beginning or stability

[dionisos]

I thought about this recently :
If Q(t) represent whatever quantity that vary through time, then we have three possibilities:
1) the limit of Q(t) as t approaches ∞ equals ±∞
2) the limit of Q(t) as t approaches ∞ equals C
3) the limit of Q(t) as t approaches ∞ is undetermined

If time have no start, then that mean every quantity Q, is either infinite (1), constant (2), or "stable" (3)
By stable here, i mean the quantity had the same probability to decrease, than to increase. (otherwise it would go through infinity, in value, or in rate of change)

It follow that if there is no beginning, any quantity in the universe, should be infinite, or stable (with the particular case of being constant).

Then, if the universe have no beginning :
The quantity of energy should be infinite or stable. (normally it is constant, then stable)
The "quantity" of space should be infinite or stable.
The quantity of matter should be infinite or stable.
The quantity of "dionisos" should be infinite or stable. (i will born and die one time, then it is stable)

And the contraposition say that:
If something, like entropy, always increase, and is finite, then there is a beginning.

What do you think about that ? do you see a reasoning error ?

[Obvious Leo]

I see no reasoning error. However I do see this.

If something, like entropy, always increase, and is finite, then there is a beginning.

The 13.8 billion years worth of evidence which we have available to us suggests that the total entropy of the universe is DECREASING, not increasing. The most remarkable piece of evidence of all in support of this conclusion is the fact that you and I are here having a chat about this, dionisos.

[dionisos]

I see no reasoning error. However I do see this.

If something, like entropy, always increase, and is finite, then there is a beginning.

The 13.8 billion years worth of evidence which we have available to us suggests that the total entropy of the universe is DECREASING, not increasing. The most remarkable piece of evidence of all in support of this conclusion is the fact that you and I are here having a chat about this, dionisos.

Could you explain why "having a chat", is a evidence that the entropy is decreasing ? (genuine question but perplex one)

[Obvious Leo]

Could you explain why "having a chat", is a evidence that the entropy is decreasing ? (genuine question but perplex one)

The universe is evolving from the simple to the complex in apparent contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics. Although the big bang is currently modelled as a low entropy state this contradicts both logic and the evidence in an effort to a conform to a "law" which the cosmos is clearly violating.

Although it is absurd to suggest that the big bang was the beginning of the universe it is logical to assume that it was the beginning of the "universe as we know it" since anything which occurred prior to it is unknowable. We need merely assume that the first law of thermodynamics remains inviolate and that the total information content of the universe was the same prior to the big bang as it was subsequent to it. I tend to think of this event as a sort of phase shift, rather like flipping over on a Moebius ribbon where the maximally complex transitions to the minimally complex, a process which has its analogue in conventional physics in the bang/crunch model of a cyclical universe.

This is the first and fundamentally false assumption of modern physics. A universe with a beginning presupposes a creator and thus the minimal entropy state of the "mind of god" which Newton adopted as an a priori assumption. An eternal universe assumption leads to a rather different conclusion because it shifts the minimal entropy state to a time PRIOR to the big bang, and indeed the causal agent of it, but it doesn't shift this low-entropy state to beyond the confines of the universe itself. This gives us the far more metaphysically coherent picture of the self-causal universe which is sufficient to its own existence but it may not suit the conceptual convenience of those with a taste for the invisible best friend.

This gives us a rather different picture of the big bang. Imagine a universe-sized black hole with no singularity and you'll have a better mental picture of the big bang than the piss-take version offered by Fred Hoyle. Our current cycle of the universe did not begin with a bang but with a whimper, rather like Hawking radiation leaking out of a black hole, and this offers us the correct model of a high-entropy beginning. The universe is not a place but rather a PROCESS which is continuously self-organising itself into an increasingly more complex existence. We are observers embedded within this process and we are both in it and of it.

