Entropic Certainty - Revision history

Root at 17:38, 22 September 2025

2025-09-22T17:38:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:38, 22 September 2025
Line 38:		Line 38:
	* A near-0% chance that entropy will decrease.		* A near-0% chance that entropy will decrease.

	Therefore, all truths we can possibly access, even those we trust most fervently, are intrinsically some combination of probabilities. Combinations of possibilities or [[Verum_Ex_Logica#Omnis_Casus\|Omnis Casus]], can be used for ethical reasoning.		Therefore, all truths we can possibly access, even those we trust most fervently, are intrinsically some combination of probabilities. Combinations of possibilities can also be referred to as [[Verum_Ex_Logica#Omnis_Casus\|Omnis Casus]] and can be used for ethical reasoning.

	== See Also ==		== See Also ==

Root at 17:37, 22 September 2025

2025-09-22T17:37:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:37, 22 September 2025
Line 38:		Line 38:
	* A near-0% chance that entropy will decrease.		* A near-0% chance that entropy will decrease.

	Therefore, all truths we can possibly access, even those we trust most fervently, are intrinsically some combination of probabilities.		Therefore, all truths we can possibly access, even those we trust most fervently, are intrinsically some combination of probabilities. Combinations of possibilities or [[Verum_Ex_Logica#Omnis_Casus\|Omnis Casus]], can be used for ethical reasoning.

	== See Also ==		== See Also ==

Root at 12:34, 22 September 2025

2025-09-22T12:34:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:34, 22 September 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Entropic Certainty]] is an extremely high level of certainty or ''"the most certain uncertainty can be."''		[[Entropic Certainty]] is an extremely high level of certainty or ''"the most certain uncertainty can get."''

	== Entropy ==		== Entropy ==

Root at 12:34, 22 September 2025

2025-09-22T12:34:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:34, 22 September 2025
Line 35:		Line 35:
	[[Entropic Certainty]] is itself fundamentally an array of probabilities. Consider the [[wikipedia:Second Law of Thermodynamics\|Second Law of Thermodynamics]]: the truth of what will happen to a closed system’s entropy can be expressed as two probabilities:		[[Entropic Certainty]] is itself fundamentally an array of probabilities. Consider the [[wikipedia:Second Law of Thermodynamics\|Second Law of Thermodynamics]]: the truth of what will happen to a closed system’s entropy can be expressed as two probabilities:

	A near-100% chance that entropy will increase,		* A near-100% chance that entropy will increase,
	A near-0% chance that entropy will decrease.		* A near-0% chance that entropy will decrease.

	Therefore, all truths we can possibly access, even those we trust most fervently, are intrinsically some combination of probabilities.		Therefore, all truths we can possibly access, even those we trust most fervently, are intrinsically some combination of probabilities.

Root at 12:33, 22 September 2025

2025-09-22T12:33:42Z

@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 This is not an endorsement of [[wikipedia:Radical_skepticism|radical skepticism]], but rather a necessary perspective as we approach the nature of truth. One should approach topics with the understanding that the highest level of confidence one can hope to attain isn't certainty but rather [[Entropic Certainty]]; as close to certain as uncertainty allows.
-----
+== Probabilistic Sum ==
+[[Entropic Certainty]] is itself fundamentally an array of probabilities. Consider the [[wikipedia:Second Law of Thermodynamics|Second Law of Thermodynamics]]: the truth of what will happen to a closed system’s entropy can be expressed as two probabilities:
 A near-100% chance that entropy will increase,
@@ Line 70: / Line 41: @@
 == See Also ==
-{{seealso|}}
+{{seealso|[[Verum Ex Logica]]}}
 {{Seealsowiki|[[wikipedia:Second Law of Thermodynamics|Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[wikipedia:Entropy|Entropy]], [[wikipedia:Radical_skepticism|Radical Skepticism]]}}

Root at 12:30, 22 September 2025

2025-09-22T12:30:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:30, 22 September 2025
Line 21:		Line 21:
	So, while the unbreaking of the egg is technically possible, for all practical purposes, it might as well be impossible. This certainty is what is called [[Entropic Certainty]]: something so outrageously and overwhelmingly likely (or unlikely) that it might as well be a certainty.		So, while the unbreaking of the egg is technically possible, for all practical purposes, it might as well be impossible. This certainty is what is called [[Entropic Certainty]]: something so outrageously and overwhelmingly likely (or unlikely) that it might as well be a certainty.

