http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/bigger-plans-bigger-little-mistakes-tp523782p523820.html
OK, I give up. Even though I may agree with your conclusions (yup, doubling
it does to Clausius's, no matter how much you may want it to. Your constant
>
> Robert,
>
> As to "which 2nd law"? I guess I try to be consistent in allowing people
> their regular meanings for their own terms while also trying to connect
> those meanings to others that come from other perspectives. I don't mind
> being called on the ambiguities at all. Some people think nothing is real
> unless it can be defined and other people think nothing is real unless it
> can't be defined. These both make perfect sense to me, referring to
> different meanings of 'real'. The first meaning of 'real' as 'well
> defined' means 'part of a language' and the second meaning of 'real' as
> 'needing to be undefined' means 'part of the physical world'. I think this
> is a fascinating dichotomy, and especially curious that our normal way of
> speaking uses the exact same terms to refer to both meanings, (like the word
> 'apple'), though our references are usually distinct (to either the thing or
> the idea).
>
> I guess the '2nd law' I refer to beyond the world of precise mathematical
> definitions may well originate with my dad's very skillful explanation and
> demonstrations of physical properties that I thoroughly enjoyed from age 1
> on. I didn't learn the theory part till high school. My dad was a college
> physics prof. who was a true master of the lab demonstration method of
> teaching, which of course modern teachers have tried to replace with theory,
> the whole theory and nothing but the theory. I suspect it's my very clear
> perception, that the theories are failing to communicate huge parts of what
> they mean in the physical world, that partly motivated my expanding on
> explanatory principles for 'indefinable' physical things from ones for
> definable ones. One thing I do more than others is use my models to study
> the data that does not fit them.
>
> Its one of the most curious aspects of physics that the theory of physics
> actually never refers to any physical thing, but only to idealized
> relationships between measures. There are dozens of ways to show that
> there is really a very large difference between the idealized model of
> physics and the ordinary things of experience, like, well, all individual
> events. Physics describes a statistical world, not an actual world, and
> all actual events progress differently than described by physics. That
> doesn't mean the explanatory principles of physical wouldn't apply
> to 'undefined' physical events, just that we haven't learned how. Great
> useful explanatory principles like the 2nd law of thermodynamics get short
> shrift as a consequence. The conservation laws too.
>
> I think if we were able to show that our global warming strategy violates
> the 2nd law as expressed in physical systems in general, we'll save 50 years
> of pursuing a demanding strategy that, as planned, is sure to
> fail. Preventing the greater disruptions of global warming is important to
> do, of course, but partly to give us time to fix the real source of the
> problem that is actually fixable. The present plan is go to all that
> trouble in order to perpetuate the underlying problem.
>
> It's all ridiculous, of course, except that continually doubling the real
> size of the world economy every 20 years, forever, if you count real
> physical things anyway, is infinitely more ridiculous!! :-)
>
>
> Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> NY NY 10040
> tel: 212-795-4844
> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
> explorations: www.synapse9.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Robert Holmes
> *Sent:* Monday, April 30, 2007 4:42 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes
>
> On 4/29/07, Phil Henshaw <sy at synapse9.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
>
> Thus it would still appear to me that the plan for fixing global warming
> > violates the 2nd law, ...
>
>
>
> Which 2nd law, Phil? Not the one generally recognised by the scientific
> community, as discussed earlier. It rather reminds me of scene in "Through
> the Looking Glass" where Alice meets Humpty Dumpty:
> ...There's glory for you!' [said Humpty Dumpty]
> `I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
> Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell
> you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
> `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
> `When *I* use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it
> means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
>
> Sound familiar?
>
> R
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org>