On 15 April 2015 at 05:40, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> My problem with any view based on entropy is that entropy doesn't >>> appear to be fundamental to physics; it is the statistically likely result >>> when objects are put in a certain configuration and allowed to evolve >>> randomly. >>> >> >> > There is, however, an interesting parallel to be made with Shannon's >> entropy, which is a measure of information content and not just a >> statistical effect. Once in the realm of digital physics, it becomes >> questionable if physical entropy and information entropy are separate >> things. >> > > I think the second law of thermodynamics is the most fundamental law of > physics, in fact it's almost a law of logic rather than physics; entropy > will always increase just says that there are more ways to be complicated > than simple, so any change in a system will probably make it more > complicated and not simpler. Or to put it in Shannon's language, it takes > more information to describe a complicated thing than a simple thing. > > This is my point - it is not a law of physics, it's a law of logic.
To be exact, the second law will almost certainly exist in any universe with any laws of physics that allow for the existence of complex structures, bound systems, etc. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
