<div dir="auto">Without adding any opinion to the subject of entropy, let me ask the point by Marcus about the 16 accepted forms of energy.<div dir="auto">Is this actually so? That there are 16 (sixteen) conceptually and/or empirically different types of the mental construct energy?</div><div dir="auto">If that would be the case, the forceful prophecy of <a href="http://oeis.org/A242615">oeis.org/A242615</a> would be proved to be a correctly calculated idea.</div><div dir="auto">Pray tell that you were not just throwing a rhetorical embellishment. </div><div dir="auto">Thanks </div><div dir="auto">Karl </div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Stanley N Salthe <<a href="mailto:ssalthe@binghamton.edu">ssalthe@binghamton.edu</a>> schrieb am So., 10. Jän. 2021, 16:35:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p><span style="line-height:1.5">Marcus -- Here I reply to your latest contribution to this discussion of entropy:</span></p><p><span style="line-height:1.5">M: Stan – What you are now suggesting </span><br><span></span></p>
<p><span>> It is a formal matching only </span><span style="line-height:1.5">is far different from your earlier</span></p>
<p><span>> Entropy applies everywhere, and always in the same way.<</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height:1.5"> S: Wrong! The entropy concept is a formal intellectual construct. It happens</span><br><span></span></p>
<p><span> that it is so generally applicable in the world that one could assert that it</span></p>
<p><span> ‘it applies everywhere’</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height:1.5">M: Base differences between formal (conceptual) and practical </span><br><span></span></p>
<p><span>(empiric) roles, I believe, are equally well-known to careful </span></p>
<p><span>readers in physics. For example, *theoretical* physics uses </span></p>
<p><span>‘E’ as a generic expression of energy, with no reference to </span></p>
<p><span>any of the 16 accepted forms of energy, as in E = mc^2 . . . </span></p>
<p><span>‘F’ for a generic expression of force with no reference to any </span></p>
<p><span>of the four fundamental forces as in F = ma.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height:1.5"> S: OK....</span><br><span></span></p>
<p><span style="line-height:1.5">M: As such, these conceptual views are wholly removed from</span><br><span></span></p>
<p><span>classic *empiric* concepts. It is due to this imprecision in</span></p>
<p><span>any theoretical view that things must be *empirically* </span></p>
<p><span>verified – which then makes it a ‘science’. Yes, I can understand</span></p>
<p><span>why you would wish to pass on commenting further on physics.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height:1.5"> S: ? </span><br><span></span></p>
<p><span style="line-height:1.5">M: That said, the same applies to vague formal references to </span><br><span></span></p><p><span></span></p>
<p><span>*everything* everywhere having a statistical (entropic) nature. </span></p>
<p><span>I am not sure this comment has much ‘meaning’ (pun wholly </span></p>
<p><span>intended) – as Shannon and Weaver plainly saw.</span></p>
<p><span> S: I'm afraid I cannot fathom what point(?s) you are trying to make here. </span></p>
<p><span>STAN</span></p> <br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 4:02 AM Marcus Abundis <<a href="mailto:55mrcs@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">55mrcs@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Stan – What you are now suggesting </div><div dir="ltr">> It is a formal matching only.<</div><div dir="ltr">is far different from your earlier</div><div dir="ltr">> Entropy applies everywhere, and always in the same way.<</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Base differences between formal (conceptual) and practical </div><div dir="ltr">(empiric) roles, I believe, are equally well-known to careful </div><div dir="ltr">readers in physics. For example, *theoretical* physics uses </div><div dir="ltr">‘E’ as a generic expression of energy, with no reference to </div><div dir="ltr">any of the 16 acdepted forms of energy, as in E = mc^2 . . . </div><div dir="ltr">‘F’ for a generic expression of force with no reference to any </div><div dir="ltr">of the four fundamental forces as in F = ma.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">As such, these conceptual views are wholly removed from</div><div dir="ltr">classic *empiric* concepts. It is due to this imprecision in</div><div dir="ltr">any theoretical view that things must be *empirically* </div><div dir="ltr">verified – which then makes it a ‘science’. Yes, I can understand</div><div dir="ltr">why you would wish to pass on commenting further on physics.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">That said, the same applies to vague formal references to </div><div dir="ltr">*everything* everywhere having a statistical (entropic) nature. </div><div dir="ltr">I am not sure this comment has much ‘meaning’ (pun wholly </div><div dir="ltr">intended) – as Shannon and Weaver plainly saw.</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div>Marcus</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Fis mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Fis@listas.unizar.es</a><br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</a><br>
----------<br>
INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL<br>
<br>
Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.<br>
Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el siguiente enlace: <a href="https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas</a><br>
Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.<br>
<a href="http://listas.unizar.es" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listas.unizar.es</a><br>
----------<br>
</blockquote></div>