Base this on the title of a book I own by David Weintraub.
Is it reliable to accept what the science says, like 13.8 billion earth years or whatever estimate they come up with next?
Been thinking about this for a long time.
I'll exclude the bible estimate, but might go for more like the 5 minute hypothesis.
https://reasonsforgod.org/was-the-universe-created-five-minutes-ago/
Just forget the religion here, and concentrate on why your memories are unreliable.
if parallel worlds do exist, and there is good reason for thinking they do, it suggests the current universe was created only a Planck time second ago.
"The Planck time is the length of time at which no smaller meaningful length can be validly measured due to the indeterminacy expressed in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Theoretically, this is the shortest time measurement that is possible. Planck time is roughly 10−43 seconds."
does our inability to measure something mean that it does not exist?
How does a Planck time second differ from a second? Or are you referring to a single Planck unit of time?
How does it relate to "parallel" worlds?
There is a big division in science here.
Some scientists will only consider quantum physics.
I don't know either, but I contemplate the different interpretations.
For what it's worth, I don't believe time actually exists, and motion doesn't either.
The idea of parallel worlds can explain the confusion.
The universe keeps its secrets, and I wish I knew why it exists and what shape it is.
If it does have a shape it should have a centre, but the centre is most likely outside the universe.
Is the universe finite or infinite?
What I think exists is an infinite number of copies.
Planck time is the smallest unit of what we call time, 10^-43 of our seconds.
Quote from: zorkan on January 22, 2024, 11:54:09 AMThere is a big division in science here.
Mmh... Yes, but not really. If you look at it from the perspective of a theoretical physicist, perhaps there is a big division. If you look at it as a layman, the devil tends to fade into the details.
QuoteSome scientists will only consider quantum physics.
With respect to what? I'm sure they would consider chemistry, astronomy, mathematics and a whole slew of other ologies and onomies if needed.
Are we talking about gravity here? Some aspect of cosmology? (which?)
QuoteFor what it's worth, I don't believe time actually exists, and motion doesn't either.
Time can be affected by for instance gravity or speed. If it "does not exist," it does so in broadly the same way as wind does not exist. (Wind being a gas in motion with relation to the object experiencing it)
Motion is change in position relative to a coordinate system. How does that not exist?
QuoteThe idea of parallel worlds can explain the confusion.
It really does not. What I am confused about, is how you define a
parallel world? Is it a sum of all "choices" not made here?
QuoteThe universe keeps its secrets, and I wish I knew why it exists and what shape it is.
Why it exists is about as meaningful a question as "why does that snow bank *point* exist?" It just does - there is no "why" if used properly. How did it come to exist is a far more valid question.
That said, it's shape is probably a spheroid.
QuoteIf it does have a shape it should have a centre, but the centre is most likely outside the universe.
I think there are coordinate systems where it would be meaningful to define Big Bang as the origo.
QuoteIs the universe finite or infinite?
An interesting question. I would suggest that it is finite since for it to be otherwise would require an infinite energy Big Bang. I do may be wrong about this though.
QuoteWhat I think exists is an infinite number of copies.
What's being copied?
QuotePlanck time is the smallest unit of what we call time, 10^-43 of our seconds.
Yes, my question was what a Planck time
second was. I assume from your answer that you were referring to a single Planck time
unit, in which case the universe is far older than that.
Getting too drawn into this will do no good.
Scientists who have questioned the idea of time passing include Richard Feynmann, John Wheeler, Julian Barbour.
Make up your own mind, based on personal experience.
That's what my own religion of Zorkanism is all about: science and personal experience. A matter of opinion.
Shape of the universe is unlikely to be a spheroid.
More likely it is a torus, which means its centre is outside the universe.
We don't have a proven theory of quantum gravity.
I can only think of reality is what we don't see - unseen particles obeying no rules.
What you see of anything is only an average of the sum of copies in parallel worlds.
If creationists believe the world is 6K years old, then imagine their outrage if it was proved that time does not exist.
It could be that we do not exist in time - time exists in us.
What happens if time stops? There is no guarantee it won't and the universe will freeze.
There is no clock at its centre which regulates all of time.
Why is time different for place and movement?
Is an arrow that leaves a bow the same arrow that hits the target? The Greeks suspected it cannot reach its target, based on half way there, half way there again and so on.
Based on 10^79 particles in the 'known universe', a very big number but the ways of rearranging them suggest statistically there should be at least one copy of you out there in a quantum universe or multiverse.
Copies of the universe would have started with the Big Bang.
Like someone once said, there are known knowns, known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns.
Based on our knowledge, the chances that any one of us have ever existed is 1 in 2^thousand trillion.
In other words, nothing makes any sense.
I shall revisit for a longer reply as I am on the phone at the moment, but I'd like to point out that the center of a torus can be meaningfully defined as a ring rather than a point. That ring is within its geometry, not without. A point without the torus would not be its anything in that sense.
Still waiting for your reply.
