🚀 go-pugleaf

On 21 Apr, 16:24, "Ciit" <c...@isp.com> wrote:
> "Can the Second Law of Thermodynamics Be Circumvented?"
>
>      The validity of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics seems to be
> beyond question. Under the first law, the total energy content of a closed
> system must remain constant. Under the second law, the availability of that
> energy for useful purposes must always decrease or remain constant. In
> effect, the First Law of Thermodynamics states that you can't win and the
> Second Law states that, furthermore, you can't break even. The First Law of
> Thermodynamics is unquestionably true, energy can neither be created nor
> destroyed, General Relativity not withstanding. The Second Law of
> Thermodynamics stands on less firm ground because it is a law based upon
> statistics. As such, it is in the same category as an actuarial table. An
> insurance company can predict quite accurately how many people will die in a
> given year. They cannot
> predict who those people will be. Statistical laws are valid for large
> numbers of events; they become less significant as the number of events is
> reduced. As an example, if one patronizes a casino, he might initially win a
> large sum of money playing a slot machine, but if he continues to play he
> not only will give all his winnings back to the casino, he will sustain a
> significant loss. The question then arises as to whether it is possible to
> by-pass the Second Law of
> Thermodynamics though the use of nanomachines. (A nanomachine is a mechanism
> whose significant dimensions are measured in nanometers, the size scale of
> atoms.)
 (snip.)

> The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
> years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
> MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
> individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
> questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
> objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
> Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
> exception for which a correction was provided.

The statistical nature of knowledge is beyond the grasp of even very
bright people. The reason was known to Goethe and to Dr. W. E. Deming:
you can't make sense of anything over unity without a system, and you
cannot analyse a system unless there is an aim for it - 'anthropic' or
whatever you want to call it. This is, though not only, a way of
saying that you cannot paint your 'self' out of the picture
(literature went on after Milton and Physics went on after Bacon),
because you are both producer and consumer of your world. Escape?
Pretend you don't exist, but your teachers and the Ministry of
Education - who fought to get you that grant - will probably be quite
cross with you! You don't have to be a product of your times, but you
cannot be a product of no times whatever - unless you are what the
Greeks called an idiot, by which they meant, inter alia, something you
could not wish upon yourself. So, assuming you are not afraid to
challenge *your* beliefs, read Popper's 'Conjectures and Refutations'
for a start. Wittegenstein? Crap! Cost me 6 months!
--
'foolsrushin'.