- August 17th, 2023, 1:42 am
#445495
The four-word sentence, "entropy must always increase" is definitely false.
In contrast, the statement""entropy must always increase over time" is partly true-ish in some contexts, analogous to how it's partly true-ish to say that Santa Clause lives at the North Pole, or that vampires drink blood, or that "unmarried bachelors are necessarily male".
Santa Claus, time, and vampires are all fictional. None of those three things are real. The phrase, "unmarried bachelor" is a contradiction, so "unmarried bachelors" cannot exist.
The so-called law that "entropy must always increase over time" is not fundemantal, cannot be fundemantal, and is--strictly speaking--not exactly true because it's nonsense. It's partly true-ish, but strictly speaking it's nonsense.
It's analogous to saying that "married bachelors are always men". It does reference in part to a tautological truth that's merely uselessly true by definition (that bachelors are men), but also a non-existent pseudo-thing (unmarried bachelors, or time).
To be philosophically strict and get to the real truth, we need to eliminate the nonsense by throwing out as nonsense any would-be proposition that references fictional nonsense pseudo-things like "time" or "unmarried bachelors".
The real truth that the nonsense 2nd law of thermodynamics indirectly scratches at some actual fundemental truths:
1. There is a statistical law of regression towards the mean. For example, if you are randomly placed on the surface of the Earth and find yourself at an usually high elevation on Earth, and then take a random step in a random direction, it will most likely take you to a lower elevation. If you find yourself at an unusually low elevation, and take a random step in a random direction, it will most likely take you to a higher elevation. In fact, you could use the results of a random step to retroactively predict the relative highness or lowness of your previous position. If taking a random step takes you lower, then that is evidence that you were at an above average height.
2. Timeless spacetime (a.k.a. the unchanging block universe) does have entropic gradients. In analogy, an unchanging landscape could have mountains, meaning that landscape would have elevation gradients. But you wouldn't say of that unchanging landscape that "elevation always decreases" or that "elevation always increases", neither of which would make sense to describe something unchanging and timeless. Something unchanging and timeless doesn't increase or decrease. Something timeless and unchanging doesn't--and can't--have qualities that increase or decrease over time because there is no time over which for it to change.
3. Because of the way intelligent integrated information processing and conscious experience works, it's very possible that conscious observers will tend to or necessarily each experience their subjective illusion of time as being parallel to the direction of the entropic gradient upon which their world line happens to exist. It's kind of like saying an arrow always points forward, but then defining forward as the way the arrow points. It's like two people walking up the same mountain from opposite sides, both saying the mountain elevation is higher the more forward you go, and then they bump into each other face-first.
A positron and an electron colliding might define the arrow of time oppositely, and thus be like two mountain hikers who collide face-first despite both claiming they were walking
forward. Indeed, in a sense, from the perspective of the positron it may be an electron and we and our electrons just experience time backwards.
Each hiker was facing opposite directions, so which one was walking in the forward direction and which one was walking in the backward direction when they collided face-first?
Of course the truth is more simple than that absurd question might have one feel: Objectively, there is no forward direction. Likewise, objectively there is no time, and objectively there is no time direction in spacetime. Any line in spacetime can be considered a timeline just like any direction can be considered the spatially forward direction, because it's made-up. The subjectivity and relativity is a symptom of the fact that it's a made-up projection.
Even to call it emergent is an understatement. It's an illusion that doesn't really exist at all, and being emergent and subjective are just two qualities that happen to be part of something being an illusion.
Entropy doesn't increase over time because time doesn't exist.
Instead the truth is this: Your made-up imaginary illusion of time points in the direction that has higher entropy because that's how you choose to label that direction. Accelerate slightly and the direction changes, just like how when you point your nose in a different direction what's forward can become back and what's left can be right.
Time only points towards entropy increasing in the same way your nose points forward, except your nose is arguably real while time definitely isn't. It's like saying the north star is always north if the north star didn't really exist but was a figment of your imagination.