Meanwhile, I'll try and explain why the universe has no age at all, and time does not exist.
This is because the numbers are artificial and nobody could ever have existed.
The odds you exist are 1 in 2 raised to the power of at least a quadrillion. An impossible number.
To make you, the big bang had to happen.
Atoms had to form.
The laws and forces of nature had to be in place.
A supernova had to explode near a cloud of gas and dust.
A shock wave was needed to form our very own solar system.
A planet had to form with all the right ingredients for life.
The dinosaurs had to be wiped out and humans evolve.
Your ancestors had to survive plague, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
Your parents, grandparents had to meet.
In fact, everyone in your family tree had to meet and make the right decisions.
All this and much more leads to the impossible number of roughly a quadrillion decisions and events that had to take place just to be you.
An impossibility.
if i drop a marble from a height onto a football pitch, the odds against it striking any particular blade of grass are impossibly large.
yet the idds of it not striking one of the blades of grass are impossibly small.
Yes, I forgot which thread it was, so was waiting for it to reactivate so I would find it.
Quote from: zorkan on January 22, 2024, 03:25:40 PMScientists who have questioned the idea of time passing include Richard Feynmann, John Wheeler, Julian Barbour.
Make up your own mind, based on personal experience.
I was trying to define
your scope of inquiry because it made little sense. What do you mean when you say that time does not exist? What then do you measure with a wristwatch? Do you mean that time is a dimension of space, for instance, existing the way "depth" exists? Or something else entirely?
QuoteThat's what my own religion of Zorkanism is all about: science and personal experience. A matter of opinion.
Well, only one of those things is a matter of opinion - what your religion is or is not all about. Science is a toolset while your personal experience is a series of subjective events and observations.
QuoteShape of the universe is unlikely to be a spheroid.
More likely it is a torus, which means its centre is outside the universe.
What are the reasons behind that conclusion?
Mine are that lacking other competing forces, objects in motion tend stay in motion. Thus, if objects started from "the same place*" in "every direction*," they would form a spheroidal cloud. (*no reason to assume otherwise that I know of, minor localised variations notwithstanding)
QuoteI can only think of reality is what we don't see - unseen particles obeying no rules.
You don't see wind either, yet all it does is "obey the rules."
QuoteWhat you see of anything is only an average of the sum of copies in parallel worlds.
What is the logic behind you seeing the average, rather than a single sample?
Quote from: zorkan on January 22, 2024, 04:26:58 PMIf creationists believe the world is 6K years old, then imagine their outrage if it was proved that time does not exist.
It could be that we do not exist in time - time exists in us.
It would not matter to the creationists in the slightest.
QuoteWhat happens if time stops? There is no guarantee it won't and the universe will freeze.
If time stops, you are traveling at the speed of light. Then... To put it thusly, "all" of your motion is directed "spaceward," and "none" of your motion is directed "timeward.
Light can be said to
keep the universe from freezing. something to think about.
QuoteThere is no clock at its centre which regulates all of time.
That's... Sigh. It's not inaccurate, but completely beside the point. There is no thermometer at the centre of the universe that regulates whether it will snow tomorrow, either, and yet it will. Time in what seems to be the sense you use is not a global
constant, like the speed of light in vacuum seems to be - it is a global
variable.QuoteWhy is time different for place and movement?
What do you mean by different for "place and movement?" Time is affected by speed and gravity. You move faster, time slows. Move at
C, and it stops.
QuoteIs an arrow that leaves a bow the same arrow that hits the target?
In terms of exact sciences, it is assuming the following: the archer hit his mark, it is the same mark as being examined for the sameness of the arrow and the arrow has not been tampered with in flight. Assuming those, "every" component of the arrow moved from the bow to the target.
QuoteThe Greeks suspected it cannot reach its target, based on half way there, half way there again and so on.
A simple 1/x function will never cross x=0 and y=o. Well, so what? there are plenty of functions that
can. 1/(x+1) will cross the y-axis, for instance, while still adhering to the same sort of principle.
I see what you are trying to demonstrate, but the underlying philosophical experiment is as fallacious today as it was in ancient Greece.
QuoteBased on 10^79 particles in the 'known universe', a very big number but the ways of rearranging them suggest statistically there should be at least one copy of you out there in a quantum universe or multiverse.
How does the number of particles in the observable universe speak to a statistic need for there to exist a copy of my own sweet self in
another universe?
QuoteCopies of the universe would have started with the Big Bang.
Like someone once said, there are known knowns, known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns.
Based on our knowledge, the chances that any one of us have ever existed is 1 in 2^thousand trillion.
Actually, that too is a fallacious philosophical experiment. You exist, therefor the chance of your existence is 1.
Here is a better experiment; if you go out and have sex tonight, then never contact your sexual partner again, what are the chances that in precisely 20 years, your son Walther will be driving his Honda to buy paracetamol for his head ache?
Quote from: billy rubin on January 25, 2024, 02:51:19 PMif i drop a marble from a height onto a football pitch, the odds against it striking any particular blade of grass are impossibly large.
