Tautological Status of The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is the second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 a tautology?

As any law, the second law attempts to forbid certain courses of action, for otherwise it would lack any empirical content and would be a tautology. Thus, the question is whether the second law as formulated by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 is tautological or non-tautological, i.e. whether there are courses of action in principle forbidden by the second law.

In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan and Paul Patton in 2017. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community. The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) is Not Tautological (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available answer to the question. It is formulated as: "The second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 is not tautological."

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

Here is the complete acceptance record of this question (it includes all the instances when the question was accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by a community):
CommunityAccepted FromAcceptance IndicatorsStill AcceptedAccepted UntilRejection Indicators
Scientonomy5 February 2017This is when the paper by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan suggesting a new formulation of the second law was published.Yes

All Theories

The following theories have attempted to answer this question:
TheoryFormulationFormulated In
The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) is Not Tautological (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)The second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 is not tautological.2017

If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Theories

The following theories have been accepted as answers to this question:
CommunityTheoryAccepted FromAccepted Until
ScientonomyThe Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) is Not Tautological (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)29 November 2017

Suggested Modifications

Here is a list of modifications concerning this topic:
ModificationCommunityDate SuggestedSummaryVerdictVerdict RationaleDate Assessed
Sciento-2017-0005Scientonomy5 February 2017Accept that the new second law is not a tautology.AcceptedThe 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

Current View

In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) is Not Tautological (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017).

The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) is Not Tautological (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) states: "The second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 is not tautological." 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

Related Topics

References

  1. ^  Patton, Paul; Overgaard, Nicholas and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2017) Reformulating the Second Law. Scientonomy 1, 29-39. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158.