An older quote, addressing this case more directly would be (Eddington):
"The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — *well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes.* But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
Go through Lisper's history, he is quite literally never incorrect, even when he has no evidence or outright dodges all questions.
His performance in a philosophy thread a while back was extraordinary, explaining the truth and true value of various philosophy and philosophers, despite not having read it.
This is the power of The Science, nothing is more powerful, and nothing can be more powerful.
Yes, extraordinary is just a function of replication (number, diversity, quality, reputation) and sigmas. It has to satisfy a significant majority of scientists (peers), with diverse relevant qualifications (theoretical, experimental, across relevant disciplines), for a significant time.
No, the 2nd Law is just a statistical property relating macrostates to microstates. It can never be the foundation of physics for the underlying system.
Life does a pretty good job of evading it, locally, for lifetimes. Civilizations overcome it for longer, perhaps indefinitely, as long as there are stars/blackholes in the sky, or uranium/hydrogen nuclear fuel to be scavenged.
Wolfram recently tried to explain the 2nd Law, as a consequence of time-coherent computationally-bounded observers. As always with him, it is fascinating and infuriatingly in equal measure:
Those subsystems that evade it (life) also need explanation. Friston, Levin, Lane, England and others are starting to give plausible models and explanations.
According to Wikipedia, the term dates back to at least 2002:
> The frequent use of a double underscores in internal identifiers in Python gave rise to the abbreviation dunder; this was coined by Mark Jackson[3] and independently by Tim Hochberg,[4] within minutes of each other, both in reply to the same question in 2002.[5][6]
