What is it then? Details are required.
-
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @chrish420
Radical nominalism perhaps? Any kind of scientific theory includes this kind of pointing towards external phenomena, including matter and the relations between matter. In order to compare our abstract categories with reality, we must "name" it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
not unlike how a painter names different curves and shades through the act of imitating their reference.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NicolasDVillar1 @chrish420
This is neither the matter of how a painter names different curves, nor is it a matter of corroborating claims with reality. Science doesn't need the notion of reality to progress. In fact all such notions create a cognitive fog which is unhelpful? What do you mean by reality ...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @chrish420
Science does need the notion of reality to progress. This is all the more evident in the cosmological debates. If we were only battling out on the matter of epistemological problems we could never go beyond the ideological battle of atheism vs Christian teleology
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
it was only in the naming of a concrete thing, in the discovery of redshifts, of other galaxies, and the cosmic microwave background, that could make progress beyond that deadlock.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NicolasDVillar1 @chrish420
That's just some schoolbook account. Would you tell me how science looked at thermodynamics? Not to mention the relation between thermodynamic and gravitation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @chrish420
The cosmological debates were intimately intertwined with thermodynamics. I believe it was Engels in particular who noted that communists should stand against the universalization of the 2nd law of thermodynamics because it implied a start to the universe.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NicolasDVillar1 @chrish420
I'm a philosopher yet I think philosophers don't know what entropy is. This truly requires an education. The second law is actually not one law, it is a combination of two different assumptions. I don't want to bore you, but if you want to hear, I can talk about this more.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @chrish420
No, I'd love to hear it. I mostly just have PBS SpaceTime videos for a reference. I do however, understand that the 2nd law is a probabilistic law as it concerns the movement of particles, so that on occasion the entropy of a system can move out of equilibrium and lose entropy
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Thank you. So you are familiar with Gibbs-Boltzmann amount. I'm a bit too tired so if you don't mind, I will comment on this tomorrow.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.