You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ChristianKl comments on Open thread, Nov. 24 - Nov. 30, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: MrMind 24 November 2014 08:56AM

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

Comments (317)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: MarkusRamikin 24 November 2014 10:37:42AM *  1 point [-]

Markus Ramikin's Semimonthly Dumb Question time. Since we seem to have both experts on physics and on editing wikipedia:

What do you think of the quality of the current Wikipedia article on heat death? Is it a fair treatment?

I keep seeing intelligent people talk about this concept like it's obviously useful and relevant, and to my layman mind it is, but the article sounds a little like it's basically bunk now, with the opening summary ending this way:

it has been recognized by a respected authority on thermodynamics, Max Planck, that the phrase 'entropy of the universe' has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition.[1][2] Kelvin's speculation falls with this recognition.

The style, and the way these words are repeated verbatim down the page, makes me suspect the work of a single editor with strong opinions, and so I wonder. Just because of definition problems?

(I'll admit my proximate reason for asking is kinda trivial: the claim sometimes comes up in Madoka fandom that appreciating Kyubey's agenda requires trusting his civilisation's greater understanding of physics, and I wanna say that no, the show isn't making it up, that life ultimately running out of fuel is an idea that we humans have been considering seriously. But if I should mention "heat death" to someone who doesn't know what it is, and they look it up and see that, the first thing they'll say is "well this is disproven and there's nothing to worry about").

Comment author: ChristianKl 24 November 2014 10:55:39AM 3 points [-]

it has been recognized by a respected authority on thermodynamics, Max Planck, that the phrase 'entropy of the universe' has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition.[1][2] Kelvin's speculation falls with this recognition.

The fact that Max Planck is a respected authority can't be easily disproved and he's cited.

On the other hand he did write that more than 100 years ago.

The introductory section doesn't contain any modern physics but 19th century views. If you would gather more modern sources, you might use them to update the article.