Difference between revisions of "Tautological Status of the Second Law"

Latest revision as of 22:00, 19 January 2023

Redirect to:

^ 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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{Topic
+#REDIRECT [[Tautological Status of The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)]]
-|Question=Is the second law a tautology, i.e. can it ''in principle'' be violated?
-|Topic Type=Descriptive
-|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?
-|Parent Topic=Mechanism of Theory Acceptance
-|Authors List=Rory Harder,
-|Formulated Year=2013
-|Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2013,
-}}
-{{Acceptance Record
-|Community=Community:Scientonomy
-|Accepted From Era=CE
-|Accepted From Year=2016
-|Accepted From Month=January
-|Accepted From Day=1
-|Accepted From Approximate=No
-|Acceptance Indicators=This was when the community first accepted an answer to this question. [[The Second Law is a Tautology]], which indicates that the question itself is legitimate.
-|Still Accepted=Yes
-|Accepted Until Approximate=No
-}}