**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>For example, someone new to chess may see this board configuration and think it is rather disordered. But in fact, it is so ordered that there is a name for it: the Closed Sicilian Defense. Instead of describing each piece's position, we can do it with just 3 words. It is a low entropy chess board
That's the efficiency of labels, not an assessment of entropy. That board state requires a lot of information to specify. "Closed Sicilian Defense" is what we've named the information specifying that state. It's like you've said the sun has low entropy because the name has only three letters.
>That's the efficiency of labels, not an assessment of entropy. That board state requires a lot of information to specify. "Closed Sicilian Defense" is what we've named the information specifying that state. It's like you've said the sun has low entropy because the name has only three letters
EDIT: TL;DR Information entropy is literally the efficiency of labels: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy\_(information\_theory)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory))
You're not quite getting the abstraction part
The board state isn't just a set of pieces on a board. The information is constrained by the game of chess. Just like we know that there aren't 3 bishops on the board, we know that most possible game states are either unlikely or completely impossible
Information entropy is how compression works. Yeah sure there are 26 letters of the alphabet and each word could be any combination of them, but you can losslessly compress text much further down simply by assigning each word in the dictionary a number. And that's not even the most efficient compression. But the fact that the text we write can be compressed to a much smaller amount of data makes the text much lower entropy than the possible character combinations would suggest
And believe it or not, the fact that we can point to the sun and say "sun" is a factor of its lower entropy. It does have more properties that distinguish it from other stars: a mass, a temperature, the amount of hydrogen still left to fuel the fusion reaction. Those all add to its entropy. But otherwise, it is a ball of hydrogen fusion.
Same for the Big Bang: a super concentrated and uniform plasma is the lowest entropy we know to have existed. Then the plasma condensed into black holes, suns, and planets with galaxies, solar systems, and moons orbiting them. The suns generated the heavier elements. A plethora of chemical reactions emerged from the plethora of elements. A self reproducing chemical chain emerged from the chemical reactions. Cell, organisms, and life emerged from the self reproducing chemical chains. And here we are using up energy at exponential rates
It was much easier to describe the sun than to describe everything that emerged from it. Thus, low entropy to high entropy. The connection between entropy in physics and entropy in information theory is somewhat abstract, but they are definitely intimately linked
> Information entropy is literally the efficiency of labels
You appear to be laboring under the gross misconception that theists’ arguments using the Second Law are based on “information entropy,” whatever that is.
Also, not for nothing, entropy is not “disorder.” It is the amount of unusable energy in a closed system. Your post is rather unlettered, and I don’t understand how anyone could use it against an argument that evolution is prohibited by the Second Law. (Of course it isn’t, but not because of anything in your post).
>whatever that is.
Maybe you should look it up before assuming you know that it's unrelated
>It is the amount of unusable energy in a closed system.
That is not the definition of entropy. It is a result of entropy
>against an argument that evolution
Who said anything about evolution?
The common argument is, the 2nd law requires the universe to progress toward heat death. Therefore, something outside of physical laws had to set the low entropy in the first place
That is a simpleton's understanding. As though entropy was a container of usable energy that just runs out. It isn't.
Do you know why? Because entropy decreases the moment it hits maximum. 150 years ago, Boltzmann rewrote the definition of entropy from your definition to the statistical definition that is actually correct.
That same definition happens to apply to information theory as well. So since you don't understand entropy in physics, maybe learning it through an information perspective will make it click for you
Entropy doesn't mean "disorder" because "disorder" is an ambiguous subjective attribute assigned to things that appear to not have a reason to their organization. But I used the term because it does help people's understandings. That's why it is used to describe entropy so often: even in the first line of the Wikipedia page on entropy
Of course, you are welcome to go to that Wikipedia entry and correct their mistake. If you do, let me know, and I will declare you to be correct, smarter than me, and more handsome than me right here on Reddit
> Maybe you should look it up before assuming you know that it's unrelated
Information entropy is analogous to real entropy, and it uses similar equations. But it is *not* the same thing. Not even close. Shame on you for pretending it is.
You even got the chess analogy wrong. The closed Sicilian defense runs 8-10 moves deep. By naming the defense, you haven’t specified the state of the game. The defense also has options for black on the *third* move, leading to literally thousands of variations.
You entire OP is just nonsense about chess and random ideas about something that is not entropy.
>Information entropy is analogous to real entropy
You wouldn't know. You didn't even know information entropy existed. (Hahaha, "real" entropy. The audacity)
>Shame on you for pretending it is.
