101–110 of 298 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Number of terms” is a human language construct.
No, it's a representation construct, i.e. how to describe some system in a given basis. The basis can be mathematical. Fourier coefficients for example.
Further, it’s not objective: you’re choosing the basis which causes the complexity, but any particular structure can be made simple in some basis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your perspective is incorrect. Physical entropy governs real physical processes. Simple example: why ice melts in a warm room. More subtle example: why cords get tangled up over time. Our measures of entropy can be seen as a way of summarizing, at a macro level, the state of a system such as that warm room containing ice, or a tangle of cables, but the measure is not the same thing as the phenomenon it describes. Bol…
My take, for what it's worth, Entropy isn’t always the driver of physical change, sometimes it’s just a map. Sometimes that map is highly isomorphic to the physical process, like in gas diffusion or smoke dispersion. In those cases, entropy doesn't just describe what happened, it predicts it. The microstates and the probabilities align tightly with what’s physically unfolding. Entropy is the engine. But other times,…
So you can interpret entropy as being about as real as potential energy or newtons laws. Very useful for calculation, subject to evolution laws which are common across all systems - but potentially gives way as an approximation under a finer grained view (although the finer grained view is also subject to the same rules)
This seems backwards. Entropy is a dispersive force — it favors distribution and disorder. But the universe clumps. Planets, stars, galaxies — all of them are low-entropy configurations. So how did scattered dust particles form the planet we’re standing on… through entropy? If gravity is just emergent from entropy, then it should be fighting against planet formation, not causing it. There’s a missing piece here — may…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe you are correct. Entropy is not a physical quantity, it is a measure of how far a system is from equilibrium. Lots of people talk about order/disorder or macro and micro states, not realizing these are things we've invented and aren't physical in nature.
> Entropy is not a physical quantity, it is a measure of how far a system is from equilibrium. That’s funny because the original thermodynamic entropy is defined only for systems in equilibrium.
Seems pretty intuitive to me. The question remains though, what is this density made of since gravity exists in a vacuum? Quantum fluctuations popping in and out of reality? Does this infer that quantum fluctuations are affected by mass as well? It would seem so since in Bose Einstein Condensate, what is "communicating" the state across the BEC if the particles are no longer interacting?
This seems backwards. Entropy is a dispersive force — it favors distribution and disorder. But the universe clumps. Planets, stars, galaxies — all of them are low-entropy configurations. So how did scattered dust particles form the planet we’re standing on… through entropy? If gravity is just emergent from entropy, then it should be fighting against planet formation, not causing it. There’s a missing piece here — may…
Also why does this have that particular ChatGPT social media post rhythm to it? Please, Lord, tell me we haven't reached the point where people are writing HN comments w/ AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's a representation construct, i.e. how to describe some system in a given basis. The basis can be mathematical. Fourier coefficients for example.
Mathematics is a human language. It being a formal language doesn’t change that. Further, it’s not objective: you’re choosing the basis which causes the complexity, but any particular structure can be made simple in some basis.
The speed of light is C, a constant. Mass is composed of these particles that are bound by C. Because they are vibrating, a lot of that speed is being wasted in brownian motion. So the denser it is, the more your average vector is going to be toward more dense brownian motion as the particles interact and induce more brownian motion. The gradient has a natural sorting effect. Seems pretty intuitive to me. The questio…
The speed of light is C, a constant. Mass is composed of these particles that are bound by C. Because they are vibrating, a lot of that speed is being wasted in brownian motion. So the denser it is, the more your average vector is going to be toward more dense brownian motion as the particles interact and induce more brownian motion. The gradient has a natural sorting effect. Seems pretty intuitive to me. The questio…
So this is why warm objects weigh more?
This seems backwards. Entropy is a dispersive force — it favors distribution and disorder. But the universe clumps. Planets, stars, galaxies — all of them are low-entropy configurations. So how did scattered dust particles form the planet we’re standing on… through entropy? If gravity is just emergent from entropy, then it should be fighting against planet formation, not causing it. There’s a missing piece here — may…