| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
15 Jul 2005 06:43:30 AM |
| Object: |
Entelechy or entropy? |
In Aristotelian philosophy matter develops because the entelechy pushes
it into doing so. Today's postscientists don't wish to use the
Aristotelian concept and automatically say "because the entropy
increases" when asked to explain anything. They prefer the modern
concept because, apart from being incomprehensible, it involves a
number of absurdities that irreversibly damage the rationality of
anyone involved. Some of the absurdities:
1. That the entropy is a state function was proved by Clausius for a
reversible cycle undergone by AN IDEAL GAS. Postscientists apply the
same proof for ANY reversible cycle (see P. Atkins, Physical Chemistry,
5th ed., p. 132).
2. "Entropy always increases" is a false conclusion derived from false
premises (see http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev5.htm ).
3. The formula for the entropy change in non-equilibrium systems (eq.
4.13 in I. Prigogine, "From Being to Becoming", 1980) is an oxymoron
resulting from the mechanical combination of the incommensurable
equations 4.2 and 4.3'. Moreover, eq. 4.3' itself is an oxymoron since
Gibbs introduced it for equilibrium systems whereas Prigogine (and
other postscientists) have applied it to non-equilibrium systems.
It makes a lot of sense to return to the concept of entelechy since the
concept of entropy is much more pernicious.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Entelechy or entropy? |
15 Jul 2005 07:20:30 AM |
|
|
See: http://www.google.com/search?q=valev+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Entelechy or entropy? |
15 Jul 2005 11:43:34 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev:
In Aristotelian philosophy matter develops because the entelechy pushes
it into doing so. Today's postscientists don't wish to use the
Aristotelian concept and automatically say "because the entropy
increases" when asked to explain anything. They prefer the modern
concept because, apart from being incomprehensible, it involves a
number of absurdities that irreversibly damage the rationality of
anyone involved. Some of the absurdities:
Aside from yor deliberate misstatements about these things,
if these are all wrong, how come modern science has been so
successful in delivering new technology at such a rapid pace?
1. That the entropy is a state function was proved by Clausius for a
reversible cycle undergone by AN IDEAL GAS. Postscientists apply the
same proof for ANY reversible cycle (see P. Atkins, Physical Chemistry,
5th ed., p. 132).
2. "Entropy always increases" is a false conclusion derived from false
premises (see http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev5.htm ).
3. The formula for the entropy change in non-equilibrium systems (eq.
4.13 in I. Prigogine, "From Being to Becoming", 1980) is an oxymoron
resulting from the mechanical combination of the incommensurable
equations 4.2 and 4.3'. Moreover, eq. 4.3' itself is an oxymoron since
Gibbs introduced it for equilibrium systems whereas Prigogine (and
other postscientists) have applied it to non-equilibrium systems.
It makes a lot of sense to return to the concept of entelechy since the
concept of entropy is much more pernicious.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: Entelechy or entropy? |
17 Jul 2005 03:25:46 AM |
|
|
Apart from deification of mediocre persons, postscientism practises
reification of empty concepts. Entropy is a typical example. Originally
the concept has a rigorous definition but this definition has undergone
so many abuses that postscientists don't like it anymore and start from
scratch by asking the fundamental question "What is entropy?".
Countless answers are given that amount to PhD theses, philosophical
generalizations, innovations in education etc. The best reification
belongs to I. Prigogine who demonstrates how the system produces part
of the entropy inside itself but sucks the rest from the outside world.
The Nobel prize is unavoidably awarded for such a discovery.
Pentcho Valev
Bilge wrote:
Pentcho Valev:
In Aristotelian philosophy matter develops because the entelechy pushes
it into doing so. Today's postscientists don't wish to use the
Aristotelian concept and automatically say "because the entropy
increases" when asked to explain anything. They prefer the modern
concept because, apart from being incomprehensible, it involves a
number of absurdities that irreversibly damage the rationality of
anyone involved. Some of the absurdities:
Aside from yor deliberate misstatements about these things,
if these are all wrong, how come modern science has been so
successful in delivering new technology at such a rapid pace?
1. That the entropy is a state function was proved by Clausius for a
reversible cycle undergone by AN IDEAL GAS. Postscientists apply the
same proof for ANY reversible cycle (see P. Atkins, Physical Chemistry,
5th ed., p. 132).
2. "Entropy always increases" is a false conclusion derived from false
premises (see http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev5.htm ).
3. The formula for the entropy change in non-equilibrium systems (eq.
4.13 in I. Prigogine, "From Being to Becoming", 1980) is an oxymoron
resulting from the mechanical combination of the incommensurable
equations 4.2 and 4.3'. Moreover, eq. 4.3' itself is an oxymoron since
Gibbs introduced it for equilibrium systems whereas Prigogine (and
other postscientists) have applied it to non-equilibrium systems.
