Mr. Culverwell says that my theorem cannot be true because if it were true every atom of the universe would have the same average , and all energy wo… - Ludwig Boltzmann

Let us now tum to the second matter in dispute between us [about the rejection of philosophy in virtually all senses]. That the majority of students don't understand philosophy doesn't bother me. But can any two people understand philosophical [i.e. metaphysical] questions [and agree upon what it is that they understand]? Is there any sense at all in breaking one's head over such questions? Shouldn't the irresistible pressure [Drang] to philosophize be compared with the nausea caused by migraine headaches? As if something could still struggle its strangled way out, even though nothing is actually there at all? My opinion about the high, majestic task of philosophy is to make things clear, in order to finally heal mankind from these terrible migraine headaches. Now, I am one who hopes not to make you angry by my forthrightness, but the first duty of philosophy as love of wisdom is complete frankness. Through my study of Schopenhauer, I am learning Greek ways of thinking again, but piecemeal.

The initial state in most cases is bound to be highly improbable and from it the system will always rapidly approach a more probable state until it finally reaches the most probable state, i.e., that of the heat equilibrium.

The possibility of the transference of energy being so gradual cannot be denied, if we also attribute to the ether so little friction that the Earth is not sensibly retarded by moving through it for many hundreds of years.