acabobie Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 I have an idea: It takes more time and work to create than it does to destroy something. Examples: 1. A kid spends an hour building a sand castle, another kid jealous of the construct comes over and stomps on it, destroying it within seconds. 2. It takes a long time to build a good reputation, it can be destroyed(or greatly tarnished) in a couple days if a secret/scandal gets loose. 3. In 3 months a house is built in Pakistan, a button is pressed sending down a missile from a drone destroying it in a minute. etc.. Definitions: Creation: The action or process of bringing something into existence. Destruction: The action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired. I feel like there may be exceptions, but I can not think of any. Please provide counter examples!
GOLDENICE Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 Being interested in physics, one example comes to mind. The explosion of a star more than 25 times the mass of our sun is a supernova. The outward propagating shockwave travelling a significant fraction the speed of light literally creates uranium along with other heavy elements. The half-life of an isotope of uranium (U-238) is 4.5 billion years. That means that it will take 4.5 billion years for half of a given amount of uranium-238 to decay. I realize this is a rather odd reply on a philosophy based forum.
acabobie Posted July 12, 2014 Author Posted July 12, 2014 Being interested in physics, one example comes to mind. The explosion of a star more than 25 times the mass of our sun is a supernova. The outward propagating shockwave travelling a significant fraction the speed of light literally creates uranium along with other heavy elements. The half-life of an isotope of uranium (U-238) is 4.5 billion years. That means that it will take 4.5 billion years for half of a given amount of uranium-238 to decay. I realize this is a rather odd reply on a philosophy based forum. I wonder if decaying fits into damaging as in how destruction is defined here. Decaying isotopes would still be the same element as the number of protons does not change, the neutrons do. So the heavy element that you speak of is not destroyed, just changed isotope over time.
GOLDENICE Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 Good point. How about this. It takes little time to conceive (create) a baby but it might take 90 years before that person has enough destruction and his body dies.
acabobie Posted July 12, 2014 Author Posted July 12, 2014 That could work. Two individuals mingle and create another individual, and then that individual undergoes the process of aging. 9 months to be born after being a zygote and to conceive over 50% after 3 months. So the creation process is lets say, a year.On average (and I would still believe this would be the case including stillborn and aborted) humans live longer than a year. I was thinking more along the lines of intended creation and destruction like example 1, and 3.. Example 2, well people talk and gossip, it is not necessarily occurring to the intent of destroying a reputation or perception and also that reputation is not something physical, it is abstract and subjective to different sects of the community. A baby could also be destroyed within seconds of a murderous thought.. I feel dubious about this topic question now. I could say that there is a diamond sword that is made in a couple hours and then someone for some reason explodes a fusion bomb directly on top of it in 30 minutes of the decision, and I would be like hmmm... wonder if the diamond sword still recognizable as a diamond sword?
acabobie Posted July 12, 2014 Author Posted July 12, 2014 Can one 'create' destruction? HOLD IT! Only abstract. The idea destruction has no matter or energy itself. It has no existence physically. P.S. By the way nice Phoenix Wright pic! 1
GOLDENICE Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 Moving from order to disorder, entropy can be considered a form of destruction.
acabobie Posted July 12, 2014 Author Posted July 12, 2014 Moving from order to disorder, entropy can be considered a form of destruction. Other than my chemistry course in college I am at a loss and know little of this, do you care to expand on your thought there? Anyways I looked up the definition and the 5th definition on the website I like for the purposes of this thread. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/entropy En-tro-py... "5. Inevitable and steady deterioration of a system or society." In some other words that come to mind, "what goes up must come down" and "nothing lasts forever". I think we found a good model for counterexamples to my idea. It is a destruction that is not sudden, that decays/deteriorates until it is no longer recognizable as that something. Examples would be the many empires in the world.. It also brings an interesting question to mind, if anarchy becomes accepted globally will it too give way to this kind of entropy?
Culain Posted July 12, 2014 Posted July 12, 2014 NOT SO FAST! J/k thx I enjoy phoenix wright but back tot he topic. You must be careful when looking up definitions for words, as most definitions are translations with interpreted context, when you see a range of definitions for a term it is best to seek the original etymology (where the term originated) when in a debate over semantics. Entropy: En: Inside trope: transformation When applied to: Moving from order to disorder, entropy can be considered a form of destruction. The etymology of entropy holds up.
acabobie Posted July 13, 2014 Author Posted July 13, 2014 NOT SO FAST! ^ What you said! I really need examples here. Preferably ones that are easy to understand, and apply to the real physical universe not just in idea. If one cannot be thought of with "Moving from order to disorder, entropy can be considered a form of destruction." Please then use simple analogies.
Recommended Posts