John Edser  wrote or quoted:
>  Tim Tyler 

> > > > TT:-
> > > > So: is the second law of thermodynamics
> > > > "RATIONAL"?
> > > > It's expression doesn't seem to contain any
> > > > constants I can see: it's expression is
> > > > usually of the form delta-S > 0.
> > > > ...and yet it is easy to imagine the
> > > > second law being false - i.e. it is
> > > > a testable piece of physics.
> 
> > > JE:-
> > > The 2nd law can be usefully sketched
> > > out as:-
> > > Time's Arrow --> stuff goes wrong --> Entropy
> > > Entropy represents a maximand of physics
> > > where entropy must always be maximised.
> > > Local entropy decreases caused by living
> > > systems are paid for by local increases.
> > > Thus life is 100% neutral to the entropy
> > > maximand. This being the case Darwin's
> > > maximand fitness does not contradict
> > > physics.
> 
> > TT:-
> > At the end of all this, I'm still not clear
> > about whether you agree that the second law of
> > thermodynamics has no constants in it - and
> > therefore is not testable science -
> > according to your world view.
> 
> JE:-
> Any maximand can be represented as a
> constant within a mathematical expression.
> The fact that entropy must always be maximised,
> no exceptions, means that entropy is 
> always increasing. In a mathematical
> expression this could be represented
> as a constant.

So: the second law of thermodynamics is a piece of valid
science - because it contains a constant expression -
and the constant expression is entropy?

Is that /really/ your position?

> > > > TT:-
> > > > For instance I am more likely to roll at least one six if
> > > > I throw three dice rather than two.
> > > > That statement has no constants in it - but it is a) accurate
> > > > in this universe, and b) possible to subject to
experimental testing.
> 
> > > JE:-
> > > Probabilities attempt to measure a constant
> > > by approximation. It is a guessed constant
> > > that allows the rationality of probability.
> > > The guessed maximand in your example is the
> > > largest probability that you will throw a six.
> > > Without this maximand which will approach
> > > a constant value the more you test it,
> > > the whole thing is just irrational.
> 
> > TT:-
> > So, to formalise this, for dice of all types:
> >   p_one_or_more_six(n dice) > p_one_or_more_six(m dice) when n > m
> > Are you claiming that that statement has a "guessed" constant
> > in it?  Therefore it is an acceptable scientific statement?
> 
> JE:-
> The constant just represents a proposed maximand for the
> problem which in this case is the largest probability
> that you will throw a six.

The above statement - i.e.:

  p_one_or_more_six(n dice) > p_one_or_more_six(m dice) when n > m

....doesn't mention probabilities of throwing a six.  It deliberately 
leaves open the question of how many sides the dice have.  They could be 
12-sided, 20 sided - or 60 sided - that's not specified in the equation - 
so the chance of throwing a six doesn't seem to come into the issue.

John, your position on the issue of constants in science
is not just unorthodox, it's wrong.

Since you've apparently managed to produce a constant out of
nowhere in the case of the second law of thermodynamics, what's
stopping you whistling one up in the case of Hamilton's rule?
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim{at}tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/27/04 5:58:43 AM