Stay calm, my friend, or you'll do yourself a mischief. Maybe our man is deeper than he seems and he seeks to teach us an important lesson in the finer points of philosophical syllogism. I shall pose a question and examine the logical structure of his argument.
attofishpi, my learned friend, I'm sorry about our little misunderstanding. Would you be so good as to prove to me that leprechauns don't exist.
Stay calm, my friend, or you'll do yourself a mischief. Maybe our man is deeper than he seems and he seeks to teach us an important lesson in the finer points of philosophical syllogism. I shall pose a question and examine the logical structure of his argument.
attofishpi, my learned friend, I'm sorry about our little misunderstanding. Would you be so good as to prove to me that leprechauns don't exist.
Let me put this proposition forward for you consideration.
If man were to find a way to become 'immortal', you must agree that eventually increasing entropy is going to become a real issue for said 'immortality'?
attofishpi wrote:
Let me put this proposition forward for you consideration.
If man were to find a way to become 'immortal', you must agree that eventually increasing entropy is going to become a real issue for said 'immortality'?
Clearly you've decided not to have a go at my question, which is fair enough. I won't press you on the matter so long as you undertake never to ask such a ridiculous question again.
However on the question of immortality I need hardly remind you that immortality is your story, not mine. Furthermore I'd advise you not to use terms which you don't understand the meaning of. Entropy is not for amateurs.
attofishpi wrote:
Let me put this proposition forward for you consideration.
If man were to find a way to become 'immortal', you must agree that eventually increasing entropy is going to become a real issue for said 'immortality'?
Clearly you've decided not to have a go at my question, which is fair enough. I won't press you on the matter so long as you undertake never to ask such a ridiculous question again.
However on the question of immortality I need hardly remind you that immortality is your story, not mine. Furthermore I'd advise you not to use terms which you don't understand the meaning of. Entropy is not for amateurs.
Please reiterate your question and i will answer it.
As you indicated on your blog, one does not need to delve into the maths of it all. Its pretty simple, there is a fixed amount of energy to go around, and that energy will eventually deplete to the point of becoming useless (used) to man.
attofishpi wrote:Please reiterate your question and i will answer it.
I have no question for you. You made an extraordinary claim and I asked you to furnish the extraordinary proof which such a claim demands.
attofishpi wrote: there is a fixed amount of energy to go around, and that energy will eventually deplete
Are you referring to the energy content of a sub-system of the physical universe or to the energy content of the universe as a whole? If you're referring to a sub-system of the universe then your statement is correct because its energy content will deplete according to the second law of thermodynamics and its entropy will increase correspondingly. However if you're referring to the universe as a whole then the rules are different. On this universal scale the first law of thermodynamics trumps the second because the total energy content of the universe can be neither augmented nor depleted. However on this scale a quite different phenomenon is observed, which is sometimes referred to as the fourth law of thermodynamics. Without augmenting its energy content the universe as a whole is evolving from the simple to the complex, which is rather like the second law happening in reverse, because the total entropy of the universe is in fact DECREASING. We have 13.8 billion years worth of evidence for this, so this is not a controversial proposition. However it is an inconvenient truth for physicists, whose current models can provide no possible explanation for this. Even Newton's god hypothesis won't cut it.
