I'm studying entropy and trying to understand more about itdrop your redpills and facts ITTfor example I just learned that since almost everything generates entropy, that means the work output potential of the universe keeps decreasing and one day the universe will reach equilibrium as entropy reaches its maximum value at thermodynamic equilibrium
>>17065469Redpill: the 2nd "law" of thermodynamics is not a real law. There's nothing to stop a "dead" universe from accidentally arranging itself back into a normal universe once it gets bored of making Boltzmann brains.
>>17065481>Causality exists until I say so that doesn't really make sense
>>17065579What are you on about?
Read Cedric Villani works on entropy or ask to a LLM.And stephen wolfram on cellular automata and entropy.
>>17065481>Boltzmann brainsthere's many way way way more probable things you should worry about lol
>>17065481I think there would be causality outside of itself that would prevent it from arranging back to normal, once if makes a barrier reaching equilibrium.
>>17065481This is the worst post I've read on /sci/ in a long while.
>>17065692I'm not worried about anything.>>17065727Word salad.>>17065960It only makes you mad because there's no thermodynamics-based counter argument besides "it's unlikely".
>>17065481It's a real statistical law and the fluctuation theorem is a real statistical exception to that statistical law.... but they're both statistical. Thermodynamic miracles happen, but they don't happen often and the probability of them happening is inversely, exponentially proportional to how much of a decrease in entropy you want out of the system.Random particle interactions producing a stable partice/molecule/compound? Sure, happens all the time. Self organization of large-N systems into low-entropy states? Yeah, sure. Jump starting a dead universe? Maybe if you've got infinite time.
>>17065995>It's a real statistical lawA statistical "law" doesn't guarantee any outcome.>Jump starting a dead universe? Maybe if you've got infinite time.The only way the 2nd law of thermodynamics holds in the first place is if you've got infinite time. For any finite stretch of time, it's possible for entropy to keep decreasing.
>>17065469>I'm studying>and trying to understand more about itI'm gonna go for a walk and ambulate.
>>17066001You can study without understanding just like you can walk without ambulating. Now get back on your intellectual treadmill, STEMfag.
>>17065469>everything generates entropyyou are obviously low iq and have never thought about this concept at all
>>17066004Do you see the word trying there, brainlet? It's not studying if you're not trying to understand.
>>17066018>my IQ is sub-90
>>17066000>For any finite stretch of time, it's possible for entropy to keep decreasing.Possible? Yes. Probable? No. In fact your probability of successive decreases in entropy goes to zero with infinite time.
>>17066020I accept your concession.
>>17066020with infinite time the probability of entropy decreasing rises to 1
>>17066019>I lost the argument so I'll just call him low iqBased. I wish I was as dumb as you, I'd probably be much happier.
>>17066033>i was having a heckin' argument with you!Mentally ill.
>OP asks for fun facts about Entropy>/sci/ starts having autistic shitflinging
>>17066000>A statistical "law" doesn't guarantee any outcome.And?
>>17066106And entropy may decrease indefinitely, despite the "law" saying it always increasing or constant.
Look into E. T. Jaynes, and become enlightened. The summary is that entropy is entirely an artifact of observation/your lack of information
