>>13649511the second law of thermodynamics is derived from the first law and has proof and the first law comes from empirical observations. there is no cyclical reasoning.
you could say that the law is "assumed" but it's a reasonable assumption made based on observation. it's not mathematics so of course not everything is gonna have proof. to prove something you need prior information given to you. which themselves need to be proved, so you end up with an infinite chain.
in reality, some basic assumptions are made based on observation, then conclusions are derived from them.
it's probable for the first law to be wrong just like everything else, however, as evidence pile up it becomes less likely.
