Bullshit, the second law of thermodynamics is the only holdout ever for causality with all of the rest of the known fundamental equations showing no preference whatsoever for the arrow of time. Thermodynamics is an odd hoc collection of theories that has yet to be reconciled with either relativity or quantum mechanics.

In what way is thermodynamics contradicting relativity or quantum mechanics? If you look at it you will see that there is no contradiction. The contradiction is between relativity and quantum mech.

In what way is thermodynamics contradicting relativity or quantum mechanics? If you look at it you will see that there is no contradiction. The contradiction is between relativity and quantum mech. — Agustino

The second law of thermodynamics is the last hold out for the arrow of time, while the mathematics of quantum mechanics show no preference for the arrow of time. Similarly, although Relativity is every bit as accurate as quantum mechanics are precise, it contains the glaring Simultaneity Paradox that two observers can witness the same event at different times. Again, energy is causal, information is not. That's your "spooky" action-at-a-distance is that the past and future form a self-organizing system that ensures we have both the causal and acausal, random and orderly.

So? That doesn't mean thermodynamics contradicts R or QM. It simply means it's describing a complementary aspect of reality that isn't described by either of the other two theories. Nothing in thermodynamics contradicts predictions of R or QM.

So? That doesn't mean thermodynamics contradicts R or QM. It simply means it's describing a complementary aspect of reality that isn't described by either of the other two theories. Nothing in thermodynamics contradicts predictions of R or QM. — Agustino

It means that both thermodynamics and Relativity have to be adapted to quantum mechanics. Thermodynamics, like I said, is an ad hoc collection of different theories, while Relativity contains a glaring paradox. The way around the issue is to formulate them along with quantum mechanics as a systems logic where the law of identity can vanish down the rabbit hole in a progressive fashion. Relativity contains the Equivalency Principle which is how they can be reconciled by expanding equivalences into a more dynamic systems logic that vanishes into indeterminacy. An analogy is an optical illusion where first you see it, then you don't. The context determines what meaning any measurements have and whether anything is considered noise or information, causal or acausal.

This is the same as linguistic philosophy were words can only have demonstrable meaning according to their specific context. An electron or bit of information only has meaning in specific contexts and metaphysics don't apply in the overall scheme of things making the laws of physics merely pragmatic.

A 3D printer is not making a material substance out of energy. You load the printer with plastic, powdered metal, or a slurry of cells and spray it, layer after layer, until you get the designed object. Sort of like papier-mâché.

A replicator [somehow--doesn't matter how because it doesn't exist] turns raw energy into a volume of Earl Grey tea at 160ºF in a ceramic cup for Captain Picard. Apparently the replicator and the transporter share basic technology. The transporter somehow [doesn't matter how because it doesn't exist] disassembles the person or object down to the sub-atomic particles and then reassembles them someplace else. It's a very data-dense procedure.

A 3D printer is to a replicator as meiosis is to Mercury--in other words, no relationship at all.

and spray it, layer after layer, — Bitter Crank

Not only do you spray it layer after layer, but say if you try to print the letter "T" the way it shows on the screen, standing up, it will fail to print it, because the nozzle that sprays the plastic can't build the first layer of the sides of the T with no support underneath. So then the program will either add supports built out of plastic (which you have to cut out after the printing is finished), or you have to change printing orientation, such as printing the "T" flat, or printing it upside down. There are some double curvature shapes, such as the pringle shape, that it may not be able to even print without supports, depending on the degrees of curvature involved, regardless of what orientation you want to print in. Also the actual printing process takes quite a bit.

So yeah, replicator my ass.

It means that both thermodynamics and Relativity have to be adapted to quantum mechanics. Thermodynamics, like I said, is an ad hoc collection of different theories, while Relativity contains a glaring paradox. The way around the issue is to formulate them along with quantum mechanics as a systems logic where the law of identity can vanish down the rabbit hole in a progressive fashion. Relativity contains the Equivalency Principle which is how they can be reconciled by expanding equivalences into a more dynamic systems logic that vanishes into indeterminacy. An analogy is an optical illusion where first you see it, then you don't. The context determines what meaning any measurements have and whether anything is considered noise or information, causal or acausal.

