“” Smash an egg on the floor. The rule that says that the egg won’t spontaneously reform and leap back into your hand is merely probabilistic. A suggestion, if you will. The laws of thermodynamics are probabilistic, so they can’t really be laws, the way that “Thou shalt not murder” is a law… right?”″
The instant the egg smashes energy is converted into sound and heat etc so it is IMPOSSIBLE that the egg will reform because that would be in violation with conservation of energy!prob = 0
So why not just ignore the suggestion? Then the egg will unscramble itself… right?
It may help to think of it this way—if you still have some lingering intuition that uncertain beliefs are not authoritative:
“”In reality, there may be a very small chance that the egg spontaneously reforms. “”
wrong this is actually impossible due to conservation of energy! So your point is invalid!
you do not need to observe somthing in order for it to be the truth
eg
a god exists.. percentage chance < or = 100% as the concept is not redicules and no evidence for or against a god existing exists!
It is logical that if a god did exist that he would have wisdom beyond us
thus there is no reason to believe we have to see him for him to exist
and their is no reason why his existance has to seem logical
you are the one making the assumptions if you assume we need evidence and or proof!
The example of solar panels and geothermal energy does not invalidate the second law of thermodynamics as both processes obey it. It can be experimentally proven that only a certain percentage of the heat energy in those examples is converted into electrical energy and that agrees well with the second law of thermodynamics as it is lower than the maximum predicted.
What I don’t agree with is the fact that most emphasize the so called strong form of the theorem that states that it is impossible to covert ambient thermal energy into work. While it is true that no exceptions have been found yet it is in fact not discounted by the weak version of the theorem i.e. the one that is based on statistical arguments.
Such statements causes a bias in the scientific community that could lead to any discoveries in that area to be ignored, and is as such not desirable to have, in first year physics textbooks especially. As they are based on a lack of physical proof instead of being based upon a known and accepted theoretical framework.
“” Smash an egg on the floor. The rule that says that the egg won’t spontaneously reform and leap back into your hand is merely probabilistic. A suggestion, if you will. The laws of thermodynamics are probabilistic, so they can’t really be laws, the way that “Thou shalt not murder” is a law… right?”″
The instant the egg smashes energy is converted into sound and heat etc so it is IMPOSSIBLE that the egg will reform because that would be in violation with conservation of energy!prob = 0
So why not just ignore the suggestion? Then the egg will unscramble itself… right?
It may help to think of it this way—if you still have some lingering intuition that uncertain beliefs are not authoritative:
“”In reality, there may be a very small chance that the egg spontaneously reforms. “”
wrong this is actually impossible due to conservation of energy! So your point is invalid!
you do not need to observe somthing in order for it to be the truth
eg
a god exists.. percentage chance < or = 100% as the concept is not redicules and no evidence for or against a god existing exists!
It is logical that if a god did exist that he would have wisdom beyond us
thus there is no reason to believe we have to see him for him to exist
and their is no reason why his existance has to seem logical
you are the one making the assumptions if you assume we need evidence and or proof!
The example of solar panels and geothermal energy does not invalidate the second law of thermodynamics as both processes obey it. It can be experimentally proven that only a certain percentage of the heat energy in those examples is converted into electrical energy and that agrees well with the second law of thermodynamics as it is lower than the maximum predicted.
What I don’t agree with is the fact that most emphasize the so called strong form of the theorem that states that it is impossible to covert ambient thermal energy into work. While it is true that no exceptions have been found yet it is in fact not discounted by the weak version of the theorem i.e. the one that is based on statistical arguments.
Such statements causes a bias in the scientific community that could lead to any discoveries in that area to be ignored, and is as such not desirable to have, in first year physics textbooks especially. As they are based on a lack of physical proof instead of being based upon a known and accepted theoretical framework.