Evgenii, List: On Jun 28, 2014, at 3:01 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> On 27.06.2014 19:26 Jerry LR Chandler said the following: >> The concept of entropy as a scientific concept is a rigorous >> mathematic concept. It is an abstract concept, strictly limited to >> the flow of HEAT (not matter) in a closed system AT EQUILIBRIUM. > > I would not agree. Then, you do not accept the foundational logic of thermodynamics, which is derived and "validated" by the so-called "perfect gas laws". The foundational equation is: Pressure x Volume is equal to a number x constant x temperature (where the term number refers to any positive real number, "constant" is called the Ideal Gas Constant (a fixed value) and the symbol x represents the mathematical concept of multiplication.) In the symbol system of real numbers and variables, the same equation is expressed with a different set of symbols: PV=nRT. It is critical to note that the critical notion behind this equation is that with a changes in volume, pressure often result in the changes of temperature. The concept of time is introduced as a continuous variable of differentiation in the relating the relationships among temperature, volume and pressure. The temperature changes are mathematically related to energy changes and and a new concept, entropy, is introduced as relation between heat and temperature. Essentially, the concept of entropy is much like the notion of a very complicated parameter that is a property of the closed system in its totality. (A crude way of stating that the thermodynamic variables form a "bilinear group.") While the mathematics of thermodynamics is well established, the application of the mathematical system is severely bounded by the concept of the ideality of gases being treated as point particles (aka Aristotelian atoms.) In fact, atoms of a gas condense to form a finite volume of liquid, that is, pragmatically, real gases are not ideal gases. (Invisible steam can be condensed into drinking water!) You write: > First, I would place 'entropy' at the same shelf with for example > 'gravitational force'. Based, in part, on the above discussion, I would argue that entropy is, at best, a third order and highly ARTIFICIAL concept, that plays a unique scientific role in relating the symbols of mathematics to the symbolic representation of ideal gases as physical particles. The logical symbol system of chemistry and changes in chemical bonding are not expressed in this frame work of continuous mathematics. Atomic numbers ( as representamen of electrical particles) are NOT real numbers and are not part of the systems of differential equations. You write: > The change of the number of moles (dn_i) is in any textbook on thermodynamics. I agree. But what does it mean? The mathematical term, "d(n-i)" merely expresses a change in number, NOT a chemical change which must be expressed in terms of the chemical symbol system. Thus the term d(n_i) is chemically meaningless except that the concept of mole expresses an approximate number. It does NOT express the quantity of electricity as in atomic numbers. In fact, this discussion has far deeper scientific origins than you might suspect. That is, the "System International" which grounds the relationships among representamen of physics, excludes the representation of chemical symbols. So, Evgenii, I understand your arguments and the metaphysics which motivate them. I disagree for many reasons which can be summarized as follows: Pragmatic application of thermodynamic equations to life (and chemistry) require the creation of unique relations among five different symbol systems - ordinary rhetoric, mathematics, physic (SI units), chemistry and genetics. The broad pragmatic utility of the thermodynamics discipline is not a basis for generalization to universal meanings in all systems at all times and all places. The scientific relations among multiple symbol systems is an open problem. Many if not most philosophers of science will find my views as heretical. So be it, but it is simply not so! I accept the pragmatic utility of the discipline and its sound mathematical principles. The simple question wrt to the meaning of thermodynamic "Laws" is a pragmatic one. When are thermodynamic laws useful and when are they pragmatically virtually useless? Cheers Jerry (Please note that it has required nearly two hours to draft this email. It is an expensive undertaking from a temporal perspective, one that I can seldom afford.) > > Evgenii > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
