| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
At 06:36 AM 7/15/2005, Pentcho Valev, you wrote:to
In Aristotelian philosophy matter develops because the entelechy pushes it
into doing so. Today's postscientists don't wish to use the Aristotelian
concept and automatically say "because the entropy increases" when asked
ed.,explain anything. They prefer the modern concept because, apart from being
incomprehensible, it involves a number of absurdities that irreversibly
damage the rationality of anyone involved. Some of the absurdities:
1. That the entropy is a state function was proved by Clausius for a
reversible cycle undergone by AN IDEAL GAS. Postscientists apply the same
proof for ANY reversible cycle (see P. Atkins, Physical Chemistry, 5th
Pentchop. 132).
2. "Entropy always increases" is a false conclusion derived from false
premises (see http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev5.htm ).
3. The formula for the entropy change in non-equilibrium systems (eq. 4.13
in I. Prigogine, "From Being to Becoming", 1980) is an oxymoron resulting
from the mechanical combination of the incommensurable equations 4.2 and
4.3'. Moreover, eq. 4.3' itself is an oxymoron since Gibbs introduced it
for equilibrium systems whereas Prigogine (and other postscientists) have
applied it to non-equilibrium systems.
It makes a lot of sense to return to the concept of entelechy since the
concept of entropy is much more pernicious.
Pentcho Valev
To equate a concept signifying the realization of the potential
with a concept signifying an increase in disorder, or loss of information
on material order, is to say the least, heterodox.
I had supposed that Pentcho's unease coincided with the onset of the
20th century, but now I see his intimation that the mid-nineteenth also has
its problems.
It was this era that established that the search for perpetual motion was
unscientific, though it also encouraged the view that refrigeration cycles
were similarly unscientific. I chide myself for even asking: does
think that perpetual motion is possible, given sufficient application?_______________________________________________
Brian Whatcott Altus OK Eureka!