	== ==		== Is Nothing Certain? ==
	One could argue that even what we believe to be 100% certain is actually just another instance of [[Entropic Certainty]]. That is, anything that has always been correct isn’t guaranteed to remain correct; it’s simply never been proven wrong: yet.		One could argue that even what we believe to be 100% certain is actually just another instance of [[Entropic Certainty]]. That is, anything that has always been correct isn’t guaranteed to remain correct; it’s simply never been proven wrong: yet.

Root at 12:29, 22 September 2025

2025-09-22T12:29:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:29, 22 September 2025
Line 19:		Line 19:
	You know such a result is unfathomably unlikely, yet all you need to do is reverse a video of the egg breaking to see this happen. If you could somehow reverse the physics of what occurred when the egg broke, you would get to witness it unbreak in person.		You know such a result is unfathomably unlikely, yet all you need to do is reverse a video of the egg breaking to see this happen. If you could somehow reverse the physics of what occurred when the egg broke, you would get to witness it unbreak in person.

	So, while the unbreaking of the egg is technically possible, for all practical purposes, it might as well be impossible. This certainty is what is called [[~~entropic certainty~~]]: something so outrageously and overwhelmingly likely (or unlikely) that it might as well be a certainty.		So, while the unbreaking of the egg is technically possible, for all practical purposes, it might as well be impossible. This certainty is what is called [[Entropic Certainty]]: something so outrageously and overwhelmingly likely (or unlikely) that it might as well be a certainty.

	== ==		== ==
	One could argue that even what we believe to be 100% certain is actually just another instance of [[~~entropic certainty~~]]. That is, anything that has always been correct isn’t guaranteed to remain correct; it’s simply never been proven wrong: yet.		One could argue that even what we believe to be 100% certain is actually just another instance of [[Entropic Certainty]]. That is, anything that has always been correct isn’t guaranteed to remain correct; it’s simply never been proven wrong: yet.

	We might estimate, based on its long-standing and consistent efficacy, that there’s a 99.999… (repeating to a [[wikipedia:googolplex\|googolplex]]) percent chance our assertion is true.		We might estimate, based on its long-standing and consistent efficacy, that there’s a 99.999… (repeating to a [[wikipedia:googolplex\|googolplex]]) percent chance our assertion is true.
Line 30:		Line 30:
	This isn’t even accounting for the [[wikipedia:dark horse\|dark horse]] possibilities (again, however unlikely) that we are contending with an all-powerful trickster, like [[wikipedia:Evil Demon\|Descartes’ demon]], or that our reality is unfolding within a [[wikipedia:Simulation_hypothesis\|simulation]] specifically designed to obscure the truth.		This isn’t even accounting for the [[wikipedia:dark horse\|dark horse]] possibilities (again, however unlikely) that we are contending with an all-powerful trickster, like [[wikipedia:Evil Demon\|Descartes’ demon]], or that our reality is unfolding within a [[wikipedia:Simulation_hypothesis\|simulation]] specifically designed to obscure the truth.

	This is not an endorsement of [[wikipedia:Radical_skepticism\|radical skepticism]], but rather a necessary perspective as we approach the nature of truth. One should approach topics with the understanding that the highest level of confidence one can hope to attain isn't certainty but rather [[~~entropic certainty~~]]; as close to certain as uncertainty allows.		This is not an endorsement of [[wikipedia:Radical_skepticism\|radical skepticism]], but rather a necessary perspective as we approach the nature of truth. One should approach topics with the understanding that the highest level of confidence one can hope to attain isn't certainty but rather [[Entropic Certainty]]; as close to certain as uncertainty allows.

