But it doesn’t hold incredibly well so it likely isn’t true.
Imagine if we had a device that could create free energy. He look, I’ve violated thermodynamics. Physicists will need to scramble to refute my idea. My idea holds so well it must be true.
Yes, of course it doesn’t, that isn’t the point. The point is that we can’t PROVE entropy, but have put it as the linchpin of much of our theories of physics. It’s a criticism of “scientific certainty”, especially of his time. In his time, physics was considered a “complete science”, meaning nothing new could be discovered or proven.
But it doesn’t hold incredibly well so it likely isn’t true.
Imagine if we had a device that could create free energy. He look, I’ve violated thermodynamics. Physicists will need to scramble to refute my idea. My idea holds so well it must be true.
Yes, of course it doesn’t, that isn’t the point. The point is that we can’t PROVE entropy, but have put it as the linchpin of much of our theories of physics. It’s a criticism of “scientific certainty”, especially of his time. In his time, physics was considered a “complete science”, meaning nothing new could be discovered or proven.
I’m sorry, I completely misunderstood what you meant. I thought you were referring to Maxwell’s demon as certain because it hasn’t been disproven.