Wrong conclusion about entropy HOT 3 CLOSED

Furthermore, the sheep analogy is probably wrong here, because you're basing your explanation on the fact that sheep are constantly teleporting from one place to another which is absurd: molecules of ice do not constantly teleport from one random place to another.

from entropy.

Your comments demonstrate a few misunderstandings:

1. on models: No model is a 100% accurate reproduction of reality, but they are useful if they capture certain essential features, e.g. if they make predictions that match experiments. A billiard ball model of atoms is indeed useful, and can be used to correctly derive classical macroscopic relations, such as the ideal gas law. In a different context (such as a different length scale), a model can be less useful, and so you switch to another model.
2. On "balls": The piece didn't assume a classical billiard ball style model of particles. The sheep analogy was more subtle than that. It was used to explain a quantum mechanical model of energy packets being arranged in solids, a model whose mathematical predictions accurately capture many features of real world solids. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_solid or http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/einsol.html for more.
3. The statement that 'it's all just math' isn't particularly helpful. It doesn't add to someone's understanding in any way. In fact it can do the opposite, by mystifying needlessly. The sheep analogy and the blog post you read was my attempt to actually explain the math involved, without using equations. After all, math isn't mystical, it's a process that can be explained.

from entropy.

whatever

from entropy.