Football team I watch can't even strike the back of the net.
@Asmo:
I don't think you can expect me to refute your opinions when I don't think anything other than the laws and forces of nature do exist.
But I guess consciousness must exist and it might be a function of what we call time and matter.
Carlo Rovelli believes nothing exists. He has his reasons.
Christian Scientists don't believe matter exists, and they are probably right.
They are good at building up anecdotes to convince them that prayer works.
But they ignore the times it doesn't work, because that was a NO from god.
Quote from: zorkan on January 25, 2024, 06:08:04 PM@Asmo:
I don't think you can expect me to refute your opinions when I don't think anything other than the laws and forces of nature do exist.
No, I don't expect you to refute my arguments and refutations.
I see that you have done some intellectual weightlifting on this, while "most people" avoid scratching those surfaces. I approve of curiosity and free-thinking - even when it takes you in strange directions. What I'm trying to do, is to add to your list questions worth answering and phenomena worth pondering by using the best of my own knowledge.
I don't think anything exists.
What we think is real is an illusion.
Plato's cave analogy explains this.
I came into this world out of the darkness (of 'time') and I will return to the darkness (of 'time').
We are all somewhere in a long line for a coffin on a planet which is a graveyard for all life.
The atoms that made us are just passing through.
Do illusions exist?
What are the mechanisms by which they function?
In the quantum world illusions do exist.
It also suggests that in the quantum universe time does not exist.
Only in Einstein's universe does time exist.
Correction. I should have said Plato's cave allegory.
https://medium.com/mind-cafe/platos-allegory-of-the-cave-provides-a-sobering-look-at-human-ignorance-ffe1cd54ee96
In this sense, what is the difference between Einstein's universe and quantum universe?
Time is relative according to Einstein.
That's why I admire photons. Unlike me they don't appear to age.
"From a photon's perspective, it can pass through the entire Universe without experiencing time at all. Billions and billions of light-years can fly by, in far less than the blink of an eye."
Well... Yeah. But that does not in any way speak to a fundamental difference between "quantum universe" and "Einstein's universe." I mean, if we were talking about gravity or some such, but time..?
Time is relative because it can be affected by speed and gravity, the latter potentially describable as a parameter in the shape of spacetime, which "all" massive objects have/are subjected to. Photons are massless, so in the frame of reference of a photon, time is... A scalar, I suppose. It's still there for that. Still relative to the frame of reference.
In Einstein's universe time goes forward.
In Feynman's it can go backward as in the case of antimatter.
Tachyons might also go backwards.
It's as if there are 2 universes out there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality#:~:text=Hypothetical%20superluminal%20particles%20called%20tachyons,in%20a%20conventional%20reference%20frame.
Quote from: zorkan on January 31, 2024, 10:52:46 AMIn Einstein's universe time goes forward.
In Feynman's it can go backward as in the case of antimatter.
Tachyons might also go backwards.
It's as if there are 2 universes out there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality#:~:text=Hypothetical%20superluminal%20particles%20called%20tachyons,in%20a%20conventional%20reference%20frame.
Could you substantiate the Einsteinian universe necessitating unidirectional time? Because from what I understand, general relativity absolutely permits time travel (also in reverse) - even necessitates it in cases of objects traveling at subluminal speeds within their localised frames of reference.
I will only work off the 2nd law.
https://newsroom.carleton.ca/story/can-we-time-travel/#:~:text=Time%20travel%20also%20violates%20the,you%20cannot%20unscramble%20an%20egg.
Even as a human gets older time quickens and in one direction only.
Quote from: zorkan on January 31, 2024, 11:55:37 AMI will only work off the 2nd law.
There are several things that can be described as the "2nd law." In this instance, the most obvious examples are motion and thermodynamics. From the link you provided, I assume the latter, but the source is flawed to the point of wrongness when taking the conversation to the level you appear to want to operate at.
One point of contention is that they do not specify what kind of a system they are referring to. Do they claim that time travel violates the second law of thermodynamics for the traveler, the region of space, the universe? A closed system or not? (Is energy being added?)
In the latter case, I give you a humble pile of lego blocks which, if the proper input of energy is provided, can result in a highly-ordered lego skyscraper.
Another issue is that entropy within a closed (meaning energy-isolated) system
must not always increase - what it is, is statistically likely to do so.
Moreover, they say crap like "a negative mass tennis ball would fall upward if dropped." While not precisely false, it is also not true.
Given no other forces, the ball would fall
away from positive mass. Whether that direction is "up," is arbitrary. (Decided by the direction of arrows in the coordinate system)
It's not a bad article, but it is written for a
very casual reader, so when you say that you would;
Quoteonly work off the 2nd law.
...And then use
that as your source, I must urge you to reconsider your parameters.
It suggests that time travel to the past breaks the 2nd law and therefore cannot happen.
The grandfather paradox backs that up.
You are never going to rearrange all the particles in the universe to enter the past, or arrange them for the future.
