k thx

So you have strong evidence that Santa does not exist, as well as having evidence that the attributed effects of Santa are better explained by something else?

Great, start a new thread listing all of this for us!

And I told you that I disagreed with this. The entropy of the early universe was not extremely low, it was close to as high as it could be without violating the other laws. Just like it is now, just like it was 10^9 years ago and just like it will be in 10^9 years.

Seems totally bizarre to me. If you have shuffle enough decks of cards, 1 will come out exactly ordered. This state is just as likely as any other single state that you can observe. If you want to call this state supernatural you have to call all the other states supernatural as well. So it seems pretty silly.

Lol, I doubt anybody takes you seriously but here is what actually happened. You made a totally wrong statement about physics. I told you it was totally wrong. You made an authority argument and said that Susskind and Reese agree with your totally wrong view. You posted a youtube link as evidence. I wrote in response

So I clearly didn't even watch the video when I wrote that. That is obv a +EV bet, you said something stupid, it is much more likely to be your own invention than something a respectable physicist actually said. After I watched the video, I agreed that the statement was very, very misleading and borderline factually incorrect so I would have lost that bet had we formally made it.

All along, I (and everybody that knows some physics) realized that I was correct on the physics and Reese/Susskind doesn't actually think that what you said, even if they spoke poorly. Here is David Steele explaining it

There was no backpeddeling at all. Without looking at the video, I made a hugely plus EV bet that I got unlucky and lost and clearly admitted that I would have lost that bet. I know you are not a serious poster and say stupid stuff on purpose, but it isn't really fair to make statements about other people when you do that.

And to answer the OP


I would just say that all processes seem to result in an increase in entropy. If there exist processes that are not "naturalistic" whatever that means, it is not clear that they could involve decreases in global entropy. Obv none have been observed, naturalistic or not, that likely involve a decrease in entropy.

I don't think this is true at all. I see no reason to think that the creation of the universe involved going from high to low entropy.

It doesn't appear to be so different from observable naturalistic processes based on anything you have said

Nothing presented indicates calling it natural is or could be fallacious.

This claim contradicts everything I have read on the subject. I think you're out in whacko land with this one. There seems to be no controversy that the universe started out with remarkably low entropy in the physics world.

That sentence does not even really make any sense. Remarkably low compared to what? The entropy of the universe right now is remarkably low compared to what it will be near heat death. Give me something I can compare it to. The entropy of the early universe is remarkably low compared to what?

I have no idea what you have been reading (Sean Carrol?) but I can assure you nothing I have said is controversial.

Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos at the moment. I'm about half way thru and so far its been a good book(as in easy for a numbnut like me to follow). I was going to pickup something by Susskind next but people keep mentioning this Carrol person so I might read him next.

This whole entropy gig I have been on lately was inspired by Greene's writings.

There is alot of stuff online by Carrol about his book so you can decide if you want to read it next. I haven't read it but it has alot to do with time and the arrow of time etc from what I've seen. Some of his views are pretty out there, which is why I thought you were reading him

http://preposterousuniverse.com/eternitytohere/

It is only very different from observed naturalistic processes if you assume that the universe is a closed system. I would perhaps suggest that if what you say about the initial entropic states of the universe is correct that the second law of thermodynamics indicates that it is not such a system.

The observable naturalistic processes you mention suggest that entropy always increases, but that a localised area can appear to be of reduced entropy if it is at the expense of greater entropy throughout the rest of the system.

Since that is what ‘observing naturalistic processes’ tells us then applying this knowledge to the birth of the universe is indicative of the universe being part of a larger system and thus that there is no reason to suppose that the creation of the universe was anything other than a naturalistic process. One in which the local entropy of our universe was reduced at the expense of higher entropy elsewhere.

Now, I'm only a bemused amateur when it comes to these matters so I assume I make elementary mistakes all the time when I think about them, but the reason why I would prefer such an explanation over the invocation of a god is precisely because this explanation is directly utilising the 2nd law and observations of the naturalistic processes around us and extrapolating from there.