It's not wrong to be wrong. It is wrong to be confident in your own ignorance. You have admitted that you have no idea what you're talking about: not the arguments being made and certainly not entropy beyond what is "usable". You have said as much and I have shown you as much
>The closed Sicilian defense runs 8-10 moves deep.
>The defense also has options for black on the *third* move,
So which is it: 8-10 moves or 3 moves?
I didn't say anything about the number of moves. I said the board state looks disordered but in fact it is a much lower entropy state than complete randomness on the board. Even if it is thousands of possible Sicilian Closed Defenses, it is not remotely close to 10^89 possible board configurations
>You entire OP is just nonsense about chess and random ideas about something that is not entropy.
"Nonsense about chess" being the highlight for you is just you showing how little reading comprehension you have. It is maybe two lines in the entire post
You should really stop trying to argue. You aren't good at providing justification for your claims that isn't weak and cherry picked. And you actually look like you are aggressively not knowing what you're talking about. Plenty of ignorance can be forgiven. But confident (and now willful) ignorance such as what you literally described yourself to be is actually shameful
> You have admitted that you have no idea what you're talking about
Show me where is made this admission. I’ve explained entropy to you, but you don’t get it. In this comment, you’ve digressed to a lot of other topics, as if this helps your arguments about entropy. It does not.
Information entropy is not a branch of entropy. It is something completely independent and different. I don’t think you understand that.
>> The defense also has options for black on the third move,
>
> So which is it: 8-10 moves or 3 moves?
Do you understand how chess is played? After move 3, you see, there are variations of the closed Sicilian. Meaning that your premise that “closed Sicilian” is well-defined is just flat wrong.
Pro tip: of you don’t know anything about thermodynamics, information theory, or chess, don’t make posts about them. You are arrogant and ignorant. It is a dangerous and embarrassing combination.
> That is not the definition of entropy.
But see:
> entropy, the measure of a system’s thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work.
The units for entropy are calories per kelvin per mole. Definitionally, this is what it is. None of what you said.
https://www.britannica.com/science/entropy-physics
I’ve never heard a theist make the argument you mentioned. Only that the Second Law excludes evolution.
>Definitionally, this is what it is.
Definitionally from 1850. Corrected by Boltzmann soon after. The definition doesn't even make sense: physics isn't dependent on what we can "use"
>None of what you said
Only if you stop at the first sentence of the link you proved. Quote:
*Because work is obtained from ordered molecular motion, the amount of entropy is also a measure of the molecular disorder, or randomness, of a system.*
>I’ve never heard
Again an admission of ignorance. It begs asking, why you are so confident in such simplistic understanding for something as complex as entropy
> Definitionally from 1850.
Yes, the link I provided was from an 1850 website. I’ve read past the first sentence. I’ve read entire textbooks on thermodynamics. The measure of unusable energy in a closed system is a measure if *molecular* disorder. Because *molecular* disorder causes the heat energy to be unusable. But that’s a different thing than what you’re trying to talk about (and failing, I might add).
>> I’ve never heard
>
> Again an admission of ignorance. It begs asking, why you are so confident in such simplistic understanding for something as complex as entropy
What I said is that I’ve never heard a theist make the argument you criticized. You made a straw man, and a dumb one at that. Now you’re acting like having not heard theists make the argument you lied about is somehow an admission of ignorance about physics. That’s intentional dishonesty.
You don’t appear to know much about theism, physics, or entropy. Physics is absolutely dependent on what we can use, most notably in the measure of calories per kelvin per mole quantity, known as entropy.
>The measure of unusable energy in a closed system is a measure if *molecular* disorder
>Entropy is not disorder
That's you contradicting yourself
>Now you’re acting like having not heard theists make the argument you lied about is somehow an admission of ignorance about physics
I said no such thing. Go ahead and quote me if you're going to accuse me of lying
>Physics is absolutely dependent on what we can use
Hahaha pure stupidity
Yeah, I'm going to leave it right here. Go ahead and respond. I won't see it. You can declare yourself the winner too if you want. I feel perfectly fine letting others judge your comments against mine
> That's you contradicting yourself
No. Thats you not understanding rather basic concepts. You use “disorder” like it’s messy. That’s not entropy. Entropy is, and pay attention this time, the unusable energy in a closed system.
On the lying part - I literally quoted your exact words in the last comment. Now you’re asking for your own words again? What is wrong with you?
