Boltzmann's constant has an SI unit of Joules (energy) per degree Kelvin (temperature), so entropy is the same. These are easily Googlable questions btw. — Kenosha Kid

wonderful. Thanks. I shall turn my attention to google now, and ask it "What's the meaning of life", "What is the purpose of existence" and "who created the world, and what was he wearing at the time".

Degenerate microstates for a particular macrostate. — Kenosha Kid

Thank you. What is the unit of entropy in QM? This definition only yields a number. A number alone is not a physics value.

There is a high risk of death with atomobiles than without. The risk is death by car accident.

Without automobiles (and trucks) the transportation of food, goods, and services would be impossible on the scale that we enjoy now. Subtract all motorized vehicles from traffic, and most of the world would starve to death or die or dehydration.

Driving motorized vehicles is evil, it is a violation of the civic duty, but much less evil and much less of a violation than not driving motorized vehicles.

That's not to mention the out of Africa theory which I absolutely do not believe — MAYAEL

It is extremely important for all to know what Mayael believes or not.

Maybe not important as the belief of one particular and specific individual, but that there is or may be a formidable voting block by those who do not believe in the out of Africa theory, which in and by itself may affect voter turnout, and election results.

Beware. Know your electorate. Your platform must not make a promise based on the alleged truth of the "out of Africa" theory, lest you be doomed at the polls.

Surely, there must be something worth keeping here even for the most radical? — JACT

I am sure the Christian community will find something in Das Kapital or in The Communist Manifesto something worthwhile to keep, too, much like the atheists will find something worthwhile to keep that's written in the Bible. Nobody denies loving feels good, money is the root of all evil, thieving and murder is bad, and mercilessly exploiting the poor by the rich is despicable.

Shakespeare can not be recognized either as a great genius, or even as an average author."

Tolstoy certainly didn't have much trouble passing judgment, with confidence and no hesitations. — Tom Storm

the less they understand what they are talking about, the more confidently and unhesitatingly they pass judgment on it. — Leo Tolstoy

You can't deny he was being consistent. He did not understand Shakespeare; in his ignorance he passed judgement. Much like he said people do who are ignorant of an issue pass judgment quickly and without effort.

T was right on the button in his opinion, and his own example offered just one more piece of evidence how right he was.

S = k ln(W)

Entropy S is Boltzmann's constant k times the natural log of the number of microstates W. — Kenosha Kid

Theoretically there is an infinite number of microstates. So entropy is a constant, and furthermore it is infinite.

Did you not want to write dW, that is, the change in microstates? And changing in which direction?

We'll get there yet.

I think you are overcomplicating things, and got lost in the quagmire of your own thoughts. My opinion only, don't take this to heart, please, I know you wouldn't anyway. But I still think you are not clear in understanding my original proposition, despite several clear examples with irrefutable logic accompanying them. I imagine (no proof) that as you are reading my earlier explanations, you apply your previously learned analytical tests to test them, but the tests you apply are not applicable. That's about the size of it.

I think there are quite a number of post-graduate students or just other formal students of logic and philosophy on this site who take their previously learned knowledge and fail to apply it properly to new and emerging thoughts. Especially where pure reason is involved. I don't know why this has to be a problem, but the phenomenon of being over-learned and thus influenced to not understand simple explanations is certainly pervasive on this site.

Think about it again: I said that reality can't happen more than one way. To this your replied, "Doesn't it? Why would you think it didn't?" There is no historical evidence that something happened to anything anywhere at the same time and in the same respect both ways that contradict each other, and there is the a priori knowledge that something can't both happen and not happen at the same time and in the same respect. You are arguing against these, not against my argument that I derived from these two. You must first convince me that reality can happen more than one way, that is, to a specific body a specific event can happen and not happen at the same time and in the same respect.

I am sorry, but I close this discussion with you. If you don't see the point in the bolded part, then there is something fundamentally not in alignment in our thinking, and all further arguments would be futile. I don't like futile. It's a personal preference. Sorry.

Thus as you add energy to a bound electron, you increase the number of equivalent states it could end up in, which is how entropy is defined in QM — Kenosha Kid

This is a very good explanation except there is no definition involved. Could you please rephrase this to make it into a proper definition?

