Entropy & God

[Storm]

In another thread, it was said that:

Entropy the ability of the universe to follow a path to lowest energy with maximum complexity. The implication that things start simple and end up more chaotic and disorganised. There are several examples, life being one of the classic ones that superficially seem to contradict this law, but in retrospect obeys it completely. The long and the short of it is simply that not enough time has passed to make something as complicated and complex as a god. The universe may eventually form an intelligence of omnipotent power but we have many billions of years to go to get there.

Entropy implies we started simply ie low information (no where near enough for the hypothetical religious entities eg gods, that so many describe in this forum) when in fact the universe gets more complex and in the process handles more information. Religion implies the reverse of this law and is therefore totally false.
​

Discuss.

 

[Storm]

Entropy the ability of the universe to follow a path to lowest energy with maximum complexity. The implication that things start simple and end up more chaotic and disorganised. There are several examples, life being one of the classic ones that superficially seem to contradict this law, but in retrospect obeys it completely. The long and the short of it is simply that not enough time has passed to make something as complicated and complex as a god. The universe may eventually form an intelligence of omnipotent power but we have many billions of years to go to get there.

Entropy implies we started simply ie low information (no where near enough for the hypothetical religious entities eg gods, that so many describe in this forum) when in fact the universe gets more complex and in the process handles more information. Religion implies the reverse of this law and is therefore totally false.

1) It seems to me that theism skirts this issue by having God not only separate from the Creation, but of an entirely different nature.

2) Then, you get weirdos like me who say that our reality is God growing up. (OK, maybe it's just me, but the idea is out there. ) Entropy is an important part of the process, making way for new development. So,
a) not ALL religion "implies the reverse of this law," and
b) how does such theology affect your argument?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Well, first I see this fitting in well with Storms theology of the Universe as a maturing entity.
Secondly, the entire premise assumes a God contained within, and subject to the laws of, our Universe. And attempts to define the nature of God without a full understanding of the entire nature of the Universe.
In another thread I included this quote from Stephen Hawking.
"The question of whether God is bound by the laws of science is a bit like the question ‘can God make a stone that is so heavy he cannot lift it’.
I don’t think it is very useful to speculate on what God might, or might not, be able to do.
Rather, we should examine what He does in the Universe in which we actually live in.
All our observations suggest that it operates according to well defined laws.
These laws may have been ordained by God, but it seems that He does not intervene in the Universe to break these laws, at least, not once He had set the Universe going."

This is the problem with the 'concepts' of God that we attempt to define. They are in conflict with what we know as scientific facts. Such as the Law of Entropy.
All we can know of God, if God exists, is that it seems to abide by the laws of nature.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Entropy applies to physics, so, unless a hypothetical god is a function of our physical universe, and subject to its laws, then whether entropy would apply to such a being is purely speculative. And, if a god is a function of the physical universe, then it is simply a natural process, and couldn't be a creator of this universe, as it would come into creation with, or evolve out of, this physical universe.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

I tend to ask the creationists who say that life doesn't follow the principle of entropy the following:
If god is the creator of universe, he must be infinitely complex. He must have also come from a simple organism. This is the same thing that evolution teaches us.

This infinitely complex being created a relatively simple being, the human. If we do go from simple to complex, we must become as complex as god at some point. Unfortunately there is only one god in monotheistic religions, implying that no one could ever become as complex as god. But this contradicts the principle of entropy.

Therefore evolution is true and god is not.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I tend to ask the creationists who say that life doesn't follow the principle of entropy the following:
If god is the creator of universe, he must be infinitely complex. He must have also come from a simple organism. This is the same thing that evolution teaches us.

This infinitely complex being created a relatively simple being, the human. If we do go from simple to complex, we must become as complex as god at some point. Unfortunately there is only one god in monotheistic religions, implying that no one could ever become as complex as god. But this contradicts the principle of entropy.

Therefore evolution is true and god is not.

Evolution is true, and that particular concept of god is not.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Evolution is true, and that particular concept of god is not.

Indeed! I was talking about the monotheistic god you know.

 

[Revoltingest]

In another thread, it was said that:

Entropy the ability of the universe to follow a path to lowest energy with maximum complexity. The implication that things start simple and end up more chaotic and disorganised. There are several examples, life being one of the classic ones that superficially seem to contradict this law, but in retrospect obeys it completely. The long and the short of it is simply that not enough time has passed to make something as complicated and complex as a god. The universe may eventually form an intelligence of omnipotent power but we have many billions of years to go to get there.

Entropy implies we started simply ie low information (no where near enough for the hypothetical religious entities eg gods, that so many describe in this forum) when in fact the universe gets more complex and in the process handles more information. Religion implies the reverse of this law and is therefore totally false.​

Actually, entropy isn't about the "lowest energy", but rather zero potential energy. Energy isn't lost, but rather just becomes unavailable to perform work, Ie, unusable.
The notion that entropy is all about complexity has always bothered me. I look at it from the simple historical perspective of it's discoverers, Carnot & Clausius, ie, that of heat transfer & the availability of heat to do work. "Work" in this context means that energy can be used to accomplish something, eg, a chemical reaction, life, etc. To introduce the notion of complexity seems to add little but confusion, since I've yet to see a good definition of "complexity". (There is some argument in the field about this, so it's not just me. We should also avoid the information theory field's use of the word "entropy" to describe something else entirely.)

