Entropy != disorder

Entropy is a physical category. Disorder is an aesthetic category, not a physical one. There is no such thing as “order” that does not require a conscious observer to interpret it as such with logical categories. Appeals to the contrary depend primarily on appeals to metaphysics or faith, typically in the forms of neoplatonism and miracles. Start at 6:20:

If you’re looking for exceptions to the 2nd law in order to argue the second premise of my argument against the anthropic principle, you will probably want to look through this paper:

Claims of exceptions to the second law of thermodynamics are generally met with extreme skepticism that is quite reasonable given the great confidence placed in the second law. But what specifically is the basis for that confidence? The perspective from which we approach experimental or theoretical results that call into question the absolute status of the second law depends greatly on our understanding of why it must be true. For example, a belief that there are solid theoretical arguments demonstrating that the second law must be true leads to a very different perspective than a belief that the law is simply a generalization of empirical observations. This paper will briefly survey and examine some of the basic arguments on which our confidence in the second law might be based, to help provide a well-informed perspective for evaluating the various claims presented at this conference.

INTRODUCTION

The second law of thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental and wellestablished principles of physics. Although originally formulated as simply a generalization of observational experience about the way in which heat flows and our inability to construct perpetual motion machines of the second kind, it has attained a status and domain of application that extends far beyond its direct observational foundations. This status is conveyed in Eddington’s well-known statement: “The law that entropy always increases—the second law of thermodynamics—holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature.” [1]

Why Do We Believe in the Second Law?
Todd L. Duncan
https://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0208291

This is a pet peeve of mine, so I thought the context of yesterday’s post would be a good opportunity to bring it out.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Entropy != disorder

  1. MM says:

    There is nothing that does not require a conscious observer to interpret it as such with logical categories. Appeals to the contrary depend primarily on appeals to metaphysics or faith, typically in the forms of neoplatonism and miracles.

    ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    >actual poasty

    Technically correct, but in the perspective of the everyday human whose body, environment, and ‘soul’ are in a constant state of… ordered degeneration… calling it “disorder” is a judgement of its effects on the individual; a placating miscategorization as “mistake” (people, of course, wouldn’t exist without it. But hey, people don’t like to think of the murder, genocide, famine, and disease that ultimately produced them either)

    IE:

    No, not the puperino! (shoveldog.gif)
    Why car not start!
    Oh no a wrinkle! Thats not supposed to be there!

    NOOOO! I was made for a much grander purpose, I cnat die!!! I am brilliant adn special! NOOO!!!!

    *Haha ‘disorder’ go brrrrrr*

    Its what people do, and is ironically almost certainly the actual purpose of your line of thinking.
    (this is a pet peeve of mine…HAHA! What delusion am I satisfying? “truth is good ecks dee so me good for being with it yay” or something…)

    On the edge of my seat for part three.

    • MM says:

      (this is a pet peeve of mine…HAHA! What delusion am I satisfying? “truth is good ecks dee so me good for being with it yay” or something…)

      this was me shitting on myself fyi

  2. Mycroft Jones says:

    Second Law of Thermodynamics is shite. It ignores the effects of Life. See the work of John Horton Conway (recently deceased) and Stephen Wolfram on cellular automata and emergent order. The third law is reasonable; it is equivalent to saying that when you stop time, nothing changes. Well, duh.

  3. what says:

    >There is no such thing as “order” that does not require a conscious observer to interpret it as such with logical categories

    Unfortunately I haven’t figured out why rationality is rational, myself. I don’t like to appeal to categories I’m incapable of proving, but I’m forced to accept that some things can’t be proven, but are nonetheless true. Literally nothing would be true otherwise, except for syllogisms. Maybe. Words themselves can’t prove the existence of what underlies words.
    I don’t understand why you dislike metaphysics.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s