/lit/ - Literature

Neither of those laws has much philosophical merit until you unpack its implications

>>6750055
Should we start with the definition of entropy?

>>6750049
>"I smoked a bunch of weed and read a few chapters in my physics 101 book, I have to be right"

that picture of joe rogan and the cosmos is the perfect description of the relationship between science and philosophy. they are interdependent, just ask spinoza or voltaire

>>6750061
You should start with a definition of law, then move on to thermodynamics. Then we can worm through energy, universe, and constant. We'll get to entropy eventually.
So please, define law and define thermodynamics.

These law is not supposed to be "true". Its a model that works in fixed circumstances. First page on physics 101.

>>6750084
>mfw OP can't define even one word in his post

>>6750049
those arent the first two laws if you count from the 0th

>>6750049
>>yfw all philosophy can be boiled down to the first two laws of thermodynamics
this is exactly false

Given that philosophy largely deals with the conceptual, I don't think the laws of thermodynamics have much to say about it.

>>6750049
>tfw the observer effect explains literally everything we know about experience and the universe

>>6750049
>yfw we exist just because of a random fluctuation of nothingness

>>6750592
Last Thursdayism is the only truth in life

>>6750603
This has nothing to do with your le epic thought exercise

>>6750592
>mfw not so random after learning about poincaré recursion time

>tfw you're a boltzmann brain

>>6750616
>mfw science says that Nietzsche was right all along about eternal recurence

>>6750627
This is something I don't understand about Boltzmann brain : are they supposed to exist in a vacuum or are they physical, "incarnate" ?

>>6750631
Yee

>>6750676
>yfw you have and will spend all eternity shitpsting on /lit/ FOREVER

>>6750631
Kek
How so?

>>6750685
Yee

>>6750704
Yee

>>6750631
that was a hypothetical thought experiment you know. He didn't mean it seriously. Plus "science says" is something he argued against.

>>6750049
>yfw God exists

>>6750685
>this precise atomic configuration of all of us participating in this thread with these laptops and clothes and energy sources in eachother's cities and air currents and temperatures WILL happen again in 10^10^10^10^10 years
>but it won't be us

Except that the first two laws of thermodynamics can in turn be boiled down to the theory of sets, which just happens to be overlapping with Philosophy.

>>6750814
>it won't be us

Why ?

>>6750732
Haw

>>6750876
Think a little

>>6750876
Because it is a hypothetical (actually a false proposition) that is incompatible with the leading cosmology today.

Also because he fails to take into consideration abstract objects and consciousness.

>>6750942
You are just answering axioms with other axioms.
>muh consciousness
Who's to say physically indistinguishable beings produced by the exact same set of physical environment won't develop the same outlook, personality and in other words essence ?

>>6750049
mfw 2nd law of thermodynamics states more enthropy. how can consciousness and life have more enthropy than ---

>>6750962
That's the issue, we don't know for sure.

>>6750962
>You are just answering axioms with other axioms.
Ah, the cry of a relativist. Some axioms are better than other axioms, because they model the world more accurately.

>Who's to say physically indistinguishable beings produced by the exact same set of physical environment won't develop the same outlook, personality and in other words essence ?
Solely because no two bodies can occupy the same point in space-time at the same time. They will always differ in some aspect, even if it is trivial and should be dismissed out of hand.

>>6751047
>Solely because no two bodies can occupy the same point in space-time at the same time

This principle isn't violated since there are no two bodies, it's the same body only later after the reset, in the new timeline.

>>6750962
What is Leibniz's the identity principle...?

If they exist in different temporal cycles they can't be identical

>>6751164
Leibniz didn't take into account the fact that those temporal cycles are identical. Same IDENTITY as in stemming from the same causal principle. Though it's hard to blame him for this flaw in reasoning since people couldn't into quantum mechanics then

>>6751156
There is no reset or new timeline; time hasn't ended. It's only that matter has exhausted every possible combination of states and it starts happening again. Think of the infinite monkey theorem: after the monkeys have typed out Shakespeare's entire works in order, give it enough time and they will do it again

>>6751194
If one occurs after another in time-which they must do, because the recurrence itself exists eternally but the experience of it and its effects can only occur in time-then they cannot be identical, since one occurs after the other and not at the same time as it. Thus, even if the same series of events occur and the particles involved have identical spin, etc., there is no possible way that one event which occurs an indeterminate amount of eons from another which resembles it almost exactly aside from their location in time, simply because they must succeed one another.
>Same IDENTITY as in stemming from the same causal principle
Do you even know what Leibniz's principle of identity is? It's that two entities cannot be identical unless they ave all properties in common. The idea that two things resulting from the same causal principle must be identical is absurd; two televisions playing the same program cannot be identical, simply because they must differ in spatial location. The fact that they both operate on the same causal principle or set of principles that, for instance, make possible their ability to broadcast images, and the fact of their broadcasting the same image at the same time in the same room-none of this indicates Leibnizian identity.
>quantum mechanics
I'd like you to explain how Nietzsche's eternal return accounts for quantum mechanics more than Leibniz did. Please, I'm completely serious. I want you to explain what makes you think the least scientific philosopher had a better grasp of quantum physics than the most scientific philosopher, especially since both of them lived at least decades prior to the birth of the science of quantum physics.
You really don't seem to know what you're talking about. The fact that the identity principle is so strongly emphasized in analytic philosophy today seems to point to you misunderstanding the relationship between the logic of the principle and quantum mechanics.

>>6751047
>Solely because no two bodies can occupy the same point in space-time at the same time.

What are Bosons?

>>6751399
You tell us, /sci/

>>6751446
Particles with even spin.

>>6751399
Theoretical, directly unobservable particles. It is debatable whether or not they exist outside of our theory (see any standard textbook on philosophy of science). Plus, it seems that you've skipped the context which is essential to what we were discussing: we weren't talking about subatomic particles, but human beings.

>>6751456
And in Nietzschean eternal recurrence, all bodies are dissolved at the end of a cycle only to come into being again. As important in identity as occupying the same place in space is occupying the same place time. Two bosons existing in different cycles of recurrence cannot be identical even if they have identical physical properties in both cycles because of the fact that one's existence in one cycle must succeed existence in another.

>>6751467
>Theoretical, directly unobservable particles.
The hydrogen atom is unobservable?

>>6751508
>All hydrogen atoms are bosons
>Every part of atoms is observable
>I've seen electrons
Lol

>>6751523
Why do you place so much value on visually seeing physical objects?

>>6751583
I take electrons and bosons on faith because the models of the universe we currently acknowledge as correct assume that things that serve functions like the ones we think they do must exist. I don't take the existence of my bed on quite as much faith, since I sleep in it every night and right now I can feel its rigidity, extension, etc.

More importantly, what do bosons have to do with eternal return? Assuming you're >>6751399, you still haven't made this clear.

>>6751399
What are virtual particles? What's second quantization?