The Deranged Epistemology of the Entropy Principle

Science & Technology
1

I spend my time on this forum exposing the epistemological insanity of insoluble dilemmas like “things vs. language,” “what is the link between words and things,” “what is a thing,” etc.

These absorb the forum in absurd, endless hamster-wheel discussions. This absurdity flows mechanically from the defective, immanent bi-categorical [Nature-Human] framework of Philosophy.

Reality operates on three categories: [Matter-Life-Thought]. You cannot process Reality using only two categories. Period. It is exactly like trying to solve a 3D knot topology while restricted to a flat 2D surface! It simply does not work. It is peak stupidity, but the human ape does not realize it because it is trapped inside its own Thought without having the slightest idea of what Thought actually is. This inevitably ends in idealism—mostly the sanctification of language, which is the totalization of Reality via mental projection.

All of these dynamics are explicitly resolved in the multi-categorical MCogito system, which possesses the extraordinary added property of interesting absolutely no one :smiley: . Like dogs endlessly sniffing each other’s anuses to establish a hierarchy, the human ape with philosophical pretensions loves to sniff “Thought” right where it stinks the most, simply because the alpha-dominants of philosophy (Hegel, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, etc.) left their conceptual scent there. :smiley: This cracks me up.

But imagine my surprise: I just found something even worse in Physics regarding the entropy principle!

I am currently reading an issue of Scientific American dedicated to quantum gravity. I learned that physicists desperately need black holes to increase entropy, whereas black holes manifestly decrease it. It’s because for them, entropy is the most sacred principle in physics, intimately linked to the “arrow of time”; it supposedly explains why time flows in only one direction. If a black hole could reduce entropy, it would destroy causality. This is catastrophic for their models. Therefore, they desperately have to invent a mathematical place to hide this inescapable entropy increase in the case of black holes.

The epistemological confusion here is horrifying—even worse than the [Nature-Human] framework in philosophy:

  1. Entropy has nothing sacred about it. It is not even a “principle.” It is simply the dilution of energy in space. Picture the break shot in billiards: the balls are structured in a tight triangle, and then they scatter everywhere. That is entropy. It merely dictates that initial energy (momentum) localized in a single point diffuses toward an infinity of equivalent points. Entropy is simply the asymmetric structure of space. The situation is slightly more complex because energy isn’t just momentum (it takes the form of charge, spin, etc., mapped in “phase space”), but the total concept remains a basic property of the One to Multiple spatial asymmetry. There is nothing transcendent about it.

  2. And here, the epistemological error becomes truly apocalyptic: physicists actually believe their equations and Reality are the exact same thing! Because the time variable t in their equations is perfectly symmetric (the math works identically forward or backward), they use “entropy” as a patch to explain why, in the actual physical world, time only flows in one direction. They are confusing their equations with Reality! They fail to understand that their equations are merely a human objective—a cognitive tool designed to reduce observed variability in the physical world. It is not the physical world itself! Nobody knows what time or energy actually is. The t variable in equations is not Time; it is an idea used to represent and compress variability! Here we observe the staggering limitation of the human mind when it comes to extracting itself from itself and rising to a true philosophical and epistemological level.

Conclusion on black holes: A black hole (if we consider strict relativity without quantum patches) reduces entropy to zero because it destroys Space. There is nothing abnormal about this, since entropy was space. All the galaxies swallowed by it are brought back to the densest possible structure: a single point with mass, charge, and spin.

I asked an advanced AI to check this, and it confirmed and pointed out that a few authors had already explained this exact same thing—though you can count them on one hand: Bergson, Whitehead, Ilya Prigogine, and Lee Smolin.

I am sorry. I feel like I just broke the typical hamster wheel rolling around here, but perhaps you know a way to repair it? :smiley:

2

“Entropy” is just a loop hole. The first law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it is always conserved 100%. But this law is just an ideal which cannot be proven. Any system, no matter how well we attempt to close it, will always demonstrate a loss of energy as the system operates. So in practise, the first law is not true and systems are actually judged with efficiency ratings. The eternal hamster wheel is impossible.

In practise, the explanation for the impossibility of 100% efficiency (perpetual motion machine), is that it is impossible to have a completely closed system, and some energy always gets lost from the system, friction etc.. So it is assumed that in theory, a system could be completely closed, and energy could be completely conserved, and this assumption grounds the first law. However, we know that in practise this is actually impossible, so the energy which we know will inevitably be lost, despite the law of conservation, and the assumed closed system, is written off as entropy, energy which is incapable of doing work. The energy doesn’t escape the system, it can’t because the system is assumed to be closed, and the first law must apply. The energy slips through the cracks in the ideal system. Therefore the statement of the op, entropy is “a patch”.