very fabric of cause-effect relationships break down into meaningless chaos. The fact that events appear to have explicable causes is the sole reason that things like science--or even common sense--is possible. The world appears reasonable and ordered because effects follow cause in a linear sequence.

[IrrationalSanity]

If changing one incident in the past alters everything in the future, how is the time traveller able to arrive at the point when he is able to travel back in time?

That is one of the premises in the remake of The Time Machine from a few years ago. No matter what he tried, the protagonist couldn't prevent his love from dying, and if he had, he wouldn't have invented the time machine to prevent her death.

[Avatar]

I thought there was no reason for time to be linear? That the "theory" worked equally well in any direction in which it was applied?

--A

[Marv]

Careful ... you may be infering too much from his analogy. "Linearity" was mentioned as a necessary ordering element for sentences ... it's not necessarilly true he's saying it's a necessary ordering element for the Earth.

I wholeheartedly disagree. What is time if not linear sequence? What other "order" does time impose other than sequence?

Why do ceasures threaten time in the first place? I believe it is because events no longer have to follow a past-present-future sequencing when they flow through a ceasure. Ceasures ARE disruptions in this sequencing--otherwise, how could you use them to go backwards in time?

It is certainly not a coincidence that SRD used linearity in sentences as an analogy to the order of time. Time is one event following another, just as a sentence is one word following another. Just as linear order of words determines their meaning, the linear order of events determine their "meaning." If an effect can happen before its cause, then the very fabric of cause-effect relationships break down into meaningless chaos. The fact that events appear to have explicable causes is the sole reason that things like science--or even common sense--is possible. The world appears reasonable and ordered because effects follow cause in a linear sequence.

If every effect has a cause and those causes in turn have their own causes, then surely you can just keep working back to the point of creation? do you not believe in free will?
isnt the key premise to the plot that Covenant can choose?

[Nerdanel]

I've been thinking that the problem of how timetravel and free will go together will be a plot point later on... This wouldn't be a problem (some choices would simply result in the end of the world) but the Arch of Time is capable of preserving itself to some degree, as I think is seen in the way bodily continuity is respected over summonings.

Some examples:

Could Lord Foul have chosen not to hit Covenant on the mouth in TPTP?

Could Lord Foul have chosen not to kill Covenant when he was dying in the "real world"? (Remember, Foul's entire plan was doomed by this act.)

Could Covenant have saved Elena's life if he hadn't shaved before entering the caves? Would Elena have chosen another wish, defeated Kevin's specter by herself or with Covenant's help, or would Lord Foul have ordered Kevin do something else, like take Elena alive?

[Zarathustra]

If every effect has a cause and those causes in turn have their own causes, then surely you can just keep working back to the point of creation? do you not believe in free will?
isnt the key premise to the plot that Covenant can choose?

I certainly believe in freewill. But I'm not sure how time has anything to do with this subject. Are you saying that in order for there to be freewill, there have to exist effects that don't have causes? Freewill doesn't imply random, causeless effects. And just because effects have causes doesn't mean that these causes weren't free choices.

Tracing the cause-effect sequence of choices backwards imposes no restriction whatsoever upon freewill, since those choices have already been made. If my will is the cause of choice A, which produces effect A, I could have just as easily made choice B instead, and produced effect B instead of effect A. Both effects still have a cause (my will), and they are both free choices.

I suppose you're saying that my choice is an effect of another cause? And because that choice had a cause, it is no longer free? I disagree. My choice to eat ice cream may be caused by someone offering me ice cream, combined with my biological predisposition to like ice cream. But I still could have said no. And yes, my choice to say no had a cause, too (my desire to lose weight, etc.). But because I can freely choose which cause to affect my choice, the choice is still free.

The alternative is to say that free will implies no reason, no justification for our actions whatsoever. It implies that choice is completely random--more like a whim than a choice.


However, we are diverging from my original point. I don't mind to join you in a new thread if you want to discuss free will, time, and causality. Perhaps we can even discuss David Hume, who believes that there is no such thing as causality at all!

I recognize that my subject is a little obscure. But doesn't anyone out there think it is intriguing that Foul's plan (attacking the structure of time) may undermine all reasons for despair? If we could find a way to end entropy in our world, we would literally create magic. We could live forever. We would be gods. I'm not sure that you all are appreciating the magnitude of the limitations imposed upon life by entropy. The reason SRD wanted to explore entropy in his series is because it is the chief reason for despair in the world. It is the reason why things end, why we must die, why our efforts are all futile, why everything we create is doomed to be destroyed.

I thought there was no reason for time to be linear? That the "theory" worked equally well in any direction in which it was applied?

This is one of the problems. Scientists don't know why time appears to move forward in a linear fashion. Maybe it is just an illusion, after all. Remember, time is relative to one's reference frame. Travelers approaching the speed of light experience time at a different "rate" relative to people in slower reference frames. Maybe (this is my speculation) there is an even larger "relativity" of time that is imposed by conscious beings living as solitary, singular entities. Just as we seem to experience only one particular "spot" in space--Here--due to our singular existence, we also experience one particular time--Now--for similar reasons. But I believe singular consciousness is a primitive form of consciousness, and that a more unified consciousness may reveal time and space to be illusions.

[Nerdanel]

I think a big reason behind Lord Foul's getting the Masters strive to erase all magical knowledge from the people of the Land would be that when the various Laws get broken Lord Foul will get to exploit that without opposition from a new Council of Lords. Foul is making the reality more unstable, and that has tremendous potential for both good and ill. Making the universe a hell forever or until the Arch gets broken is the kind of thing that is becoming increasingly doable.

But I don't think messing with the time is stopping entropy. Rather I think entropy is greatly accelerating. For example, before too long the entire Southron Range is going to crumble into dust due to the caesures. And the glory of the world becomes less than it was.

[wayfriend]

It is certainly not a coincidence that SRD used linearity in sentences as an analogy to the order of time.

Yep. But he still didn't say that which you are saying he said.

(Yes, I've quibbled bigger quibbles, or should I say smaller quibbles, than this.)