Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Nick_Tarleton comments on Belief in the Implied Invisible - Less Wrong

30 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 08 April 2008 07:40AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (32)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Nick_Tarleton 08 April 2008 11:28:15PM 2 points [-]

1) The Second Law is a non-sequitur. It simply isn't relevant. The loss of a photon due to universal expansion does not violate that principle at all.

The photon had some entropy. If it vanishes with no effect, that entropy is gone.

Citing the First Law against the idea that a bit of mass-energy *could* be destroyed is simply invalid, because if that substance could be destroyed, we'd have to abandon the Law.

More than that, actually.

Let's drag this back to purpose. What's your answer to Eliezer's question at the end?