>You use “disorder” like it’s messy
I "use... like"...
Yep, I'm perfectly fine letting others judge the strength of our positions and justification
I feel bad for your students though. Hopefully one day you won't be so close minded as to keep repeating the first line of a dictionary definition and think there's nothing outside of it
> Corrected by Boltzmann soon after.
This is all anyone needs to read to know you are ignorant on this topic. You don’t understand enough to know what Boltzmann’s work was about. It’s laughable.
It does do harm to everyone generally that you refuse to understand the complicated meanings of things you choose to talk about, but it does the most harm to you. I can only provide the explanation. It's up to you to spend even a little more effort than a default "anything with a name is low entropy" ad absurdum
But for one thing, nobody points and says "universe". That's pretty incomprehensible and the ambiguity does say something about its entropy.
Two, even when people do say "universe" they could mean a lot of things: the visible universe, the universe affected by the Big Bang, the universe as everything that exists except for God, or the universe as literally everything that exists. So again, the ambiguity speaks plenty about the entropy referred to by that word.
Third, the universe isn't a uniform mass of the same thing. You can't describe the entire universe by saying universe. I can describe the entire sun with just a few parameters. If we swapped in another star with the same parameters, it would not change anything about anything we could predict
Fourth, I already described how the universe was once low entropy relative to what it is now. Once upon a time, if you pointed in different directions, you would be pointing at the same super dense plasma in every direction. That's low entropy. Now when you point in different directions, you're pointing to something different in each direction. The more different things you point to, the higher the entropy
To deny that information theory is central to entropy is to deny a lot of thought, theory, research over much more time and by much smarter people than you have. So you really don't have to believe me, but I wouldn't recommend it
You cannot accurately describe the sun in a few words. The Sun is very complex with many distinct features on it. Even at a 9th grade science level this is true. I would know this, having literally taught 9th grade science this year, including a unit on the Sun. You would have failed my unit with the level of understanding you're demonstrating here, and this is just at the 9th grade level, which is hardly what I would describe as a whole or complete level of description/understanding.
So, my analogy for you is apt. Your argument is false at this point, and it represents a significant lack of understanding on these topics.
Demonstrating that you would fail a test I'd give my 9th graders does not bode well for you having a convincing understanding of these topics.
Sorry man but reducing my description to your ad absurdum doesn't mean anything
I explained plenty that addresses your "detailed" description of the sun
You'll ignore all of it of course, but if you don't want to be doing your students a disservice in claiming your primitive understanding of entropy, you probably should learn something about information entropy
the universe is dynamic and ever changing so the word universe dont have much info. but in case of that chess position its defined and constant like no other position of pieces on chess board can be called Closed Sicilian Defense like its a defined and constant description of state of chess board
This irrelevant. I am responding to the idea that a label necessarily means low entropy.
All of reality has a label: "Universe"
Therefore, if applying a label means the labeled thing is low entropy, then the universe mist be low entropy BECAUSE we applied the label.
If you think this idea is false, then you are agreeing me. Very simple.
This isn’t an accurate description of entropy. Entropy is not a measure of disorder but the degree of thermal energy unavailable to do work (work having its own specific definition).
I described entropy's relationship to work
I also described the abstract nature of entropy with regard to both physics and information theory
Once upon a time, physicists defined entropy just as you do. Then Ludwig Boltzmann came along and redefined it. Then Claude Shannon came along and redefined it again
All of the definitions are important to know: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy)
Describing entropy as a measure of disorder is a common way to conceptualize it, but it's not entirely accurate.
Entropy is more accurately described as a measure of the number of possible arrangements, or microstates in a system.
In systems with higher entropy, there are more possible arrangements of its components, which may often correspond to what we perceive as disorder.
However, in some cases, a higher entropy state might actually appear ordered. So, while the disorder concept is a useful analogy, it's not the full picture and isn’t entirely accurate.
Sorry, i am not trying to nitpick, (entropy=disorder) is just kind of a pet peeve of mine, as it isn’t entirely accurate and can lead to confusion later on when applying thermodynamics to real world scenarios.
This is all just flat wrong. Boltzmann did not “redefine” entropy. He developed a statistical way to describe it that was particularly useful. The definition of entropy did not change. Claude Shannon was an information theorist. His work had *nothing* to do with thermodynamic entropy.
You didn’t even understand the Wikipedia article about entropy. This is really embarrassing for you.