Thanks for the rest of the explanation, too. Yes, I remember from Grade 13 chemistry the bound electron paths, as they go 2, 8, 18, 32, ... 2*(n^2), where n is the cardinal number of the "shell", that is, a path that electrons take as the atomic number (the protons in the nucleus) dictate. Don't ask me why they take these shell structures... too many equations involved, but please do tell me the definition of entropy in QM. In my high school days the only electron path that had been found or calculated specific energy levels were the electron of the Hydrogen atom, which, as we all know, has only one electron. Exciting this electron could be calculated in those years to what L level it jumps to; maybe QM has advanced now to know and calculate the energy levels of other electron paths.

You're applying the wrong standard of justification. "This definitely doesn't happen unless you can prove that it definitely does" would require a retreat to abject nihilism because nothing can be conclusively proven. The correct standard is "this might possibly happen unless you can prove that it can't possibly". So I'm asking you to prove that it can't possibly, or else admit that it might. Just saying "prove that it definitely can" doesn't prove that it can't possibly. — Pfhorrest

I disagree. But that's okay. If you were right in your criticism, then the law of excluded middle would never be applicable. But it's always applicable. So your criticism fails.

Thanks. The first paragraph has been known to me, but I am glad you clarified it anyway. The second paragraph is intuitive, but it does not explain what entropy is in the microphysical level. If you would care, please explain -- in terms that a person with Grade 12 physics can comprehend. If no, you won't explain, that's okay too. Won't lose sleep over that.

Doesn't it? Why would you think it didn't? — Pfhorrest

Because it's obvious it does not. Can you name two different events that happen to the same object at the same time and in the same respect? Can a car go forward and backward at the same time and in the same respect? Can an electron reverse its spin and keep the same spin at the same time and in the same respect? Can a decay to a nucleus happen and not happen at the same time and in the same respect, in a mass of nuclei of the same atom, where the nuclei decay in random order? My answer to my four questions is a resounding "no". If you say yes, a car CAN go both forward and backward at the same time and in the same respect, please demonstrate. Thanks.

I am sorry, you are talking about things I have already covered. Please try to understand what I said; and not try to explain something to me that I debunked. Sorry. I'll try it one more time to say my opinion in a different way, maybe it will stick, maybe it won't, this is my last chance:

SO: One last time: likelihood, chance, and probability are strictly human constructs, to fill gaps where we don't know the outcome, but have only statistical probability to predict. IN the real world, things happen only one way, and not many ways, so the chance of anything happening is 100%, not any less. Reality and events in reality are a straight path; there are no branches, and chance is an illusion. If you want branches, then reality ought to happen more than one way. But it does not, does it?

I thought it has been established that entropy is a feature of the macrophysical world only. It is not meaningful to speak of entropy in the microphysical world which quantum mechanics is a study of.

Much like there is no perpetuum mobile in the macrophysical world, but every motion type is a perpetuum mobile in the microphysical world.

Maybe that's been debunked? I dunno.

Further to my two previous comments; chaos is a state of matters, in which human minds are incapable of predicting anything to happen with any accuracy; that is, the likelihood of things happening is zero, hence the concept of chaos. But that is the HUMAN understanding of chaos. Chaos has its own rules, we just don't know them; hence our inability to predict events emerging in chaos. But chaos is not indeterminant; it is indeterminant only in the eye of humans. If we were smart enough, we could notice and understand the forces that work in states of what we call chaos, and it would all of a sudden lose its quality as chaos.

Further to my previous comment: I believe that to understand entropy properly, one must discard the "orderliness" concept. In my opinion and perception and way of thinking, entropy involves only two things: energy equalization (heat equalization) and not reversing the process of once in a lower energy state, then it can be only achieved to return to a higher energy state if energy is applied. Orderliness, in the human sense, for instance, arranging soldiers or warplanes in formation, is a misleading example, because arranging them in an unordered fashion, if there is a prescription how the disorder must be arranged, takes just as much energy.

Order is a human concept, much like likelihood of events to happen. Neither ought to be part of any physics concept, other than how they relate to human understanding.

But an expanding universe is constantly non-equilibrium: it's essentially creating more and more possible configurations of matter that are each more likely than the one we're in. — Kenosha Kid

Most of the discussion on this thread is beyond my pay level. But this struck me as odd.

Something being more likely than not depends on a comparison between prediction and actual. The LIKELIHOOD of anything happening is only meaningful from the stand point of human perception. Everything that happens has a certainly of 100% of happening, and our less than 100% perceptions of likelihood of things happening is due to our inability to calculate the future precisely.

Therefore the quoted paragraph is meaningless in the sense of physical reality, inasmuch as likelihood is a human concept only, and applicable only to human understanding.