It makes a lot of sense to return to the concept of entelechy since the
concept of entropy is much more pernicious.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Entelechy or entropy? |
17 Jul 2005 08:38:38 AM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev:
Apart from deification of mediocre persons, postscientism practises
You didn't answer my question. That's okay, since I didn't really
think you would.
reification of empty concepts. Entropy is a typical example. Originally
the concept has a rigorous definition but this definition has undergone
so many abuses that postscientists don't like it anymore and start from
scratch by asking the fundamental question "What is entropy?".
Countless answers are given that amount to PhD theses, philosophical
generalizations, innovations in education etc. The best reification
belongs to I. Prigogine who demonstrates how the system produces part
of the entropy inside itself but sucks the rest from the outside world.
The Nobel prize is unavoidably awarded for such a discovery.
Pentcho Valev
Bilge wrote:
Pentcho Valev:
In Aristotelian philosophy matter develops because the entelechy pushes
it into doing so. Today's postscientists don't wish to use the
Aristotelian concept and automatically say "because the entropy
increases" when asked to explain anything. They prefer the modern
concept because, apart from being incomprehensible, it involves a
number of absurdities that irreversibly damage the rationality of
anyone involved. Some of the absurdities:
Aside from yor deliberate misstatements about these things,
if these are all wrong, how come modern science has been so
successful in delivering new technology at such a rapid pace?
1. That the entropy is a state function was proved by Clausius for a
reversible cycle undergone by AN IDEAL GAS. Postscientists apply the
same proof for ANY reversible cycle (see P. Atkins, Physical Chemistry,
5th ed., p. 132).
2. "Entropy always increases" is a false conclusion derived from false
premises (see http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev5.htm ).
3. The formula for the entropy change in non-equilibrium systems (eq.
4.13 in I. Prigogine, "From Being to Becoming", 1980) is an oxymoron
resulting from the mechanical combination of the incommensurable
equations 4.2 and 4.3'. Moreover, eq. 4.3' itself is an oxymoron since
Gibbs introduced it for equilibrium systems whereas Prigogine (and
other postscientists) have applied it to non-equilibrium systems.
It makes a lot of sense to return to the concept of entelechy since the
concept of entropy is much more pernicious.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: Entelechy or entropy? |
18 Jul 2005 12:50:06 AM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
You didn't answer my question. That's okay, since I didn't really
think you would.
Aside from yor deliberate misstatements about these things,
if these are all wrong, how come modern science has been so
successful in delivering new technology at such a rapid pace?
But the answer to your question is obvious. Technology is not
necessarily related to scientific theories, at least not to all of
them. Yours is a typical profane argument: being unable to deal with
the internal logic of theories, you can only look for their external
effects.
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Entelechy or entropy? |
18 Jul 2005 10:47:53 PM |
|
|
Pentcho Valev:
Bilge wrote:
You didn't answer my question. That's okay, since I didn't really
think you would.
Aside from yor deliberate misstatements about these things,
if these are all wrong, how come modern science has been so
successful in delivering new technology at such a rapid pace?
But the answer to your question is obvious. Technology is not
necessarily related to scientific theories, at least not to all of
them.
Again, you don't answer the question.
Yours is a typical profane argument: being unable to deal with
the internal logic of theories, you can only look for their external
effects.
The ``external effects'' you dismiss are the means by which theories
are tested. If you don't like the approach used in the scientific
method, go post on a philosophy newsgroup where you might be less likely
to be criticized for not posting something about science.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Entelechy or entropy? |
15 Jul 2005 06:53:48 AM |
|
|
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1121427810.325390.263880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
In Aristotelian philosophy matter develops because the entelechy pushes
it into doing so. Today's postscientists don't wish to use the
Aristotelian concept and automatically say "because the entropy
increases" when asked to explain anything. They prefer the modern
concept because, apart from being incomprehensible, it involves a
number of absurdities that irreversibly damage the rationality of
anyone involved. Some of the absurdities:
1. That the entropy is a state function was proved by Clausius for a
reversible cycle undergone by AN IDEAL GAS. Postscientists apply the
same proof for ANY reversible cycle (see P. Atkins, Physical Chemistry,
5th ed., p. 132).
2. "Entropy always increases" is a false conclusion derived from false
premises (see http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev5.htm ).
3. The formula for the entropy change in non-equilibrium systems (eq.
4.13 in I. Prigogine, "From Being to Becoming", 1980) is an oxymoron
resulting from the mechanical combination of the incommensurable
equations 4.2 and 4.3'. Moreover, eq. 4.3' itself is an oxymoron since
Gibbs introduced it for equilibrium systems whereas Prigogine (and
other postscientists) have applied it to non-equilibrium systems.
It makes a lot of sense to return to the concept of entelechy since the
concept of entropy is much more pernicious.
author: valev
keyword: entropy
group: bionet.info-theory
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?as_q=entropy&as_ugroup=Bionet.info-theory&as_uauthors=valev
Date: 1997
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Louis Slotin" |
|
| Title: Re: Entelechy or entropy? |
15 Jul 2005 08:26:03 AM |
|
|
Off Topic
please do not post or reply in sci.physics
Your posts are welcome in
sci.physics.relativity, sci.skeptic
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
