on 12.03.2011 04:43 Brent Meeker said the following:
On 3/11/2011 7:24 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Andrew, The answer to the simple question that you see that all
of this detail leads to is that at its core, Existence is Change
itself. Becoming is the fundamental ontological primitive., just as
Bergson argued. This is the result that Hitoshi discovered and
discussed in his Inconsistent Universe Paper in terms of the truth
value of the total Universe being in an infinite oscillation
between True and False. Bart Kosko also obtained a similar result
in how research on Fuzzy sets. What Barbour really found is that
there does not exist a universal */global /*standard of measure of
I think Einstein found that long before Barbour. There's no time-like
Killing vector field in an FRW universe, so there's no universal
If there is no standard then there is not a determination of
definiteness for the Total Change of existence and thus there is no
global measure of change. Since time can be defined in generic
terms as a measure of change, Barbour is correct in claiming that
time as a global quantity cannot exist. What Barbour missed, as
have countless others, is that/* local measures of change can be
defined*/. The fact that there is more than one measure of entropy
is a huge clue of this.
Thermodynamic entropy has always been relative to whatever is taken
to be the constraint (constant energy, constant pressure,...) In the
Everett interpretation evolution is always unitary and the Boltzmann
entropy is constant.
I would suggest to look at the CODATA Tables
What is the meaning that the entropy is relative in this case? Also for
S(Ag,cr,298.15 K) = 42.55 ą 0.20 J/(K mol)
Do you mean that the Everett interpretation changes this value?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at