I would not ever dismiss the possibility that there is a creator, but there must be a special burden of proof provided by those who wish to invoke a god in processes where explanations can be advanced in which one is not required.

IMO, this defeats the purpose of the question, which intends "universe" to include all matter and energy.

Again, I'm no expert in such matters but surely it is the nature of that universe which is under discussion. Perhaps the big bang is a fairly innocuous local thermodynamic event in a much greater system which in and of itself contains all this matter, energy and potentiality of which you speak.

I am also not sure that the question does intend such a thing as you imply since the question explicitly states the origin of the universe to be a change in condition from high to low entropy states. This clearly gives (incorrectly or not) a notion of before and after. Since OP also invokes a Roger Penrose lecture as evidence of this feature and since that lecture is about the big bang I can only assume that what OP is defining as universe is that which was created by the big bang.

Nonetheless since there is no vital reason to suppose that the big bang was a single isolated event I see no reason to suppose that that which was produced by it is all that is the case.

I agree that the remarkably low amount of entropy at the initialization of the universe strongly suggest it isn't a closed system. I just think it also suggests intellect at work too.

But quantum mechanics does allow it to be closed system as well. There is a video I linked in this thread of a lecture by Penrose. I don't recall if Penrose actually said it or implied it but basically its possible that eventually all matter decays(including black holes)...the universe is a state of maximum entropy and eventually there is a quantum fluctuation that starts the big bang.

are you ever going to answer max when he asked you, "remarkably low compared to what?"....? Why is it remarkable that is was what it was? And the opposite would have then been unremarkable? Why?

Compared to maximum entropy it could have.

But I did read that Victor Stenger believes the universe began in a state of maximal entropy for its volume....that subsequent expansion has increased its capacity for entropy much faster than entropy has actually risen during the lifetime of the Universe. So I no longer consider Max's claim that the universe started out with high entropy to be out in crackpot land.

So all this remarkably low entropy stuff you've been talking about is over now? Your position has changed?

And stu, when you are the only person on this entire forum who thinks Max is a crackpot/chump/idiot or whatever your word of the day is for him, maybe its time to examine your ability to listen to what he says with such bias? He's all around well respected in the SMP forum where the best and brightest are found, yet you constantly insult his intelligence. Its truly pathetic and makes you look childish.

Really, it has not even been shown that there was anytime in which the entropy of the universe (meaning our big bang bubble) went from a high value to a low value. EVEN if it did, what you said is possible and our universe could be a low entropy bubble out of the multiverse, which caused an overall increase in entropy to the total universe.

If I was 100% sure that a god created the universe, I am still not sure at all that it required a second law violation. Just like if I found out that god created the Earth or humans, I still see no reason for it to do it in a way that violates the 2nd law.

But this is true for every second of the universe. The entropy is ALWAYS lower than the maximum it COULD be, for your definition of could.

No, All I am saying is that since there are two people who hold the position that the universe began with maximum entropy(Victor Stenger and Max Raker) that makes it a movement.

I treat Max the way he treats others. I don't think his level of respect in SMP is as high as you think it is.

Lol love the insanity here. You say a view I have is crackpot, then you find some authority who has the same view so now it is no longer crackpot. You are not even able to think and decide on your own which views are crackpot but for some reason you have no problem throwing the term around. Out of curiosity, how well do you think you are regarded in RGT?

Max your the second guy in the video, the guy with the green shirt and black shorts. Stengar is the first guy, with no shirt and black shorts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2FzpAFegXE

Watch the video and you will understand why I said you idea is no longer crackpot but rather a movement.

Except I don't ever remember even reading Stengar much less getting this argument from him. I came up with it just using basic extensions of known physics. Since you can't do that yourself, shouldn't you refrain from calling people crackpots?