The old fashioned classical thermodynamic meaning of entropy is a measure of a cyclic process giving up some heat to its surroundings as unusable. The sum of these processes is never less than zero, which roughly means that in any closed system (eg, a universe), the temperature everywhere will even out. This means that all chemical reactions will stop, & the universe will become a very cold place where ultimately nothing will happen. This bothers people so much, that my old thermodynamics book even has a chapter speculating that a god is needed to over-ride the second law (ie, entropy) of thermodynamics, just so our universe may remain full of life & be 'interesting'. Frankly, I think the big bang points to the universe being an open system system, albeit in a discontinuous way, so the law of entropy applies only to the universe as we observe it now. Note that it's a law only because it's been seen to be valid for observations so far. That does not prevent nature from upsetting our expectations in some as yet unobserved phenomenon.

So, I've tried to avoid being boring & complicated.....how am I doing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#History


​

 

[Beyondo]

Actually, entropy isn't about the "lowest energy", but rather zero potential energy. Energy isn't lost, but rather just becomes unavailable to perform work, Ie, unusable.
The notion that entropy is all about complexity has always bothered me. I look at it from the simple historical perspective of it's discoverers, Carnot & Clausius, ie, that of heat transfer & the availability of heat to do work. "Work" in this context means that energy can be used to accomplish something, eg, a chemical reaction, life, etc. To introduce the notion of complexity seems to add little but confusion, since I've yet to see a good definition of "complexity". (There is some argument in the field about this, so it's not just me. We should also avoid the information theory field's use of the word "entropy" to describe something else entirely.)

The old fashioned classical thermodynamic meaning of entropy is a measure of a cyclic process giving up some heat to its surroundings as unusable. The sum of these processes is never less than zero, which roughly means that in any closed system (eg, a universe), the temperature everywhere will even out. This means that all chemical reactions will stop, & the universe will become a very cold place where ultimately nothing will happen. This bothers people so much, that my old thermodynamics book even has a chapter speculating that a god is needed to over-ride the second law (ie, entropy) of thermodynamics, just so our universe may remain full of life & be 'interesting'. Frankly, I think the big bang points to the universe being an open system system, albeit in a discontinuous way, so the law of entropy applies only to the universe as we observe it now. Note that it's a law only because it's been seen to be valid for observations so far. That does not prevent nature from upsetting our expectations in some as yet unobserved phenomenon.

So, I've tried to avoid being boring & complicated.....how am I doing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#History


​

Good point the universe will eventually die. However some material ends up in blackholes and could recycle material as the blackholes evaporate and eventually explode. But that only delays the eventual cold death. From other prespectives the big rip or expanision leads to an inevitable death where nothing can form ever again.

 

[Revoltingest]

Good point the universe will eventually die. However some material ends up in blackholes and could recycle material as the blackholes evaporate and eventually explode. But that only delays the eventual cold death. From other prespectives the big rip or expanision leads to an inevitable death where nothing can form ever again.

I don't know that the universe will die. That's just a prediction of the 2nd law for a closed universe.
But I'll keep my eye peeled for the end of the universe, & I'll let you know what happens. (I have a
restaurant reservation to watch it.)

 

[TechTed]

In another thread, it was said that:

Entropy the ability of the universe to follow a path to lowest energy with maximum complexity. The implication that things start simple and end up more chaotic and disorganised. There are several examples, life being one of the classic ones that superficially seem to contradict this law, but in retrospect obeys it completely. The long and the short of it is simply that not enough time has passed to make something as complicated and complex as a god. The universe may eventually form an intelligence of omnipotent power but we have many billions of years to go to get there.

Entropy implies we started simply ie low information (no where near enough for the hypothetical religious entities eg gods, that so many describe in this forum) when in fact the universe gets more complex and in the process handles more information. Religion implies the reverse of this law and is therefore totally false.
​

Discuss.

Perhaps religion assumes that the intelligent, omnipotent power was formed in a different "older" universe and then created our universe.

 

[logician]

If there truly is a creator god, then to actually create a universe, it must exist either in a dimensionless state, or in a different dimension than those occupied by said universe, otherwise it would be effected by its own creation. This would imply that said creator god is not effected by time or gravity, or mass and energy. Since this being has no boundaries, it MIGHT effectively go backwards or forwards in our timeat its whim, as well as be anywhere at any time. I think what I’m trying to do here is describe what kind of attributes a creator god must have. One question, how could a being exist that was exempt from all physical laws?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In another thread, it was said that:

Entropy the ability of the universe to follow a path to lowest energy with maximum complexity. The implication that things start simple and end up more chaotic and disorganised. There are several examples, life being one of the classic ones that superficially seem to contradict this law, but in retrospect obeys it completely. The long and the short of it is simply that not enough time has passed to make something as complicated and complex as a god. The universe may eventually form an intelligence of omnipotent power but we have many billions of years to go to get there.