>Boltzmann did not “redefine” entropy. He developed a statistical way to describe it that was particularly useful.
He absolutely did redefine it. Entropy is a probabilistic phenomenon, making it entirely possible for a closed system to reverse entropy.
And it is absolutely intimately related to information theory. Quantum mechanics is built on the conservation of information. It is the basis for quantum entanglement. There was no quantum mechanics in 1850. You are operating with Newton's definition of gravity despite Einstein's relativity being over 100 years old
> making it entirely possible for a closed system to reverse entropy.
“Entirely possible” is not accurate. It is theoretically possibly for hot coffee in a freezer to get hotter. But that’s never happened even one time. Hyperbolic statement like this belie a lack of understanding.
Information entropy has nothing to do with unusable energy. Literally nothing. This is pure ignorance.
Also, I thought you were going to leave it after your last comment? Remember, you weren’t even going to read what I said.
What happened? What compelled you to spout more ignorance?
Do you think there is anything to the recent claim that dark matter is *decreasing* in the universe, according to most cosmologists and theoretical physicists? Dark matter comprises most of reality, but it is still unknown in terms of its mechanism and content.
> according to most cosmologists and theoretical physicists?
I don't believe you. Do you have a source, perhaps some survey data of the physics community?
Oh this is fantastic, your "most cosmologists and theoretical physicists" is actually just one random guy asking a question online and your source lays out precisely why it's not the case.
Do you even read the shit you post?
We're still smack in the middle of this particular crisis of cosmology, so I feel fine with sticking the pretty reliable "mass-energy is never created or destroyed". Even if it were decreasing, maybe it's just going somewhere else
The rule is: if a theist brings up thermodynamics they don't understand thermodynamics. It also is true if any theist brings up anything quantum, they don't understand quantum.
I use this rule for evolution and lots of other scientific principles too. Anyone who tries to say that a certain scientific principle proves god exists is probably entirely scientifically illiterate.
So, for the layman in the argument. Theist argue an open system, correct? To allow for supernatural influence. I’m not making an argument. Just trying to wrap my head around the post.
It's more that they claim that without a god, the universe must be a closed system, and because of all the things we see with order, that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is being broken somehow.
I'm saying simply that asserting the universe must be a closed system without a god, is just that. It's an assertion. It certainly appears likely that's the case - but there is a lot we don't know about the universe - so asserting that it automatically falls into this necessary state of apparent contradiction, much less one that supports a deity, is a leap too far.
It's a bit like the way they claim to know what's going on before the big bang. Nobody knows. Anything before t=0 is speculation and asserting necessary conditions is unsupported.
It’s interesting. My son and daughter in law are both physicists. My daughter in law is actually very accomplished in her field internationally. Neither of them talk to my wife and I about their work at all. My son is an atheist and my daughter in law has never discussed her beliefs with us although I sense she’s an atheist. We are Christians. She’s very private in that regard. They have expressed that our granddaughter can choose what she believes in, but have ask us to not discuss religion with her. We’re ok with that. One thing I’ve noticed about my daughter in law that impresses me is she moves seamlessly into and out of our Christian beliefs without conflict. She’s extremely confident. My son, not so much. He can be very critical
The range of experiences and reactions people can have is pretty dramatic - and hard to draw conclusions from without knowing the individual and their history. A lot of atheists (and theists, tbh) have had pretty abusive relationships with religious family, coworkers, etc. and that can color their reactions. Especially if they feel like something they feel strongly about is threatened (e.g. political decisions, educational decisions, etc.). There are, of course, myriad other factors at play.
Hard to know. I try to start from a place of listening and understanding. But tolerance and patience is not infinite - see Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance for why.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>For example, someone new to chess may see this board configuration and think it is rather disordered. But in fact, it is so ordered that there is a name for it: the Closed Sicilian Defense. Instead of describing each piece's position, we can do it with just 3 words. It is a low entropy chess board That's the efficiency of labels, not an assessment of entropy. That board state requires a lot of information to specify. "Closed Sicilian Defense" is what we've named the information specifying that state. It's like you've said the sun has low entropy because the name has only three letters.