Well, the second law of thermodynamics is not a problem in itself. You can certainly achieve localized "negative entropy" by adding energy to the system. Heck, that's how you stay alive.
Grandfather paradox is on the profound side of thought experiments, and calls for some more outlandish solutions like non-linear causality (time "moving" forward or back is linear)
2nd law explains how you came out of the darkness and why you will return to it.
For the darkness you can substitute the chaos.
DNA molecule was likely to form sooner or later by some probabilty given the right conditions.
It doesn't rule out some sort of super DNA in the future.
Quote from: zorkan on February 03, 2024, 12:09:15 PM2nd law explains how you came out of the darkness and why you will return to it.
For the darkness you can substitute the chaos.
It really does not. You could use it way outside its scope like that, but the second law of thermodynamics does not speak to darkness or chaos. What it does is state that without the input of energy, a system will degradee from "useful" to "useless" given enough time. When the sun fuses hydrogen, the energy is converted and a bunch is "lost" in forms that "don't do anything." Some of it hits a leaf and helps a tree grow, again incurring losses. Then you burn that tree for warmth, converting it into heat and ash. So on. Even at this stage, very little of what the Sun put out remains in a form that allows it to "do something" other than move through space at the speed of light. That is entropy in practice, if somewhat clumsily exemplified.
What it says about
you is that you are an open system. You have an input of energy that keeps you "useful"
(Here, "useful" and "useless" are with regard to the ability and relative likelihood to, without further input of energy, interact and further convert the existing energy from one state to another)
QuoteDNA molecule was likely to form sooner or later by some probabilty given the right conditions.
It doesn't rule out some sort of super DNA in the future.
Thermodynamically speaking? No, I suppose it does not, but how is this relevant to the discussion at hand?
"What it says about you is that you are an open system. You have an input of energy that keeps you useful"
Spotted your deliberate mistake!
We are closed systems.
If the universe is bounded it's also a closed system, if unbounded an open one.
Quote from: zorkan on February 05, 2024, 12:59:13 PM"What it says about you is that you are an open system. You have an input of energy that keeps you useful"
Spotted your deliberate mistake!
We are closed systems.
If the universe is bounded it's also a closed system, if unbounded an open one.
No. A human is, thermodynamically-among-other-things-such-as-the-system-thory-but-let-us-not-dwell speaking, an
open system. If you think otherwise, I challenge* you to forego eating, drinking and breathing - conversely, urinating, sweating and defecating - and see how well it goes.
*"Mandatory" disclaimer: Literally speaking, I do no such thing. Don't suffocate (Or dehydrate or starve or otherwise harm or even seriously discomfort) yourself on my - or anyone's - account. ;-) The Universe may or may not be an open system - it depends on the scope at which you look.
I was talking about the 2nd law and not the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Yes... And an open system is one that has its inputs and/or outputs of energy. A closed system does not.
That applies regardless of the number you put in front of the law.
A human is wholly dependent on both inputs and outputs to stay human. The universe may or may not on the largest of scales. Most everyday practical (as opposed to theoretical/mathematical) systems are indeed open.
EDIT: Ok, for clarity, this is the second law of thermodynamics.
A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transform heat extracted from a source which is at the same temperature throughout into work is impossible.
There are conditions, chief among them that it takes place in an isolated - or closed dynamic system, which can be achieved mathematically or by increasing or decreasing its scale of definition until reaching a state where the system does not interact (through heat and work, if you would follow the definition precisely - means exchange energy, more broadly speaking) outside itself.
In a closed system, entropy always increases. This can be explained by statistics - for every ordered state of a dynamic system, there are infinite less-ordered states. Looking back at the definition, it means that a system is far - far to the pover of far more likely to keep cooling if left to its own devices than it is to heat up. (Though local variations are possible. Within that system, there can be pockets where entropy decreases, even though the overall system does the opposite) An open system can be "trivially" heated up by adding energy. The aforedescribed pockets could be examples of such systems - or subsystems, as it were in this case.
Whether it be first law or second or third - they all concern thermo[heat/energy]dynamics[motion/exchange/forces]. Be it conservation of energy or the increase of entropy, we are still operating within the same constraints.
I hope this clarifies matters.
[Upon re-read]
I do wish I could draw stuff with symbols and graphs and visual aids. If there is any ambiguity as to what I mean when using words like;
- System
- Ordered
- Cool
- Heat
- Pocket
Point it out and I shall explain. I was trying to make my explanation at the same time precise and easy to grasp, but for the power of linguistics and my application thereof. :sadnod:
Raise you a few equations.
https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/thermo1/chapter/6-6-the-second-law-entropy-balance-equation-for-closed-systems/#:~:text=The%20change%20of%20entropy%20in,entropy%20transfer%20and%20entropy%20generation.&text=Entropy%20can%20be%20transferred%20to,and%20(2)%20mass%20transfer.
Yes, but not really.
