On 17 Ún, 16:31, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
I couldn't resist commenting on the title of this thread.

Entropy as the supreme law of nature? It may be the "supreme law" of
this universe, but I see no evidence that it is the supreme law of
nature (by "nature" I mean the way all things are, including God as below)..

How did this universe get here? Well, we don't know, but there
is undoubtedly a lot of negentropy about. Let's say "God" created the
universe, where "God" can be a thinking entity or a blind process as you
please.

Two possibilities arise: the negentropy was created by God de novo, or
it was moved from a store of negentropy God has control of.

If the negentropy was created de novo, then there is some process (God)
which can create negentropy, and the law of entropy is not the supreme
law of nature.

If the negentropy was moved from a store of negentropy, where did the
store of negentropy come from? Without descending into infinite
recursion ("it came from another store, and it's turtles all the way
down forever"), which I dislike, perhaps the store "just is", or even
"just was".

Then we ask, is the store of negentropy infinite in extent? If so the
law of entropy is void for nature (as defined above). If not then the
law of entropy may be the supreme law of nature - but I don't know of
any evidence that that is the case.

The answer may be ineffable of course, or even not exist (though they
may be the same thing as far as we are concerned).

-- Peter Fairbrother

Negentropy is not a concept of thermodynamics. It was coined, unfortunately for
him, by Brillouin. He failed to get Nobel price, and tried to connect
thermodynamics with information theory.

I noted, that H function was derived from the polynomial coefficient, counting all
possibilities how motion can be distributed between molecules, for example 7
quantas of motion between 7 molecules. E. g. state aaabbcd can be
transformed to state bbbccd. All quantas stick in one place, when we do not
count with wave functions.

Information entopy measures, how many information strings can be formed
from such strings, e. g. string aaabbcd can be transformed to string bababad
with another meaning. Symbols are dispersed in whole strings, they behave
differently from molecules. These possibilities measured by another polynomial
coefficient. Both coefficients can be identified in the distribution known under
Brillouin's name.
kunzmilan
kunzmilan

kunzmilan wrote:
On 17 Ún, 16:31, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
I couldn't resist commenting on the title of this thread.

Entropy as the supreme law of nature? It may be the "supreme law" of
this universe, but I see no evidence that it is the supreme law of
nature (by "nature" I mean the way all things are, including God as below).

How did this universe get here? Well, we don't know, but there
is undoubtedly a lot of negentropy about. Let's say "God" created the
universe, where "God" can be a thinking entity or a blind process as you
please.

Two possibilities arise: the negentropy was created by God de novo, or
it was moved from a store of negentropy God has control of.

If the negentropy was created de novo, then there is some process (God)
which can create negentropy, and the law of entropy is not the supreme
law of nature.

If the negentropy was moved from a store of negentropy, where did the
store of negentropy come from? Without descending into infinite
recursion ("it came from another store, and it's turtles all the way
down forever"), which I dislike, perhaps the store "just is", or even
"just was".

Then we ask, is the store of negentropy infinite in extent? If so the
law of entropy is void for nature (as defined above). If not then the
law of entropy may be the supreme law of nature - but I don't know of
any evidence that that is the case.

The answer may be ineffable of course, or even not exist (though they
may be the same thing as far as we are concerned).

-- Peter Fairbrother

Negentropy is not a concept of thermodynamics.

Okay, replace "negentropy" by "low entropy".

-- Peter Fairbrother

"Peter Fairbrother" wrote in message
...
|I couldn't resist commenting on the title of this thread.
|
| Entropy as the supreme law of nature? It may be the "supreme law" of
| this universe, but I see no evidence that it is the supreme law of
| nature (by "nature" I mean the way all things are, including God as
below).
|
| How did this universe get here? Well, we don't know, but there
| is undoubtedly a lot of negentropy about. Let's say "God" created the
| universe, where "God" can be a thinking entity or a blind process as you
| please.
|
| Two possibilities arise: the negentropy was created by God de novo, or
| it was moved from a store of negentropy God has control of.
|
| If the negentropy was created de novo, then there is some process (God)
| which can create negentropy, and the law of entropy is not the supreme
| law of nature.
|
|
| If the negentropy was moved from a store of negentropy, where did the
| store of negentropy come from? Without descending into infinite
| recursion ("it came from another store, and it's turtles all the way
| down forever"), which I dislike, perhaps the store "just is", or even
| "just was".
|
| Then we ask, is the store of negentropy infinite in extent? If so the
| law of entropy is void for nature (as defined above). If not then the
| law of entropy may be the supreme law of nature - but I don't know of
| any evidence that that is the case.
|
| The answer may be ineffable of course, or even not exist (though they
| may be the same thing as far as we are concerned).
|
|
| -- Peter Fairbrother

