Difference between revisions of "Tautological Status of the Second Law"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Topic | {{Topic | ||
|Subject=The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) | |Subject=The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) | ||
| − | |||
|Topic Type=Descriptive | |Topic Type=Descriptive | ||
| + | |Subfield= | ||
| + | |Heritable= | ||
| + | |Question Text Formula= | ||
| + | |Question Title Formula= | ||
| + | |Question= | ||
| + | |Question Title= | ||
| + | |Predicate=is tautological | ||
| + | |Object Type= | ||
| + | |Object Value True= | ||
| + | |Object Value False= | ||
| + | |Object Class= | ||
| + | |Object Enum Values= | ||
| + | |Object Regexp= | ||
| + | |Single Answer Text Formula= | ||
| + | |Multiple Answers Text Formula= | ||
| + | |Answer Title Formula= | ||
|Description=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. However, it is not quite clear whether the law in its current formulation can be contradicted by any conceivable situation. So the question is whether the law is tautological or non-tautological, i.e. whether there are circumstances (perhaps the collapse of the society which contains the scientific community) under which the second law can in principle be violated? | |Description=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. However, it is not quite clear whether the law in its current formulation can be contradicted by any conceivable situation. So the question is whether the law is tautological or non-tautological, i.e. whether there are circumstances (perhaps the collapse of the society which contains the scientific community) under which the second law can in principle be violated? | ||
| + | |Authors List=Rory Harder | ||
| + | |Formulated Year=2013 | ||
| + | |Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2013 | ||
| + | |Prehistory= | ||
| + | |History= | ||
| + | |Current View= | ||
|Parent Topic=Mechanism of Theory Acceptance | |Parent Topic=Mechanism of Theory Acceptance | ||
| − | | | + | |Page Status=Needs Editing |
| − | | | + | |Editor Notes= |
| − | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Acceptance Record | {{Acceptance Record | ||
| Line 18: | Line 38: | ||
|Acceptance Indicators=This was when the community first accepted an answer to this question. [[The Second Law is a Tautology (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question itself is legitimate. | |Acceptance Indicators=This was when the community first accepted an answer to this question. [[The Second Law is a Tautology (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question itself is legitimate. | ||
|Still Accepted=Yes | |Still Accepted=Yes | ||
| + | |Accepted Until Era= | ||
| + | |Accepted Until Year= | ||
| + | |Accepted Until Month= | ||
| + | |Accepted Until Day= | ||
|Accepted Until Approximate=No | |Accepted Until Approximate=No | ||
| + | |Rejection Indicators= | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 20:49, 19 January 2023
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. However, it is not quite clear whether the law in its current formulation can be contradicted by any conceivable situation. So the question is whether the law is tautological or non-tautological, i.e. whether there are circumstances (perhaps the collapse of the society which contains the scientific community) under which the second law can in principle be violated?
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
| 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 Theories
| 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 an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.
Accepted Theories
| Community | Theory | Accepted From | Accepted Until |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scientonomy | The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) is Not Tautological (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) | 29 November 2017 |
Suggested Modifications
| 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 |
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
This question is a subquestion of Mechanism of Theory Acceptance.