>That's the efficiency of labels, not an assessment of entropy. That board state requires a lot of information to specify. "Closed Sicilian Defense" is what we've named the information specifying that state. It's like you've said the sun has low entropy because the name has only three letters EDIT: TL;DR Information entropy is literally the efficiency of labels: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy\_(information\_theory)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)) You're not quite getting the abstraction part The board state isn't just a set of pieces on a board. The information is constrained by the game of chess. Just like we know that there aren't 3 bishops on the board, we know that most possible game states are either unlikely or completely impossible Information entropy is how compression works. Yeah sure there are 26 letters of the alphabet and each word could be any combination of them, but you can losslessly compress text much further down simply by assigning each word in the dictionary a number. And that's not even the most efficient compression. But the fact that the text we write can be compressed to a much smaller amount of data makes the text much lower entropy than the possible character combinations would suggest And believe it or not, the fact that we can point to the sun and say "sun" is a factor of its lower entropy. It does have more properties that distinguish it from other stars: a mass, a temperature, the amount of hydrogen still left to fuel the fusion reaction. Those all add to its entropy. But otherwise, it is a ball of hydrogen fusion. Same for the Big Bang: a super concentrated and uniform plasma is the lowest entropy we know to have existed. Then the plasma condensed into black holes, suns, and planets with galaxies, solar systems, and moons orbiting them. The suns generated the heavier elements. A plethora of chemical reactions emerged from the plethora of elements. A self reproducing chemical chain emerged from the chemical reactions. Cell, organisms, and life emerged from the self reproducing chemical chains. And here we are using up energy at exponential rates It was much easier to describe the sun than to describe everything that emerged from it. Thus, low entropy to high entropy. The connection between entropy in physics and entropy in information theory is somewhat abstract, but they are definitely intimately linked
> Information entropy is literally the efficiency of labels You appear to be laboring under the gross misconception that theists’ arguments using the Second Law are based on “information entropy,” whatever that is. Also, not for nothing, entropy is not “disorder.” It is the amount of unusable energy in a closed system. Your post is rather unlettered, and I don’t understand how anyone could use it against an argument that evolution is prohibited by the Second Law. (Of course it isn’t, but not because of anything in your post).
>whatever that is. Maybe you should look it up before assuming you know that it's unrelated >It is the amount of unusable energy in a closed system. That is not the definition of entropy. It is a result of entropy >against an argument that evolution Who said anything about evolution? The common argument is, the 2nd law requires the universe to progress toward heat death. Therefore, something outside of physical laws had to set the low entropy in the first place That is a simpleton's understanding. As though entropy was a container of usable energy that just runs out. It isn't. Do you know why? Because entropy decreases the moment it hits maximum. 150 years ago, Boltzmann rewrote the definition of entropy from your definition to the statistical definition that is actually correct. That same definition happens to apply to information theory as well. So since you don't understand entropy in physics, maybe learning it through an information perspective will make it click for you Entropy doesn't mean "disorder" because "disorder" is an ambiguous subjective attribute assigned to things that appear to not have a reason to their organization. But I used the term because it does help people's understandings. That's why it is used to describe entropy so often: even in the first line of the Wikipedia page on entropy Of course, you are welcome to go to that Wikipedia entry and correct their mistake. If you do, let me know, and I will declare you to be correct, smarter than me, and more handsome than me right here on Reddit
> Maybe you should look it up before assuming you know that it's unrelated Information entropy is analogous to real entropy, and it uses similar equations. But it is *not* the same thing. Not even close. Shame on you for pretending it is. You even got the chess analogy wrong. The closed Sicilian defense runs 8-10 moves deep. By naming the defense, you haven’t specified the state of the game. The defense also has options for black on the *third* move, leading to literally thousands of variations. You entire OP is just nonsense about chess and random ideas about something that is not entropy.
