6 ms·

I get the feeling that you have no idea how science works, or what he's saying. He's not saying that the 3rd law is faith, he's saying that you take it on fait

by mkyc 17y ago

I get the feeling that you have no idea how science works, or what he's saying. He's not saying that the 3rd law is faith, he's saying that you take it on faith. A statement of faith is one that rests on no proof or evidence. Someone who has either wouldn't be giving a dickish answer like "um, 3rd law" or "GTFO", they'd be busy explaining. The most important part of science is questioning and attempting to falsify current theories. He has a legitimate question, answer it or be quiet.

amix 17y ago
Assuming that you can break the laws of thermodynamics is like assuming you can divide by 0 when doing real number arithmetic. If you allow this you would end with a highly inconsistent system/world.
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
  Yes. So in which step are the laws broken?
nazgulnarsil 17y ago
lol, it's called thermodynamics and if you didn't take it in college you can get a textbook pretty easily and check the math yourself. you can also do simple experiments at home to confirm the basic laws of thermodynamics. there is no "Science" that only men in important looking buildings wearing lab coats do. that's what distinguishes it from faith.
- pyre 17y ago
  > lol, it's called thermodynamics The point is that saying "Can't work because of X" is a cop-out to actually going through and proving where the loss of energy is. Thermodynamics just predicts that somewhere energy is lost from this system. Blindly saying "thermodynamics" and not critically thinking about how/where/why it applies is intellectually deficient. If people don't challenge assumptions, then progress is never made. Some day someone might be able to disprove thermodynamics in some really funky edge-case, but that knowledge will never be discovered if no one ever questions.
  - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
    the laws of physics all hang together. you can't just have some phenomenon violate the laws of thermodynamics and not have that imply the universe works in a completely different way. thought experiments can't disprove reality. you need empiricism and theory.
    - pyre 17y ago
      So Newton's 'Laws' were never proven to be wrong. They are still consistent in all cases, right? And every theory in physics has been completely and 100% proven through lab tests and empirical evidence. > thought experiments can't disprove reality Reality is what it is. If thermodynamics is wrong, it doesn't change reality. It just changes our understanding of reality. Don't be so melodramatic. Once a law/theory is dis-proven there isn't some deja-vu-the-matrix-is-changing-something moment. At the very least, figuring out where the energy loss is in the system will teach others something, and possibly yourself as well. Thought experiments are where theories come from. Unless you think that theories spring into existence without thought. {edit} Please don't say, "but I already know about thermodynamics, so there is nothing more for me to learn!" because you would be entirely missing the point.
      - camccann 17y ago
        "The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." -- Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington I suspect most physicists would sooner question their own sanity than question the Second Law, and with good reason.
      - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
        if you think science can be wrong you're the one who misunderstands it. science can not be wrong. science also can not be right. science provides us with more or less consistent interpretations of sensory data. Newton was not proven wrong. his predictions were subsumed by a more general case. likewise if we discover a physical phenomenon that violates our current understanding of thermodynamics we don't throw that understanding out. anything that succeeds it needs to explain all the data that it explained + the new stuff.
camccann 17y ago
You know, I sympathize with your argument, but... seriously, the second law of thermodynamics? If there's anything that qualifies as the cornerstone of sanity in physics, it's that. Of course it's illuminating to analyze the question and figure out where, exactly it's gone wrong, much like it's fun to puzzle out subtly flawed mathematical proofs that 0 = 1. But in the end an argument that concludes with something equivalent to "therefore, causality is broken" or "therefore, time is meaningless" doesn't really warrant serious consideration unless it's backed by some very serious evidence.
- jerf 17y ago
  Contrary to modestly popular belief, "faith" is not best defined as "choosing to act as if you believe something you actually know is not true". That's a fun definition to smear someone with, but is not useful in understanding very many real phenomena. Faith is much better defined as something like "acting on the truth of a statement that you can not (effectively) 100% prove"; note it does not preclude having a Bayesian probability of greater than 0, it is simply what you act on. When I sit in a chair, I can not 100% prove it will not collapse on me (after all, I have sat in chairs that collapsed on me and my Bayesian probability that a generic chair will support me can not be 100%), but I have faith that it will not; that is, I act as if it will not collapse. When presented with a perpetual motion device, I can have faith that it will not work. Thanks to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, my Bayesian confidence in that belief is quite high, so it is not as if my faith is stepping out on a limb. But I have not proved that the perpetual motion machine won't work by actually examining it and finding the flaw, I simply have very-well-founded faith that such a flaw exists. Faith is a perfectly appropriate word here. (I parenthesized "effectively" up there to avoid a massive and irrelevant discussion of exactly what 100% means, though it still pokes through. But is interesting to note that since reaching 100% confidence is very difficult, "faith" comes up in virtually every decision you make.)
  - camccann 17y ago
    I don't really disagree with any of that as such, but it doesn't really mesh with the common usage of the word "faith", especially on something as utterly fundamental as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. From a standpoint of Bayesian confidence, even a cursory understanding of physics would probably lead one to assign the Second Law a likelihood of one minus epsilon, where epsilon is taken to mean roughly "the likelihood that I'm crazy and hallucinating this whole thing". As an aside, if you're going to be talking about Bayesian probability, you should know better than to call "100%" confidence just "very difficult"...

by mkyc 17y ago

amix 17y ago

Assuming that you can break the laws of thermodynamics is like assuming you can divide by 0 when doing real number arithmetic. If you allow this you would end with a highly inconsistent system/world.