They are not talking about closed systems in a conventional sense. You can see it by them using language such as "well-insulated." That's not closed - that is a system that is either bleeding energy ever so slightly (By virtue of being well-insulated), and/or absorbing it. (In a closed system, the expression would, if anything, have been "perfectly insulated") [Upon re-read] Actually, why even bother with that? They are talking clearly and specifically about heat and/or mass transfer into the system. You don't enter the room through a closed door. Case closed. Still, having written a paragraph or three... Keep readin' ;-) )
I think they are being creative with their language, defining a closed system as a clearly-defined set of physical and/or mathematical boundaries, rather than in terms of its interactions. For instance, you could say that a car is a closed system like that, its scope defined by the outside boundaries of its body and wheels, even though it absolutely is not - being susceptible to cooking your baby on a hot summer day, among other things.
A closed system is any system that does not interact outside itself. As such, the example provided is one of an open system.
As a quick aside, a closed system may still do stuff within itself. The example I used of pockets of increasing entropy was towards that end. Imagine a box, within which you have a battery, a motor and a fan. The battery powers the motor, turning the fan and generating heat. If no heat (or, energy) escapes the box and no outside heat enters its interior, then said interior is a closed system, subject to global entropy increase. (Your motor may be heating up, literally speaking, but your battery is expanding "useful energy resources" it cannot recover from within the system, eventuially leading to its practical heat death)
[Common EDIT] There may be a few [EDITS] tacked onto these posts to try and clear up ambiguities as I spot them on re-reading. I find this stuff rather intuitive, and so in explaining it, I'm somewhat prone to falling into broadly similar linguistic holes as the author of the above article seems to have done. Bear with me if information gets tacked on while you try quoting from or responding to the post)
[Case in point] On an unrelated note, I never realised that I was, in fact, one of them engineers-engineers, but I am, am I not..? Kinda' thought of myself as a glorified code monkey with a fancy title, if anything, but really I do do this sort of stuff with a wrench and a script rather than a chalkboard and a simulator. Never thought of it this way.
This is cool! Might ask for a raise, I think. :smilenod:
The Asmo wanders off, idly whistling Ritt der Walküren, being almost-disgustingly pleased with Himself. (The key is to vibrate the... Root of your tongue, I suppose it is - kind-of like gurgling "in reverse," for the opening notes. Makes you sound a bit like one of them ball whistles)
Okay, so the body is an open system.
When I'm in the mood I'll take out my brain and examine it, then put it back.
A closed system does not expel matter, but I'll try to take it out.
Seems like this disagrees:
https://fs.blog/entropy/#:~:text=More%20specifically%2C%20the%20second%20law,least%20stay%20the%20same).%E2%80%9D
No, it does not disagree. It says, in so many words
in the text your search highlighted, even;Quote from: link above"as one goes forward in time, the net entropy (degree of disorder) of any isolated or closed system will always increase (or at least stay the same)."
Indeed, the entropy of a closed system increases as exemplified in my previous post.
A human body is indeed an open system. By virtue of being so, it can "stave off" entropy for a few decades. Your example of taking out a brain is, I'm sorry to say, nonsensical. A system is not defined as open by the external availability of
its subsystems. I have previously provided you with good examples of your body interacting with its surroundings every single day.
You breathe and eat
You piss and shit
You walk and lie
You live and die
My attempts at poetry aside, you can think of your body as an opaque box. Energy goes in - waste and potentially work comes out. Whether said box has a spleen or can extract its own liver bears precisely zero relevance to it being an open system. It has inputs and outputs. You don't get much more open than that. (I suppose you can consider it as mouth being your input port while your arms and legs and such like are your output ports and your butt hole is your exhaust port)
[EDIT] Also, since according to you,
Quote from: zorkan on February 08, 2024, 02:25:04 PMA closed system does not expel matter, but I'll try to take it out.
...Why is there more carbon dioxide in your breath out than what you breathed in? Where does the extra carbon come from?
Thanks to your doggerel, I don't think we're too far apart, but I'll make this point.
Any system on earth gets its energy from the sun.
Yet all life is doomed because of entropy.
However much we try to replace lost energy with food we will fail in the end.
Food is of lower grade, having been expelled by other life systems.
If an engine is constantly maintained, it will still fail at some point.
Even towering buildings fall down eventually, no matter how well maintained.
is that a problem?
Quote from: zorkan on February 09, 2024, 12:39:31 PMThanks to your doggerel, I don't think we're too far apart, but I'll make this point.
I've been known to wax poetic. Literally, on occasion. ;D
QuoteAny system on earth gets its energy from the sun.
Yet all life is doomed because of entropy.
Yes and no. There are systems on Earth that do not (practically) get their energy from the Sun. If speaking of the biosphere, it's mostly true to the degree where you could reasonably call it Solar-powered. The planet itself is an open system. That's just a technical point though - for the purpose of this discussion, I buy what you are selling. Now, on to the more interesting nuances.