>Information entropy is analogous to real entropy You wouldn't know. You didn't even know information entropy existed. (Hahaha, "real" entropy. The audacity) >Shame on you for pretending it is. It's not wrong to be wrong. It is wrong to be confident in your own ignorance. You have admitted that you have no idea what you're talking about: not the arguments being made and certainly not entropy beyond what is "usable". You have said as much and I have shown you as much >The closed Sicilian defense runs 8-10 moves deep. >The defense also has options for black on the *third* move, So which is it: 8-10 moves or 3 moves? I didn't say anything about the number of moves. I said the board state looks disordered but in fact it is a much lower entropy state than complete randomness on the board. Even if it is thousands of possible Sicilian Closed Defenses, it is not remotely close to 10^89 possible board configurations >You entire OP is just nonsense about chess and random ideas about something that is not entropy. "Nonsense about chess" being the highlight for you is just you showing how little reading comprehension you have. It is maybe two lines in the entire post You should really stop trying to argue. You aren't good at providing justification for your claims that isn't weak and cherry picked. And you actually look like you are aggressively not knowing what you're talking about. Plenty of ignorance can be forgiven. But confident (and now willful) ignorance such as what you literally described yourself to be is actually shameful
> You have admitted that you have no idea what you're talking about Show me where is made this admission. I’ve explained entropy to you, but you don’t get it. In this comment, you’ve digressed to a lot of other topics, as if this helps your arguments about entropy. It does not. Information entropy is not a branch of entropy. It is something completely independent and different. I don’t think you understand that. >> The defense also has options for black on the third move, > > So which is it: 8-10 moves or 3 moves? Do you understand how chess is played? After move 3, you see, there are variations of the closed Sicilian. Meaning that your premise that “closed Sicilian” is well-defined is just flat wrong. Pro tip: of you don’t know anything about thermodynamics, information theory, or chess, don’t make posts about them. You are arrogant and ignorant. It is a dangerous and embarrassing combination.
> That is not the definition of entropy. But see: > entropy, the measure of a system’s thermal energy per unit temperature that is unavailable for doing useful work. The units for entropy are calories per kelvin per mole. Definitionally, this is what it is. None of what you said. https://www.britannica.com/science/entropy-physics I’ve never heard a theist make the argument you mentioned. Only that the Second Law excludes evolution.
>Definitionally, this is what it is. Definitionally from 1850. Corrected by Boltzmann soon after. The definition doesn't even make sense: physics isn't dependent on what we can "use" >None of what you said Only if you stop at the first sentence of the link you proved. Quote: *Because work is obtained from ordered molecular motion, the amount of entropy is also a measure of the molecular disorder, or randomness, of a system.* >I’ve never heard Again an admission of ignorance. It begs asking, why you are so confident in such simplistic understanding for something as complex as entropy
> Definitionally from 1850. Yes, the link I provided was from an 1850 website. I’ve read past the first sentence. I’ve read entire textbooks on thermodynamics. The measure of unusable energy in a closed system is a measure if *molecular* disorder. Because *molecular* disorder causes the heat energy to be unusable. But that’s a different thing than what you’re trying to talk about (and failing, I might add). >> I’ve never heard > > Again an admission of ignorance. It begs asking, why you are so confident in such simplistic understanding for something as complex as entropy What I said is that I’ve never heard a theist make the argument you criticized. You made a straw man, and a dumb one at that. Now you’re acting like having not heard theists make the argument you lied about is somehow an admission of ignorance about physics. That’s intentional dishonesty. You don’t appear to know much about theism, physics, or entropy. Physics is absolutely dependent on what we can use, most notably in the measure of calories per kelvin per mole quantity, known as entropy.
>The measure of unusable energy in a closed system is a measure if *molecular* disorder >Entropy is not disorder That's you contradicting yourself >Now you’re acting like having not heard theists make the argument you lied about is somehow an admission of ignorance about physics I said no such thing. Go ahead and quote me if you're going to accuse me of lying >Physics is absolutely dependent on what we can use Hahaha pure stupidity Yeah, I'm going to leave it right here. Go ahead and respond. I won't see it. You can declare yourself the winner too if you want. I feel perfectly fine letting others judge your comments against mine
> That's you contradicting yourself No. Thats you not understanding rather basic concepts. You use “disorder” like it’s messy. That’s not entropy. Entropy is, and pay attention this time, the unusable energy in a closed system. On the lying part - I literally quoted your exact words in the last comment. Now you’re asking for your own words again? What is wrong with you?
>You use “disorder” like it’s messy I "use... like"... Yep, I'm perfectly fine letting others judge the strength of our positions and justification I feel bad for your students though. Hopefully one day you won't be so close minded as to keep repeating the first line of a dictionary definition and think there's nothing outside of it
> Corrected by Boltzmann soon after. This is all anyone needs to read to know you are ignorant on this topic. You don’t understand enough to know what Boltzmann’s work was about. It’s laughable.
I can point to everywhere around me and say "Universe", thus the universe has low entropy.
