bucket foundation — inverse omegabucket.foundation

thermodynamics

of Thermodynamics says that it's always more difficult to create a theory than to destroy ethereum you can dislike any of these theories that we talked about today but I challenge you come up with a
Concept
thermodynamics
Score
5 · always · causes
Status
candidate — not yet promoted to canon

Corpus evidence — top 10 passages

Most-relevant passages from the entire indexed corpus (67,286 paragraph chunks across YouTube transcripts, PubMed, arXiv, archive.org, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, OpenAlex, and more) ranked by semantic similarity (bge-small-en-v1.5).

  1. 01 · _intake0.805

    > you are free to not like any of these theories but if you don't like these theories propose your own the second law of Thermodynamics says that it's always more difficult to create a theory than

    _intake/claims-allbranch/curated-low/entropy/010-you-are-free-to-not-like-any-of-these-theories-but-if-you-do.md

  2. 02 · blog0.772

    And such a theory has been defended. Ned Markosian (1998) argues that not only does brutalism, the doctrine that there are brute facts about when the x s compose a y , solve the Problem of the Many, the account of composition it implies fits more naturally with our intuitions about composition. It seems objectionable, in some not easy-to-pin-down way, to rely on brute facts in just this way. Here is how Terrence Horgan puts the objection: In particular, a good metaphysical theory or scientific theory should avoid positing a plethora of quite specific, disconnected, sui generis , compositional

    blog/plato-stanford-edu/the-problem-of-the-many.md

  3. 03 · yt0.758

    What do you mean   that it's all talk and not reflected in the  formalism? And also port, because people keep   hearing this word port. Port is spelled  P-O-R-T and refers to the boundary ports. Yes, there are boundary ports, there are  other ports. It's very easily explained   if we write it down. We can't do that  right now. They're simple examples. Well,   the point is, what is not reflected is…  You have a total energy that's conserved,   and of course you can define a potential and a  kinetic energy, and you s

    yt/Bnh-UNrxYZg-frederic-schuller-the-physicist-who-derived-gravity-from-ele/transcript.txt

  4. 04 · archive0.738

    What makes it difficult to bring this discovery into agreement with earlier concepts is that only the H interacts with ATP, re- leasing the energy of its '^P's, while there is every reason to be- lieve that the L's are involved in contraction, do the work, and use the energy. The energy would have to get, somehow, from the H's to the L's and it is difficult to see how a bond energy could

    archive/bioenergetics00szen/bioenergetics00szen_djvu.txt

  5. 05 · _intake0.738

    How do they do this? After all thermodynamics should be sensitive to the underlying microscopic description. For example, the efficiency of a heat engine like our colony of mitochondria should always be limited by the Carnot theorem. We are bound by this theorem thermodynamically irrespective of whether the working medium is comprised of quantum or classical components.

    _intake/kruse-blog-corpus/articles/reality-15-animal-photosynthesis.md

  6. 06 · yt0.734

    Um so that being able to communicate the free energy principle in a way that people find a useful and obvious uh sort of tool or method to apply um could have I think gone better. Uh, and that may be because I'm not very good at keeping things simple or intuitive. >> We can attest to that. I think, >> you know, one thing that's interesting is I I feel the same way about probability theory. >> Like, you know, conditional probability theory is very easy to write down. There's really that, you know, you end up with the two fundamental rules, the sum rule and the product rule. Bu

    yt/PNYWi996Beg-your-brain-is-a-prediction-machine-not-a-processor-karl-fris/transcript.txt

  7. 07 · yt0.734

    What what they don't tell you is that soon after that finding w was obtained there another another group of equally prominent group said oh Libot was wrong he made he made a simple arithmetic error and there is no such thing as a high energy phosphate bond and that was tested later by two two guys whom I know because they're in the muscle contraction field and and they they also found experiment experimentally that there was no such thing as a high energy phosphate bond doesn't exist. Now a lot of people are not aware of that. I can tell by the expression on your face that maybe you haven't he

    yt/YrwbDsTx0Uw-water-the-matrix-and-engine-of-life-pioneer-in-water-researc/transcript.txt

  8. 08 · yt0.734

    I was invited to participate in a small  conference, actually not that small after all,   in Paris. And I saw their engineers and they  talked about something that's called the Port   Hamiltonian approach to dynamics. And this is  in essence an extension of Hamiltonian theory.   It's just that you do not only provide the  formalism to talk about a closed system where   no energy can flow out or in. You talk about open  systems where energy can flow out, but you don't   say how it flows out. There is an open port that&nb

    yt/Bnh-UNrxYZg-frederic-schuller-the-physicist-who-derived-gravity-from-ele/transcript.txt

  9. 09 · yt0.734

    Well, here's a fun basic analogy to help you understand. Fermat's law is like when you're trying to get to a swimming pool as quickly as possible from a sandy beach. You know you can run fast on the sand, but once you hit the water, you have to swim slower. So, instead of running straight into the water, you might run a bit further on the sand to save time. Light does something similar when it moves from one material to another, like from air into water, it thinks about which path will get it to its destination the quickest and it takes that route. Light always finds the fastest way, not neces

    yt/jtMu-KFyKxM-bitcoin-is-a-time-machine-with-dr-jack-kruse/transcript.txt

  10. 10 · yt0.733

    Because most simplifications,  you may throw away the essential physics,   or you may not even be capturing correct physics,  but Oppenheimer and Snyder succeeded in this. Brian: And I guess part of their- Kip: In retrospect. Brian: Right. And part   of their assumption, I guess, was they  assumed there wasn't undue pressure within- Kip: Yes. So for   simplicity, they just assumed this was dust,  so there's no pressure at all. And of course,   skeptics then immediately said,  well, that's not how things work   in the re

    yt/PTs--eFrzGo-greatest-mysteries-of-gravity-brian-greene-kip-thorne-world-/transcript.txt

Curation checklist

  • ☐ Verify excerpt against source recording
  • ☐ Tag tier (axiom · law · principle · primary derivation · observation)
  • ☐ Cross-cite to ≥1 primary source (PubMed / arXiv / archive.org)
  • ☐ Promote to bucket-canon/02-physics/