Steevo

THERE IS A BASIC DIVISION AMONGST ALL THESE POSTS: Though it may be an oversimplification, in spite of the fact that some of those posting are more eloquent than others, it seems that everyone is leaning toward EITHER: 1.) The strict verbal definition of entropy OR 2.) The conceptual idea of entropy Like the Socratic self-reference paradox ("all I knowe is dat I don't know nuthin'....daaaaauuuuuh");, the strict verbal definitions produce inevitable conflict and contradictions; but, like the Socratic paradox, in spite of the obvious problems with treating the phrase mathematically, One can basically understand the meaning behind the words, which may fail to be and algebraically correct. It is just another case of the importance lying not in the written lines, but between the lines. After reading about both concepts, one (hopefully) gets an idea of what "enthalpy" and "entropy" mean, an (obvious) idea about compiliation vs. analysis, creation vs. destruction, growing vs. decaying, blah blah..... And, after losing one's mind contemplating the Socratic paradox, in spite of the verbal/algebraic contradiction, one (hopefully) gets an idea of the meaning behind the words, an idea about the fallability and limits of human perception, blah blah..... (can anyone out there recognize the obvious? would anyone notice a skyscraper imploding on national TV? is it still 1983?)