What Is All This About Entropy, And Saying The Universe Can't Be Infinite?

[shockwaves]

Check this article out, by a Christian Apologetic. Do they have any founding for this? Are they making assumptions, what?

 

http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/atheism/entropy-and-causality-used-proof-gods-existence

[NotBlinded]

I didn't read it, but I'm assuming they are using the 2nd law of thermodynamics to prove God. They are probably assuming the earth is a closed system that doesn't get energy from outside sources. Which is wrong. I'll leave it at that and let the more scientifically minded people answer better.

[florduh]

They use a deliberate misrepresentation of entropy. The Earth is not a closed system, and that makes all the difference.

[Petrel]

1. The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down."

 

True, they are referring to the concept of "heat death". The universe has not reached heat death. It is 13.7 billion years old.

 

2. Because the universe had a beginning, it is not infinite in size.

 

True.

 

3. All events have causes.

 

This is where things start to get hazy. In the physical world governed by the laws that we've worked out, no events can occur without a cause. However, the beginning of the universe was a singularity. Inside a singularity timespace curvature becomes infinite. All of our laws of physics break down. It's impossible to say whether or not the Big Bang required a cause, since we don't understand the laws governing singularities. Postulate 3 fails.

 

3-A. There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old.

 

This doesn't make sense. A "Big Crunch" would reset the clock to zero, and the new universe would start out at age 0. This being false weakens 4, which depends upon this statement.

 

4. Since the universe is finite and had a beginning, and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.

 

This also does not make sense, as mentioned above. Why does the universe having been born in the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago rule out previous universes born in a repeated cycle? We can't know if there were universes before ours, all we can know is that it looks like if there have been Big Crunches before (although speaking of a time "before" the Big Bang is really meaningless), there will not be one at the end of this universe. Our universe is open, it will end in heat death.

 

Since 3 and 4 are unfounded, 5, 6, and 7 also fail. Sorry, please play again!

[Petrel]

Some of their subpoints are also a bit funny.

 

4-A A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.

 

So God is physically larger than the universe. This statement is nonsense. If you have two universes, I don't see how it's possible to compare the sizes of them. The size of the yardsticks could vary from universe to universe. Speed of light, size of fundamental particles, all of the things we consider fixed depend upon physical constants that may not be the same in every universe. Likewise, you can't say one universe has longer duration than another because there's no fixed timer to count that out. If there is some supernatural entity existing outside the universe, it cannot be measured to say that it is larger than and has a longer duration than the universe. I doubt that they think God is made up of spacetime, so how can his size and duration possibly be measurable, even assuming we could find a yardstick that worked across all universes? Not being physical, he does not even possess those properties!

 

4-B Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe.

1. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exist.

2. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.

 

I have no idea how they are defining "natural to the universe" and determining that God is not. God interferes with the universe, which makes him part of it in my mind--an unpredictable part, but a part nonetheless. It would make more sense to say God contains the universe.

 

4-C An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe, which is finite.

1. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.

 

Because size matters!

 

4-D An uncaused cause would be separate from the universe.

1. Being separate from the universe, which was caused to be, it would not be subject to the laws of the universe since it existed independent of the universe and its laws.

2. This would mean that entropy need not be required of the uncaused cause.

 

As mentioned above, I don't think that the Judeo-Christian God is separate from the universe.

 

5 This uncaused cause is supernatural.

 

1. By supernatural, it is meant completely 'other' than the universe and is not the product of it.

1. This uncaused cause must be incredibly powerful to bring the universe into existence.

 

For all we know, it's child's play to create a universe!

 

However, the more important thing to note is that the singularity preceding the Big Bang was separate from the universe and not subject to the laws of the universe. Therefore from their own argument, a singularity is "supernatural" and sufficient cause for the Big Bang.

[Petrel]

I may be wrong about the universe being finite, there appears to be some disagreement. I think it's finite but a physicist or astronomer would be able to say with more confidence.

[Shyone]

I may be wrong about the universe being finite, there appears to be some disagreement. I think it's finite but a physicist or astronomer would be able to say with more confidence.

I am neither, but I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express have studied and read a lot of things recently.

 

To be honest, there is an almost schizophrenic concept of the universe.

