Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A whacky theory - comments please

  1. Nov 3, 2003 #1
    A chap posted this theory (though I hesitate to use the word) on a website. Anyone want to make reasoned comments?
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 3, 2003 #2
    That's just...whacky!!
  4. Nov 3, 2003 #3


    User Avatar

    Er... it doesn't actually say much, doesn't it?

    And presuming we are talking the scientific versions of the words he used, there are some serious errors.

    "Chaos <--> Uncertainty"

    This cannot be an initial step, because chaos is only a description of behaviour of certain entities/phenomena. The quantum fluctuations and broken symmetry that are generally thought to have caused the initial particulars are not considered as examples of chaotic motion.

    "II.Entropy + Uncertainty --> Expressions of Entropy + Uncertainty"

    I also don't think he can really characterise entropy, energy etc in this way, as things that must "express" themselves, especially as the second law of thermodynamics is a statistical law.

    "at a rate greater than it can countinue producing order (decreasing entropy)."

    Life doesn't break the second law at all. Life, like many other reactions, decrease entropy in one location at the expense of increasing entropy at the other, at very bad efficencies.

    Other than this, his theory looks like just a mixture of the second law and common sense.

    Universe started at low entropy.
    Entropy is increasing.
    Life is a temporary part of the universe.

    Well.... duh?
  5. Nov 6, 2003 #4
    I just asked the guy if his use of "+" indicates "plus" or "Boolean or". His answer: "I simply mean 'a reaction occrus'."
  6. Nov 7, 2003 #5


    User Avatar

    In that case, he is certainly misguided. Things like uncertainty, chaos et al are concepts, or descriptions of phenomena, and do not 'react' to anything.
  7. Jan 15, 2004 #6
    I am the Author of Equiotics

    and it's being misrepresented here by this Adam dork.

    It's a philosophical module, not a mathematical nor hard science module. I'm a writer.

    What pisses him off is the definition of "what is real?"

    "Componets of reality influence one another in an observable manner."

    I don't care if the idiot desseminates this particular intellectual property far and wide; by I do demand that geckopelli be given due credit.
  8. Jan 16, 2004 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hi geckopelli,
    Welcome to PF. I am moving this to the Philosophy Forum in case you wish to clarify or debate your ideas.

  9. Feb 6, 2004 #8
    I don't understand it, it seems really vague and too broad in scope, but what it says to me is you like to spend lots of time comming up with your own theories and that's far more important than being right or wrong, although the goal is to be more right than wrong eventually.
  10. Feb 24, 2004 #9
    Re: I am the Author of Equiotics

    No ad hominems please. Stick to the topic.
  11. Aug 29, 2004 #10
    Then ask a question, and I'll answer it.

    Just don't misrepresent me.
  12. Aug 29, 2004 #11
    Scientifically speaking, words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. Because there is no clear context or function, this supposid theory resembles nothing more than mystical mumbo jumbo.
  13. Aug 31, 2004 #12
    It's very unscientific to have overlooked this statement:

    "It's a philosophical module, not a mathematical nor hard science module. I'm a writer."

    in an earlier post.

    All things must be held within thier context.

    Generally, time proceeds in a single direction. Passage through time increases entropy. That passage more-or-less constitutes our Reality. General statements can be made by observing that Reality. And that is the purpose here- to be a general as possible, all the time being aware of the statistical nature of the Universe, and the precieved laws of physics.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: A whacky theory - comments please
  1. Theory (Replies: 3)

  2. Elegant theories (Replies: 1)

  3. Questions or Theory? (Replies: 1)

  4. Testla theories (Replies: 1)