I liked the suggestion of the opening post. A lot of criticism in later posts fail if you don't adhere to the letter of the teachings of Protagoras (as regaled by Plato) and of Kant, but to the spirit of it. And the application to moral dilemmas is clear, but not exclusive. I think people just argue because they hadn't thought of it first.

A little bit of folk wisdom mixed in:

Two man go to the village judge. "Your honour, Smith here does not want to pay me back the five bucks I lent him last Tuesday. He owes me that money!" "You're right", says the judge. Smith pipes up: "Yeah, but last year 'e borrowed me 'at, and 'e never give me back. I should keep the five bucks." "Son, you're right." Then the first complainer says: "But judge! We both can't be right!" The judge gets surprised, and then almost immediately, in delight: "You're right!"

Those who attacked the OP on Protagoras' terms, they failed to see that the solution to the dilemma works because the subjectivity can be flip-flopped. That's all. It's a simple as a hat.

Those who attacked the OP charging that he misunderstood Kant's dilemma are in fact plain wrong. Kant's dilemma is very simple. What Kant derives from it is completely and wholly unrelated to the Protagorian solution. Kant's treatment of his dilemma comes AFTER the presentation of the dilemma; and the Protagorian solution comes BEFORE the Kantian treatment, but AFTER the presentation of the dilemma. The critics are swashbuckling in the dark, fighting demons, not the insight of the Opening Post.

Morality is dead easy to explain, and I have done so.

Nobody touched my theories, except complained that the first version I posted here was too long.

So I posted the shorter version.

Morality (ethics) is clear-cut, easy to explain, easy to see for what it is.

Except people of course are horrified by new ideas. There is resistance. Huge resistance.

But nobody gave critical analysis that defeats my theory. They just ignore it. I suspect that is so because there are no holes in the theory.

Anyway, here're the long and short of it:

Long, detailed version:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10744/ethics-explained-to-smooth-out-all-wrinkles-in-current-debates-neo-darwinist-approach

Short version:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10903/shortened-version-of-theory-of-morality-some-objected-to-the-conversational-style-of-my-paper

I'm only pointing out that debaters aren't always so disagreeable that they can't even agree to a debate. It's not always that hostile. It really depends upon the personalities. — Hanover

I'm going along the lines of pure reason. If the debaters have different versions of truth, and that's why they debate; and their different versions are superstructures of earlier logic or premise(s); and if they both reason (use logic) well; then their premises must be different. If their premises are different, then their other superstructures will be different, such as definitions. If definitions are different, then they will argue what definitions to use. Hence, the rules that are DEFINED are suspect to never reach a common ground between the two debaters.

I grant that this above would not work if the defined rules do not violate the premises used by either debaters.

Post-Modernists are art critics. Their interest is not in truths, but in desconstruction. — Corvus

You are marrying the right concept with the wrong one. Deconstruction is the truth. There may be other truths as well, but at the present state of science and philosophy, this is what we got. Maybe down in history this will change.

I believe in the supremacy of logic. If logic proves or supports overwhelmingly that deconstruction is valid, or move valid than god-worshipping or Buddhism or Platonism or a thousand different theoretical constructs, then I go with deconstructivism, provided, again, that it is the most logically sound of all available ones.

Unless it wasn't. — Hanover

You are doing an Apollonius. Or however he spells his name. Reducing an argument to bare naysaying.

But the main crux is the debaters themselves should have some sort of goodwill and charity just as a point of pride.
— Protagoras

And how will you enforce that? — Banno

By detecting prior to the debate if the debating candidates have pride. If they lack it, they are not a good match in a debate, and shan't be allowed to participate in one.

What about when that doesn't happen, like when rules are agreed upon and then there's a debate? — Hanover

Then it was a third party that made the rules and the debating partners agreed to heed to them.

It is people's perception of what truth is that is debated. And truth (a precise description of reality) can't be found, much less described. Humans' ontological or epistemological arsenal does not include tools that could help us get to the truth with any degree of certainty.

There are only two empirically true statements that have the strength of a true a priori knowledge: 1. Cogito ergo sum, and 2. Geometrical space, which is the same as the space of which a part we occupy, is infinite. There may be a third but intuitively I think it's false: in an infinite space, all configurations of possible non-infinite existences must occur infinite times.

