r6 and I discuss his theory that entropy is subjective

[gusl]

r6 and I discuss his theory that entropy is subjective

I've never been satisfied with the solutions I've seen to Maxwell's Demon.
I take r6's interpretation of entropy as an agent-dependent quantity related to his knowledge, and a measurement of what one can do with this knowledge: knowledge is power. According to his theory, an all-knowing being (Laplace's Genius) could make the entropy according to a more ignorant agent decrease, through a demon. The point seems to be that no one can decrease his/her own entropy.

I wonder what physicists have to say about this.

Comments

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

That's the reason I quit physics: someone can go as far as you (and much further) not being able to answer such questions. No offense intended. It just shows that most physicists are not interested in logical consequences of / relationships between their theories. I get the impression that much reasoning physicists do is informal and ad-hoc, and I have no idea how easily they could justify them logically, if at all.

Maybe there is a school of physics where they really emphasize logical foundations? A place where people couldn't be happy unless they knew how to solve such paradoxes...

During sophomore year, it became clear that I wouldn't get what I wanted out of a physics education. It was quite a disappointment, but it seems I made the right decision.

[gustavolacerda.livejournal.com]

Hm... maybe my comment wasn't called for. Some of these arguments seem quite involved.

It seems that physics curricula tend survey a bunch of ideas without analyzing their logical relationships to each other.

My approach is more to do learn a little bit, stop... check how it fits with everything.... and *then* proceed. This is the reason why I'm slower than most people: I'm always busy searching for contradictions (and incoherences). It's also the reason why my code is less buggy ;-)

what kind of book is this, btw? Maxwell's Demon's Greatest Hits? It seems each paper is from a different place.

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

My approach is more to do learn a little bit, stop... check how it fits with everything.... and *then* proceed. This is the reason why I'm slower than most people: I'm always busy searching for contradictions (and incoherences).

I work very much the same way. I'm by far the slowest physicsist (and thinker in general) that I've met. I try harder to understand the foundations of things before I'm happy with them, and as a consequence it takes me longer than most to learn a subject. Or sometimes just longer to admit that I've "learned it". Although I must confess that over this past year, my standards have been slipping a bit due to necessity. The sheer volume of stuff we have to know how to use has started to outweigh the possibility of understanding any of it fully. So my plan at this point is to go along with the way they want me to learn now, and then go back and learn it to my satisfaction when I get the chance. Hopefully, I won't just keep saying that and never go back. :)

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

That's the reason I quit physics: someone can go as far as you (and much further) not being able to answer such questions.

When I took graduate statistical mechanics, the professor brought up Maxwell's demon one day and he said "I don't really understand this, but I'll explain it to the best of my ability." He explained it and then I asked him a few questions similar to the ones you asked. And he said "sorry, I just don't know. You'd have to ask an expert on it." The thing is, physics is a really large subject. Each person has a specialization. While they may understand most of the logical foundations of their specialization, nobody has the time to look into every question in infinite detail.

Maybe there is a school of physics where they really emphasize logical foundations? A place where people couldn't be happy unless they knew how to solve such paradoxes...

I'd say the school of physics that emphasizes logical foundations is "mathematics". Or philosophy, depending on which particular questions your asking about. (see my post on my view of the differences between these fields).

[spoonless.livejournal.com]

During sophomore year, it became clear that I wouldn't get what I wanted out of a physics education. It was quite a disappointment, but it seems I made the right decision.

Oh, one more thing I meant to say. The thing that attracts me most to physics is that it does pose questions which are so difficult to see the logical implications of. I enjoy sitting down and thinking about "hard" problems where the answer is not immediately obvious. Some of the problems in physics are so non-obvious that they've taken half a century or longer for people to answer. (Mawell's demon being one of those questions. I think it was posed back in the 1800's!). So I guess I've taken the opposite approach. Every time I see a physicist who I think doesn't really understand what he's doing, I see it as an encouragement that I have something to offer the field.