Timeline for Entropy-based refutation of Shalizi's Bayesian backward arrow of time paradox?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 26, 2012 at 20:47 | history | edited | jbowman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Changed "increase" to "decrease" (author typo, basically)
|
| May 24, 2012 at 7:17 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| May 22, 2012 at 16:26 | vote | accept | ely | ||
| May 22, 2012 at 12:01 | history | edited | Piotr Migdal | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added remark on Landauer's principle
|
| May 19, 2012 at 22:03 | comment | added | Piotr Migdal | @EMS As I said, my argument was deeper, going beyond thermodynamics (so also beyond Landauer's principle). In other words, even if for some reason Landauer's principle doe not hold, it does not break my point. Take a look at my comment on Yudkowsky's argument. | |
| May 19, 2012 at 21:46 | comment | added | ely | Shalizi seems to disagree with you about Landauer's erasure stuff, so perhaps this is the 'pre-debate' required before one can answer this question. I will go through the LessWrong link I put in my last comment and address specific quotes. | |
| May 19, 2012 at 18:58 | comment | added | Piotr Migdal | @EMS The erasure principle is deeper than stat. mech. - as I said, if it not satisfy it both refutes quantum and classical mechanics. And once more: you cannot apply rules for closed systems to open systems - so most of arguments by pragmatist either are not scientific (i.e. in what to believe or not) or ignoring physics. | |
| May 19, 2012 at 18:46 | comment | added | Piotr Migdal | @EMS Well, "Could you comment a discussion?" is not the best suited for SE (and in general, there are many arguments). Moreover in fact I justified critique of Shalizi's paper. Including also critique of a critique of a critique of a paper is asking for too much. Could you be more specific, i.e. point exact points? However: "When we do statistical mechanics, we are not usually interested in the entropy of the system plus the observer" - false (open vs closed systems), "the system evolution will not be unitary" - true, but even classically you cannot decrease total entropy. | |
| May 19, 2012 at 18:20 | comment | added | ely | I like this answer, but I am having a hard time reconciling with a discussion on another thread. Look at this link and find the thread/answer started by the user "pragmatist". If you add a paragraph or two addressing that argument (or explaining why that argument is valid / disagrees with your answer above), I will be happy to accept. | |
| May 16, 2012 at 19:51 | comment | added | Piotr Migdal | @ArtemKaznatcheev Basically yes. But more in taste closed vs open systems. But for the ones who don't like reading there is the first line ;). | |
| May 16, 2012 at 19:47 | comment | added | Artem Kaznatcheev | is this tl;dr version correct-ish: "Shalizi's paper is just a specialized restatement of Maxwell's demon"? | |
| May 16, 2012 at 19:45 | history | edited | Piotr Migdal | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
hamiltonian dynamics
|
| May 16, 2012 at 19:40 | history | answered | Piotr Migdal | CC BY-SA 3.0 |