Re: The wirehead problem

Tim Tyler <seemysig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Curt Welch wrote:
Tim Tyler <seemysig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Curt Welch wrote:

It is quite reasonable to say that the idea of maximising
entropy explains why a gas expand to fill a box. It's no
different from saying that maximizing information entropy
explains why you get a normal distribution.

Hum. Maybe. It really depends on the context of what point you are
trying to make however.

I would argue what we say it "explains why" when in fact it doesn't
explain why. That's just how we talk about such things. More
accurately, "maximizing entropy" is _consistent_ _with_ the fact that
gas expands to fill a box. If you want to answer the question of why I
would argue you have to use lower level reductions.

How far down do you want to go? Gas molecules? Atoms? Why stop there?

IMO, you don't need to go far down the rabbit hole, in the case of
a gas expanding to fill a box: the basic idea of maximising entropy
(as explained by Roderick Dewar, following Jaynes) works just fine.

My point is that you have to go down at least _one_ level in reduction to
create an answer to "why". You can't just give an effect a new name, and
say the new name is _why_ the effect exists (well, we can do it and we do
it all the time, but you haven't explained anything in the process other
than the link between the views). There are many ways to use language to
create alternate views of the same effect without explaining why the effect
exists.

We do it all the time in talking about human behavior for example. We see
someone (ourselves) select cookies over dog *** as food, and we say "he
did it because he likes cookies better than dog ***".

Talking like that implies that the _cause_ of the behavior is our internal
"desire". But that's just bull ***. We use the word "like" to label the
behavior, not to label some real internal cause of the behavior. "desire"
is not "why" we eat cookies. "desire" is the odd backassward way we label
behavior which shows a statical bias in selecting cookies over dog ***.

To say that entropy is the cause of gas filling the volume is no different
than trying to say entropy is the cause of entropy, or gas filling the
volume is the cause of gas filling a volume, or gas filling a volume is the
cause of entropy.

Saying these things helps us understand the relationship between the
concepts, but doesn't in fact _explain_ anything about the universe other
than the relationship between the language concepts.

Now maybe, there's some implied lower level definition of entropy that
could prove me wrong here. I don't pretend to be an expert on entropy.
But everything I do known about it indicates to me it's just another way of
talking about the fact that gas will fill a volume.

To me, it seems to be saying something the kin of, "The acceleration due to
gravity is _why_ the apple increases in speed as it falls".

The concept of acceleration does not explain why the apple falls or why
there is gravity or why gravity works the way it does. It was the fall of
the apple that was used to define what gravity is. Gravity is just a
different name for the way in which things fall to the ground. Gravity is
not _why_ they fall (even though as I point out, we like to talk as if it
is).

As far as I know, gravity is a fundamental force of the universe which has
never been reduced to something simpler, as such, we don't have a "why"
answer for it. We don't know why apples fall like they do, we just know
they do and we call it a fundamental force of the universe, we call the way
they fall "gravity".

As far as I can tell, entropy, is to "gas expands" just like "apples fall"
is to gravity. They are just concepts that allow us to be more precise
about the statistical effects of expanding gas and the movement of apples.

--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
curt@xxxxxxxx http://NewsReader.Com/
.

Loading