Thermodynamics and Entropy

One specific state of order and one specific state of disorder have the exact same probability.
Two systems with the exact same order can have different entropy quotients.
Am I speaking a foreign language?

If you toss your red, blue and green shirts all over the place, without thought, odds are, they won't arrange themselves into much of a pattern, they'll be some reds with reds, some reds with blues, and some reds with greens. However, the fact that they're all on the floor, and not above it or below it, is itself a pattern. Water would seep through the floor, and balloons would rise above the floor. Objects arrange themselves on planet earth, and elsewhere, everywhere, according to mass, density, and the elements and compounds their composed of. The weak head to the periphery, the strong head to the core. The difference between different colored clothing is slight, therefore, the laws of physics don't perceivably arrange them, the difference between matter/energy in general is not slight, therefore, the laws of physics perceivably arrange them.

It's relative.

These things aren't just a matter of observation, it takes a metaphysician, to interpret them correctly. Therefore, a philosopher, or a highly philosophically minded person, may trump even a physicist, who can't think outside standard conceptualizations, which may be contradictory and inconsistent.

A pattern is, therefore, not order, in that it is a predictable activity/behavior which can be measured by a probability quotient?


How would one measure randomness?

If any predictable state is order, and all states are predictable, then there is no disorder.

ALL states are predictable?
Sounds like a faith based religion to me.

How arrogant that a human would consider all possible states predictable.


So, a random state would NOT be predictable and so not discernible...not measurable.
The only states would be the ones where some pattern was already present, which would make it predictable.

That's the underlying concept of the chaos theory. It proposes that all states are predictable if all variables are controlled, which is an entirely hypothetical situation, obviously.

The universe tends to unpredictability, which is not quite the same as randomness. When you don't understand something, it does not mean that it is breaking the laws of nature.

I know dear...and that's the Alexandrian mythology of what I call secular humanism
All that is, can be known.
Sweets, that you do not understand something does not mean you can understand it, either.
You are an arrogant imbecile.
Just admit it.

And you are its bitch.

Christians have faith that all is geared towards their salvation - they deserve it.
You, and your kind, have been raised ion the bullshit that you, being human, can know all that is.

Nihilism = one mystifies towards the positive, the other demystifies, again, towards the positive.

phoneutria wrote:

If any predictable state is order, and all states are predictable, then there is no disorder.

Exactly, it's all relative.

The truth of the matter is, order and chaos are relative.

A general principle which may not be exactly relative, is, things tend to oscillate between order and disorder, from atoms to galaxies, and everything in between, things tend to assemble, dissemble, and reassemble, and there's some assembling in every dissembling and some dissembling in every assembling. The earth, and everything on it, including nonlife, is full of fractal orders, and molecules assembling themselves to form complex patterns, and these patterns arranging themselves to form more complex patterns.

And there is no absolutely closed system, systems are relatively closed or open, what happens in a manmade jar, isn't a closed system, it's effected by the earth, and the earth is effected by the sun, and sun is effected by the milkyway, and the milkyway is effected by every single thing in the cosmos, and in any case, arrangements are indeed, going on inside the jar, according to substance, not style, relatively meaningful differentiation, not relatively superficial, like color, and so on.

Satyr wrote:

I know dear...and that's the Alexandrian mythology of what I call secular humanism
All that is, can be known.
Sweets, that you do not understand something does not mean you can understand it, either.
You are an arrogant imbecile.
Just admit it.

And you are its bitch.

Christians have faith that all is geared towards their salvation - they deserve it.
You, and your kind, have been raised ion the bullshit that you, being human, can know all that is.

Nihilism = one mystifies towards the positive, the other demystifies, again, towards the positive.

It is not my theory. I am merely stating it as accepted by the scientific mainstream. If you have a problem with it, you should probably write to the American Institute of Physics or one of it's counterparts worldwide.

Divergense wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

If any predictable state is order, and all states are predictable, then there is no disorder.

Exactly, it's all relative.

The truth of the matter is, order and chaos are relative.

A general principle which may not be exactly relative, is, things tend to oscillate between order and disorder, from atoms to galaxies, and everything in between, things tend to assemble, dissemble, and reassemble, and there's some assembling in every dissembling and some dissembling in every assembling. The earth, and everything on it, including nonlife, is full of fractal orders, and molecules assembling themselves to form complex patterns, and these patterns arranging themselves to form more complex patterns.

