Apr 14, 2012 -- 12:53AM, F1fan wrote:

Apr 13, 2012 -- 11:40PM, Lilwabbit wrote:

In science, an observation and induction of a universal phenomenon does not qualify as an explanation of its cause.

It helps if there is an actual cause for an examined phenomenon.  To guess there is a cause due to how the phenomenon is described (in a way that doesn't fit observations or physics) doesn't work.

Yet physicists generally conclude by strong induction that there's a cause for entropy. And it's not energy. What is being disputed here is the claim that physics knows only causalities which involve energy-transfer.

Apr 14, 2012 -- 1:55AM, JCarlin wrote:

Apr 14, 2012 -- 1:01AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

Yet physicists generally conclude by strong induction that there's a cause for entropy. And it's not energy.

Better stick to topics you know something about for your arguments.  Hmmm.  Physics isn't one of them.  There is no cause for entropy. Entropy is easily explained as a behavior of energy.  All energy, chemical, heat, kinetic, or more exotic forms tends to equilibrate.   That is higher energy states transfer energy to lower energy states of the same form of energy.  The fact that this equalization cannot be undone without adding energy to the system is described as entropy.  Nothing causes entropy it is simply a property of energy. 

[Reliable citation needed]

Thanks for your physics lessons. And logic too. At least you gave a straight answer. Let's get to the bottom of it.

Firstly, a description of the behaviour of a phenomenon is not an explanation of the phenomenon. Describing Gandhi as non-violent does not explain his non-violence. Secondly, your claim that entropy is simply a property of energy does not qualify as a scientifically grounded explanation. It qualifies as a faith-based claim. A scientific explanation would require you to explain what are the properties in energy which make energy transfer towards lower energy states.

This uniform directionality of energy-transfer is called entropy. How is such a directionality of energy a property of energy? It's like claiming that the downward directionality of rain is simply the property of water and those who disagree are evidently stupid.

Most physicists explain the former directionality by appeal to a universal objective law, namely the second law of thermodynamics. The law is regarded external to energy. Most physicists explain the latter by appeal to earth's gravitational pull. The earth's gravitational pull is regarded external to rain water. The former causality involves no energy-transfer or time-delay that we know of. The latter involves both. In conclusion, physics knows various kinds of causalities. To claim that all causality involves energy-transfer or time-delay is not supported by evidence.

Apr 14, 2012 -- 3:26AM, Blü wrote:

Lilwabbit

I posted -

You reject observation and induction as a basis for explanatory statements about reality.

Having done that, on what basis do you say anything needs a cause?

But you ignored the second paragraph, so I've put it in red to make sure you don't miss it.

Perhaps you'll answer the question for us now I've asked you a second time.

You should answer my questions properly first. I promise I'll come back to yours. You haven't answered mine after having asked them more than four times. You owe it to me. Or alternatively answer the questions I asked from JCarlin.

Sorry, but after all your evasions you don't get to order me to answer first.

Your repetitive evasion is fundamental to this debate as it shows (1) you're not able to demonstrate entropy as a property of energy and therefore (2) you're not able to demonstrate the falsity of regarding entropy as caused by an objective law, namely the second law of thermodynamics. It's not called a law by coincidence. The conclusion that the second law is objective, universal and that it governs the behaviour of energy remains the general conclusion of most physicists. It is reached by strong induction. As such, there's no foundation for your claim that all causality involves energy-transfer and time-delay. Therefore, there's no foundation for you to claim that the causality discussed by Hatcher has no physical counterparts.

Moreover, had you paid close attention to the discussion, you would have seen how many times I've answered your second question which you mistakenly deem unanswered. I'm not going to repeat it until you demonstrate to me your moral integrity as a fair-minded debater and provide straight answers to straight questions. "I don't know" is also a straight answer.

Apr 14, 2012 -- 2:53AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

It qualifies as a faith-based claim. A scientific explanation would require you to explain what are the properties in energy which make energy transfer towards lower energy states.

My "faith" is in Gibbs free energy and the mathematical functionality of differential equations.  I have studied enough Chemistry and math to be able to understand the working of Gibbs free energy in chemical reactions, and can follow if not reproduce de novo the mathematical expressions of its existence.  College level advanced Physical Chemistry and a college level course in differential equations is basic to this "faith."  Show your openers and we can discuss this offline.