​

I disagree with the definition of entropy. At its core, the second law of thermodynamics just says that heat won't flow from a colder object to a hotter object without the application of work. While "order" and "disorder" are commonly used as illustrative concepts to describe what's occurring, entropy doesn't necessarily mesh up with human ideas of what "disorder" means.

I think that a lot of the arguments for (or in this case, against) God based on the second law of thermodynamics are based on reading things into the law that aren't really there.

In this case, especially, it doesn't work. The second law of thermodynamics is dependent on time's motion in a single direction, and therefore is dependent on the existence of time in the first place. If time is a property of this universe specifically, then the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to the cause of the universe, whether that cause is some sort of god or not (if the concept of causality even has any meaning in a context without time).

Entropy implies we started simply ie low information (no where near enough for the hypothetical religious entities eg gods, that so many describe in this forum) when in fact the universe gets more complex and in the process handles more information. Religion implies the reverse of this law and is therefore totally false.
​

How is "information" defined in this case? Any physical arrangement could be considered to have infinite information associated with it as you get down to more and more precise descriptions of the attributes (position, velocity, mass, spin, charge, energy, linear momentum, angular momentum, etc., etc.) of each particle involved.

And once we get over the hurdle of defining just what "information" means in this context, how would anyone ever go about demonstrating how much of it is "enough" for a god to exist?

 

[Revoltingest]

I disagree with the definition of entropy. At its core, the second law of thermodynamics just says that heat won't flow from a colder object to a hotter object without the application of work. While "order" and "disorder" are commonly used as illustrative concepts to describe what's occurring, entropy doesn't necessarily mesh up with human ideas of what "disorder" means.

I think that a lot of the arguments for (or in this case, against) God based on the second law of thermodynamics are based on reading things into the law that aren't really there.

Whoa! Someone else knows his classical thermo & the pitfalls of the "arrow of time".
Kudos....& some of those frubal thingies.

 

[Storm]

I disagree with the definition of entropy. At its core, the second law of thermodynamics just says that heat won't flow from a colder object to a hotter object without the application of work. While "order" and "disorder" are commonly used as illustrative concepts to describe what's occurring, entropy doesn't necessarily mesh up with human ideas of what "disorder" means.

I think that a lot of the arguments for (or in this case, against) God based on the second law of thermodynamics are based on reading things into the law that aren't really there.

In this case, especially, it doesn't work. The second law of thermodynamics is dependent on time's motion in a single direction, and therefore is dependent on the existence of time in the first place. If time is a property of this universe specifically, then the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to the cause of the universe, whether that cause is some sort of god or not (if the concept of causality even has any meaning in a context without time).


How is "information" defined in this case? Any physical arrangement could be considered to have infinite information associated with it as you get down to more and more precise descriptions of the attributes (position, velocity, mass, spin, charge, energy, linear momentum, angular momentum, etc., etc.) of each particle involved.

And once we get over the hurdle of defining just what "information" means in this context, how would anyone ever go about demonstrating how much of it is "enough" for a god to exist?

I don't know. I'm hoping the person who said these things will show up.

 

[Silver]

Good point the universe will eventually die. However some material ends up in blackholes and could recycle material as the blackholes evaporate and eventually explode. But that only delays the eventual cold death. From other prespectives the big rip or expanision leads to an inevitable death where nothing can form ever again.

What about human intelligence and its application. Could this not stop the "eventual cold death" or "big rip death", even if only locally or externally.

The limits of human evolution could be an evolved God.

I don't think "death" will be the end....It will be overcome......designed out of the design.

 

[Bird123]

Quantum physics is showing the possibility of other dimensions and universes. Can you really base all the theories about God on the physical laws of this universe alone??? My next question requires an open mind and thought. If you were to create a universe and you would want it to be automated as much as possible to cut down on the work, would it include entropy??? God created the universe to unfold so that one day mankind will understand it all. There is so very much mankind does not understand yet. We are ants but we are learning everyday. If you were to create the universe, how would you do it. Ebs and flow of true knowledge,you might just find you and God think alike.

 

[Revoltingest]

What about human intelligence and its application. Could this not stop the "eventual cold death" or "big rip death", even if only locally or externally.

We only get to use the physical laws of our universe.
We don't get to repeal them.

 

[logician]

Good point the universe will eventually die. However some material ends up in blackholes and could recycle material as the blackholes evaporate and eventually explode. But that only delays the eventual cold death. From other prespectives the big rip or expanision leads to an inevitable death where nothing can form ever again.

If this is true, there could be an infinite number of "dead universes" in a multiverse theoretical model. One wonders if there is are other factors that causes recycling or rebirth of universes.

 

[Storm]

Shameless bump.