Live data from Hacker News

Computational Foundations for the Second Law of Thermodynamics

writings.stephenwolfram.com

11–13 of 13 posts

Re: Computational Foundations for the Second Law of Thermodynamics

#11
post #6

Everytime i read stephen wolfram, i can never decide if he’s a genius on the brink of a groundbreaking discovery (emphasis on « on the brink », because i don’t think he has released anything proved to be groundbreaking yet ), or just a former math wiz turned delusional. For example I bought his « new kind of physics » book when it was released, which was philosophically super interesting, yet it’s been 20 years and i…

He is a scientist in the finest sense: he collects lots of data and publishes that data for others to look at and think about for themselves.

His blog is priceless. He does such great deep dives on historical thinkers (Leibniz comes to mind) and travels to where they lived and worked and publishes photos of their original works.

Such a treasure.

(And the products are neat too!)

Re: Computational Foundations for the Second Law of Thermodynamics

#12
post #6

Everytime i read stephen wolfram, i can never decide if he’s a genius on the brink of a groundbreaking discovery (emphasis on « on the brink », because i don’t think he has released anything proved to be groundbreaking yet ), or just a former math wiz turned delusional. For example I bought his « new kind of physics » book when it was released, which was philosophically super interesting, yet it’s been 20 years and i…

I agree. My conclusion is that he is delusional. There are quite a few crazies on the internet who claims to be just on the brink of a major breakthrough. But they never actually get there. However it is much harder to tell with wolfram because he has actually achieved things in life.

Re: Computational Foundations for the Second Law of Thermodynamics

#13
post #10

„At its core the Second Law is essentially the statement that “things tend to get more random”.“ This is a common misunderstanding and I’m surprised Wolfram doesn’t seem to get that. A counter example is this: A self-gravitating gas cloud will collapse to a more compact state (a star or in the most extreme case a black hole ). This final state will not look like more random as it is commonly understood. The second la…

This is the usual kind of useless pedantry on this site.

It's not a misunderstanding. The entropy of a discrete probability distribution is indeed a measure of how random samples from it are. The misunderstanding is by you.

See Gibbs and Shannon entropy before commenting on this again.

Post reply on HN