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 · _intake0.785

   Theirony of the story is that Gilbert Ling did take Mitchell’s work seriously and showed his idea of a pump on a membrane broke the Second Law of Thermodynamics by a wide margin. No one read Ling’s paper on this, so the mistake was left to stand. You might be shocked to hear it is still standing in biology even today. This should have made Mitchell’s skeptics day when Ling published it. But none of the skeptics could fathom how Ling found this out because they did not believe his ideas that proton gradients were due to charge separation in water. Too bad……..because Dr. Gilbert Ling was proven …

   _intake/kruse-blog-corpus/articles/emf-3-the-origin-of-life.md

2. 02 · _intake0.783

   > it right. He didn't figure out the second law. As we now know, sort of the paradigmatic ideas that you need to figure out the second law come from ideas about computation and so on, which were another close to 100 years in the future, so to speak. But it's sort of interesting that he was applying those kinds of philosophical thinking ideas. And it was a misfire in thermodynamics. It was a hit in relativity, in the photoelectric effect, and the existence of photons, and also

   _intake/claims-allbranch/curated-low/photoelectric/003-it-right.md

3. 03 · _intake0.774

   Sir Alfred Eddington, the famous astronomer who proved that Einstein’s theory of relativity was true , said that any theory that is found to contravene the second law of thermodynamics has no hope of being true in 1915. This belief hold until today. The problem with this idea is that life has apeared to skirt the second law of thermodynamics by physicists since the second law was penned. Physicists, without saying it aloud, have said if there is a God, the deity certainly must be a thermodynamicist.

   _intake/kruse-blog-corpus/articles/reality-2-can-life-skirt-uncertainty-principle-second-law-thermodynamics.md

4. 04 · _intake0.772

   - The very same “experts” tell us this law is tight as a drum for biochemical fluxes, but why is iat they never tell you the Second Law is statistically derived and not absolute. Lord Kelvin and Boltzman seem to know it; why don’t the experts? Maybe they make the science that supports their claims and theories?

   _intake/kruse-blog-corpus/articles/tilted-quilt-random-musings-1.md

5. 05 · yt0.770

   Student: The k coefficient is wrong. Professor Ramamurti Shankar: The fault is not with the k. Yes? Student: We didn't take into account all the force that's friction and the amount of force. Professor Ramamurti Shankar: That is correct. So, we will say we have missed something. There's another force acting on this mass, besides the spring; that's the force of friction that'll oppose the motion of the mass. So, you can say one of two things. Either you can say something is wrong with Newton's laws, or you can say we've not applied Newton's laws properly because we haven't identified all the fo…

   yt/9vLSx1Iv06U-4-newton-s-laws-cont-and-inclined-planes/transcript.txt

6. 06 · _intake0.769

   **The physics of organisms are the key to the understanding biology.** This equation shows that the second law of thermodynamics that deals with *heat transfers* appears to always hold and be axiomatic. This is true in closed system and those at equillibrium, but it does not apply to open systems or to systems built to be far from equilibrium. All living cells are open systems built far from equillibrium.

   _intake/kruse-blog-corpus/articles/reality-2-can-life-skirt-uncertainty-principle-second-law-thermodynamics.md

7. 07 · yt0.769

   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

8. 08 · blog0.769

   “Nor could I ever find it intelligibly made out”, wrote Boyle, “what these real qualities may be, that they [the scholastics] deny to be either matter, or modes of matter, or immaterial substances” (Stewart 1979, 22). If an atom is said to possess elasticity, for example, then Boyle is saying that the ontological status of whatever it is that is added to matter to render it elastic is mysterious, given that it cannot be material. This is not to claim that attributing elasticity and other secondary properties to gross matter is unintelligible. For such properties can be rendered intelligible by…

   blog/plato-stanford-edu/atomism-from-the-17th-to-the-20th-century.md

9. 09 · yt0.768

   I was going to show you because I once I when I figured out um how I think the second law works, I got curious why had people not figured this out before. And so, I tried to trace the history of the second law. And uh old Jamie Clerk Maxwell was a big figure in the history of the second law. And I really do would like to show you just a few things from his work. Let's see whether I can find these. Um, now that's a that's fun. That's from uh Kelvin from uh 1870s trying to figure out uh motion. Hold on a second. Let's see if I can find this. Sorry, I was not uh quite prepared for this. I think t…

   yt/OWyugUdBups-stephen-wolfram-computation-at-the-foundations-of-everything/transcript.txt

10. 10 · blog0.761

    (C) implies that if water is an atomic natural kind concept, then (b) is true. But this does not show that one can know that (b) a priori. A holistic general content externalist who accepts (C) may reject the claim that one can know that (b) a priori if (as McLaughlin & Tye 1998: 311, argue) they can make sense of accepting i. We can know a priori that we have the concept of water, even if the concept of water is an atomic, natural kind concept, while rejecting ii. We can know a priori that the concept of water is an atomic natural kind concept. The key point is that on some holistic theories …

    blog/plato-stanford-edu/content-externalism-and-skepticism.md