I don't understand the self-contradictory statements of this article.
On the one hand, it is flatly stated within this article that no "fruit of experience" has shown any system of energy to be isolated.
Yet, the validity of Conservation and thermodynamic entropy are predicated upon isolation of systems of energy.
If the isolation of systems of energy is merely a hypothesis to assist the research technician/scientist in the analysis of the dynamics of a system's energy, then why does Conservation and thermodynamics retain the status of "laws"?
And, on what basis is it presumed that the Universe is "probably" isolated from anything else?
And, how can a broad generality of "probability" substitute for the "fruit of experience"?
In other words, how can a broad generality of "probability" become the foundation for assuming that every system of energy within the Universe has suddenly become isolated (due to assuming this probability) so as to automatically support the laws of Conservation and thermodynamic entropy when these laws had not been previously supported by any "fruit of experience"?
Again, these multitude of statements within this article confuse me due to their circular (ie, self-fulfilling) logic.
I like to think of myself as an avid reader of science. But, this article annoys me - not so much for its bold statements, but - for its lack of self-consistency.
I don't see how science can presume to boast of its authenticity and accuracy if it can't be rigorously self-integrated. -- ~~~~