God is Entropy

[idav]

:areyoucra Um... Why?

Because something is default despite the fact that a sum of nothing is what exists. How does entropy hold up in a system where something exists when nothing should?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Because something is default despite the fact that a sum of nothing is what exists.

I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.

How does entropy hold up in a system where something exists when nothing should?

I don't understand the question. Can you give an example of "a system where something exists when nothing should"?

 

[idav]

I don't understand the question. Can you give an example of "a system where something exists when nothing should"?

I'm talking about a universe where the sum of energies equal to zero (nothing), yet here we are debating what is around us which is something (not nothing).

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I'm talking about a universe where the sum of energies equal to zero (nothing), yet here we are debating what is around us which is something (not nothing).

Ok, and? I think you're misunderstanding what is meant by the zero-energy calculation; it isn't that there's nothing in the universe (that would be a pretty bad hypothesis), but that the energy of positive particles is completely cancelled out by the negative energy of gravity, so the sum total is zero.

But God isn't supposed to be physical, have mass, be made of matter, or anything of the kind, so there's no reason to think he would contribute to the positive energy of the universe (of course, all the more reason to think that the existence of such a God is a nonsensical hypothesis)- and even if he did, this could be cancelled out by gravitational attraction, as the zero-energy hypothesis states.

 

[idav]

Ok, and? I think you're misunderstanding what is meant by the zero-energy calculation; it isn't that there's nothing in the universe (that would be a pretty bad hypothesis), but that the energy of positive particles is completely cancelled out by the negative energy of gravity, so the sum total is zero.

But God isn't supposed to be physical, have mass, be made of matter, or anything of the kind, so there's no reason to think he would contribute to the positive energy of the universe (of course, all the more reason to think that the existence of such a God is a nonsensical hypothesis)- and even if he did, this could be cancelled out by gravitational attraction, as the zero-energy hypothesis states.

I understand. In theory the universe would have cancelled itself out, nothing would exist, but that isn't what happened. Instead a positive value came out of supposed neutral configuration, that which I call existence.

 

[PolyHedral]

I understand. In theory the universe would have cancelled itself out, nothing would exist, but that isn't what happened. Instead a positive value came out of supposed neutral configuration, that which I call existence.

Once you start talking about configurations, you've already implicitly dragged in "something" for the configuration to be of.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I understand. In theory the universe would have cancelled itself out, nothing would exist, but that isn't what happened.

No, that's not what "cancel out" means. It doesn't mean it makes the universe blip out of existence. It just means that for every positive-energy particle, there is a proportionate amount of negative energy in the form of gravity- so when we see how much energy there is in the universe, we have something like this-

+1 (positive particle)
+1 (pp)
+1 (pp)
-3 (gravity)

And when we do the sum of 1+1+1-3, we get zero. The universe didn't "cancel out", but the negative energy in the universe cancels out the positive energy, so that the sum total of energy in the universe is equal to zero.

Instead a positive value came out of supposed neutral configuration, that which I call existence.

Gravity is part of existence. Negative energy does not correspond to "non-existent". Once again, if the zero-energy hypothesis predicted that there would be nothing in existence, it clearly wouldn't be a viable hypothesis- does this really need to be said?

 

[idav]

Once you start talking about configurations, you've already implicitly dragged in "something" for the configuration to be of.

Bad habits die hard.

No, that's not what "cancel out" means. It doesn't mean it makes the universe blip out of existence. It just means that for every positive-energy particle, there is a proportionate amount of negative energy in the form of gravity- so when we see how much energy there is in the universe, we have something like this-

+1 (positive particle)
+1 (pp)
+1 (pp)
-3 (gravity)

And when we do the sum of 1+1+1-3, we get zero. The universe didn't "cancel out", but the negative energy in the universe cancels out the positive energy, so that the sum total of energy in the universe is equal to zero.


Gravity is part of existence. Negative energy does not correspond to "non-existent". Once again, if the zero-energy hypothesis predicted that there would be nothing in existence, it clearly wouldn't be a viable hypothesis- does this really need to be said?

Well its true the universe is not supposed to exist it should have annihilated itself, instead something was created. But yeah it wouldnt be zero but plus one ie god.

 

[metis]

The amount of antimatter didn't fully offset matter, thus we exist. This makes sense since we shouldn't expect nature to be perfect since randomness accounts for much of the action.

 

[Thief]

God is not entropy....the devil is.

God as creator formed the universe (one word).
The Adversary would seek to dismantle the creation....back into the void.

So it seems to me.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well its true the universe is not supposed to exist it should have annihilated itself...

"Should have" according to what?

