The Second Law is Not a Tautology (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)

This is an answer to the question Tautological Status of The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) that states "The second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 is not tautological."

The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) is Not Tautological was formulated by Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan and Paul Patton in 2017.1 It is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available answer to the question.

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

Here is the complete acceptance record of this theory:

Community	Accepted From	Acceptance Indicators	Still Accepted	Accepted Until	Rejection Indicators
Scientonomy	29 November 2017	The proposition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.	Yes

Suggestions To Accept

Here are all the modifications where the acceptance of this theory has been suggested:

Modification	Community	Date Suggested	Summary	Verdict	Verdict Rationale	Date Assessed
Sciento-2017-0005	Scientonomy	5 February 2017	Accept that the new second law is not a tautology.	Accepted	The modification was deemed uncontroversial by the community. Its acceptance was contingent upon the acceptance of the new formulation of the second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard and Barseghyan. Once the new second law became accepted, it was also accepted that the new law is not a tautology. There was no notable discussion concerning this modification.	29 November 2017

Question Answered

The Second Law is Not a Tautology (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) is an attempt to answer the following question: Is the second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 a tautology?

See Tautological Status of The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) for more details.

Description

The reformulation of the second law by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan makes it explicit that the law is not a tautology as it clearly forbids certain logically conceivable courses of events.1pp. 33-34

Reasons

No reasons are indicated for this theory.

If a reason supporting this theory is missing, please add it here.

Questions About This Theory

There are no higher-order questions concerning this theory.

If a question about this theory is missing, please add it here.