[Strickley]

If our thoughts are infinate, and the universe is also infinate, then shouldn't everything that passes through our thoughts exist? If you can imagine it , it probably exists!

[Stratmando]

Sounds like you are saying "Everything has already been Invented/thought of"?
I think we are limited by our Imigination, and Imigination is Limitless?

[jcaron2]

I think that's more metaphysics than physics. :-)

For what it's worth, neither our thoughts nor the universe are infinite. Vast, but not infinite.

[ebaines]

Also keep in mind that even though your imagination is not infinte, it is certainly capable of imagining things that are impossible, and hence things can't exist anywhere in this universe (unless our basic understanding of physics is wrong). For example anything that violates the fundamental laws of thermodynamics or involves traveling faster than light can be envisioned in our imaginations but can not actually occur anywhere in the universe. On "Star Trek" we are used to seeing transporters, warp drives, and even time travel - but sorry, not possible.

[TUT317]

Also keep in mind that even though your imagination is not infinte, it is certainly capable of imagining things that are impossible, and hence things can't exist anywhere in this universe (unless our basic understanding of physics is wrong). For example anything that violates the fundamental laws of thermodynamics or involves traveling faster than light can be envisioned in our imaginations but can not actually occur anywhere in the universe. On "Star Trek" we are used to seeing transporters, warp drives, and even time travel - but sorry, not possible.

Hi ebaines,

Your example, of thermodynamics suddenly reminded of something I read in a different thread.

The claim was that the idea of a universe always existing goes against the second law of thermodynamics. I thought this was a rather interesting claim and would be better suited to the physics section.

They were no doubt suggesting that an infinite universe would have 'run its course' a long time ago and entropy would be well established. The problem is how do we end up with complexity? In other words, there must be someone or something keeping the system ' alive' and complex with their input.

I think the analogy was an engineer taking advantage of his/her knowledge of thermodynamics and using it to create a complex system.
Naturally, the original assumption about an infinite universe centres on the idea that it has always been a closed system.

The idea that a beginning universe requires a creator is a reasonable assumption, but I disagree that an eternal universe violates the second law of thermodynamics. No violation would occur if it turns out gravity is 'leaking' from our universe. This would point to a theory of an open universe.

Tut

[ebaines]

Tut:

I don't understand what you mean abut gravity "leaking" from the universe - what does that mean, and how would it help with an infinite age argument?

I think it's pretty clear that the universe is not infinite in size (see Hubble's Law). Which leads naturally to the conclusion that it's not infinite in age either.

The arguments that some people put forward that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics somehow precludes "complexity" are incorrect. To get right to the point - even though life is complex there is nothing in Thermodynamics that says life could not have evolved from more chaotic conditions on Earth. All that's needed (from a thermodynamics point of view) is an external energy source. That energy source is the sun, or perhaps geothermal heat sources. With this input of energy the local entropy of an area on earth can decrease (stated another way - the amount of order in a local area can increase) and ordered states required for the evolution of life can come about. All that the 2nd Law says is that there must be a corresponding increase in entropy someplace else that equals or exceeds this local decrease in entropy. Hence the entrpy of the sun increases as it generates energy that life on Earth needs.

BTW - if this wasn't true then devices such as air conditioners and refrigerators couldn't exist. From a thermo point of view these devices decrease local entropy by separating hot air from cold, but because of the 2nd Law they require an external energy source to operate, and the generation of that energy results in increased entropy of the system as a whole.

Over time - many billions of years - the increasing entropy of the sun as it generates energy (and similarly the increasing entropy of other stars as well) leads to a universe that is ultimately cold and dark. This is another argunment as to how we know the universe is not infinite in age.

What thermodynamics can't answer is how the energy of the universe came about in the first place.

[TUT317]

Tut:

I don't understand what you mean abut gravity "leaking" from the universe - what does that mean, and how would it help with an infinite age argument?

I think it's pretty clear that the universe is not infinite in size (see Hubble's Law). Which leads naturally to the conclusion that it's not infinite in age either.

The arguments that some people put forward that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics somehow precludes "complexity" are incorrect. To get right to the point - even though life is complex there is nothing in Thermodynamics that says life could not have evolved from more chaotic conditions on Earth. All that's needed (from a thermodynamics point of view) is an external energy source. That energy source is the sun, or perhaps geothermal heat sources. With this input of energy the local entropy of an area on earth can decrease (stated another way - the amount of order in a local area can increase) and ordered states required for the evolution of life can come about. All that the 2nd Law says is that there must be a corresponding increase in entropy someplace else that equals or exceeds this local decrease in entropy. Hence the entrpy of the sun increases as it generates energy that life on Earth needs.

BTW - if this wasn't true then devices such as air conditioners and refrigerators couldn't exist. From a thermo point of view these devices decrease local entropy by separating hot air from cold, but because of the 2nd Law they require an external energy source to operate, and the generation of that energy results in increased entropy of the system as a whole.

Over time - many billions of years - the increasing entropy of the sun as it generates energy (and similarly the increasing entropy of other stars as well) leads to a universe that is ultimately cold and dark. This is another argunment as to how we know the universe is not infinite in age.