And there is no absolutely closed system, systems are relatively closed or open, what happens in a manmade jar, isn't a closed system, it's effected by the earth, and the earth is effected by the sun, and sun is effected by the milkyway, and the milkyway is effected by every single thing in the cosmos, and in any case, arrangements are indeed, going on inside the jar, according to substance, not style, relatively meaningful differentiation, not relatively superficial, like color, and so on.

The only closed system that exists, as far as we know, is the entire cosmos. But even on that the jury is still out. It is a difficult thing to prove/disprove, but the answer could close a lot of gaps in our knowledge... or as it is usual open a whole lot more gaps.

Yes, you are regurgitating the official narrative...which is what you have always only been capable of doing.
At the same time you present yourself as a defender of what is right and true and pleasing...a female not like every other...
At the same time you present yourself as a fuckin' mouthpiece for official doctrine....

Now the conundrum can be broken by either you admitting you are a hypocrite or that the official doctrine is the ONLY one.
It is final, absolute, the END.

Which one is it, you dumb cunt?

The established narrative is accessible to ALLL. you imbecile. You are hot the only one with a google capability.
I can YouTube shit also.
You do not have a monopoly on the community data.

It's the interpretation you stupid woman.
If you wish to propose the idea that this age is the end of all ages, that knowledge has reached an end...and that this Modern time is the epitome of all modernity, then do so.
If not, you are another parrot....another simply, woman.

If philosophy, you dumb cunt, was about the simply regurgitation of whatever scientific or spiritual dogma was most popular, or dominant, then what use would we have for it?
Then women, like you and effete males, like PDitty, and simpleton hedonistic materialists, like shit-Stain, would dominate.
Then nobody, including you you, hypocritical dumb cunt, would be on-line...seeking, hungry.

There is no doctrine. There is mainstream acceptance of theories, which are peer reviewed and understood using the scientific method, but contesting of theories is a constant and very positive aspect of the scientific method. Please do write your observations to the Academy of Physics, I am sure that they'll be pleased. Careful with your math, though. They're strict, not just any old bullshit will do.

Entropy is still so closely related with order and disorder that it suits our purposes to continue using the term as well as providing a larger context in which evolutionary events take place against a cosmic background.

Quote :

One of the simpler entropy order/disorder formulas is that derived in 1984 by thermodynamic physicist Peter Landsberg, based on a combination of thermodynamics and information theory arguments. He argues that when constraints operate on a system, such that it is prevented from entering one or more of its possible or permitted states, as contrasted with its forbidden states, the measure of the total amount of "disorder" in the system is given by:[44][45]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Similarly, the total amount of "order" in the system is given by:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

In which CD is the "disorder" capacity of the system, which is the entropy of the parts contained in the permitted ensemble, CI is the "information" capacity of the system, an expression similar to Shannon's channel capacity, and CO is the "order" capacity of the system.[43]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There is not THE order. But that doesn't mean that all patterns are equally viable, depending on what is being talked about.

My field is metaphysics, not the ongoing accumulation of scientific data, we call physics.
See SupderString Theory and Quantum mechanics to see the dead-end Physics has reached.

META-Physics.

Meta, as in before and/or after.

Recidivist wrote:

Entropy is still so closely related with order and disorder that it suits our purposes to continue using the term as well as providing a larger context in which evolutionary events take place against a cosmic background.

If it suits you to be incorrect, I am not about to stop you.
I'll simply disregard everything you say.
Welcome to the fringe.

phoneutria wrote:

Divergense wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

If any predictable state is order, and all states are predictable, then there is no disorder.

Exactly, it's all relative.

The truth of the matter is, order and chaos are relative.

A general principle which may not be exactly relative, is, things tend to oscillate between order and disorder, from atoms to galaxies, and everything in between, things tend to assemble, dissemble, and reassemble, and there's some assembling in every dissembling and some dissembling in every assembling. The earth, and everything on it, including nonlife, is full of fractal orders, and molecules assembling themselves to form complex patterns, and these patterns arranging themselves to form more complex patterns.