 

Beginning at a point, but boundariless without a "singularity" (no beginning and no single concentration of mass)

 

Limited mass (?) but possibly an infinite number of universes or a universe of infinite size

 

The fact is that we have several theories that fit the current data, but the data is not sufficient to allow for resolution of differences of opinion.

 

We need more data.

 

And it will come - hopefully before I die.

[Legion]

We need more data.

I find it at least equally likely that we do not yet properly understand the data we already have.

[Loren]

4. Since the universe is finite and had a beginning, and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.

 

This also does not make sense, as mentioned above. Why does the universe having been born in the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago rule out previous universes born in a repeated cycle? We can't know if there were universes before ours, all we can know is that it looks like if there have been Big Crunches before (although speaking of a time "before" the Big Bang is really meaningless), there will not be one at the end of this universe. Our universe is open, it will end in heat death.

 

Since 3 and 4 are unfounded, 5, 6, and 7 also fail. Sorry, please play again!

I would add that the way they use their syntax is deliberately misleading. This isn't science, it's word games. Their use of the word, "since," followed by the assertion, "uncaused," creates a false appearance of a logical connection. They use the word, "must," without telling exactly why it, "must."

 

This isn't a logical proposition, it's a misdirection tactic. We call it, "Therefor, JESUS!"

 

For example: "Not all biologists agree on every little point of evolutionary theory, THEREFOR JESUS!!!"

 

Sites like this make flagrant use of the false syllogism. The best example of such a thing I ever ran across went like this:

 

Proposition A. All cats die. (Who could argue with that?)

 

Proposition B. Socrates the great philosopher is dead. (Again, pretty darn factual. Only an idiot would contest it.)

 

Conclusion: Socrates was a cat.

 

It looks like logic. It sounds like logic.

 

It's anything but logic.

 

I could take it further by changing the wording of the concluding statement to, "Conclusion: Socrates must have been a cat."

 

The point is to get the person in a position where they must start conceding points if they're honest, then, they're hit with some kind of whammy, or something dishonorable is slipped by them while they're in a conceding frame of mind.

 

This isn't science, it's psychology. And it's psychology used in a very dishonorable way.

[Shyone]

We need more data.

I find it at least equally likely that we do not yet properly understand the data we already have.

I agree with this.

 

However, it is possible to rationalize almost any data with any theory, so to say we don't understand the data does not mean that there is a clear-cut meaning to the data that is being overlooked.

 

I've got my own little theory, and it can be falsified with more data depending on what the data is. Some theories however that make specific predictions will simply find "explanations" for why data doesn't fit their predictions. Kind of like a "fudge-factor."

 

Contrast the round world versus flat world theories. For some people, the edge of the world is always over the next horizon. For the round worlders, if an edge is found, their theory is falsified.

 

I'm a "round worlder" while most people are "flat worlders" when it comes to cosmology.

 

Maybe some day I'll explain that. But for now, let's just say I don't think the universe has an edge.

[ContraBardus]

It depends on what you define as 'the Universe'.

 

All matter and energy? All of space?

 

If it stops, what's outside of it? Is there a wall or something, some sort of sphere encasing it all? If so, what's on the other side? Is that the Universe too?

 

Is it like some platforming video games, where if you go to far past the 'edge' you pop up on the other side?

 

The idea of limits to the Universe or space is kind of silly really. Even if there is some sort of barrier, even if there's nothing beyond it, there's still infinite nothing.

 

Does that not count as the Universe too? I mean the expanse of nothing is there. Even if there are more of what we'd call 'Universes' it's still out there. Perhaps beyond our ability to travel to for whatever reason, but in strictly literal terms, it really kind of has to go on forever. Even if all we'd call the universe exists within a bubble of some sort, there's still something, an endless void, or whatever outside of it.

 

So, literally speaking, the existence of a finite Universe is rather improbable. I don't really see how such a thing could exist.

[Petrel]

It depends on what you define as 'the Universe'.

 

All matter and energy? All of space?

 

If it stops, what's outside of it? Is there a wall or something, some sort of sphere encasing it all? If so, what's on the other side? Is that the Universe too?

 

Is it like some platforming video games, where if you go to far past the 'edge' you pop up on the other side?

 

The idea of limits to the Universe or space is kind of silly really. Even if there is some sort of barrier, even if there's nothing beyond it, there's still infinite nothing.

