An infinite series of finite causes.

[shunyadragon]

Oh! How precious! Sandbox talk!

Actually in another thread Boxing Pythagoris provides the best explanation for math on this topic and reading his posts will provide the best explanation. The following is an example.

The thread is here http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...Infinite/page8

[shunyadragon]

Well there is that kind of sick fascination, like when you drive by a car accident...

Intelligent responses would be appreciated like those referenced by Boxing Pythagoris as referenced.

[seer]

Intelligent responses would be appreciated like those referenced by Boxing Pythagoris as referenced.

Oh please Shuny:

Calculus is a tool for calculating actually infinite sets of objects, and this tool can be used to describe the workings of the real world with incredible accuracy, as Newton demonstrated with his celestial mechanics. There is some philosophical debate, however, as to whether such tools are just decent idealizations which provide reasonable approximations of reality, or whether they accurately describe reality.

I'm a Formalist when it comes to the philosophy of mathematics, so I think ALL mathematics is a purely abstract means of describing the real world-- including basic arithmetic. However, there are ways in which this abstraction can be more or less accurate in its description of the world.

So what is your point in linking this, what is Boxing getting at, what is the bottom line? Do you have a clue?

[element771]

Whatever!

Seriously?!?

I thought you were better than that.

[JimL]

Well that's interesting, I was under the assumption that the expansion of the universe played an intrical part in the increase in its entropy. So what is the cause then?

[element771]

Well that's interesting, I was under the assumption that the expansion of the universe played an intrical part in the increase in its entropy. So what is the cause then?

Simply put...heat and energy diffusion. Think of it as putting a drop of food coloring into a glass of water, once it reaches a state of equilibrium...there is no change that it can undergo. When the water gets homogenous, thats it.

That is what the heat death of the universe will be like. No more significant differences in energy to actually do anything.

[element771]

Why does anyone waste their time on this idiot?

Well it has never gotten to this point before. Maybe its because the topics are complex enough to hide his motives. But the fact that he can't / won't defend his accusation is telling.

[element771]

Oh! How precious! Sandbox talk!

Actually in another thread Boxing Pythagoris provides the best explanation for math on this topic and reading his posts will provide the best explanation. The following is an example.

Shuny,

Do you ever read about a topic, think about it, and then argue it from your own brain?

The fact that you just post block quotes suggest that you don't understand the topic. You simply find a couple of key words and then post the block of text around the sentence you like. That quote about entropy came from a lecture where that was literally the only text on the slide.

[JimL]

Simply put...heat and energy diffusion. Think of it as putting a drop of food coloring into a glass of water, once it reaches a state of equilibrium...there is no change that it can undergo. When the water gets homogenous, thats it.

That is what the heat death of the universe will be like. No more significant differences in energy to actually do anything.

Right, but if the glass were to expand the entropy would continue to increase right. The heat and energy isn't added to the universe like a drop of food coloring to a glass of water, it's part and parcel to it and so it's entropy can't increase if the universe doesn't expand. Right?

[element771]

Right, but if the glass were to expand the entropy would continue to increase right. The heat and energy isn't added to the universe like a drop of food coloring to a glass of water, it's part and parcel to it and so it's entropy can't increase if the universe doesn't expand. Right?

The increase is caused by local spots of high energy flowing to local spots of lower energy. This would happen whether the universe wasn't expanding or not.

However, you are technically correct that if you have an expanding universe then at what point do you reach an equilibrium. For example...at some point in time each atom will be a Hubble length away from its nearest neighbor. At that point, does entropy still increase? If so...how?

[Tassman]

Huh? What I already spelled out for you was NOT complex at all. But thanks for fulfilling that prophecy I predicted! It's not a simple as 2+2=4, and it's on the same level as pretty much any philosophical issue. It'll never be like 2+2=4 and depending on how far you go, it could be something like square-integral functions. But that's not remotely how I already described it for you. Once again, you've put any potential explanation into the Procrustean bed of gross, caricatured simplicity, and you've done this to such an absurd degree, that you're free to demand for more elucidation no matter where the threshold is for sufficiency (you can literally shift the goal posts at any point for any stupid reason). And any attempt at further elucidation is further subject to your demand for more simplicity. It's no use even talking to you with these trollish escapades. Where's that mysterious, mythical line beyond which is too much explanation, and before which is too little? No one knows. You don't know. Why waste my time trying to feel out where it is? I've already explained it "too much": that wasn't good enough. I've already laid out simply what my points were in connect-the-dot thesis sentences: that wasn't good enough. I mean, seriously? How the heck do we go about this in a way that I already haven't gone about it?

So this pile of pretentious crap (gotta love your ) is your way of admitting that you cannot show a parsimonious way to arrive at a true premise for metaphysical argument and hence cannot arrive at a true conclusion. OK! Nothing more needs be said.

[Tassman]

Well it has never gotten to this point before. Maybe its because the topics are complex enough to hide his motives. But the fact that he can't / won't defend his accusation is telling.

If you really want to pursue the trivial "he said/she said" type of exchange we were engaged in I'm happy to indulge you, but I would have thought we both had better things to do. Let me know.

[element771]

If you really want to pursue the trivial "he said/she said" type of exchange we were engaged in I'm happy to indulge you, but I would have thought we both had better things to do. Let me know.

He said / She said implies that there is no other evidence other than each others word, hence its what 'he said' vs what 'she said'. I supplied specific quotes by you so it is hardly he said / she said.

I have an idea...If you don't want to defend your accusations then don't make them in the first place.

[Tassman]

He said / She said implies that there is no other evidence other than each others word, hence its what 'he said' vs what 'she said'. I supplied specific quotes by you so it is hardly he said / she said.

Firstly, your comment in #220 is a sly and unwarranted dig and cannot be construed any other way. Furthermore, it is simply wrong. Current theoretical physics regarding the possible infinite universe and multiverse is "cutting edge" science by any standard as compared to established science such as Evolution, which is uniformly accepted by the vast majority of scientists worldwide.

Secondly, your self-righteous assertion that I do the same to theists on a regular basis is nothing more than a childish: rebuttal usually found in schoolyards, not in adult forums.

I have an idea...If you don't want to defend your accusations then don't make them in the first place.

[seer]

Firstly, your comment in #220 is a sly and unwarranted dig and cannot be construed any other way. Furthermore, it is simply wrong. Current theoretical physics regarding the possible infinite universe and multiverse is "cutting edge" science by any standard as compared to established science such as Evolution, which is uniformly accepted by the vast majority of scientists worldwide.

Secondly, your self-righteous assertion that I do the same to theists on a regular basis is nothing more than a childish: rebuttal usually found in schoolyards, not in adult forums.

No Tass, you constantly question the motives of Christians, which makes you a hypocrite. The fact is your worldview and your atheism demands eternal energy so you will believe any theory that may get you there even if there is no "substantive evidence" - to use your words. Not only isn't there evidence for an infinite universe or multiverse, there would be no way to go back in time and demonstrate that either did not have a beginning.