And there is no absolutely closed system, systems are relatively closed or open, what happens in a manmade jar, isn't a closed system, it's effected by the earth, and the earth is effected by the sun, and sun is effected by the milkyway, and the milkyway is effected by every single thing in the cosmos, and in any case, arrangements are indeed, going on inside the jar, according to substance, not style, relatively meaningful differentiation, not relatively superficial, like color, and so on.

The only closed system that exists, as far as we know, is the entire cosmos. But even on that the jury is still out. It is a difficult thing to prove/disprove, but the answer could close a lot of gaps in our knowledge... or as it is usual open a whole lot more gaps.

Right, because the universe might be infinite in size/scope. I suspect that it is, because things are probably infinitely divisible, because something indivisible would contradict everything visible, which is divisible, and if everything is divisible, then the total mass of the cosmos is infinite, and you can't draw a border around something infinite, if you say it ends here, look closer, magnify it, if not a billion fold, then a trillion fold, and so on, eventually and inevitably you're bound to see something beyond it, or moving beyond any parameter which your minds eye can draw.

Divergense wrote:

Right, because the universe might be infinite. I suspect that it is, because things are probably infinitely divisible, because something indivisible would contradict everything visible, which are divisible, and if everything is divisible, then the total mass of the cosmos is infinite, and you can't draw a border around something infinite, if you say it ends here, look closer, magnify it, if not a billion fold, then a trillion fold, and so on, and you're bound to see something beyond it, or moving beyond any parameter which you can draw.

Sort of. More specifically, the laws of thermodynamics state that in a close system, 1. energy is always conserved and 2. energy dissipation tends to equilibrium. Thus we are in an open system if we are receiving energy from outside, or losing energy to the outside. Though since "infinite" implies that there is no such thing as the outside, you are correct.

The Bible says....

A bible of physical observable evidence, measured, calculated, reproduceable, scrutinized and peer reviewed, and open to be contested by anyone who wishes to provide evidence of otherwise.

Not a perfect system, but it works well and beats any other by a long, long shot. Evidence: the computer you're using right now, combustion engines, the fact you don't freeze to death living in Canada, et cetera ad nauseum.

Satyr wrote:

See SupderString Theory and Quantum mechanics to see the dead-end Physics has reached.

This is indeed correct.
Science is vanishing up it's own derriere.

One of the most damning observations to be made is this: if science and technology are heading towards some kind of absolute, technological singularity - as the liberal technocrats, who treat it as a surrogate Christianity suggest - and where all things become possible... where are the time travelers?

Why are they not flocking backwards in time in time traveling tourist buses to meet the Christ and other such great historical figures, to meet the apes at the dawn of mankind, buy photos and souvenirs, and tell us of the amazing world to come where all ills are cured and life goes on forever?

The excuses are many and involve nonsense such as parallel universes and worm holes, for which there is not a shred of physical evidence whatsoever.

The truth is dark and frightening to the childish liberal mind.
There aren't any time travelers because despite the billions of years left for the stars to burn it never becomes possible to travel backwards through time.

Their precious singularity is only a myth, as every religion has its myths and claim that entropy is a merely an illusion, and heaven is just around the corner for those that believe.

A hard limit to human achievements that we can see from this point in time.

This is or ought to be a philosophy forum.

Metaphysicians, who're free to draw from observations scientists, or more specifically, researchers have made, may have a superior conceptualization of things than theoretical physicists, and their work can be just as technical as theoretical physicists.

However, there is such a thing as being unnecessarily technical and esoteric. If a scientist hands me something too convoluted for me to comprehend, not cause I'm stupid, but because I lack the time/energy to learn his language, which would take anyone years to learn, and says to me, accept my conclusions, I say fuck him, how do I know it's not full of holes, or that he doesn't have an agenda? If he can't explain it to me in words, terms and mathematics I can understand, I'm not just going to accept it, I say explain it to me in a way I can understand and connect it with a ton of research, preferably from multiple/independent sources and/or everyday experience, and if you can't, I'm going to go with whatever makes sense to me, independently of him and his kind, because his language is noise to me, and I suspect they use such languages to disguise how very mundane what they have to say is.

