Not so, see above for an example.  Natural laws are summaries of   
   observed behaviour, not logical axioms.   
      
   Not quite. Lamarckism was based on observations, and flat earth too. How are   
   you   
   going to vet various peoples' observations, particularly when their ego and   
   authority is tied up in degrees and positions based on their view of things?   
   No scientific method was ever, or could ever be, based on simple observation.   
   Instead, explanatory power, generality, and, yes, a logical connection to the   
   rest of science comes into play. kinetic energy at 1/2mv2 is tied to f=ma and   
   evolution tied to the geological record. These are not random observations.   
      
   The reason that quantum mechanics over-turned classical physics is that their   
   particular observations contradicted the logical structure of classical views.   
   In other words, some observations disrupted an interconnected world-view   
   called classical physics.   
      
   Entropy in classical physics enjoyed none of this support from the rest of   
   physics. That was my simple point, and it has been stated by a multitude of   
   physicists. The second law gives time its "arrow," and the rest of physics   
   laws go backward and forward in time happily. I didn't make this up.   
      
   That view of things was why Max Planck was fascinated by entropy. Leo Szilard   
   went on to devote a decade or two to entropy and perpetual motion machines: His   
   thesis was on the feasiblity of perpetual motion machines, and he eventually   
   formulated information theory by theorizing that a Maxwell demon *could*   
   violate the 2nd law, IF he had information about th molecules coming his way at   
   the trap door.   
      
   This was te work that Shannon built on - I would like you to give me the   
   formula again that he used for channels... Data = ? As far as I know, this was   
   the only successful use of Szilard's work. This doesn't mean it was invalid, of   
   course. (But it's not a big vote for that, even so.)   
      
   All the major achievements of modern science such as the digital computer via   
   miniaturization, transistor, etc. were happily built wthout Szilard's theory.   
   You may  feel Shannon plays a central enabing role in measurement theory - If   
   so, I'd be interested.   
      
   And it is certainly possible that Szilard's theory has been neglected because   
   engineers and scientists are "locked into" a world view that doesn't absolutely   
   need it. Norbert Weiner and Shannon were enthusiastic about it. In other words,   
   most scientists have ignored it.   
      
   You can see this "lock-in" phenom in my field, biochemical thermodynamics.   
   Entropy was the basis for the discovery of the structure of DNA, and is the THE   
   force that holds proteins together. (gives them shape.) But few biochemists   
   know this, and nearly all non-biochemists are ignorant. Why? Because entropy is   
   very non-intuitive. What people like to think in is forces, like H bonding,   
   etc.   
      
   It is interesting, too, that the term "signal averaging" has confused so many   
   scientists. Why? Because it is a misnomer. Horowitz clearly shows that it   
   involves only addition  and subtraction, but the name misleads. Te wikipedia   
   entry is in error over this. Needs fixing.   
      
   jb   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)