> Absolutely. The whole point of a city is to reject all that.
I didn’t realize cities were made with a point to reject entropy and weren’t mostly organic congregations of people for economic reasons
I didn’t realize cities were made with a point to reject entropy and weren’t mostly organic congregations of people for economic reasons
This is entirely orthogonal to economically efficient concentration. In fact, cities are an extension of it. We want to be safe and comfortable when we leave the buildings too. We don't want the cities to just look nice, we want architecture that makes our very souls feel safe and protected. We want facilities like well maintained sidewalks and roads so we can walk and drive with ease. This leads to economic efficiency.
No?
It’s just a building. I’d doubt there’s more than a handful of buildings that were made by hands that were explicitly rejecting entropy and just doing what they needed/wanted in the moment.
Do you think the builders of any randomly selected building, built said building as a rejection of entropy?
Like otherwise if we get down to philosophical bones then life is a rejection of entropy as it orders matter and energy, in which case the discussion is pointless if we’re at that level.
I'm just addressing the point about entropy that you made.
> Do you think the builders of any randomly selected building, built said building as a rejection of entropy?
I don't know. I'm just saying that every single building adds to the organization within the system, as does every single life form.
Entropy is a measure of the disorder and disorganization within a system. Any form of structure reduces entropy by definition.
You should probably engage with the second paragraph of my original reply:
> We want to be safe and comfortable when we leave the buildings too. We don't want the cities to just look nice, we want architecture that makes our very souls feel safe and protected. We want facilities like well maintained sidewalks and roads so we can walk and drive with ease.
No, you didnt. You said
> > You're rejecting the behavior of both human nature and earthly nature Absolutely.
> The whole point of a city is to reject all that.
Saying the "point" of a city implies intent. You cant motte and bailey back and forth between intent and happenstance.
> You should probably engage with the second paragraph of my original reply:
If I am going to engage with your _second comment's_ _second paragraph_ (cause were skipping over your first comment I replied to and the first paragraph of your second comment apparently) that I was replying to, I would probably quibble over you trying to entwine souls and economic efficiency