For some people yes.
Still a poor debate. — Protagoras

Truth can't be debated. Theoretically.

the desire for power is greater than the desire for truth

therefore debating often descends into fighting

and there is nothing wrong with that. wake up and smell reality you silly idealists — MikeListeral

This is so true! But I shan't embrace it, because it impedes me in my quest to garner power.

In the Darwinian sense, truth is strangely less conducive to survival than power is.

------------------

Those who make rules will make rules that help maintain their power, or help them attain it. If two debating opponents are asked to make rules, the debate will never end over what rules to make and how to apply them.

Yes. Some say that 90% of Philosophical problems would resolve by themselves, if they managed to establish valid definitions of the concepts. — Corvus

The Logical Positivists said all could, using this method. Wittgenstein showed it can't be done. Hence, Post-Modernism.

I think philosophical problems of different opinions would only get resolved if words had the power of action. For instance, "FU", or "go to hell" stuck. Barring that, no go. No end of debates. Debates end when a question successfully becomes the topic of science... enough evidence to not doubt an opinion by humans.

That is, step 1, we pass rules, step 2, we interpret those rules, step 3, we use past interpretations for future cases. — Hanover

What about enforcing the rules. The debate moderator is the judge and executor?
Who are "we" that pass rules? and who are "we" in the subsequent steps?

Thanks, JG. Paul was an absolute genius with the language. I miss him so much.

I expect to have a negative number any time soon. As my best friend, Paul A. Spenser said it, "My parents now think I should be lucky to amount to nothing."

Socrates was accused of atheism — Fooloso4

He was actually accused of perverting the youth by teaching them or preaching them atheism. His own atheism was collateral damage.

Mark my words: there is NO coincidence that my moniker contains the words "go", "OD", "us" "heist", "he", "ist" and "is", not to mention "I".

This confession gets you banned automatically, as no allusions are allowed under the death penalty that can trace a person to his or her real identity. (Hehe... is said "tity".) If you are granted clemency, run with it, and carry on with business as usual.

I swore myself off of this site while Appolotyphus is a member here, but I must interject. A quick search on "Banno" turned up to results. One is the title of a Bollywood movie or of a song in it, which is a Hindi RAP. It's quite remarkable, can be easily found on YouTube. The other allusion to Banno is a new type of fancy bank that does things for its customers which I have not enough education to understand. I still think of banks as cash keepers and money lenders, but apparently they do much more than that.

So that's the story behind the name Banno I could muster up for your reading pleasure.

So, is your argument that we should have no self-confidence and that if we do we are "Islamic"? Would you mind expanding on the logic of that? — Apollodorus

No, he means there is only garbage coming out of you, and the only type of people who can tolerate themselves while being you, are shit-eating gentlemen full of self-confidence.

No disrespect.

↪Gregory No. Why would I do that?

Your God sounds like that God.
— Gregory

It's not 'my' God. It's God. — Bartricks

I have a God too. I take it out for walkies three times a day. It loves the walkies. It shits all over the place, and I collect its leftovers in a plastic bag. I first put a leash on it, because that is the law's requirement around here.

..... Waitta second. You guys are not talking about gods... you talk about dougs. Diffenent subject, sorry for the interruption.

Historically many philosophers who are considered great have been monotheistic and their philosophy geared towards a hierarchy with God at the top. Plato,aristotle,descartes,Berkley,kant,newton,and others.
How do you view this?
Where these guys deficient in their logic or where they on to something? — Trinidad

Socrates was an atheist. Plato and Aristotle believed in a different thing which did not involve gods. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, never believed in gods. Sartre and Camus did not believe in gods. Russell forumated the reason why not to believe in gods, or to believe. Of the moderns, Lucas, Strentenholz, Beckermeier, Gerd Muller, Kocsis Tibor, Puskas Ocsi, and many others don't believe in god.

Your argument, my friend, reeks of the fallacy of "appeal to authority". In other words, no.

The mosquitoes will rule. — frank

They already had humans build many, many mosques.

I never followed the debate or the parallel lines. I just knew it must have been hilarious. In my books 3017Amen is dumber than a door knob, but he is full of "let's go, let's do it". His character is similar to that of Ratbert in the Dilbert comics. An innocent nincompoop, a naive happy-go-lucky guy.

180 Proof, on the other hand, has difficulty in speaking humanese, or else has an easy way of speaking his own language.

Pitting the two against each other had got to be a hoot. I did not even have to read one single solitary line in the debate to see that. I am still laughing, albeit inwardly, not outwardly.