Wolfram Explains 2nd Law to Perplexed Lex

The losses of 64% in a fuel engine partly come from irreversible turbulent dissipation.

In the Lex Fridman interview 2nd Law Explained Stephen Wolfram explains (in my abbreviation): 

• The 2nd Law is what a computationally bounded observer like us perceives of a computationally irreducible world.
• Space is probably discrete as a form of particle theory, not continuous as a field theory.  
• I hope to find an analog of Brownian motion revealing the discreteness of space.
• If you know all positions of the molecules of a gas, the entropy is zero. 

Let me compare with the explanation I have presented based on 

• finite precision computation 
• battle increase difference - decrease difference

with turbulence as the key phenomenon expressing a 2nd Law where large scale coordinated motion (created from increasing velocity differences) is destroyed into small scale uncoordinated motion as heat energy (created from decrease of difference). This is explained in detail in the books Computational Turbulent Incompressible Flow and Computational Thermodynamics and earlier posts. 

There is a connection between Wolfram's computationally bounded and my finite precision computation viewing the evolution in time of a physical system as a form of analog computation which possibly can be mimicked by digital computation. 

A main difference is that I start with a model of physics as a computational form of Euler's equations for fluid flow as analog physics in digital form, and show that this model produces turbulent solutions in close agreement with observations, which satisfies a 2nd Law with entropy taking the form of turbulent dissipation as a quantity which can only increase with time expressing irreversibility. 

Wolfram instead starts with a discrete model as a simple ad hoc Rule without real physics but then misses the key phenomenon of turbulence and so ends up in a lengthy lecture connecting to classical concepts like random, number of microstates, entropy as measure of disorder, coarse-graining, prepared initial conditions, Brownian motion....leaving Lex perplexed. 

In fact, inventing ad hoc a Rule displaying the nature of turbulence, appears to be very difficult, while the computational Euler model presents itself as a Rule expressing Newton's laws of motion.  

I think I would be able to say something a bit more understandable, if invited by Lex...

A key aspect of the 2nd Law is that turbulent dissipation is loss which cannot be avoided in e g a heat engines delivering coordinated kinetic motion from heat or chemical energy, because of unavoidable increase of difference which has to be controlled to avoid blow-up. It is thus not enough to understand that turbulent dissipation generates heat as a loss (which is easy), corresponding to adding viscosity of some form. We also have to understand that turbulent dissipation is necessary to avoid blow-up and so allow continuation in time (which can be understood by a stability analysis). 

Note also that it is necessary to consider a computational form of Euler's equations since exact physical solutions do not exist. Euler's equations formally expressing Newton's laws but lacking exact solutions, thus in computational form turn into real physical laws in agreement with observations, like physical laws describing reality emerging by computation from formal laws of human minds.