Comment by cluckindan a day ago
I wonder if this tendency to correlate truly holds for everything? Intuitively it more or less demonstrates that nature tends to favor zero-sum games. Maybe analyzing correlations within the domain of theoretical physics would highlight true non-correlations in some particular approaches? (pun only slightly intended)
For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. For example, there is a correlation between the acceleration and deceleration of colliding objects: inertia is transferred, not created or destroyed.
Similarly, for every chemical and nuclear reaction, when something is gained, something else is lost. For example, when two ions bond covalently by sharing electrons, a new molecule is gained, but the two ions are no longer what they previously were. So there is a correlation between gain of reaction products and loss of reactants.
But perhaps such analogies cannot be found everywhere in theoretical physics. Perhaps such a non-correlation would be a sign of a novel discovery, or a sign that a theory is physically invalid. It could be a signal of something for sure.
How do I reconcile this with "entropy invariably increases" which is a contradiction to your hypothesis that "nature tends to favor zero-sum games"?
How do I reconcile "for every chemical and nuclear reaction, when something is gained, something else is lost" with catalysts increasing rate but not being consumed themselves?
In fact you can show there are an uncountably infinite number of broken symmetries in nature, so it is mathematically possible to concoct a parallel number of cases where nature does not have some "zero sum game" by Noether's Theorem.
Your statement is just cherry picking a few and then (uncountably infinitely) overgeneralizing.
Entropy is a measurement of the system itself and doesn’t describe the dynamics within that system.
Catalysts increase reaction rate just as a train runs faster on a track. Is a railway a catalyst?
Are symmetries broken in nature or just models of nature? Or are you referring to accepted theories in theoretical physics, which was the entire point here?
> Intuitively it more or less demonstrates that nature tends to favor zero-sum games.
Please explain.