Life isn't doomed due to entropy per se (as
life) - and this is where we start getting into them subtle distinctions. A hypothetical perfect perpetual motion machine would not be subject to entropy
from being in motion. Any other sort would need some sort of external energy reservoir or, like the box I used to illustrate a post or two above, its batteries will eventually run flat. Living things being open systems, they act like that box, except with a charging port. Their components do decay, however, but that decay is not necessarily a measure of the entropy of those systems to the degree where said entropy could be pointed to for an "explanation of death."
[EDIT:]TLDR: Life suffers a different kind of death (Stops being alive) long before it ever dies a heat death.
QuoteHowever much we try to replace lost energy with food we will fail in the end.
Yes - and that would have happened much quicker if we were the way we are, except with no holes to shove full of inputs. :smilenod: While not precisely an example of entropy in itself, it is a good illustration for what entropy means.
QuoteFood is of lower grade, having been expelled by other life systems.
Mmh... Yes and no. Meat can be viewed as "enriched grass" in the sense that its energy density (Joules per kilogram) is higher than that of grass. Fat - even more so. Practically, what this means is that you would need more than a kilo of grass to grow a kilo of muscle or store a kilo of fat. Though I do not know the exact numbers, that discrepancy may be orders of magnitude.
It is not so much you and me specifically, who are subject to "death by entropy" in the "classical" sense - or, heat death -
while we live, since we do stave it off by inputting energy. We die a different sort of death. It's more a matter of saturations, attenuations and such like in our subsystems - the loss of the ability to convert dead animals, so to speak, into living cells in a manner which preserves or advances us as a system. Entropy there is a much more subtle property in things like, for instance, a DNA molecule being more likely to "break" over time than to "improve" and the limitations in systems in place to account for and mitigate that likelihood.
In a way and in the right sort of conversation, you could compare aging to entropy, but not because the second law of thermodynamics says so - it is being
obeyed. It does not dictate.
[EDIT:]Example towards the above; if you were so inclined, you could technically use dead humans as fuel for your furnace. Useless as a human - perhaps. Plain
useless? Not yet. You know, it started as a nice and humorous, easy to digest example, but it did go dark in a considerable hurry, didn't it..? *Sigh...* Insert a jew-in-the-oven joke here. :sad sigh:
QuoteIf an engine is constantly maintained, it will still fail at some point.
It will, and much like a human, it will not die a heat death when it does - it will just turn useless at doing what engines do.
I think I would rather call that decay than entropy, though there may be poetic reasons to use entropy as a general metaphor for it.
I suppose I should also mention that "heat death" does not necessarily mean "absolute cold" of a perfect void - it refers to a state of the system where "none" of its thermal energy can be converted or transferred in a way that "makes a difference" - "stepped down" in exchange for work, if you will.
[Common EDIT] It turned into a bit of a soupy post. I think the matter of disagreement here is, if anything, terminological. If you invoke the second law of thermodynamics, the scope of the word entropy in that setting is narrower than if you use it as a poetic example of decay (Though the opposite works better - exemplifying
entropy through decay) - not dissimilarly from the scope of the word "theory" being different when invoking "gravity" vs. when speculating on why that couple over there *point* split up.
So, entropy in terms of thermodynamics is, simply put, the measure of useful energy.
Death in terms of entropy is heat death rather than "his brains have rotted."
An open system in terms of physics is externally interacting - a closed one is "externally inert."
The laws of thermodynamics are defined within specific parameters. That is not to say that they are only obeyed within those parameters, but additional variables (such as the input of energy) need to be specifically accounted for. (For example, by redefining the scope of the system until the energy source falls within it)
If you believe that god created man in his image, then god must also be subjected to decay and death according to the laws of thermodynamics.
Is god an open or closed deity?
Why did god bother to create over one trillion galaxies when only heaven, earth, sun, moon, humans and their food would do if all his people are here on earth?
Statistically, the 2nd law is an inequality.
That also appears to question god's perfection.
Why would god allow his cosmos to burn up in a heat death, leaving only radiation at some point in the future when the very last star has flickered out?
Quote from: zorkan on February 09, 2024, 04:47:07 PMIf you believe that god created man in his image, then god must also be subjected to decay and death according to the laws of thermodynamics.
Indeed. a believer would likely say something to the tune of "but God is special. He's all godly and stuff and faith."
Still, providing no reasons beyond personal conviction for it being so is...
Thin. If god is "beyond" the universe, then by what means does he itneract with it enough to know when you covet your neighbour's wife? If god
is the universe, then will your eternal life in his heaven turn into the worst kind of hell for countless eons before finally "everything" dies a "permanent" death?
QuoteIs god an open or closed deity?
If His Majesty the King poops, one must assume that god does too. I'd say open. :smilenod:
QuoteWhy did god bother to create over one trillion galaxies when only heaven, earth, sun, moon, humans and their food would do if all his people are here on earth?
In case he grew bored with a experiment. Just go to a better planet - it's already there. :smilenod:
QuoteStatistically, the 2nd law is an inequality.
