Dr. Gibb's,
"Clausius' idea of entropy applied to steam engines and his energy was limited to heat and work. Now we know much more about what these things are and can define them in much more general contexts but our idea of the entropy and energy in a steam engine still give the same result. The entropy of a black hole is given by the area of its event horizon. This is crucial to my train of reasoning. Obviously Clausius would not have been able to say much about that."
"... Now we know much more about what these things are and can define them in much more general contexts but our idea of the entropy and energy in a steam engine still give the same result. ..."
But we do not know what the result of Clausius' derivation means. We do not have an understanding of what was calculated. Clausius discovered something defined ideally but rigorously. I suggest again that we Clausius' discovery cannot be explained. If the result you are speaking about goes to probability entropy or statistical entropy or information entropy, then they do not give the result that applies to the original derivation of thermodynamic entropy.
"... The entropy of a black hole is given by the area of its event horizon. This is crucial to my train of reasoning. Obviously Clausius would not have been able to say much about that. ..."
This entropy is not the same thing that Clausius discovered. The thermodynamic foundation of which you spoke, with regard to entropy, has not yet been laid.
"... We will have to agree to disagree about causality. I think more people would agree with you than me but that is because I am ahead of my time :)"
Thank you for remaining patient. I think that you should be able to make your case without my interference. However, when you use words such as 'sad' or 'need for reprogramming' it begs for rebuttal. It is not sad for one to have a different view about the meaning of the same empirical evidence. Acceptance of a different theoretical viewpoint is sufficent to support a different view.
Reprogramming is not called for so long as answers are missing. When and if we learn the nature of the universe, then perhaps authoratative dispatching might have a place. The search for knowledge moves in different directions for good reason.
Your paragraph from an earlier message:
"Our brains are also like computers (classical computers this time) but nobody sat down and wrote the prgrams and typed in the intial data before pressing the return key. Our brains evolved to run the way they do in response to our environment and this is possible because of the second law of dynamics which is an emergent law."
No programs, no initial data, yet we could learn? What first step is there that makes learning possible?
From another of your messages:
"James. I would not call F=ma fundamental because it is a classical Newtonian equation which has been replaced by more fundamental laws from relativity and quantum mechanics. ..."
Except that f=ma, before the theorist decides to guess about the nature of either force or mass, is theory free. It teaches us about the meaning of empirical evidence. The latter 'fundamental laws' are not devoid of empirical meaning but are repleat with theoretical ideas representing the imaginings of the theorists.
"However, even in classical Newtonian mechanics temporal causality is not a necessary assumption. You can state a problme by giving initial positions and velocities which you would call causes and work out later positions and velocities which you would call effects. ..."
The problem as you have stated it does not justify my calling 'initial positions and velocities' cause. They are not cause. Cause is unknown to all.
"But you can also start from final positions and velocities and work backwards as we do when working out where the planets were in prehistory. The only requirement here is consistency. ..."
Consistency comes from order.
"Causality only appears when thermodynmaics is taken into account and then there is an asymmetry between future and past, but the laws of thermodynamics are emergent and are not written into the fundamental laws."
Causality appears at the very first instance of an observed effect.
My words quoted by you: "Cause is not dispensible from a body of empirical knowledge..."
"You have just stated this and not given a reason for it so it appears to be your assumption that it is true. It is the point of my essay to say that the assumption is unnecessary. ..."
Cause is not dispensible from a body of 'empirical' knowledge because empirical knowledge consists of effects. Effects are naturally theory free although the theorist can intervene and add on their preferred interpretation. Cause, or I suppose time and other properties, can always be made to appear to be dispensible by adding on theory and manipulating those equations derived to represent that theory. If cause disappears, meaning really does disappear as opposed to replacing it with other names, from equations it is because the theory to which those equations have become subjugated didn't contain it.
"You say that the origin of order is missing from my explanation. Order is low entropy..."
Order is what makes usefullness possible. Order is what precedes results. Order is what dictates all effects that have ever occurred or will ever occur in the universe. Order is what contained all of that potential right from the beginning. Order does not emerge. There is nothing from which it can emerge other than a more complete order.
You have remained very patient. I think I have said enough. I would not think of rating you low because of disagreement. Your willingness to discuss these matters with me rates very high. Thank you for sharing your views here.
James