In the beginning was only information/energy and not even matter. Gradually this information self-organises under the influence of gravity and we get very simple matter. Over billions of years we get increasingly more complex sub-structures within our universe and vastly more complex forms of matter as a result. We are the proof. The universe is coming to life for the simple reason that it cannot do otherwise. This is what non-linear dynamics systems do and the only law needed to bring this evolution about is the universal doctrine of causality. So long as all effects must be preceded by a cause the universe will continue to evolve into a progressively more low-entropy state until it can't evolve any further and then the process begins all over again. The Universal Turing Machine which is our cosmos has been doing this eternally and will continue to do this eternally but you and I are only along for a brief portion of the journey.

Dionisos. You may be interested in reading a synopsis of the philosophy of the bloody obvious. It is still a work in progress undergoing a substantial rewrite but all of its major principles remain intact. It shows us that reality is exactly what it appears to be, a journey of information through time.

https://austintorney.wordpress.com/2015 ... n-de-jong/

[dionisos]

Thanks for your answer Obvious Leo, i also read your philosophical article.
I have too much to say to each one. (which each make good points, but also some mistake that make me disagree with it).

I will only say that despite what seem to teach science, entropy is neither about complexity, nor order.
At least, not "order" in the way we naturally understand it, some scientists and mathematician give funny words to concepts, and don’t see how it will confuse anyone.
And in fact, the increasing of entropy is not a physical rule, it is a statistical "rule". It is not more about what is reality, than "2+2=4"
Unfortunately most explanations of this concept are wrong, and only the mathematical formulas get it right.

[dionisos]

A universe with a beginning presupposes a creator

Please see what i say about the beginning of the universe in The problem with "nothing"..

[Obvious Leo]

And in fact, the increasing of entropy is not a physical rule, it is a statistical "rule".

Indeed it is and in physics it is a statistical rule which can only be logically applied to a subset of a physical system. It cannot be applied to the entirety of the system, the set of sets, without falling into the logically absurd trap of "something from nothing" which you refer to in your other thread. In other words the second law of thermodynamics cannot be applied to the universe as a whole without first assuming that the universe is a created entity and once we make such an unwarranted assumption we then fall into an even deeper hole because we then define our universe as unknowable.

Why the fuck would we ever bother doing science or philosophy if we start out with such an unambitious assumption? We'd be better off in churches than in classrooms.

[dionisos]

let me give you my own theory on this subject:
I will explain it succinctly, but i would like to put it in a more mathematical form one day:
E(U,S), is the probability that the system U, is in the state S. (we will call it the entropy of the state S of the system U)
Most of the time, when a system U go from a state S1, to a state S2, then E(U, S1)<=E(U, S2)
In other words, a system have a great probability to go from the improbable states, to the probable states. (entropy increase)

Now imagine a particular system S, that have this two properties:
a) This system continue to change. It is not trapped in a particular state.
b) This system have no beginning.


Let Emax be the maximum entropy of the system, we know Emax <= 1.

Here are some deduction from it:
1) What will happen, is that the entropy of the system will be near Emax most of the time.
2) Rarely, it will diverge a little further that usually.
3) Very very rarely, it will diverge greatly, step by step. And the interesting thing, is that given b) and a), we could always find states of very low entropy, we just have to wait enough.
4) After whatever low entropy state, most of the time, the entropy of the system will increase. (the general rule)

In 1), nothing very interesting happen, the system just oscillate between steps of great entropy, it is relatively static.
In 2) basically, it is the same thing that for 1)
But in 3) something very interesting happen, first you could see that the system go from the probable, to the improbable, it mean that induction doesn’t work here, for the time the system is in 3), everything you could induce from the previous states, will be throw to trash in the next, because the system go to the improbable.
In 4) is where the interesting things happen, induction work (like most of the time), and the system is not yet stuck in a state of maximum entropy, the entropy increase.

And, this is where i think we are, we are in 4), because it is only here that intelligent being could exists.

[Obvious Leo]

The only problem with your theory is that there is 13.8 billion years worth of evidence to contradict it. Although there are obviously pockets in the universe where entropy is increasing the overall trend from the big bang to the present day is a consistent entropy decrease.

Incidentally this continuous entropy decrease is precisely what one would expect to see if the universe were a dissipative structure, which is close to what you describe with your mathematical formulation.