 

Does that not count as the Universe too? I mean the expanse of nothing is there. Even if there are more of what we'd call 'Universes' it's still out there. Perhaps beyond our ability to travel to for whatever reason, but in strictly literal terms, it really kind of has to go on forever. Even if all we'd call the universe exists within a bubble of some sort, there's still something, an endless void, or whatever outside of it.

 

So, literally speaking, the existence of a finite Universe is rather improbable. I don't really see how such a thing could exist.

 

I don't have a problem with an infinite universe, providing the data supports it. But I think your way of thinking about it is not firmly grounded. The universe is all that there is, all spacetime and all matter and energy within it. If the universe is finite, and you were able to get a spaceship and fly in a straight line, you would eventually return to your starting point. There's not some wall or barrier that marks the end of the universe.

 

You can't say that there's "nothing" outside the universe because nothing as we think of it is something. The nothingness of space is really made up of spacetime, and at a quantum level it is very busy.

 

The notion of outside our universe is really unthinkable. When I try to think of it, it hurts my head. If it's not hurting your head, you're thinking about it wrong.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

They balk at the thought of eternally existing atoms, but not at an eternally existing god. Why? Not because it is logical, but because it suits their purposes and makes them feel good. Questioning god makes them nervous, while defending the concept makes them feel warm and fuzzy, like their "logic".

 

If our current physical laws (which seem to apply consistently in our current frame of reference) do not apply so well in a singularity, why do they try to apply them to how the singularity came into being? Because it makes sense? No, because it suits their purposes and makes them feel good. They don't want to be critical and examine whether their thought processes make real sense, they created an argument that makes "god" seem like the only possible solution, thus making them ever so clever and sure to get pats on the head from the deity.

 

I remember making similar arguments while a believer, and it was really emotionally satisfying to come up with "gotchas" like these. The purpose wasn't to find truth, but to defend a preconceived notion of the god of the bible making everything (though it could just as easily be applied to Zeus or other deities).

[Petrel]

I remember making similar arguments while a believer, and it was really emotionally satisfying to come up with "gotchas" like these. The purpose wasn't to find truth, but to defend a preconceived notion of the god of the bible making everything (though it could just as easily be applied to Zeus or other deities).

Exactly, they use the trappings of reason, but the whole point is to start with the conclusion and "reason" the route there. Part of the problem with this particular argument is that I don't think the person formulating it is really that familiar with physics. I'm barely familiar, I couldn't do the math to save my life, but I've read enough descriptions of phenomena by people who do understand the math (Black Holes and Time Warps is a good book that mentions some concepts relevant to this topic) that I know a bit about how things work.

 

But ultimately if a person's goal is to reach a particular conclusion come hell or high water, they'll manage it even if it means using slippery definitions, assuming the conclusions, and proposing false dichotomies.

[OrdinaryClay]

The cosmological arguments for God's existence all have the premise that the universe began to exist. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics can be used as reasoning to support this. If the universe were infinite into the pass the 2nd law states that the universe should have died a heat death already. It has not ergo the universe began to exist.

[OrdinaryClay]

They use a deliberate misrepresentation of entropy. The Earth is not a closed system, and that makes all the difference.

The universe is and therefore if the universe existed infinitely into the past it should have died a heat death.

[RankStranger]

Quantum mechanics as a theory breaks down then you get much above an atomic scale. The Theory of Relativity breaks down at extremely small scales.

 

And there's clearly SOMETHING wrong when we try to apply relativity to galactic or larger scales (you know, that whole 'dark matter' thing).

 

So how can we safely assume that our understanding of thermodynamics is meaningful in ANY WAY when we're talking about the entire universe? I've got little to back it up, but I suspect that on a universe-size scale, our questions about beginning, end, time, and causation are moot. We don't understand enough to know what questions to ASK.

[OrdinaryClay]

3. All events have causes.

 

This is where things start to get hazy. In the physical world governed by the laws that we've worked out, no events can occur without a cause. However, the beginning of the universe was a singularity. Inside a singularity timespace curvature becomes infinite. All of our laws of physics break down. It's impossible to say whether or not the Big Bang required a cause, since we don't understand the laws governing singularities. Postulate 3 fails.