If I understand what you mean by that, then no. The second law og thermodynamics is still obeyed in a perfectly-balanced system - it's just inert for all intents and purposes.
QuoteThat also appears to question god's perfection.
Why would god allow his cosmos to burn up in a heat death, leaving only radiation at some point in the future when the very last star has flickered out?
When the last star has flickered out is "just the beginning" of heat death of the universe. Black holes will endure long past that point, and after they have evaporated or gone boom, it will take "incalculable" years for the universe to be reduced to a void with an occasional low-energy photon, timelessly zipping along, with nothing to interact with in any meaningful way.
I think "why" is the wrong question here - it's subject to the whims of a potentially-irrational creature. For what it's worth, if I had the power to fart out a universe of my choosing, it would not be eternal either.
It's possible that the universe will meet a different fate, or on a different sort of time scale. There are some very interesting questions there. Do protons naturally decay? Does the universe exist in a flase vacuum and may therefore be subject to vacuum decay? Such like.
In my admittedly-atheist opinion, such questions are
way bigger than the puny gods of humanity.
QuoteIf god is "beyond" the universe, then by what means does he itneract with it enough to know when you covet your neighbour's wife?
If god is on the outside looking in, then god is both inside and outside according to your view that all systems are open.
Here's the proof:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Whats-Eating-Universe-Cosmic-Questions/dp/0241459850
"In the constellation of Eridanus there lurks a cosmic mystery. It's as if something has taken a huge bite out of the universe, leaving a super-void. What could be the culprit?"
Why, god!
That's not proof - it's a link to a book.
Unless you mean to say that a statement by authorirty (In this case, a random published author. Note that in this context, the "true greats" would also be "just random published authors") is somehow proof of something
beyond that they wrote or otherwise made said statement.What is the proof? Is there a process I can repeat? Is there a prediction I can verify?
Also,
Quote from: zorkan on February 13, 2024, 12:02:05 PMIf god is on the outside looking in, then god is both inside and outside according to your view that all systems are open.
no, absolutely not. There exist closed systems and even then It is perfectly possible to be fully outside an open system just as it is to be fully outside a closed one. Now, if something is both inside and outside, then there are mechanisms by which that something interacts with the system. If you read my question, I think you will find that it was "what are these mechanisms?"
God is everywhere, yet nowhere.
Above and below, I hope you know.
In the inner core of the earth and in the great void of space beyond the furthest galaxy.
He knows your every movement and every thought.
If you believe this, you have been bought.
Quote from: zorkan on February 13, 2024, 01:53:09 PMGod is everywhere, yet nowhere.
Above and below, I hope you know.
In the inner core of the earth and in the great void of space beyond the furthest galaxy.
He knows your every movement and every thought.
If you believe this, you have been bought.
Yes, and my question is, "by which mechanism does god know when I contemplate whether to wank off now or later?"
Does he interact through gravity? Electromagnetism? Nuclear forces? Some/all of the above and then some? How does that translate to knowing thoughts?
A different avenue of inquiry; if god is everywhere and everything, then are not my dirty thoughts in fact
his dirty thoughts and why won't a jury buy that excuse?! >:(
EDIT: just to sharpen the point a little;
While you may not know precisely how something interacts with a system, you can still know to what degree and measure the results of such interactions. If you cannot do that either, then wherein lies the interaction? So, how would I go about figuring out if and how well god knows my... What was the example I used..? Ah! Masturbatory schedule. Fitting enough.
God interacts by divine telepathy, which means no phone bills.
More to the point, how do you know what god is thinking?
We only know so much from his word, the bible.
We have his commandments and his golden plates by special delivery.
We know he doesn't like gays.
He reserves heaven for the good guys who worship him, with separate rooms for different faiths.
I mean, how could you possibly live for all eternity with a catholic if you were a protestant?
Quote from: zorkan on February 13, 2024, 04:22:47 PMGod interacts by divine telepathy, which means no phone bills.
That's a non-answer. "telepathy" is itself a process that requires an explanation.
QuoteMore to the point, how do you know what god is thinking?
I never claimed to. I try not to put words in people's - even the imaginary ones' - mouth if I can avoid it.
QuoteI mean, how could you possibly live for all eternity with a catholic if you were a protestant?
First, explain how you would live for all eternity, period. Let us assume for the sake of it that it is perfectly possible. What's
you after a googolplex years, or, said differently, in the very first instant of your eternity? Utterly insane? Catatonic? Far worse, probably.
I said divine telepathy which is different from human telepathy.
God can hear and speak any language in order to communicate, even a dead language like Latin and made-up ones like Esperanto.
God exists both inside and outside of time and place.
Pray to god and your request might be answered, or it might not.
He is the greatest character in all of fiction in all of the universe.
Quote from: zorkan on February 14, 2024, 12:02:49 PMI said divine telepathy which is different from human telepathy.