This is the same as linguistic philosophy were words can only have demonstrable meaning according to their specific context. An electron or bit of information only has meaning in specific contexts and metaphysics don't apply in the overall scheme of things making the laws of physics merely pragmatic. — wuliheron

The fact of the matter is that the second law of thermodynamics is a law that we have more proof for than possibly any other law in physics, including the whole of QM and Relativity. If the second law turned out to be false, then there really will be a very big problem to explain why the world has behaved according to it for pretty much its entire history, and why it keeps behaving that way. Again, physics sets very strong limitations on what is possible. It's good that you are widely read, and you do have some important and great ideas, but I think it only takes away from your insights that you seek to peddle unscientific ideas as facts, merely because they'd help support a view of reality you like. The truth is that the world isn't as malleable as any of us would want.

A 3D printer is not making a material substance out of energy. You load the printer with plastic, powdered metal, or a slurry of cells and spray it, layer after layer, until you get the designed object. Sort of like papier-mâché.

A replicator [somehow--doesn't matter how because it doesn't exist] turns raw energy into a volume of Earl Grey tea at 160ºF in a ceramic cup for Captain Picard. Apparently the replicator and the transporter share basic technology. The transporter somehow [doesn't matter how because it doesn't exist] disassembles the person or object down to the sub-atomic particles and then reassembles them someplace else. It's a very data-dense procedure.

A 3D printer is to a replicator as meiosis is to Mercury--in other words, no relationship at all. — Bitter Crank

Nor do we have 4 dimensional dilithium crystals, but the essential idea remains the same that we can use a machine to replicate things in our own homes if we want. Getting nit picky about details doesn't change the underlying essential reality of the situation that Star Trek has inspired countless inventions including practically every hospital in the world now using wall mounted monitors to display information on patients lying in beds.

I always wondered if you ate a meal on the Holodeck at a fine restaurant in 1970s Paris, upon leaving the holodeck, would the food and drink dematerialize, or would it continue to nourish you?

To be crass, what does holographic stool look like outside the Holodeck?

You can image Holographic bars where people got roaring drunk, exited the program and then immediately sobered up as all that holographic alcohol dissipated. You can return straight to duty after a grand night out on the town.

The fact of the matter is that the second law of thermodynamics is a law that we have more proof for than possibly any other law in physics, including the whole of QM and Relativity. If the second law turned out to be false, then there really will be a very big problem to explain why the world has behaved according to it for pretty much its entire history, and why it keeps behaving that way. Again, physics sets very strong limitations on what is possible. It's good that you are widely read, and you do have some important and great ideas, but I think it only takes away from your insights that you seek to peddle unscientific ideas as facts, merely because they'd help support a view of reality you like. The truth is that the world isn't as malleable as any of us would want. — Agustino

Quantum mechanics and Relativity are accurate to over 14 decimal places and modern Standard Theory is the foundation of any measurements made today including those in thermodynamics. You might as well claim we have more proof of Newtonian mechanics than quantum mechanics and Relativity combined which is just absurd nonsense. Hows that for your "scientific facts"? Thermodynamics is an ad hoc collection of theories that have yet to be reconciled with the very theories used today to measure heat and was, until recently, the last hold-out for those insisting the fundamental equations of physics must conform to the arrow of time.

Sometimes the brightest lights are left on when nobody is home and nowhere is this more apparent than in physics. Einstein and all the greats were very philosophical and understood many of the implications of their work however, in my experience working with them, most physicists are trained monkeys merely making measurements and designing things like better weapons without a clue as to the deeper implications of their work. So long as they get paid well they really couldn't care less and denying that anything is acausal is how they make their bread and butter.