Seems to me wordplay in the sense that the "differences" are bound to be too slight to matter but in referencing the paradox they are made to seem to matter.
If the universe is infinitely old, how did Today ever get here?
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Seems to me wordplay in the sense that the "differences" are bound to be too slight to matter but in referencing the paradox they are made to seem to matter.
Meant to say "answer" not answerable.
Trumpet
Verified User
Good questions
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
It could be a closed system where the energy moves around but isn't increased or decreased, just changed in form.
E = mc^2. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can become matter or matter converted to energy...
I'm more attuned to the philosophy poets than of philosophers. This one, for example:
What are days for?
Days are where we live.
They come, they wake us
Time and time over.
They are to be happy in:
Where can we live but days?
Ah, solving that question
Brings the priest and the doctor
In their long coats
Running over the fields.
Philip Larkin
Nice. I try not to get caught up in the arrogance of strict scientific materialism. I don't think all knowledge comes from math, physics, and deductive logic. I learned as much from the Taoist poetry of Laozi as I did from my college calculus textbook.
One of my favorite Shakespeare lines is:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies."
Interesting.
I don't think entropy is defined by the amount of energy. It's defined by the number of microstates, aka the arrangements of the particles in the system.
A closed system should almost always be evolving to a higher entropy, though in theory entropy could stay the same. I've never heard of this universe maintaining constant entropy. I don't even think life or a biosphere is possible at constant entropy.
It's widely accepted that this universe evolved from an initial low entropy state, to increasing entropy, and that's what gives us an arrow of time.
It is anything but wordplay. Definitely check out "Time dilation" on google.
Correct, the First Law of Thermo establishes this, but the Second Law is what is tripping up your explanation. In a closed system the entropy will not decrease. If it were to DECREASE it would require additional energy put into the system.
What you are repeatedly proposing is to decrease the entropy of a closed system which would violate the Second Law. Your proposal applies to the UNIVERSE which is pretty much a near perfect closed system. As such you will need to explain where the additional energy OUTSIDE OF THE UNIVERSE comes from.
Remember what the Second Law of Thermo states: that the entropy of a closed system is ONLY ever > 0. Seems your proposal has a serious problem.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
In an infinite system this doesn't happen, or at least doesn't appear to happen. In systems observable on Earth, yes that's correct.
In an infinite system, there is nowhere for the energy to be lost to. Instead, it simply moves somewhere else within the closed system. In other words, the system is large enough that there's constant randomness.
Again, what you seem to be proposing is the antithesis of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. There's literally no other way to characterize your position.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
It requires an infinite system, something the second law of Thermodynamics doesn't account for.
While I'm no expert in this, I was given a smattering of introduction to infinite systems in college and the Navy nuclear power program
The Enigma of Boltzmann Brains: Are We Living a Fabricated Reality?
The Boltzmann Brain Paradox is a thought-provoking concept suggesting that a brain with false memories is more likely to exist than a real one. Originating from entropy and statistical mechanics, it raises existential questions about reality. While scientists have made progress in discrediting...
www.physicsoftheuniverse.com
Physicist settles 120-year-old Einstein debate on a law of nature - Modern Sciences
A physicist has settled a historic debate involving Albert Einstein by proving that the third law of thermodynamics is a direct consequence of the second, reshaping our understanding of physics at absolute zero.
modernsciences.org
I don't think we know enough about the nature of the universe yet to know for sure how it works and why.
That is what I think.
Not sure what the problem is.
As usual, Cypress cannot understand anything outside Christian orthodoxy.
Then it should be easy for you to explain exactly how we went through an infinite amount of days in order to get to today.
Days are defined by revolution of earth around sun. It took billions of years for there even to be our solar system.
Use any arbitrary unit of time you want, and explain precisely how we managed to pass through an infinite amount time units in order to arrive at today.
Time is measure of motion. If there was no solar system, there are no days.