	----		----

Root at 12:28, 22 September 2025

2025-09-22T12:28:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:28, 22 September 2025
Line 2:		Line 2:

	== Entropy ==		== Entropy ==
	The [[wikipedia:Second Law of Thermodynamics\|Second Law of Thermodynamics]] is one of the most concrete and reliable principles in nature, yet it is not absolutely guaranteed in every case. It states that in a closed system, entropy tends to increase over time. This is not a rigid rule, but rather a statistical inevitability.		The [[wikipedia:Second Law of Thermodynamics\|Second Law of Thermodynamics]] is one of the most concrete and reliable principles in nature, yet it is not absolutely guaranteed in every case. It states that in a closed system, [[wikipedia:Entropy\|entropy]] tends to increase over time. This is not a rigid rule, but rather a statistical inevitability.

	Strictly speaking, it’s not impossible for ~~[[wikipedia:Entropy\|~~entropy]] to decrease in a closed system; it’s just so overwhelmingly unlikely especially in macroscopic systems that we treat it as a fundamental law.		Strictly speaking, it’s not impossible for entropy to decrease in a closed system; it’s just so overwhelmingly unlikely especially in macroscopic systems that we treat it as a [[wikipedia:Laws_of_thermodynamics\|fundamental law]].

	In small systems, entropy might fluctuate briefly, but even there, the chances of a consistent decrease in entropy are astronomically low. As the system gets larger, the probability of such a decrease trends towards zero. Why?		In small systems, entropy might fluctuate briefly, but even there, the chances of a consistent decrease in entropy are astronomically low. As the system gets larger, the probability of such a decrease trends towards zero. Why?

Root at 12:27, 22 September 2025

2025-09-22T12:27:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:27, 22 September 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Entropic Certainty]] is an extremely high level of certainty or "the most certain uncertainty can ~~get~~."		[[Entropic Certainty]] is an extremely high level of certainty or ''"the most certain uncertainty can be."''

	== Entropy ==		== Entropy ==

Root at 12:27, 22 September 2025

2025-09-22T12:27:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:27, 22 September 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~The probabilistic nature~~ of ~~truth and~~ the ~~concept of entropic certainty~~.		[[Entropic Certainty]] is an extremely high level of certainty or "the most certain uncertainty can get."

	----		== Entropy ==
			The [[wikipedia:Second Law of Thermodynamics\|Second Law of Thermodynamics]] is one of the most concrete and reliable principles in nature, yet it is not absolutely guaranteed in every case. It states that in a closed system, entropy tends to increase over time. This is not a rigid rule, but rather a statistical inevitability.

			Strictly speaking, it’s not impossible for [[wikipedia:Entropy\|entropy]] to decrease in a closed system; it’s just so overwhelmingly unlikely especially in macroscopic systems that we treat it as a fundamental law.

			In small systems, entropy might fluctuate briefly, but even there, the chances of a consistent decrease in entropy are astronomically low. As the system gets larger, the probability of such a decrease trends towards zero. Why?

			Well in short, there are absurdly more ways that a system can be "disordered" than "ordered."

			== Breaking an Egg ==
			For a visual example, imagine dropping an egg and watching it's shell shatter, contents erupt, and a mess be made. There are an incredible number of possible messes you can get from dropping an egg.

			Most of those messy outcomes look more or less similar - a splatter here instead of there - but they are all distinct disordered states nonetheless.

			In contrast, how mind-mindbogglingly rare would it be to see an egg unbreak? Can you imagine tossing the yolk, whites, and shattered shell into the air and watching the egg magically leap back together, reassembling perfectly into its original form?

			You know such a result is unfathomably unlikely, yet all you need to do is reverse a video of the egg breaking to see this happen. If you could somehow reverse the physics of what occurred when the egg broke, you would get to witness it unbreak in person.

			So, while the unbreaking of the egg is technically possible, for all practical purposes, it might as well be impossible. This certainty is what is called [[entropic certainty]]: something so outrageously and overwhelmingly likely (or unlikely) that it might as well be a certainty.

			== ==
			One could argue that even what we believe to be 100% certain is actually just another instance of [[entropic certainty]]. That is, anything that has always been correct isn’t guaranteed to remain correct; it’s simply never been proven wrong: yet.

