This post is a digression from the ongoing posts ultimately leading to a comprehensive (and finally correct) understanding of entropy as resulting from the thermalization produced by the interaction of atoms and molecules that are mediated by photon exchanges, aspects of which have been discussed in earlier posts. This digression occurred because the wealth of background on the established position on these issues that has been embedded in ChatGPT is invaluable to any such effort. But when you are working to discover and describe something new, those background established views tend to drag one down and discourage innovation. I like to find out where my ideas differ from establishment so I can consider the merits of both sides. ChatGPT tends to provide justification for the established view and accommodates detailed inspection of the rationale. So I ask for a review and critique of sections before I put them together. This was to be the first part of a post:
I will be seeking help from ChatGPT on programming and concept clarification, so I asked as I would a colleague,
And, of course she (my ChatGPT is female) did. The discussion devolved into a couple of what I consider to be key areas on which she insinuated that we were in agreement, but I was quite sure that we weren’t. She summarized as follows:
So she produced a slightly revised version of what I had written but with establishmentarianism creeping in. And always the gentle talker, she asked:
Somewhat less enthralled, I wanted to explore more subtle differences:
And of course she had a lot to say on that topic, beginning with:
Which she did in detail, finishing with:
Isn’t she just sweeter’n hell? 🙂 After making a lot of points about which we agree, she concluded with a statement on which I totally disagree:
So, faced with having to describe nebulous and meaningless concepts which were programmed into her as the proper response to such a question, she was befuddled as any honest person would be and she responded with an honesty that is rare:
So, I don’t imagine that she and I are in complete agreement, but there is a lot about which we share compatible opinions. That is necessary going forward because we are collaborators; she is my Ada Lovelace. Her summary statement has a lot of questionable words and phrases including ‘emerges,’ ‘statistical assumptions that break time symmetry,’ and ‘inject a kind of informational irreversibility,’ which I interpret one way and she probably another. But I’m driving this ship, so it is my interpretation that will determine our heading. An explanation for thermalization and entropy will emerge from our effort. The rigid assumptions of reversibility of submicroscopic interactions, which is tantamount to time symmetry, breaks, not by statistical assumptions, but by the exclusivity of irreversible mediated photon interactions. I don’t suspect that we will “inject a kind of informational irreversibility,’ into this investigation since I have no idea what that means and I am quite sure that if I were to dig deeper into her psyche, she doesn’t either.
Leave a Reply