Colander of Truth

I've read "The Fifth Miracle," by Paul Davies (I think), and it had a great chapter on thermodynamics, discussing how communication theory was seen as affected by the 2nd law of T.

My questions are: Is the scientific method or forms of philosophical parsimony subject to these laws? A result of these laws? At all relevant to these laws?

Any good books about this?

Thanks .........

jj

Well, the arrow of time has a great deal to do with the direction of global entropy, methinks...

But you did ask a question with a lot of ground to cover.

Colander of Truth

Welp, I'm a-gonna go on vacation, prolly won't have any web access. I'll check back in a while.

Thanks, I'll try to research this a bit more ....

Kat_Somm_Faen

Ummm well... try to expand your question. it seems like you left out some relevant info... but that just may be me.

But anyway, let me see if I can clarify. These laws like the laws of thermodynamics are not something that is intrinsic to the Universe because of an equation. Most of the laws of physics dealing with the macroscopic are observational laws. II Law of TE talks about entropy ie. measure of disorder in a system. I highly dubt Botzman had in mind communication theory when he came up with the law of entropy. Guys were just watching what is happening and found that what happens always follows a certain path.

Calling onto these laws in arguments that directly does not concern thermodynamics to me seems like an Argument from Authority. People are becoming used to think of science as a set law that is easly measurable and proven and that gives it and aura of infallibillity. So when I talk about something else I call upon physics and/or thermodynamics to prove my point as in "See this even agrees with the II Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore I must be right and if my position is at odds with your now yours is breaking the fundamental law of physics and you must be wrong." I find it creepy. Same way Xians talk about Big Bang as proof of "the start" and Creators power and intent to create a Universe. Big Bang Theory does not assume God nor any deity, it is a consequence of Hubbles observations about an expanding Universe and the Theory of Relativity. Nothing more. Nothing less. Putting God into equations is really nothing more than wishfull thinking and incorrect interpretation. It is a matter of belief and not physics. It says nothing of God and if you worship such a God because of that you at best worship an equation.

Also, most of laws of physics, math and thermodynamics have a very specific set off assumptions and contitiond where they apply. And in deriving these laws from other observations there are many assumptions that are a necessary condition to apply an equation in solving a particular problem. Thermodynamics is full of it and especially fluid dynamics. For example Bernoullie's equations can be used to solve a problem in fluid dynamics only after a set of assumptios and conditions has been met. And I believe, most strongly, that people dragging these laws into all sorts of arguments and proofs is nothing more than arguing from authority even when these laws speak of heat, heat transfer, work, power and energy. That is the realm of thermodynamics. The basics of such disciplines as mechanical or chemical engineering. Work is equivalent with heat.

Arguing from such laws at best can be a usefull analogy but one thing you have to keep in mind is that analogies can be streched beyond the point of usefullnes ie. and analogy may not neccesaryli translate into supporting one point if some part of is is similar to some other situations. I personally, like to see proof and an argument that some analogy is applicable and similar and that the way of arguing is not leaving some signifficant holes and streching the analogy too far.


These laws are not meant to explain the Universe or why you just had a fight with your wife, the kids hate you or why you had a bad day at the office and why your boss is a jerk or that cute girl in the bar just blew you off. They do not strive to explain those occurences and they were never meant to do that. :banghead:

So these guys that employ such theories should start to analyse their systems, define boundaries, is it open or closed, are the endothermic or exothermic, isotropic and a scores of others. And yes I do have some background in thermal sciences since I have a background in mechanical engineering.

But I think you have not adequatelly explained what does the laws that says entropy change is always increasing or it remains unchanged ie. canot be reversed in a closed system have to do with theory of communications.

Like this:"Oppinisons are like a**es. Everyone has got one."

Is this analogy also correct if streched to its breaking point if I say "Only thing coming out of an a** is s**t therefore all opinion is s**t." But clearly some opinions are valid so this can not be true.

So to conclude, most of the laws of physics speak just about physicall phenomena. Same with thermodynamics and I am very wary of anyone employing analogies pertaining to physical and scientific laws into an argument. Says who those laws are at all applicable it any given situation? They are only proven applicable to the areas where they are used ie. thermodynamics and anyone using it anywere else better be prepared to argue with me why are those laws are applicable to the situation at all.

Does it help at all?