If there can be no end and there must be a beginning, where's the middle?
Where/when/how/why did the contradictory postulates "In the beginning"
and "Forever and ever" originate?
The question is ineffable, never mind the answer; the analogy of time
to length is just too strong in our culture.
How long was a piece of a string? All day long. A piece of string has a
begin
and an end, except in spacetime when it spatially exists forever, somewhen.
Time has no begin or end, why should the Universe?

"tadchem" wrote in message ...
On Feb 16, 8:55 am, "diegel" wrote:
La courbe de poursuite du psychiatre qui essaie de rattraper Pentcho Valev.
C'est pour quand ?

Cela dépendra de quel type de camion le psychiatre conduit.

En tout cas un camion vachement capitoné.

Dirk Vdm

On Feb 17, 8:17 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.phys.uu.nl/igg/jos/

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
pp. 7-8, Jos Uffink: "The historian of science and mathematician
Truesdell made a detailed study of the historical development of
thermodynamics in the period 1822-1854. He characterises the theory,
even in its present state, as 'a dismal swamp of obscurity' (1980, p.
6) and 'a prime example to show that physicists are not exempt from
the madness of crowds' (ibid. p. 8). He is outright cynical about the
respect with which nonmathematicians treat the Second Law: "Clausius'
verbal statement of the second law makes no sense [. . . ]. All that
remains is a Mosaic prohibition; a century of philosophers and
journalists have acclaimed this commandment; a century of
mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from the unclean.
(ibid. p. 333). Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to
follow the argument Clausius offers [. . . ] and seven times has it
blanked and gravelled me. [. . . ] I cannot explain what I cannot
understand (ibid. p. 335)." From this anthology it emerges that
although many prominent physicists are firmly convinced of, and
express admiration for the Second Law, there are also serious
complaints, especially from mathematicians, about a lack of clarity
and rigour in its formulation. At the very least one can say that the
Second Law suffers from an image problem: its alleged eminence and
venerability is not perceived by everyone who has been exposed to it.
What is it that makes this physical law so obstreperous that every
attempt at a clear formulation seems to have failed? Is it just the
usual sloppiness of physicists? Or is there a deeper problem? And what
exactly is the connection with the arrow of time and irreversibility?
Could it be that this is also just based on bluff? Perhaps readers
will shrug their shoulders over these questions. Thermodynamics is
obsolete; for a better understanding of the problem we should turn to
more recent, statistical theories. But even then the questions we are
about to study have more than a purely historical importance. The
problem of reproducing the Second Law, perhaps in an adapted version,
remains one of the toughest, and controversial problems in statistical
physics."

http://www.worldscibooks.com/chemistry/6469.html
A FAREWELL TO ENTROPY. Statistical Thermodynamics Based on
Information.
by Arieh Ben-Naim (The Hebrew University, Israel)
"The principal message of this book is that thermodynamics and
statistical mechanics will benefit from replacing the unfortunate,
misleading and mysterious term "entropy" with a more familiar,
meaningful and appropriate term such as information, missing
information or uncertainty. This replacement would facilitate the
interpretation of the "driving force" of many processes in terms of
informational changes and dispel the mystery that has always
enshrouded entropy."

The money-spinner called "entropy" does not seem to work anymore so
"scientists" are looking for other ways of destroying human
rationality and making money in the process. Another money-spinner
called "Einstein's relativity" does not seem to work either and the
respective "scientists" are leaving the sinking ship in panic:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...0f544955de7d9?

Soon all shopkeepers selling dead science will have to offer some new
product:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTSAFcLXqYY

Pentcho Valev