@noone-ez6on

Entropy is one of those concepts that really stick in your head, and if you come into contact with it often, you'll interpret and reinterpret it through your life.
I personally like to say that entropy is freedom. In case of equillibria, it tends to seek more degrees of freedom of movement, that's why phase change increases it, it's freedom of translation is now higher and the molecules have less probability to be in a defined region.
In this case i'd say that probability has "freedom" in the sense that it isn't concentrated in one of those cups.

@captheobbyist6434

so that means everything in the universe has infinitely high entropy?
if you think about it, it's practically impossible to measure an object with 100% certainty.

Edit: wait, THIS VIDEO ONLY HAS 70 LIKES AND 4 COMMENTS? this is criminally underated! this video deserves more

@cezarcatalin1406

One could guess where the ball is in the last example because the person knowing which is the cup with the ball will tend to treat that cup different from the other two. Either move it around more than the others or less but almost never in-between. So, ironically, mixing the cups for long enough can reveal where the ball is even if you started with zero knowledge of its position - this is because your brain tends to leak information unintentionally.

Quantum mechanics (as in the standard model) and classical thermodynamics are ironically incompatible because of something similar. QM is fundamentally “leaky” even with all the inherent wave-particle duality which mathematically results in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This means that, at least according to our current understanding of QM, we should see negative changes in entropy all the time - which do happen in quantum systems, it’s just that in large “classical systems” entropy sortof emerges out of thin air (technically called decoherence in QM terms).

@josephbrenner8248

It's all about the context.

@marius5361

You explain a subjective view of entropy.

Physical entropy (thermodynamic entropy) is an objective quantity that doesn't depend on what an observer knows. Even if no one is watching, a gas expanding in a vacuum increases in entropy because there are more possible microstates available.

If you gained knowledge (by looking at the marble), your personal uncertainty would decrease, but the physical entropy of the system wouldn't decrease unless an external energy input allowed it.

@mikip3242

This gives the idea that entropy is subjective, as you are using the Bayesian way a of looking at probabilities, aka as degrees of subjective belief

@marcom.7685

Then, over time as our measurement precision and capabilities increase, can we consider that for a given problem we might have negative entropy by measuring it better?

@Eastern1

Why does your statement resonates with Hesinberg's uncertainty principle

@liviu-deacu

Congratulations for the didatic presentation! Very nice way to reveal the intended idea.
Otherwise, good morning that you realized that entropy has to do with information, and as such, with life. Information that has to do with the theory of systems. Systems that always mean life. Of course, without living beings there is no such thing as entropy. Entropy only exists from the perspective of a complex system, of a living being. It is what I wrote to you once per email. This is why we need the BIOLOGICAL point of view to judge entropy. Physics itself would not exist without living beings being capable of observing "non-living" matter, if there is such a thing.

@michaeljames5936

Thank you. I agree completely. I always thought the idea of entropy, privileged the observer, as some arbiter of information.