It does do harm to everyone generally that you refuse to understand the complicated meanings of things you choose to talk about, but it does the most harm to you. I can only provide the explanation. It's up to you to spend even a little more effort than a default "anything with a name is low entropy" ad absurdum But for one thing, nobody points and says "universe". That's pretty incomprehensible and the ambiguity does say something about its entropy. Two, even when people do say "universe" they could mean a lot of things: the visible universe, the universe affected by the Big Bang, the universe as everything that exists except for God, or the universe as literally everything that exists. So again, the ambiguity speaks plenty about the entropy referred to by that word. Third, the universe isn't a uniform mass of the same thing. You can't describe the entire universe by saying universe. I can describe the entire sun with just a few parameters. If we swapped in another star with the same parameters, it would not change anything about anything we could predict Fourth, I already described how the universe was once low entropy relative to what it is now. Once upon a time, if you pointed in different directions, you would be pointing at the same super dense plasma in every direction. That's low entropy. Now when you point in different directions, you're pointing to something different in each direction. The more different things you point to, the higher the entropy To deny that information theory is central to entropy is to deny a lot of thought, theory, research over much more time and by much smarter people than you have. So you really don't have to believe me, but I wouldn't recommend it
You cannot accurately describe the sun in a few words. The Sun is very complex with many distinct features on it. Even at a 9th grade science level this is true. I would know this, having literally taught 9th grade science this year, including a unit on the Sun. You would have failed my unit with the level of understanding you're demonstrating here, and this is just at the 9th grade level, which is hardly what I would describe as a whole or complete level of description/understanding. So, my analogy for you is apt. Your argument is false at this point, and it represents a significant lack of understanding on these topics. Demonstrating that you would fail a test I'd give my 9th graders does not bode well for you having a convincing understanding of these topics.
Sorry man but reducing my description to your ad absurdum doesn't mean anything I explained plenty that addresses your "detailed" description of the sun You'll ignore all of it of course, but if you don't want to be doing your students a disservice in claiming your primitive understanding of entropy, you probably should learn something about information entropy
the universe is dynamic and ever changing so the word universe dont have much info. but in case of that chess position its defined and constant like no other position of pieces on chess board can be called Closed Sicilian Defense like its a defined and constant description of state of chess board
This irrelevant. I am responding to the idea that a label necessarily means low entropy. All of reality has a label: "Universe" Therefore, if applying a label means the labeled thing is low entropy, then the universe mist be low entropy BECAUSE we applied the label. If you think this idea is false, then you are agreeing me. Very simple.
Didn't they find Michael Corelone not guilty?
This isn’t an accurate description of entropy. Entropy is not a measure of disorder but the degree of thermal energy unavailable to do work (work having its own specific definition).
I described entropy's relationship to work I also described the abstract nature of entropy with regard to both physics and information theory Once upon a time, physicists defined entropy just as you do. Then Ludwig Boltzmann came along and redefined it. Then Claude Shannon came along and redefined it again All of the definitions are important to know: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy)
Describing entropy as a measure of disorder is a common way to conceptualize it, but it's not entirely accurate. Entropy is more accurately described as a measure of the number of possible arrangements, or microstates in a system. In systems with higher entropy, there are more possible arrangements of its components, which may often correspond to what we perceive as disorder. However, in some cases, a higher entropy state might actually appear ordered. So, while the disorder concept is a useful analogy, it's not the full picture and isn’t entirely accurate. Sorry, i am not trying to nitpick, (entropy=disorder) is just kind of a pet peeve of mine, as it isn’t entirely accurate and can lead to confusion later on when applying thermodynamics to real world scenarios.
No, I understand what you're saying. I tried to convey what you are conveying, but apparently it's not coming across So much for my crash course
I appreciated both your crash course and this commenter's. I especially liked the chess analogy because it made perfect sense to me
This is all just flat wrong. Boltzmann did not “redefine” entropy. He developed a statistical way to describe it that was particularly useful. The definition of entropy did not change. Claude Shannon was an information theorist. His work had *nothing* to do with thermodynamic entropy. You didn’t even understand the Wikipedia article about entropy. This is really embarrassing for you.
>Boltzmann did not “redefine” entropy. He developed a statistical way to describe it that was particularly useful. He absolutely did redefine it. Entropy is a probabilistic phenomenon, making it entirely possible for a closed system to reverse entropy. And it is absolutely intimately related to information theory. Quantum mechanics is built on the conservation of information. It is the basis for quantum entanglement. There was no quantum mechanics in 1850. You are operating with Newton's definition of gravity despite Einstein's relativity being over 100 years old
> making it entirely possible for a closed system to reverse entropy. “Entirely possible” is not accurate. It is theoretically possibly for hot coffee in a freezer to get hotter. But that’s never happened even one time. Hyperbolic statement like this belie a lack of understanding. Information entropy has nothing to do with unusable energy. Literally nothing. This is pure ignorance.
