Timeline for Is entropy physical or idealistic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
35 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22 at 12:54 | comment | added | How why e | @Dcleve Your response is very insightful and brilliant | |
| Mar 13 at 14:59 | comment | added | AnoE | We do have a high influx of "physicalism vs X" debates recently. Just wanted to point out here that it might may be a bit hair splitting whether to call entropy "idealism" vs. "physical". Usually, at least in my experience, when people talk about dualism or pluralism, they mean things like souls, higher entities etc.. One might or mightn't call "information" also non-physical, but that is a wildly different category than fairies, afterlife etc. Just my 2€. | |
| Mar 12 at 23:03 | answer | added | user121330 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 12 at 18:08 | comment | added | How why e | @SystemTheory +1 I definitely agree. | |
| Mar 12 at 17:00 | comment | added | SystemTheory | To my knowledge all models in physics incorporate, and attempt to preserve, the concept of conservation of momentum. Galileo provides the founding ideal (idea) of momentum when he states: a body projected along a line in a horizontal plane remains in uniform motion (at constant speed) unless acted upon by resistance. This is a counter-factual ideal. Actual bodies change momentum unless we imagine them in counter-factual ideal surroundings. I don't know how physics can claim to comprehend the physical universe as it exists. Physics is a model (ideal) in human minds applying measurement methods. | |
| S Mar 12 at 16:28 | history | edited | How why e | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 62 characters in body
|
| Mar 12 at 7:43 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 12 at 16:28 | |||||
| Mar 12 at 2:37 | answer | added | Bumble | timeline score: 5 | |
| Mar 11 at 20:55 | comment | added | How why e | @JoWehler That is what I am trying to say even its unit is a derivative of energy - Joules and temperature - Kelvin, making it a derivative of these physical quantities. | |
| Mar 11 at 19:51 | comment | added | Nikos M. | @Howwhye there are schools of thermodynamics that have different views on the matter. My view is that entropy is fundamental. | |
| Mar 11 at 19:48 | comment | added | How why e | @NikosM. Yes, I see. It seems to me from your response that entropy is actually a very fundamental property that is not only true in the macroscopic sense but even within the microscopic realm i.e., atoms and subatomic particles alike. I also think that I need to read more on it to properly understand it. I will read your first suggestion. | |
| Mar 11 at 19:39 | comment | added | Jo Wehler | @How why e I do not agree. Entropy is a physical quantity like others, its unit is Joule/(degree Kelvin * mol) . It is well-defined for reversible processes. Its numerical value is determined up to an additive constant, similar to the numerical value of potential energy. | |
| Mar 11 at 19:35 | comment | added | Nikos M. | @Howwhye the references in that answer make clear that entropy is an objective physical property. The 2nd law is of course related to the arrow of time (at least the thermodynamic arrow). | |
| Mar 11 at 19:30 | comment | added | How why e | @NikosM. yes that works but there seems to still be a discrepancy, are you therefore just saying that entropy is just the demonstration of the arrow of time in the physical world. | |
| Mar 11 at 19:27 | comment | added | How why e | @JoWehler I mean to say that the idea itself cannot be quantized just like temperature and other attributes that exist physically. I understand that entropy in and of itself doesn't exist but arises because of other actual attributes such as energy or temperature and their probabilistic distributions. | |
| Mar 11 at 12:26 | comment | added | Nikos M. | Does this answer help?? | |
| Mar 11 at 12:02 | comment | added | kjetil b halvorsen | You should have linked that video ... this might interest you: youtube.com/watch?v=89Mq6gmPo0s | |
| Mar 11 at 11:55 | answer | added | TKoL | timeline score: 6 | |
| Mar 11 at 11:16 | answer | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 11 at 10:22 | comment | added | Peter - Reinstate Monica | Re "I understand this universe is constantly going from a state of order to chaos i.e., a state of high entropy to lower entropy": This is just a terminology issue you have got backwards -- entropy is a measure of chaos, not order. The universe (or any "closed" subsystem within it) evolves towards more chaos, that is, higher entropy. | |
| Mar 11 at 7:13 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Mar 11 at 7:04 | comment | added | Jo Wehler | @Howwhye The change of entropy is a concept from physics, it is defined via the physical quantities heat and temperature. What do mean by asking whether entropy is "idealistic"? | |
| Mar 11 at 3:03 | answer | added | Alistair Riddoch | timeline score: -1 | |
| Mar 11 at 2:12 | vote | accept | How why e | ||
| Mar 11 at 3:21 | |||||
| Mar 11 at 1:57 | answer | added | armand | timeline score: 15 | |
| Mar 11 at 1:08 | comment | added | Conifold | "What it really is in its essence" is nothing grand or pop-culturally interesting, it measures how typical some classes of states are given a probability distribution. That the universe "is going to" more typical states says nothing about what those states might be like without much other information about it. Styer in Entropy as Disorder: History of a Misconception illustrates it with stacks of pennies, salad dressings and dot patterns to show how entropy values come out differently from intuitive expectations of order and disorder. | |
| Mar 11 at 0:52 | comment | added | How why e | @Conifold I have heard that attributing order and chaos are misconceptions multiple times. However, no one has explained to me what it really is in its essence? How would you describe the overall entropy of the universe (as a system) over a certain period of time then? | |
| Mar 11 at 0:49 | comment | added | How why e | @Dcleve what an interesting insight and claim! | |
| Mar 11 at 0:42 | comment | added | Conifold | "Entropy is the probabilistic measure of order" (more commonly - disorder) and "universe is constantly going from a state of order to chaos" are both wrong, those are just common pop-culture misconceptions. See e.g. Michaelides or Denbigh:"entropy increase... and increase of 'orderliness', increase of 'organization' or of 'complexity'... are far from meaning the same thing, but have all been supposed... to be contraries to the process of entropy increase." | |
| Mar 11 at 0:28 | comment | added | Dcleve | This question pushes on one of the problems of plugging "physicalism" into the hole left ontologically when Einstein refuted materialism. Many of the key aspects of physics, such as energy, entropy, and information, are not "material objects" or anything like them. They instead seem to fall into the family of abstract objects. Physics, therefore, is basically ontologically dualist, with both material and abstract idealist features. These are Popper's worlds 1 and 3, as opposed to the world 1 and 2 dualism of Descartes. And if physics is dualist, then physicalISM is dualist too! | |
| Mar 11 at 0:08 | answer | added | RodolfoAP | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 10 at 23:58 | history | edited | How why e | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Mar 10 at 23:33 | history | edited | How why e | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Mar 10 at 23:21 | history | edited | How why e | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 246 characters in body
|
| Mar 10 at 23:13 | history | asked | How why e | CC BY-SA 4.0 |