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
Yes. So in which step are the laws broken?

nazgulnarsil 17y ago

lol, it's called thermodynamics and if you didn't take it in college you can get a textbook pretty easily and check the math yourself. you can also do simple experiments at home to confirm the basic laws of thermodynamics. there is no "Science" that only men in important looking buildings wearing lab coats do. that's what distinguishes it from faith.

pyre 17y ago
> lol, it's called thermodynamics The point is that saying "Can't work because of X" is a cop-out to actually going through and proving where the loss of energy is. Thermodynamics just predicts that somewhere energy is lost from this system. Blindly saying "thermodynamics" and not critically thinking about how/where/why it applies is intellectually deficient. If people don't challenge assumptions, then progress is never made. Some day someone might be able to disprove thermodynamics in some really funky edge-case, but that knowledge will never be discovered if no one ever questions.
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  the laws of physics all hang together. you can't just have some phenomenon violate the laws of thermodynamics and not have that imply the universe works in a completely different way. thought experiments can't disprove reality. you need empiricism and theory.
  - pyre 17y ago
    So Newton's 'Laws' were never proven to be wrong. They are still consistent in all cases, right? And every theory in physics has been completely and 100% proven through lab tests and empirical evidence. > thought experiments can't disprove reality Reality is what it is. If thermodynamics is wrong, it doesn't change reality. It just changes our understanding of reality. Don't be so melodramatic. Once a law/theory is dis-proven there isn't some deja-vu-the-matrix-is-changing-something moment. At the very least, figuring out where the energy loss is in the system will teach others something, and possibly yourself as well. Thought experiments are where theories come from. Unless you think that theories spring into existence without thought. {edit} Please don't say, "but I already know about thermodynamics, so there is nothing more for me to learn!" because you would be entirely missing the point.
    - camccann 17y ago
      "The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." -- Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington I suspect most physicists would sooner question their own sanity than question the Second Law, and with good reason.
    - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
      if you think science can be wrong you're the one who misunderstands it. science can not be wrong. science also can not be right. science provides us with more or less consistent interpretations of sensory data. Newton was not proven wrong. his predictions were subsumed by a more general case. likewise if we discover a physical phenomenon that violates our current understanding of thermodynamics we don't throw that understanding out. anything that succeeds it needs to explain all the data that it explained + the new stuff.

camccann 17y ago

You know, I sympathize with your argument, but... seriously, the second law of thermodynamics? If there's anything that qualifies as the cornerstone of sanity in physics, it's that. Of course it's illuminating to analyze the question and figure out where, exactly it's gone wrong, much like it's fun to puzzle out subtly flawed mathematical proofs that 0 = 1. But in the end an argument that concludes with something equivalent to "therefore, causality is broken" or "therefore, time is meaningless" doesn't really warrant serious consideration unless it's backed by some very serious evidence.

jerf 17y ago
Contrary to modestly popular belief, "faith" is not best defined as "choosing to act as if you believe something you actually know is not true". That's a fun definition to smear someone with, but is not useful in understanding very many real phenomena. Faith is much better defined as something like "acting on the truth of a statement that you can not (effectively) 100% prove"; note it does not preclude having a Bayesian probability of greater than 0, it is simply what you act on. When I sit in a chair, I can not 100% prove it will not collapse on me (after all, I have sat in chairs that collapsed on me and my Bayesian probability that a generic chair will support me can not be 100%), but I have faith that it will not; that is, I act as if it will not collapse. When presented with a perpetual motion device, I can have faith that it will not work. Thanks to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, my Bayesian confidence in that belief is quite high, so it is not as if my faith is stepping out on a limb. But I have not proved that the perpetual motion machine won't work by actually examining it and finding the flaw, I simply have very-well-founded faith that such a flaw exists. Faith is a perfectly appropriate word here. (I parenthesized "effectively" up there to avoid a massive and irrelevant discussion of exactly what 100% means, though it still pokes through. But is interesting to note that since reaching 100% confidence is very difficult, "faith" comes up in virtually every decision you make.)
- camccann 17y ago
  I don't really disagree with any of that as such, but it doesn't really mesh with the common usage of the word "faith", especially on something as utterly fundamental as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. From a standpoint of Bayesian confidence, even a cursory understanding of physics would probably lead one to assign the Second Law a likelihood of one minus epsilon, where epsilon is taken to mean roughly "the likelihood that I'm crazy and hallucinating this whole thing". As an aside, if you're going to be talking about Bayesian probability, you should know better than to call "100%" confidence just "very difficult"...