...And I asked for an explanation of "telepathy," regardless of qualifiers. What is the process? What are the results? How are the results connected to the process? does it operate through electromagnetism? Weird membrane physics? Slightly less-weird field physics? Which fields? What are the predictions of its behaviour in given situations? What are the means for measuring said predictions?
...What does it
demonstrably do? (The answer is probably as simple as it "fills" a gap in a person's understanding and/or answers a perceived logical impossibility with "magic.")
QuoteGod can hear and speak any language in order to communicate, even a dead language like Latin and made-up ones like Esperanto.
God exists both inside and outside of time and place.
...So he interacts through sound, then? Waves propagating through matter? But if he is outside time and place,
what are the means by which he interacts with time and place in order to generate sound waves?QuoteHe is the greatest character in all of fiction in all of the universe.
Yeah, he's not even that. "Because magic" is a poor answer even in high fantasy. The "best" worlds and settings are subject to their own natural laws, where magic is a demonstrable feature - even if unexplained.
God moves in mysterious ways.
If you don't like divine telepathy then how about mysterious waves.
He created all with a magic wand.
Don't ask. It was magic.
Quote from: zorkan on February 14, 2024, 12:25:39 PMGod moves in mysterious ways.
If you don't like divine telepathy then how about mysterious waves.
He created all with a magic wand.
Don't ask. It was magic.
...And the train goes 'round and 'round. :smilenod:
I've been in tens-of-hours long conversations with people trying to invoke more-or-often-less impressive terminology when asked to define a process, only to fall back on changing the terminology.
I tend to ask them to think of that whole process as "Bob." Now, if Bob were a human, there are things that would make him tick, tick him off and other biting-arachnid-related metaphors. So, Bob the Divine Whatnots. How does it work? And if you don't know, how do you know that it is indeed Bob that does the working? Or that any working at all is
being done?
I think the most honest answer I ever got was that "it
could have been Bob."
Yeah... Could it though? How do you know that there even
is a Bob then?
One answer to what god is, or ain't.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-consciousness-pervade-the-universe/
Bob's your uncle.
(meaning in the UK - "and there it is", or "and there you have it", or "it's done".)
I'm familiar with uncle Bob. :smilenod:
He [the author, not Bob] has a pretty narrow, but at the same time too broad a definition of what consciousness is. Overall, it's a somewhat-disappointing read.
"Maybe at some point the lights get switched off..." Declare your variables, muh dude... Declare your variables. [The author, not you]
And shortly after, right up into the air-- levitation via hand-waving.
Quote. . . it's at least coherent to suppose that this continuum of consciousness carries on into inorganic matter, with fundamental particles having unimaginably simple forms of experience.
Say what? "Coherent" is doing a hell of a lot of work here. It's the "deep wisdom" of the Emerald Tablet yet again.
But you ain't seen nothing yet.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-ai-becomes-conscious-heres-how-we-can-tell/
Universe could be aged according to its level of consciousness.
What is consciousness when applied to the Universe?
Are you speaking of the sort of consciousness they applied to the AI? Because it works there, but by what mechanisms does a Universe have subjective experiences?
If I have mine, that does not equate to the Universe sharing those too - I am a tiny subsystem within it, with no practical influence on or from most of it.
Does the Universe consider itself a Universe? Does it purposefully react to stimuli? Does it want stuff? Does it learn, plan and so forth?
Quote from: Recusant on February 18, 2024, 05:38:34 AMSay what? "Coherent" is doing a hell of a lot of work here. It's the "deep wisdom" of the Emerald Tablet yet again.
Yeah... An attempt at pseudoprofundity, as I call it. I think the TL:DR of it can be summed up as follows; "I have no idea what consciousness is. Let me now speculate as to why the Universe must have one."
By its own consciousness AI could influence the universe.
https://csferrie.medium.com/do-we-create-the-very-reality-that-we-observe-1162d1fab93b
Yes, the ability to purposefully influence its surroundings is a sign of consciousness.
...On the part of the entity doing the influencing, not the one being influenced.
Quote from: Asmodean on February 20, 2024, 07:59:07 AM...On the part of the entity doing the influencing, not the one being influenced.
How do you know that?
Because an entity's ability to purposefully influence its surroundings does not say anything at all about said surroundings beyond that they can be influenced. It does not address their requirement for consciousness, should any such exist in the first place.
To put it this way, I can put on a kettle. What does that say about the kettle, except that it can be acted upon in a certain way by my own sweet self?
But the universe is a chaotic place because people will pick flowers.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/paul_dirac_388049
"Chaotic" in what sense?
Like a butterfly flaps its wings and it starts to rain on the other side of the world.
Newly discovered black hole sucks in a stellar mass every day because someone light years away picked a flower.
https://www.space.com/chaos-theory-explainer-unpredictable-systems.html
Ah. "Chaos" theory, which actually deals with highly-ordered, interdependent systems.
Within that scope... As long as one does not ignore that an effect may have compound causes, just as a cause can lead to multiple effects... It may be philosophically amusing, I suppose.