Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wegs, May 20, 2019.
Perhaps "probability" would be a better defined term than "uncertainty"....?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I agree. "Once it has begun, it is that way".
The universe can never be perfect beccause it is a dynamic pattern. A dynamic (chaotic) pattern with repeating regularities and abstract constants. These would have to be of a mathematical nature, as order is a mathematical construct where a temporary stability emerges when a biological phenomenon such as self-conscious processing of information evolves into "self-aware intelligence" that has the ability to persist by using energy to maintain health and achieve growth.
What I find remarkable is that from a bacterial perspective the human body is a universe as enormous and diversified as the universe we look at when the see our night-sky.
Genetically we are but 1% human DNA, the other 99% bacterial DNA makes up the rest of our bodily ecosystem, or biome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biome
Without the active participation of the symbiotic bacterial population, we would die. Consider that for a moment.
I think the two go hand in hand , in that when thinking of probability (possible outcomes), I think of uncertainty as a component of that. (And entropy measures that, specifically.)
A state of ''high order'' = low probability; a state of ''low order'' = high probability
But, maybe it's better said that entropy is a quantifier of uncertainty, and probability is the representation of it. What do you think?
Indeed and therefore, logically is mathematical in essence....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Which is logical, if we consider the natural constant of Necessity and Sufficiency.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well no, randomness is something you expect to see, in a deck of cards you've shuffled.
Or anywhere else. It means "patternless", more or less, so random means no discernible "long-range" order. It doesn't really relate to "short-range", or short messages . . .
The point is: you shuffle the deck and you can also reset your definition of order.
After shuffling the deck a dozen times, it has a different sequence, but whether that sequence is random is a matter of perception.
There is nothing objective about the human sequential values A,2,3,...K. It's an arbitrary measure of order.
You could just as easily decide that it is more logical to consider order based on weight: how closely they are sorted by heaviest (most ink) to lightest.
Having changed nothing but your perspective, you will now calculate and observe a completely different value of entropy for the cards.
It is possible to reshuffle a deck back into the original order.
Actually, that works only for viscous materials with a high degree of determinism. Randomly shuffling a deck of cards only offers a low probability of returning to the original deck sequence.
David Bohm demonstrated his "enfolded"and "unfolded" orders, by means of enfolding an ink drop in glycerine and then unfolding (reversing the process) it again exactly into the ink drop it was before.
No you could not for the purpose cards are intended.
A deck of cards is ordered by an arbitrary but standardized set of values as graphically symbolized on the face of the cards. The set itself is highly organized from 2 - K, with A being a dual value of 1 or 13.
Can't come with a scale to the poker table.......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Moreover you cannot randomly unshuffle a deck of cards, as with the Bohm experiment.
Once we start shuffling a deck of cards (fresh out of the box, never played with before), the randomness (disorder) increases. How do we bring the deck back to order? We get lucky and it just...happens after “x” shuffles?
Obviously, if you’re weak at shuffling, it would be easier lol
Low but not zero.
And a deck of cards only has 52 "particles".
Yep. I've seen this done.
In fact, by coinky-dink, there's an article on it on Digg today:
Yes, a human intention. And only intended by the manufacturer.
I get to decide what I consider to be the interesting property of the deck. (There is actually a magician who does his tricks by knowing the weight of the cards. He has fine-tuned his sense of touch so well that he can pick up a card and tell you it's a 10, based on weight alone.)
Nonetheless, when it comes to entropy, entropy doesn't care about human symbols.
Well, entropy isn't studied at a poker table either.
Yes you can.
1] It would take a very long time, true, but there is no reason why it wouldn't happen.
2] It is only due to a matter of scale. I proved this by trying it with a smaller deck: just the aces. I was able to shuffle the aces back to order with no more than 4 shuffles (OK, they weren't perfectly random shuffles, but there's no law saying that disorder must be caused by random processes).
Consider dropping a sequence of A-10 cards from a 20 yard height in still air. The cards will be disordered by the fall, but the chance that they land heaviest card first and lightest card last is considerably better than random.
In my opinion, ''order'' when speaking of a deck of cards means *I* know with certainty, where each card is located. Since the uncertainty increases when we start spreading cards, cutting decks, or shuffling the deck - the order is gone, and I can't see it ever coming back. I don't know if the deck of cards analogy is the best for describing entropy in terms of molecules, atoms, etc but if someone helps me to understand how order returns to the deck (after shuffling), I'll give you a gold star. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But that's still only by convention. You've been taught the numbering system, so thinking of order-in-deck and number-on-card as the same thing is natural.
Okay. But, I'm speaking of the deck being taken out of the original package, straight from the manufacturer - so, that is the order we're working from. (I'm working from)
It isn't. Uncertainty is something else entirely. (We are doing statistical thermodynamics here rather than quantum mechanics, which is where ideas of "uncertainty" come into physics. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)
Disordered states (e.g. liquid vs solid) generally have more energy levels for molecules to explore and thus more ways in which energy can be randomly distributed.
Once randomly dissipated like this, it is difficult to get that energy to do more mechanical work (which is an organised form of energy, being focused into a single force, acting in a particular direction, through a distance).
Temperature is a measure of how "concentrated" heat energy is. Heat flows from higher to lower temperature because it ends to want to diffuse away and spread itself out - to become less concentrated. So heat at lower temperature has more entropy than the same amount of heat at higher temperature.
But if you have a block of ice at 0C and you put just enough heat into it to melt it, you have added energy without increasing the temperature. So the molecules of water can have more heat in them at 0C than in ice at the same temperature. Therefore there must be more ways for the molecules to distribute the heat. This is because they have more "degrees of freedom": they can rotate and move instead of just vibrating in fixed positions. So water has a higher entropy than ice.
That gives an idea of the link between "disorder" and the spreading out of heat.
I know. But my entire point is that how we are deciding that the deck of cards is "ordered" is entirely arbitrary and subjective. You've chosen one you like.
In other words, entropy is not an objective property of a system.
I cannot hand you a deck of cards, and say "Please tell me what the current entropy of this deck is." without you having to ask me "What is your idea of order?"
I don't see it as subjective, but think we're not going to agree on that. A deck of cards (in order) coming a manufacturer, isn't something I've chosen. If we're talking about what do I wish to keep track of when shuffling the deck of cards (patterns emerging, for example?) , then yea...that is subjective.
You did specify "in everyday life", so I guess I can't really argue it from an objective "physics of nature" perspective.
I think there is. An ordered shuffle always produces a pattern, not randomness.
That's so wrong on so many levels....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Refresh your mind on the Law of falling bodies.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
1] Your assertion above does not actually refute what I said, so its relevance is questionnable.
2] Even if it were relevant, it's also not true. If I start with random sequence and shuffle it exactly once, it will not suddenly produce a pattern. I could shuffle it hundreds of times and it might not produce a pattern (It might produce a pattern, but you're saying it always does. That is not true.)
It's not wrong.
Every card as the same surface area and air resistance, yet some are more massive than others. The more massive ones will fall faster.
If I dropped a steel hammer and a hammer-shaped piece of styrofoam, the steel hammer will definitely hit first.
You might want to take a refresher yourself.
Again, the question of relevance comes up. You refer to Galileo's Law of Falling Bodies, yet that has to do with the rate of falling bodies over time, not the comparison of different masses falling.
I don't follow that.
Separate names with a comma.