On 3/12/2011 1:40 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
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
this change.

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?

The temperature, which is fixed at 298.15degK.

Also for example

S(Ag,cr,298.15 K) = 42.55 ą 0.20 J/(K mol)

Do you mean that the Everett interpretation changes this value?

First, that's not entropy it's the entropy per mol. Second, the Everett interpretation is that evolution is deterministic so the entropy never changes. Of course you can still measure different entropy values and it *seems* to change because your measurement can't project out the whole ray in Hilbert space (you've "split off").



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to