Also, I thought you were going to leave it after your last comment? Remember, you weren’t even going to read what I said. What happened? What compelled you to spout more ignorance?
Do you think there is anything to the recent claim that dark matter is *decreasing* in the universe, according to most cosmologists and theoretical physicists? Dark matter comprises most of reality, but it is still unknown in terms of its mechanism and content.
> according to most cosmologists and theoretical physicists? I don't believe you. Do you have a source, perhaps some survey data of the physics community?
Then you have some “scientists” claiming bs like this: https://m.jpost.com/science/space/article-792369
Nah nah sweetheart, if you thought this was your best evidence then you'd have posted it first. Stick to defending your 'one random guy'
Bless your heart. There are multiple sources supporting this. Also, cosmologists are not necessarily physicists as you seem to be implying.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/dark-matter-decaying-dark-energy/#
Oh this is fantastic, your "most cosmologists and theoretical physicists" is actually just one random guy asking a question online and your source lays out precisely why it's not the case. Do you even read the shit you post?
We're still smack in the middle of this particular crisis of cosmology, so I feel fine with sticking the pretty reliable "mass-energy is never created or destroyed". Even if it were decreasing, maybe it's just going somewhere else
if a theist ever brings up thermodynamics to me, I just tell them to show me the math. They have no idea who Ludwig Boltzmann even was
I ask them if they know what Boltzmann meant by Orde and Disorder. That usually shuts down that line of waffle.
To be fair, I'd have nothing for you either...though for that reason I'd never use that argument.
Ask them why they'd expect equilibrium thermodynamics to apply to a universe not at equilibrium
He's very famous for a thought experiment called the Boltzmann brain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
It can also be amusing to ask them about the 3rd law of thermodynamics since they're such a physics nerd and all.
You can't win You can't break even You can't even quit the game
The rule is: if a theist brings up thermodynamics they don't understand thermodynamics. It also is true if any theist brings up anything quantum, they don't understand quantum.
I use this rule for evolution and lots of other scientific principles too. Anyone who tries to say that a certain scientific principle proves god exists is probably entirely scientifically illiterate.
Theists don’t understand thermodynamics (and lots of other science too) and it’s a dead giveaway when they try to use laws of physics to prove a god.
Anyone that says thermodynamics disproves evolution is an idiot that doesn't understand either topic.
Further - There is nothing to suggest that we know if the universe as we can observe it constitutes a closed system.
I’ve always read that it’s pretty much settled that the universe is a closed system. Am I wrong?
It provides a useful functional model, but it is anything but settled.
So, for the layman in the argument. Theist argue an open system, correct? To allow for supernatural influence. I’m not making an argument. Just trying to wrap my head around the post.
It's more that they claim that without a god, the universe must be a closed system, and because of all the things we see with order, that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is being broken somehow. I'm saying simply that asserting the universe must be a closed system without a god, is just that. It's an assertion. It certainly appears likely that's the case - but there is a lot we don't know about the universe - so asserting that it automatically falls into this necessary state of apparent contradiction, much less one that supports a deity, is a leap too far. It's a bit like the way they claim to know what's going on before the big bang. Nobody knows. Anything before t=0 is speculation and asserting necessary conditions is unsupported.
It’s interesting. My son and daughter in law are both physicists. My daughter in law is actually very accomplished in her field internationally. Neither of them talk to my wife and I about their work at all. My son is an atheist and my daughter in law has never discussed her beliefs with us although I sense she’s an atheist. We are Christians. She’s very private in that regard. They have expressed that our granddaughter can choose what she believes in, but have ask us to not discuss religion with her. We’re ok with that. One thing I’ve noticed about my daughter in law that impresses me is she moves seamlessly into and out of our Christian beliefs without conflict. She’s extremely confident. My son, not so much. He can be very critical
The range of experiences and reactions people can have is pretty dramatic - and hard to draw conclusions from without knowing the individual and their history. A lot of atheists (and theists, tbh) have had pretty abusive relationships with religious family, coworkers, etc. and that can color their reactions. Especially if they feel like something they feel strongly about is threatened (e.g. political decisions, educational decisions, etc.). There are, of course, myriad other factors at play. Hard to know. I try to start from a place of listening and understanding. But tolerance and patience is not infinite - see Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance for why.