			We might estimate, based on its long-standing and consistent efficacy, that there’s a 99.999… (repeating to a [[wikipedia:googolplex\|googolplex]]) percent chance our assertion is true.

	So, ~~virtually nothing~~ can ~~be known with absolute certainty~~, ~~but we can know things with high or entropic certainty - the most certain uncertainty~~.		Nevertheless, one can never fully rule out the possibility (however remote) that our results are not merely the product of a miraculous string of lucky outcomes, fooling us into believing something is true when, in fact, it’s not.

	-~~---~~		This isn’t even accounting for the [[wikipedia:dark horse\|dark horse]] possibilities (again, however unlikely) that we are contending with an all-powerful trickster, like [[wikipedia:Evil Demon\|Descartes’ demon]], or that our reality is unfolding within a [[wikipedia:Simulation_hypothesis\|simulation]] specifically designed to obscure the truth.

	~~The Second Law of Thermodynamics~~ is ~~one~~ of the ~~most concrete and reliable principles in~~ nature~~, yet it is not absolutely guaranteed in every case~~. ~~It states~~ that ~~in a closed system, entropy tends~~ to ~~increase over time - not~~ as ~~a rigid rule, but~~ as ~~a statistical inevitability~~.		This is not an endorsement of [[wikipedia:Radical_skepticism\|radical skepticism]], but rather a necessary perspective as we approach the nature of truth. One should approach topics with the understanding that the highest level of confidence one can hope to attain isn't certainty but rather [[entropic certainty]]; as close to certain as uncertainty allows.

	~~Strictly speaking, it’s not impossible for entropy to decrease in a closed system; it’s just so overwhelmingly unlikely especially in macroscopic systems that we treat it as a fundamental law.~~		----

	~~In small systems~~, ~~entropy might fluctuate briefly~~, but ~~even there, the chances of a consistent decrease in entropy are astronomically low. As the system gets larger,~~ the ~~probability of such a decrease trends towards zero~~. ~~Why?~~		So, virtually nothing can be known with absolute certainty, but we can know things with high or entropic certainty - the most certain uncertainty.

	Well in short, there are absurdly more ways that a system can be "disordered" than "ordered." For a visual example, imagine dropping an egg and watching it's shell shatter, contents erupt, and a mess be made. There are an incredible number of possible messes you can get from dropping an egg.		----

	~~Most of those messy outcomes look more or less similar - a splatter here instead of there - but they are all distinct disordered states nonetheless.~~

	In contrast, how mind-bogglingly rare would it be to see an egg unbreak? Can you imagine tossing the yolk, whites, and shattered shell into the air and watching the egg magically leap back together, reassembling perfectly into its original form?

	You know such a result is unfathomably unlikely, yet all you need to do is reverse a video of the egg breaking to see this happen. If you could somehow reverse the physics of what occurred when the egg broke, you would get to witness it unbreak in person.

	So, while the unbreaking of the egg is technically possible, for all practical purposes, it might as well be impossible.		So, while the unbreaking of the egg is technically possible, for all practical purposes, it might as well be impossible.
Line 40:		Line 60:
	----		----

	Similar to the conclusion we reached in Verum Ex Casibus (namely that the maximal truth we can access is the entropic certainty we defined), I would argue here that all truth is inherently Omnis Casus: a distribution of probabilities.

	Entropic certainty is itself fundamentally an array of probabilities. Consider the second law of thermodynamics: the truth of what will happen to a closed system’s entropy can be expressed as two probabilities:		Entropic certainty is itself fundamentally an array of probabilities. Consider the second law of thermodynamics: the truth of what will happen to a closed system’s entropy can be expressed as two probabilities:
Line 52:		Line 72:
	{{seealso\|}}		{{seealso\|}}

	{{Seealsowiki\|}}		{{Seealsowiki\|[[wikipedia:Second Law of Thermodynamics\|Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[wikipedia:Entropy\|Entropy]], [[wikipedia:Radical_skepticism\|Radical Skepticism]]}}