Tautological Status of The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)
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.
In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is:
- The second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 is not tautological.
Contents
Scientonomic History
Acceptance Record of the Question
Community | Accepted From | Acceptance Indicators | Still Accepted | Accepted Until | Rejection Indicators |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scientonomy | 5 February 2017 | This is when the paper by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan suggesting a new formulation of the second law was published. | Yes |
All Direct Answers
Theory | Formulation | Formulated 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 a direct answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.
Accepted Direct Answers
Community | Theory | Formulation | Accepted From | Accepted Until |
---|---|---|---|---|
Scientonomy | 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. | 29 November 2017 |
Suggested Modifications
Modification | Community | Date Suggested | Summary | Date Assessed | Verdict | Verdict Rationale |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sciento-2017-0005 | Scientonomy | 5 February 2017 | Accept that the new second law is not a tautology. | 29 November 2017 | 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. |
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.1
Related Topics
References
- ^ 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.