Some goof said "science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking". Well, what're we doing here? I won't have faith in anyone, you've got to prove it to me, or I'll go with nothing, or whatever I or someone else comes up with that I can understand and verify.

Additionally, it's about values, some shit I'm just not interested in, and there's always elements of the subjective in the objective, our cognition differs, and intuitions and experiences play a role, more/less, in any devising of a theory and testing of a hypothesis, which is why humanity, scientists or whoever, will never be able to reach 100% consensus on anything. What I'm talking about is being a free thinker, free thinking precedes science for me, and is something more akin to philosophy, and it is to that, which real rationalists and individualists, turn to.

Science, no institution, should have a monopoly on thought, and even within science, there's plenty of competing theories on just about everything, but weaker minds always go with the highest POWER, which they cannot fathom, but are drawn to it like moths to a flame.

Divergense wrote:

This is or ought to be a philosophy forum.

Metaphysicians, who're free to draw from observations scientists, or more specifically, researchers have made, may have a superior conceptualization of things than theoretical physicists, and their work can be just as technical as theoretical physicists.

Draw observations from, absolutely. Misinterpret it and derive from that misinterpretation a theory that is not coinciding with observable physical evidence... no.
Everything needs to trace back to phenomena.

phoneee wrote:

A bible of physical observable evidence, measured, calculated, reproduceable, scrutinized and peer reviewed, and open to be contested by anyone who wishes to provide evidence of otherwise.

As noted [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], the final word has not been written nor will it ever be written.
I leave that to your ilk....starting with you, and the bovine-boy.

Anyone, at any time, who claims to have discovered a theory to explain "EVERYTHING" will have gotten past the cynical radar of a stupid cunt, like you, who seems to have a soft spot for official doctrine.
Shall I speculate as to why that is?

Your "cynicism" seems to be selective.
If it is about an individual, then you are skeptical, and demeaning, like a good cunt, but when it's the official, community, belief, then your skepticism - which is what cynicism is, at the end - is on stand-by...you being a good cunt, to the end.
A cunt is , after all, a gateway, to official doctrine - a filtering device.

What that makes you, other than a coward and a hypocrite, and a typical woman, despite the "hungry spider-like bullshit you seduce bovines with, is another fuckin' woman, or an effete man-child....another cunt.
Every age has had them, and every age will forever have them as its majority.
Modern is a word meaning whatever is most current. The majority has always been current, you dumb cunt, and you are but another member of this throng.

You are the ones cheering as Bruno was burned, because it's was peer-reviewed dogma that he was guilty of not abiding by the official narrative.
You seem to think per-review is a scientific invention...being the dumb cunt that you are.

phoneee wrote:

Not a perfect system, but it works well and beats any other by a long, long shot. Evidence: the computer you're using right now, combustion engines, the fact you don't freeze to death living in Canada, et cetera ad nauseum.

Nobody questioned the usefulness of numbers...which is not the same as using them to extrapolate universal theories that encompass all for all-time.
Not unless you produce a device, a creation, which is eternal.

Let me say it again very slowly:

I... don't... care... about... your... opinion... of... me.

You attempt to discredit me on bias is a waste of time.

I will not address anything that isn't directly related to the OP.

phono wrote:

One specific state of order and one specific state of disorder have the exact same probability.
Two systems with the exact same order can have different entropy quotients.
Am I speaking a foreign language?

Perfect diamonds are very rare. The more perfect its level of order the rarer they are.
Not all states of order are all equally probable - this should be immediately obvious for someone observing reality first, before coming to such conclusions.

You jumped immediately to the conclusion you wanted to be true. (and then call it mainstream science...well, maybe it has become popular science but I think not mainstream science, yet)

The reason why not all states are equally probable has to do with probability, well duh. One has to look at every single step which is taking place in a process.
Let's bring this to your most desired area of expertise, your background. Patterns in genetics don't drop from the sky. Not all results are possible when two people mix. If one desire to establish certain traits, then it takes repeated mixing to purify a pattern. And at the same time the desired genetic pattern is under pressure through mutations which produce errors in a pattern.
Like trying to get out the last few dust particles when cleaning a room. Exponentially rising in difficulty as fewer dust particles are left over.

In reality not all states are equally probable.

