|
|
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
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 (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question itself is legitimate.
| |
− | |Still Accepted=Yes
| |
− | |Accepted Until Approximate=No
| |
− | }}
| |