The Markov chain provided as an example has the edge labels swapped (np should be qp and qp should be np). Regardless, what is the entropy of the example provided?
The problem with Markov chains is that states are dependent, so simply cataloguing states now violates the basic entropy calculation as neighboring states are now dependent on each other.
If the Markov chain is ergodic then maybe you can talk about the entropy of the stationary distribution? Then it's just $-\sum p_i lg(p_i)$ of the stationary distribution probabilities?
The article alludes to how entropy evolves. In the context of ergodic Markov chains, this is related to the size of the second eigenvalue?
-\sum v_i p_{i,j} \log(p_{i,j})
That is, the "entropy" of the transition matrix modified by the stationary distribution.[0] https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1040972/entropy-of-...
The entropy rate seems like a pretty natural definition of "entropy of a Markov chain", no? It's not exactly this but it's similar to "start at state i, end on state j (maybe in n steps?), what is the number of bits I need to send over the wire to tell you what path was taken".
What does the entropy of the raw stationary distribution give you? Is the entropy rate related to the entropy of the stationary distribution (the thermodynamic entropy?)?
That's essentially what he's doing there. He makes the calculation for N=8 but for very large N the result converges to N times that entropy.
This is all if you mean the equilibrium entropy of the underlying system, not the entropy rate.
https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/~karl/Life%20as%20we%20know%20...
His paper here presents a heuristic proof (and simulations of a primordial soup) suggesting that life—or biological self-organization—is an inevitable and emergent property of any (ergodic) random dynamical system that possesses a Markov blanket
The laws of thermodynamics are so universal and primordial, they even preceed all of fundamental physics. And once you "get them" which is more like accepting them to be universally true, you can use them to evaluate and explain a lot of things. They help you decern reality from magic for instance, or magical thinking. Ideas that would only work if the second law of thermodynamics makes an exception is magic and therefore impossible in this universe.
Can you give an example? This seems like the same confirmation bias I see psychology students make.
As a university student I happened upon a liberal arts undergrad who explained to me in earnest that electric vehicles could be powered for free if only we would mount wind generators on top of them. Once on the highway, they would have free energy! To this student, evil corporations were the main force opposing the proliferation of this technology.
This is a silly example, but without some underlying principles, otherwise intelligent people will happily accept all kinds of other disprovable delusions.