Belief in creation can be based on the two thermodynamic laws of nature, the two most basic laws in the the entire science realm. The first law states that energy is conserved or constant at all times. Energy, in whichever of its many forms, absolutely can be neither created nor destroyed. This rule ensures a dependable and predictable universe, whether for stars or for human life.

The second basic law of nature also involves energy. It describes unavoidable losses in any process whatsoever which involves the transfer of energy. The energy does not disappear but some always becomes unavailable, often as unusable heat. In other words, everything deteriorates, breaks down and becomes less ordered with time. Ultimately death itself is a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.

Energy conservation implies that the universe did not start up by itself. Energy decay further implies that this universe cannot last forever. Secular science has no satisfactory explanation for such laws of nature. Instead, these laws are entirely consistent with the biblical creation.

What I'm about to write, I'm not writing for anyone in particular:
A ton of inventions have had nothing to do science with.
Science is young, invention is old hat.
Look at the relatively unscientific social and technological revolution occurring in Babylon circa 3000-2500 BC, if I remember correctly.
The Wright brothers learned to fly precisely by disregarding the science of their day (which was unhelpful and discouraging), and DIYing it.
Many new species have been discovered, species science told us were extinct, or never existed, so don't bother looking for them, like the panda bear.
And look at all the blunders science and inventions derived thereof, have made, look what they've done to the earth in the name of "progress".
The point is, I'm not saying don't consider the science, consider it, but don't be bound by it, chained to it, slavishly, unless, that's your nature, irrevocably.
I say don't be afraid to DIY thought, or what are we here for???

Recidivist wrote:

Satyr wrote:

See SupderString Theory and Quantum mechanics to see the dead-end Physics has reached.

This is indeed correct.
Science is vanishing up it's own derriere.

One of the most damning observations to be made is this: if science and technology are heading towards some kind of absolute, technological singularity - as the liberal technocrats, who treat it as a surrogate Christianity suggest - and where all things become possible... where are the time travelers?

Why are they not flocking backwards in time in time traveling tourist buses to meet the Christ and other such great historical figures, to meet the apes at the dawn of mankind, buy photos and souvenirs, and tell us of the amazing world to come where all ills are cured and life goes on forever?

The excuses are many and involve nonsense such as parallel universes and worm holes, for which there is not a shred of physical evidence whatsoever.

The truth is dark and frightening to the childish liberal mind.
There aren't any time travelers because despite the billions of years left for the stars to burn it never becomes possible to travel backwards through time.

Their precious singularity is only a myth, as every religion has its myths and claim that entropy is a merely an illusion, and heaven is just around the corner for those that believe.

A hard limit to human achievements that we can see from this point in time.

It's reducible to this:

When God, as a concept was dead, for most who could not abide by such superstitious, drivel, given the increasing data, then the Sartrean horror of freedom was reached....the Nietzschean resentiment.
The masses chose to latch unto a different absolute, with its own priesthood (experts, and absolutes).
God was turned to a number, a word....ergo "the word was God" and/or the :"word of God".
The perfection, absoluteness omniscient/omnipotence of the concept God, became abstracted into a word (most often LOVE), a number ONE.
There is no "one" outside the human skull, nor any "love" as it is defined by the secular humanists as this form of purified, Platonic idea(l)...but has this prevented cunts, like the "cynical" phoneee to detach from the words?
Nope.
Words is all she has when god is dead.

Words are malleable, so they can mean anything ...ergo cynicism.
but, at the same time, words are defines in the dictionary or in scientific text, aquiring an authority...ergo the cunt phoneee's schizophrenia.
She is cynical (skeptical, in the cold objective sense) only when it comes to unofficial opinions - once it is made official it is religious dogma which she repeats as a biblical scholar repeats scripture.

She questions the mortal man's ideas, but when it comes to the community doctrine then she's no longer a cynic, but another dumb cunt.
See filtering at work there?
Her doubts are meant to test the mortal, everyday man, which she places into a uniform box....but when it comes to the institutional decree, then she; one more stupid woman, repeating, referring, deferring, bending her back and raising her arse to receive the official member's words....
Typical, simple, dumb as shit...

The only use she has of a biological male is as a penis and as an emotional depository.
Her alpha remains fixed.

Except that in science there are no absolute theories, and contesting is part of the method.