An infinite series of finite causes.

[seer]

And how exactly do you prove that a multiverse is past eternal? That it never began to exist in the far distant past?

You will clearly believe what you want to believe based upon your own religious agenda. You have no interest in facts and research, merely how science can reinforce your own agenda. This is the antithesis of research.

What are you talking about, is not this universe expanding? Is not the second law of thermodynamics active?

OK! So all you need to do is show which gods are not social constructs and why they are not social constructs.

I need to do no such thing, you made a claim that you can not back up. Just admit it.

[seer]

I have wasted enough time trying to inform you on matters that you don't understand.

I can present a very robust case from the primary literature and you will simply respond with a mountain of text from a website that you don't understand .

No thanks.

Well element, that explanation may not help Shuny, but it could help the rest of us and all the lurkers.

[element771]

Your view of entropy is archaic and science does not believe anything runs out of energy it just changes form.

Shuny,

If you will, please explain what exactly you mean by this

To avoid the problem of decreasing entropy in cyclic universe (2nd law of
thermodynamics) we may assume that the entropy of the multiverse being a sum of
entropies of individual universes is constant.

What allows them to make this assumption?

[element771]

Well element, that explanation may not help Shuny, but it could help the rest of us and all the lurkers.

I will give it a shot but if he responds via block text I'm out.

[JimL]

Shuny,

If you will, please explain what exactly you mean by this

What allows them to make this assumption?

I don't want to speak for shunya, but I think the "assumption" stems from the idea that nothing comes from nothing, and that entropy both increases and decreases. Our universe obviously began in a low entropy state, and a multiverse would presuppose the same for every universe.

[element771]

I don't want to speak for shunya, but I think the "assumption" stems from the idea that nothing comes from nothing, and that entropy both increases and decreases. Our universe obviously began in a low entropy state, and a multiverse would presuppose the same for every universe.

When does entropy decrease in the overall system?

I understand that you can have decreases in entropy for isolate systems but the total entropy doesn't decrease given the 2nd law of thermo.

But why do you assume that the sum is constant?

[seer]

I will give it a shot but if he responds via block text I'm out.

But it is not for him, it is for the rest of us... But thanks...

[element771]

But it is not for him, it is for the rest of us... But thanks...

The issue here is that assumptions are made in order to avoid breaking the second law of thermodynamics. These are assumptions and cannot be empirically tested.

The article even says this..."To avoid the problem of decreasing entropy, we may assume..."

This is then taken as a given to see if their model works however there is no evidence that this assumption is valid in reality.

That is really why it is a moot point. Shuny can just cite a presentation that says they are making this assumption. However, that isn't convincing because anyone can assume anything for a given model. If that model is internally consistent, does that mean the assumption is validated. No...it just means that the assumption works in the model. It says nothing about the assumptions being made. The model holding up is necessary but not sufficient in confirming that the underlying assumption is valid.

In my area of expertise, there are certain assumptions about the constituent components of the total entropy of the system that are made. However, these assumptions are then tested using experimentation to determine their validity. That is the difference here.

[JimL]

When does entropy decrease in the overall system?

I understand that you can have decreases in entropy for isolate systems but the total entropy doesn't decrease given the 2nd law of thermo.

But why do you assume that the sum is constant?

I don't have access to an infinite system, so I can't answer that.

[element771]

I don't have access to an infinite system, so I can't answer that.

But why is the system infinite? That is another assumption.

Also how do you determine if the system is truly infinite versus just very large?

You states that entropy decreases...is this part of the assumption?

This is the ultimate problem...how do you know that the assumptions are viable?

[JimL]

But why is the system infinite? That is another assumption.

Also how do you determine if the system is truly infinite versus just very large?

You states that entropy decreases...is this part of the assumption?

This is the ultimate problem...how do you know that the assumptions are viable?

I don't know what the assumptions are according to shunya's article, I didn't read it. The assumption that I personally make is that there is no such state as nothingness, ergo infinity is. We know that our universe began in a low entropy state, therefore my assumption is that entropy decreases within infinity.

[element771]

I don't know what the assumptions are according to shunya's article, I didn't read it.

What he put was the entire quote. It was a presentation about cyclical models not an actual article.

We know that our universe began in a low entropy state, therefore my assumption is that entropy decreases within infinity.

But how can you make this assumption. Yes our universe began in a low entropy state but entropy deceasing with infinity doesn't follow. Could you elaborate more on this?

[JimL]

What he put was the entire quote. It was a presentation about cyclical models not an actual article.



But how can you make this assumption. Yes our universe began in a low entropy state but entropy deceasing with infinity doesn't follow. Could you elaborate more on this?

No I really can't. Like I said, I make the assumption because I don't believe that a state of nothingness makes any sense and therefore the cosmos must be infinite. How entropy works in such an infinite state I couldn't say, but obviously, our universe began in a low entropy state, and since I don't believe our universe came from, or was created out of nothing, then entropy must decrease in infinity in order for our universe to have begun. That's not science of course, it's just my own musings, but then again science doesn't know the answer any better than I do.

[element771]

entropy must decrease in infinity

I understand the rest of the musings except this.

How can entropy decrease in infinity?

or

Can you explain what you mean by that?

[mattbballman31]

Uh, yes . . . I have. The reason you can't recall is because your memory has been bludgeoned to death by you caring more about being a troll than actually interacting with the examples I have. So, no. I'm not gonna fall into your trollish trap, because all that's going to happen is one of the following:

1. I provide a BRIEF list of the examples and the methodologies involved, and then you'll predictably cry foul because your scientistic impulses will automatically disqualify the examples, with cries of protest over the fact that I've done nothing to justify the methodologies involved.

OR

2. I (again!) give a substantive list of examples, with a substantive justification of the methodologies involved, all clarified by appealing to examples, and all put into a dialectical context, and then all you'll do is protest that I'm typing too much, or you'll quote the whole thing (without interacting with anything written) and 'deny and repeat your question', and I will have wasted my time.

How in the world can an honest assessment of the issues deal with such a trollish dilemma? I got an idea! Ignore it and make fun of those funny looking warts on your trollish schnoz.

I'm onto you as is everyone on here.