[Fis] [External Email] Re: entropy

[Stanley N Salthe]

Marcus -- Here I reply to your latest contribution to this discussion of
entropy:

M: Stan – What you are now suggesting

> It is a formal matching only is far different from your earlier

> Entropy applies everywhere, and always in the same way.<

      S: Wrong! The entropy concept is a formal intellectual construct. It
happens

           that it is so generally applicable in the world that one could
assert that it

          ‘it applies everywhere’

M: Base differences between formal (conceptual) and practical

(empiric) roles, I believe, are equally well-known to careful

readers in physics. For example, *theoretical* physics uses

‘E’ as a generic expression of energy, with no reference to

any of the 16 accepted forms of energy, as in E = mc^2 . . .

‘F’ for a generic expression of force with no reference to any

of the four fundamental forces as in F = ma.

       S:  OK....

M: As such, these conceptual views are wholly removed from

classic *empiric* concepts. It is due to this imprecision in

any theoretical view that things must be *empirically*

verified – which then makes it a ‘science’. Yes, I can understand

why you would wish to pass on commenting further on physics.

      S: ?

M: That said, the same applies to vague formal references to

*everything* everywhere having a statistical (entropic) nature.

I am not sure this comment has much ‘meaning’ (pun wholly

intended) – as Shannon and Weaver plainly saw.

      S: I'm afraid I cannot fathom what point(?s) you are trying to make
here.

STAN


On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 4:02 AM Marcus Abundis <55mrcs en gmail.com> wrote:

> Stan – What you are now suggesting
> > It is a formal matching only.<
> is far different from your earlier
> > Entropy applies everywhere, and always in the same way.<
>
> Base differences between formal (conceptual) and practical
> (empiric) roles, I believe, are equally well-known to careful
> readers in physics. For example, *theoretical* physics uses
> ‘E’ as a generic expression of energy, with no reference to
> any of the 16 acdepted forms of energy, as in E = mc^2 . . .
> ‘F’ for a generic expression of force with no reference to any
> of the four fundamental forces as in F = ma.
>
> As such, these conceptual views are wholly removed from
> classic *empiric* concepts. It is due to this imprecision in
> any theoretical view that things must be *empirically*
> verified – which then makes it a ‘science’. Yes, I can understand
> why you would wish to pass on commenting further on physics.
>
> That said, the same applies to vague formal references to
> *everything* everywhere having a statistical (entropic) nature.
> I am not sure this comment has much ‘meaning’ (pun wholly
> intended) – as Shannon and Weaver plainly saw.
>
> Marcus
>
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20210110/f15af1d7/attachment.html>