In contrast, the statement""entropy must always increase over time" is partly true-ish in some contexts, analogous to how it's partly true-ish to say that Santa Clause lives at the North Pole, or that vampires drink blood, or that "unmarried bachelors are necessarily male".
Santa Claus, time, and vampires are all fictional. None of those three things are real. The phrase, "unmarried bachelor" is a contradiction, so "unmarried bachelors" cannot exist.
The so-called law that "entropy must always increase over time" is not fundemantal, cannot be fundemantal, and is--strictly speaking--not exactly true because it's nonsense. It's partly true-ish, but strictly speaking it's nonsense.
It's analogous to saying that "married bachelors are always men". It does reference in part to a tautological truth that's merely uselessly true by definition (that bachelors are men), but also a non-existent pseudo-thing (unmarried bachelors, or time).
To be philosophically strict and get to the real truth, we need to eliminate the nonsense by throwing out as nonsense any would-be proposition that references fictional nonsense pseudo-things like "time" or "unmarried bachelors".
The real truth that the nonsense 2nd law of thermodynamics indirectly scratches at some actual fundemental truths:
1. There is a statistical law of regression towards the mean. For example, if you are randomly placed on the surface of the Earth and find yourself at an usually high elevation on Earth, and then take a random step in a random direction, it will most likely take you to a lower elevation. If you find yourself at an unusually low elevation, and take a random step in a random direction, it will most likely take you to a higher elevation. In fact, you could use the results of a random step to retroactively predict the relative highness or lowness of your previous position. If taking a random step takes you lower, then that is evidence that you were at an above average height.
2. Timeless spacetime (a.k.a. the unchanging block universe) does have entropic gradients. In analogy, an unchanging landscape could have mountains, meaning that landscape would have elevation gradients. But you wouldn't say of that unchanging landscape that "elevation always decreases" or that "elevation always increases", neither of which would make sense to describe something unchanging and timeless. Something unchanging and timeless doesn't increase or decrease. Something timeless and unchanging doesn't--and can't--have qualities that increase or decrease over time because there is no time over which for it to change.
3. Because of the way intelligent integrated information processing and conscious experience works, it's very possible that conscious observers will tend to or necessarily each experience their subjective illusion of time as being parallel to the direction of the entropic gradient upon which their world line happens to exist. It's kind of like saying an arrow always points forward, but then defining forward as the way the arrow points. It's like two people walking up the same mountain from opposite sides, both saying the mountain elevation is higher the more forward you go, and then they bump into each other face-first.
A positron and an electron colliding might define the arrow of time oppositely, and thus be like two mountain hikers who collide face-first despite both claiming they were walking
forward. Indeed, in a sense, from the perspective of the positron it may be an electron and we and our electrons just experience time backwards.
Each hiker was facing opposite directions, so which one was walking in the forward direction and which one was walking in the backward direction when they collided face-first?
Of course the truth is more simple than that absurd question might have one feel: Objectively, there is no forward direction. Likewise, objectively there is no time, and objectively there is no time direction in spacetime. Any line in spacetime can be considered a timeline just like any direction can be considered the spatially forward direction, because it's made-up. The subjectivity and relativity is a symptom of the fact that it's a made-up projection.
Even to call it emergent is an understatement. It's an illusion that doesn't really exist at all, and being emergent and subjective are just two qualities that happen to be part of something being an illusion.
Entropy doesn't increase over time because time doesn't exist.
Instead the truth is this: Your made-up imaginary illusion of time points in the direction that has higher entropy because that's how you choose to label that direction. Accelerate slightly and the direction changes, just like how when you point your nose in a different direction what's forward can become back and what's left can be right.
Time only points towards entropy increasing in the same way your nose points forward, except your nose is arguably real while time definitely isn't. It's like saying the north star is always north if the north star didn't really exist but was a figment of your imagination.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- By Mo_reese
- By Sy Borg
- By Count Lucanor
- By Lagayscienza