Entropy in everyday life

DaveC426913 said:
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 patern, but you're saying it always does.).
Click to expand...
The orderly shuffle itself produces a pattern, even as it appears random at first. Ordered chronology always produces a pattern.
It's not wrong.
You might want to take a refresher yourself.
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.
Click to expand...

Galileo%E2%80%99s-laws-about-Falling-Bodies.jpg
 
sideshowbob said:
I don't follow that.
Click to expand...
How so?
An ace has the same surface area as a ten, yet the ten is slightly more massive because of the amount of ink.
1] If you think the ink doesn't matter to mass, I refer you back to post 90, where I mentioned a magician who has tuned his sense of touch so well, he can tell the difference between cards by their weight.
2] If you think the extra ink adds greater surface area, it won't make a difference.

For every cubic unit of ink, the mass will increase by the cube, whereas the surface area will only increase linearly (and along its thinnest dimension at that - which is not the dimension encountering air resistance).
So, for every doubling of ink, the mass-to-surface-area ratio inrease by four.
 
Write4U said:
The orderly shuffle itself produces a pattern, even as it appears random at first. Ordered chronology always produces a pattern.
Click to expand...
False.


Now you weren't able to provide a foundation for your assertion, nonetheless, I will happily provide you with a foundation for its refutation.

As far as we know the digits of pi are random; there is no discernible pattern to them.
I take digits 2 through 102 and shuffle then in an orderly fashion that exactly reverses them.

If your unfounded assertion, above were true, then they would now form a pattern, which would mean we could deduce the digits of pi. But that directly contradicts the initial statement that, as far as we can determine, the digits of pi form no pattern.

So, your assertion (which, again, is simply your belief, baseless) is shown false-by-contradiction.



Write4U said:
Galileo%E2%80%99s-laws-about-Falling-Bodies.jpg
Click to expand...

Again, you are too quick to respond.

The cards have equal surface area, but not equal mass. So Galileo's balls don't apply.

I forbid you from invoking Galilean Principles that you don't understand.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
False.
Again, you are too quick to respond.
The cards have equal surface area, but not equal mass. So Galileo's balls don't apply.
I forbid you from invoking Galilean Principles that you don't understand.
Click to expand...
Would you say that is true for dropping a hammer and a feather? You think the hammer's greater surface area equalizes the difference in weight?
Proof of Gallileo's Law of Falling bodieson the Moon
Apollo Astronaut demonstrates that a feather and a hammer fall at exactly the same rate in the vacuum of space on the Moon, despite the difference in weight. This confirms Gallileo's Law of Falling Bodies.

p.s. there is a difference between weighing the mass of two different massive bodies and letting them fall.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
1] If you think the ink doesn't matter to mass, I refer you back to post 90, where I mentioned a magician who has tuned his sense of touch so well, he can tell the difference between cards by their weight.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty skeptical about your magician's claim.
 
Write4U said:
Would you say that is true for dropping a hammer and a feather?
It is not true for dropping a feather and hammer. They have unequal surface areas.

That's the third inapplicable argument in a row you've produced.

You are demonstrating a grade school grasp of this topic. I don't know why. I think you are smarter than this.
Click to expand...
 
DaveC426913 said:
The point is: you shuffle the deck and you can also reset your definition of order.
Click to expand...
Ok. But you have to fix an order even if you do this each time.

You don't really change the definition, you just fix a different order--a "shuffled" one. But each time you shuffle the deck then look at it, you have a different "message", in information-speak. You're free to compare any two messages, or any three, or whatever you like.

The entropy is where, in this deck of cards + shuffling operation? What is this "information entropy" and what's the connection to subjective expectation?

Note, you could build a card-shuffling machine and a card-reading machine, but you can't avoid this expectation thing--what you expect the reading machine to output, say.
 
DaveC426913 said:
As far as we know the digits of pi are random; there is no discernible pattern to them.
I take digits 2 through 102 and shuffle then in an orderly fashion that exactly reverses them.
Click to expand...
Two points do not make a pattern. The minimum requirement is 3 points.

And Pi itself is a pattern, it is a non-repeating pattern....:) That does not make it random!
On the contrary, it is a universal constant!
 
Last edited:
Okay. In reading the last few posts, what I was thinking of re: the shuffled cards example, is the energy of the cards shuffler - the energy / heat produced in causing the cards to become disorderly to begin with. The cards being messy or shuffled multiple times, while they appear disordered, don't have anything to do with entropy, by themselves. No matter how often they get jumbled up. I'm interested in the measurement of disorder, from that perspective.

So, can we discuss that? Sorry. :-}
 
arfa brane said:
The entropy is where, in this deck of cards + shuffling operation? What is this "information entropy" and what's the connection to subjective expectation?
Click to expand...
If I decide that the information I'm interested in is the numerical order as printed on the cards, then a fresh deck contains zero information. Before even opening the package I know exactly where every single card will be. I think you'll agree with this.

If, on the other hand, I decide that the information I'm interested in is the weight of each card, then a fresh deck contains at least some information. I do not know exactly where every single card will be in a fresh deck. I could not predict where every card (by increasing weight) will be in the fresh deck. I would have to measure them, thereby recording information.

The point is: by changing what I - a human observer - decide is the most ordered state, the value of information entropy changes. So, in this sense, the amount of entropy is not an objective property of a system; it is dependent on what I - subjectively, arbitrarily and fickl-ly - decide at any given time is of interest to me.
 
wegs said:
Okay. In reading the last few posts, what I was thinking of re: the shuffled cards example, is the energy of the cards shuffler - the energy / heat produced in causing the cards to become disorderly to begin with. The cards being messy or shuffled multiple times, while they appear disordered, don't have anything to do with entropy, by themselves. No matter how often they get jumbled up. I'm interested in the measurement of disorder, from that perspective.

So, can we discuss that? Sorry. :-}
Click to expand...
Yeah. We're sortta drifting into information entropy, as distinct from thermodynamics entropy.

I used cards as a concrete example, easy to see an order to them - like having 52 molecules of gas in a room.
 
DaveC426913 said:
The number of the card is how many spots are on it. So, pretty much higher numbers = more ink.
Click to expand...
And who gets the benefit of being able to weigh cards? The person holding the cards and seeing their value, or the person across the table who cannot hold your cards? The dealer?

This makes no sense at all. A visual clue?... OK. Weight in milligrams?...Naaah.
 
DaveC426913 said:
If I decide that the information I'm interested in is the numerical order as printed on the cards, then a fresh deck contains zero information. Before even opening the package I know exactly where every single card will be. I think you'll agree with this.

If, on the other hand, I decide that the information I'm interested in is the weight of each card, then a fresh deck contains at least some information. I do not know exactly where every single card will be in a fresh deck. I could not predict where every card (by increasing weight) will be in the fresh deck. I would have to measure them, thereby recording information.

The point is: by changing what I - a human observer - decide is the most ordered state, the value of information entropy changes. So, in this sense, the amount of entropy is not an objective property of a system; it is dependent on what I - subjectively, arbitrarily and fickl-ly - decide at any given time is of interest to me.
Click to expand...
Seems you started this subject of weighty playing cards. Now you demand I start a new thread on a subject you introduced?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top