A cup of coffee will act pretty much like water, and there are tables for the entropy of water here. From the table, we can see that at 100°C, water has 1.31 kJ/(kg K) entropy, while at 20°C, water has 0.296 kJ/(kg K) entropy. As 0.296 is less than 1.31, the cooler water has less entropy than it it did when hot.
Yes, but they wouldn't be true because of the evidence, it would just be an accident. So we would never know why it was true.But that doesn't preclude those conclusions from being true, no matter what they're based on.Because without a free will your brain is just operating according to the rules of Chemistry. Your conclusions are based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain, not on the weighing of evidence or argument.
Animal behavior studies have shown that while animals can do primitive reasoning, their reasoning is not abstract.
See my first statement above.
Nothing is true because of its evidence.Yes, but they wouldn't be true because of the evidence, it would just be an accident.
If we use evidence to infer an "accidental" truth, but it works, it is a distinction without a difference.So we would never know why it was true.
I could be charitable and infer that they were referring to universal entropy, not local entropy...I see someone is wanting to suggest I am wrong, without actually daring to state that outright. Perhaps he needs to grow a pair. Or just shut up about things he is ignorant.
But the argument - if El Cid actually has one - would have to be about what happens locally (and the deceitful poster was responding to a post that made it clear it was local entropy, and merely proved he is clueless about the topic).I could be charitable and infer that they were referring to universal entropy, not local entropy...
They are still bound by the laws of physics because they are dependant on the physical. What laws of physics do minds break?Yes but minds dont. So minds are not bound by the laws of physics because they are not physical.
No, twoness existed 65 mya with two rocks under a tree without any human minds. How do you determine what is fair and when your wronged? Hitler thought he was wronged. Was he right and if not how do you know?Because the ideas of numbers and logic need a mind to realise them, just the ideas of right and wrong need a mind to be realised. It's not hard to realise when we're treated unfairly or when we're wronged.
You misunderstand me about numbers. Yes, I agree that twoness exists, but my point was that a mind realises twoness.No, twoness existed 65 mya with two rocks under a tree without any human minds. How do you determine what is fair and when your wronged? Hitler thought he was wronged. Was he right and if not how do you know?
How do YOU determine what is fair and when your wronged? How do YOU know Hitler was wrong?How do you determine what is fair and when your wronged? Hitler thought he was wronged. Was he right and if not how do you know?
You are confusing amorality with immorality. Amorality means no morality, immorality means wrong morality.
No, that is just power and may take more time. But complexity has to do with knowledge and information.Okay, perhaps you can say exactly how you are measuring complexity here. I was thinking that if you have twice as much of a thing, then that must be more complex. For example a 1000-piece jigsaw is more complex than a 500-piece jigsaw.The number of something caused or created is not measure of complexity but rather of power.
Yes, I would agree with that.But the artist's painting have complexity, right?For parents, their sexual power and stamina determines the number of children. Though parents are not really the direct cause of the child. A better example is someone that designs cars, can only produce a large number of cars if he has the power to access a factory. So the ability to design cars requires greater understanding of complexity than producing large numbers of cars. Same with your example of the artist. The number of paintings has more do with his physical strength and stamina than his complexity.
And you are saying he cannot produce more complexity than he has. So, while I agree strength and stamina are an issue, if you are right they will come a time when he hits his complexity limit.
Another example would be an AI that produces pictures (some examples here). There is no strength or stamina involved, but they still produce images with complexity. Each AI will hit a point where it grinds to a halt because the complexity of the images it has produced has equalled its own complexity - if you are right.
An individual die roll is random, but the distribution of a large set of dice rolls, is not.No, natural selection is not random but mutations are and so are changes in the environment, which are what natural selection acts upon, so ultimately it is random.
Yes, but over time the entropy of the universe increases over time according to the Second law of thermodynamics and less orderly and less complex.Are you suggesting entropy is the inverse of complexity?
The entropy of the coffee goes down when a cup of coffee cools.