But yeah it wouldnt be zero...

Well yes, it would- at least that's what the zero-energy hypothesis claims; that it IS zero. But you can't refute a credible scientific hypotheses by simply saying "nuh-uh!", I'm afraid.

... but plus one ie god.

You're just a broken record, aren't you? No, it wouldn't, because as I pointed out, if the zero-energy model is correct, then God would be balanced out by a proportionate gravitational attraction- so it stays zero. But God wouldn't need to be balanced out anyways, because God is not material, he is not made of matter- he is not a physical entity (or at least so the story goes- in reality, he is a fictional entity only ).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Making sense of all the external chaos we are surrounded by ensures a high entropy value.

It doesn't.

 

[idav]

"Should have" according to what?


Well yes, it would- at least that's what the zero-energy hypothesis claims; that it IS zero. But you can't refute a credible scientific hypotheses by simply saying "nuh-uh!", I'm afraid.


You're just a broken record, aren't you? No, it wouldn't, because as I pointed out, if the zero-energy model is correct, then God would be balanced out by a proportionate gravitational attraction- so it stays zero. But God wouldn't need to be balanced out anyways, because God is not material, he is not made of matter- he is not a physical entity (or at least so the story goes- in reality, he is a fictional entity only ).

The whole thing would be god the positive and negative. The point is how you get creation from nothing. They call it the ultimate free lunch sounds like creation ex nihilo. They dont know what would have sparked something that was supposed to be in balance before the big bang event.
What's the Total Energy In the Universe? | LiveScience

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The whole thing would be god the positive and negative.

I don't know what that is supposed to mean.

The point is how you get creation from nothing. They call it the ultimate free lunch sounds like creation ex nihilo.

Sounds like, only not really. Massive cosmic inflation sparked by quantum fluctuations isn't really the same thing as some mysterious... um, spirit speaking the universe into existence. You could call it "creation ex nihilo", but it really has little in common with this Christian theological idea. I suppose if you view the Christian creation myth as an eloquent metaphor for what some physicists are saying about the early universe then OK, but it isn't as if the Christian cosmogony provides any sort of explanation for these events.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Entropy is, to put it in easily understandable terms, the degree of disorder of a system. The OP is referring to the second law of thermodynamics[/url] (albeit in a vague way), which states that entropy of a system is always increasing- that is to say that it becomes more disordered. The problem is, they seem to have it backwards- entropy is not decreasing, we are not approaching a state of peace and harmony.

On the other hand, some apologists misinterpret this as proving that the emergence of life on Earth would be a violation of the second law, as it is a decrease in entropy- the problem is that local increases in entropy do NOT violate the second law, which refers to a closed system; and life is not a closed system.

Yes, well summarised.

 

[PolyHedral]

It doesn't.

Sure it does - lots of thought produces lots of waste heat.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

So with the BBT

At that point before it occurred, the Universe would have 0 entropy correct?

 

[idav]

So with the BBT

At that point before it occurred, the Universe would have 0 entropy correct?

It would be all order, no progression, the disorder would have started once the expansion happened and entropy ends up occurring in sub-systems that are able to harness energies for an extended period of time. For the universe as a whole the entropy will increase again as it winds down and loses energy, so as the chaos cools down the universe heads back to equilibrium. In the beginning it was too hot for anything useful to come out, in the far distant future of the universe it will be too cold.

 

[Thief]

It would be all order, no progression, the disorder would have started once the expansion happened and entropy ends up occurring in sub-systems that are able to harness energies for an extended period of time. For the universe as a whole the entropy will increase again as it winds down and loses energy, so as the chaos cools down the universe heads back to equilibrium. In the beginning it was too hot for anything useful to come out, in the far distant future of the universe it will be too cold.

So back to the beginning?......back to the void?

 

[s2a]

Making sense of all the external chaos we are surrounded by ensures a high entropy value.
As disorder decreases, peace and harmony prevails, the entropy value is decreased. The need for a God diminishes.
God is therefore not only love (which needs to be all inclusive) but understanding/wisdom also.
The concept of "God" being a value attributed to a personal growth/development system/scale that measures intellect and compassion.
Less a scale of love than a scale of truth. Through the trial of pain, suffering, loss, we gain pain and God.
As individuals we are all different, experiencing different levels of pain, making sense of disorder.
So the question is, how can we as individuals, decrease the level of disharmony/disorder in the outside world?

Interestingly premised point...

Which (if true) also begs an alternative inquiry..

How can we, as individuals...decrease (or prevent) the possibility of any imminent comet strike upon Earth?

Seems an equally fair question...

WWJD?