on 12.03.2011 18:59 Brent Meeker said the following:

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.## Advertising

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 time.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 http://www.codata.org/resources/databases/key1.html What is the meaning that the entropy is relative in this case?The temperature, which is fixed at 298.15degK.

`Here I actually wanted to understand, what you mean by "Thermodynamic`

`entropy has always been relative". So, let me try once more and consider`

`entropy as well as energy to understand better what you mean. First`

`thermodynamic tables tabulate the molar quantities indeed but there`

`should not be a problem to multiply them with the number of moles.`

`So, the entropy as well as the energy are functions in temperature and`

`pressure (and composition in the case of a solution). So if you take for`

`example the JANAF Tables, then there is a columns of energy and`

`entropies values for different temperatures.`

`The difference between energy and entropy is that according to the Third`

`Law, the change of entropy at zero K is zero. This allows us to obtain`

`the absolute entropies, while energies are relative, that is, one can`

`determine the change in energy only. Well, probably one can introduce`

`absolute energies with E = mc^2 but this is not very practical.`

`What a particular feature of the entropy then have you meant that`

`differs it from other other physical properties?`

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").

`I still do not understand implications. Chemists use entropies and`

`energies from thermodynamics tables for example to compute equilibria.`

`Engineers use thermodynamics to develop heat engines. What then the`

`Everett interpretation implies for them?`

-- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.