We can not describe the exact physics into the Planck Epoch, but science's best extrapolation is that it had a beginning. All other singularities we currently know of had beginnings(black holes) It is rational to assume the universe did also. It would be a larger miracle to assume the singularity that resulted in the universe started with no cause then to assume it did start from a cause.

 

3-A. There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old.

 

This doesn't make sense. A "Big Crunch" would reset the clock to zero, and the new universe would start out at age 0. This being false weakens 4, which depends upon this statement.

 

4. Since the universe is finite and had a beginning, and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.

 

This also does not make sense, as mentioned above. Why does the universe having been born in the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago rule out previous universes born in a repeated cycle? We can't know if there were universes before ours, all we can know is that it looks like if there have been Big Crunches before (although speaking of a time "before" the Big Bang is really meaningless), there will not be one at the end of this universe. Our universe is open, it will end in heat death.

 

Since 3 and 4 are unfounded, 5, 6, and 7 also fail. Sorry, please play again!

There is no emperical evidence for a "Big Crunch". It is pure speculation at the moment.

[OrdinaryClay]

I may be wrong about the universe being finite, there appears to be some disagreement. I think it's finite but a physicist or astronomer would be able to say with more confidence.

The only disagreement is whether it is finite into the future. All agree it is finite into the past.

[OrdinaryClay]

It depends on what you define as 'the Universe'.

 

All matter and energy? All of space?

 

The universe is all space-time, matter/energy and the laws that govern them.

[OrdinaryClay]

Quantum mechanics as a theory breaks down then you get much above an atomic scale. The Theory of Relativity breaks down at extremely small scales.

 

And there's clearly SOMETHING wrong when we try to apply relativity to galactic or larger scales (you know, that whole 'dark matter' thing).

 

So how can we safely assume that our understanding of thermodynamics is meaningful in ANY WAY when we're talking about the entire universe? I've got little to back it up, but I suspect that on a universe-size scale, our questions about beginning, end, time, and causation are moot. We don't understand enough to know what questions to ASK.

No one working on unifying QM and Gravity is questioning the 2nd law of thermodynamics. We trust the 2nd law for the same reason we trust the conservation laws. Neither have ever been violated despite our very large body of knowledge in physics. Could it be that these fundamental laws are violated somewhere in the universe? Sure, but it would be baseless speculation to think so at the moment.

[Ouroboros]

The cosmological arguments for God's existence all have the premise that the universe began to exist. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics can be used as reasoning to support this. If the universe were infinite into the pass the 2nd law states that the universe should have died a heat death already. It has not ergo the universe began to exist.

Does the second law of thermodynamics apply to God?

[Shyone]

I may be wrong about the universe being finite, there appears to be some disagreement. I think it's finite but a physicist or astronomer would be able to say with more confidence.

The only disagreement is whether it is finite into the future. All agree it is finite into the past.

Never say "all."

 

It shows your ignorance and your preconceptions.

 

When confronted with a theory you don't know about, you would dismiss it because it doesn't conform to what you want to see. So there is no point in presenting new theories to you.

 

You can stay ignorant. It fits everything else you want to believe.

[Shyone]

No one working on unifying QM and Gravity is questioning the 2nd law of thermodynamics. We trust the 2nd law for the same reason we trust the conservation laws. Neither have ever been violated despite our very large body of knowledge in physics. Could it be that these fundamental laws are violated somewhere in the universe? Sure, but it would be baseless speculation to think so at the moment.

Two things:

 

1. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. You seem to think the universe is closed, but that is at least contradicted by the expansion of the universe. The problem isn't with the second law, but the misapplication of the second law.

 

2. "fundamental laws [being] violated somewhere in the universe" is one definition of gods. I agree that these laws are not being violated.

[OrdinaryClay]

I may be wrong about the universe being finite, there appears to be some disagreement. I think it's finite but a physicist or astronomer would be able to say with more confidence.

The only disagreement is whether it is finite into the future. All agree it is finite into the past.

Never say "all."

 

It shows your ignorance and your preconceptions.

 

When confronted with a theory you don't know about, you would dismiss it because it doesn't conform to what you want to see. So there is no point in presenting new theories to you.

 

You can stay ignorant. It fits everything else you want to believe.

There is a mathematical proof that it is finite into the past. I suppose there may be someone who denies it. Can you name someone who believes it is infinite into the past and has empirical evidence to back it up?