Oct 25, 2019, 10:29 AM
The world is full of these idiots.
—“Curt Doolittle You wrote «The only thing entropy depends upon is a difference in charge» As soon as you admit entropy depends on anything, you have already disproven the statement you are trying unsuccessfully to defend – viz. “Entropy is the prime mover.” Game over.”—Prem Prayojan
That’s false right?
Entropy is the name we give to the equilibration of differences in charges. Ergo it is a tautology (same by different words).
Differences in charges exist. which tells us nothing about change. entropy tells us the consequence of change.
Or we could say “the process in time we observe as entropy describes the state within time of a difference in charges, where all differences in charges are caused by a competition with other differences in charges that are organized differently.
At present we deduce that a difference in fundamental charges is producing a consequent difference in fundamental charges that we call quantum fields, and a temporary density of that quantum field we call a particle. And by repeating this process of a difference in the pattern of charges, particles form combinations we call atoms or elements, elements form chemicals ,chemicals form molecules, molecules that include carbon produce biochemical molecules, biochemical molecules form proteins, proteins produce molecules necessary for cells, cells produce other cells, cells produce organs, organs produce organisms, organisms produce nervous systems, nervous systems produce memories, memories produce predictions, predictions product choices, and there we go. The entirety of the ‘grammar’ of the universe is – similar to binary or ternary logic – a difference in charges, whose change we call entropy: the tendency of all charges to equilibrate from order caused by differences in charges, to the disorder – the minimum difference in charges possible.
So. As usual, I have just demonstrated the difference between verbal-linguistic sophisms made possible by imprecision by loose association permitting false deduction, induction, and abduction, versus verbal-linguistic testimony made possible by precision using operationalism, limiting false deduction, induction, and abduction.
You are desperate. I understand. You have malinvested in a falsehood. You take pride (self image) in the explanatory power of your malinvestment, and you obtain undoubtably some social status by using such explanatory power of your malinvestment with other weak or dishonest minded people.
But to anyone reading this it’s rather obvious that you just engaged in not only an error, not only a fallacy, but in a fraud, and a fraud perpetrated by sophism. Like the owner of a boat you have invested in a hole in the water into which you must throw further investment to maintain the prior malinvestment.
I understand. I sympathize with your loss.
But you chose poorly.