What thermodynamics can't answer is how the energy of the universe came about in the first place.

Hi ebaines,

A bit hard to sum up the article and put forward my position in a few lines. Here is the article itself:

http;//apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article-2106

I would be interested in you assessment.

Tut

[jcaron2]

Tut, your link has a couple of typos. The semicolon and the dash.

Apologetics Press - God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer?s Perspective

[ebaines]

The article is fine (in my view) right up to the Conclusions section, in which his logic falls off the track. He jumps from an argument that thermodynamics can't explain a spontaneous generation of the universe (agreed - scientists can't explain what happened at the Big Bang prior to about 10^-40 seconds), to a conclusion that the Theory of Evolution must be in error. That is a total non-sequitor. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the cosmology of the universe. It does not attempt to describe the origins of life, much less the origins of the universe. Evolution only addresses how life forms evolve over time. He falls into the usual trap of labelling all people who look for natural explanations of how the universe works as "evolutionists."

[jcaron2]

Wow. So this guy goes through great pains to explain, through thermodynamics, that the universe couldn't have existed for an infinite amount of time so far and couldn't have spontaneously appeared out of nothing. I certainly agree with both of those statements. He therefore concludes, however, that the only other POSSIBLE EXPLANATION is that the God of the Bible must have created it.

Hmmmmm... so apparent violation of the laws of thermodynamics invalidates evolution, which proves the existence of a supernatural being who, himself, happens to violate all the laws of thermodynamics? Yeah... that's MUCH more likely. :rolleyes:

Far be it from me to be able to explain the origins of the universe, but I can at least point out that the laws of thermodynamics only work in a regime where time marches forward in a linear fashion. We know that both time and space are "bent" by gravity. Why would anybody assume that time would behave in a linear fashion when the universe was compressed to the size of a period? The entire concept of "beginning", "ending", "always", etc. are constructs of our own limited perception of time. To us humans, living our entire existence in an environment of minuscule gravity, time marches forward in one direction at a constant rate. To suggest that it would behave in the same way in the extreme conditions of an uber-condensed universe is ridiculous. Time could very well loop back on itself, the same way the there's no "beginning" or "end" to the surface of the earth, even though it appears flat from the point of view of a little tiny human. Does the Earth therefore violate the law of conservation of mass? Or maybe time varies in some sinusoidal fashion, periodically reversing. Or, more likely, maybe it does things far, far, far, more complicated that my mind can't possibly grasp any more than I can picture a 6-dimensional object. The point is, I have no idea how time would behave or what implications that would have on the laws of thermodynamics, but I'm at least bright enough to know that I can't just extrapolate based on my own extremely limited view of it.

[ebaines]

JC - your point about time is a good one. I remember Stephen Hawking remarking that talking about what came "before" the Big Bang is like talking about a place that is north of the north pole. Perhaps there was no "before." It's a hard concept to grasp - just as it would be hard to explain to someone living near the equator that there is a place where it is impossible to take even one small step to the north.

[Strickley]

Who's to say ? If some can't possibly grasp any more than a picture of a 6-dimensional object , then how can they answer any questions beyond their own train of thought? Isn't it possible all things are possible ? Esp if the theory of God is true . Or even if the theory of " everything starting from a random non-existant energy force " is true.
And what about the newest findings through string theory, that has started to explain a whole new plain that contains beings commonly known as "ghosts"? Is that also impossible ? Why are we so afraid of being called fools when death doesn't even exist in its entirety ?

[jcaron2]

I defer back to my metaphysics comment. ;)

[TUT317]

Whos to say ? If some can't possibly grasp any more than a picture of a 6-dimensional object , then how can they answer any questions beyond their own train of thought? Isnt it possible all things are possible ? Esp if the theory of God is true . Or even if the theory of " everything starting from a random non-existant energy force " is true.
And what about the newest findings through string theory, that has started to explain a whole new plain that contains beings commonly known as "ghosts"? Is that also impossible ? Why are we so afraid of being called fools when death doesnt even exist in its entirety ?

Hi Strikley,

I would say that you statement is basically correct. If something is conceivable then it has a probability factor. I am not sure about the role of God or randomness but this is a basic truism when empiricism is taken to its logical conclusion. We can never claim that it is 100 percent certain pigs will never fly. Obviously, some probabilities are extraordinarily unlikely.

I think I mentioned in a previous post that Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells us that if we were to run into a brick wall every thirty seconds for the next 15 billion years there will be a least one occasion in that time when we will pass through the wall. The important point being that Heisenberg tells us why this is so.

In relation to your second claim about String Theory and 'ghosts' I have been wondering for a number of years now when someone was going to put forward this as an 'offshoot' of strings. Interestingly enough this relates to my earlier comment about gravity 'leaking' out of our universe. If something can leak out then it is reasonable to assume that some things can 'leak' in. The problem centres on what do we mean by 'things'. It think it should be taken to mean physical and or energy. As to the category 'ghosts'. Well, I am not sure which heading these entities come under. I have my own metaphysical theory of 'ghosts' and extra dimensions. Naturally it is of little value because we cannot bridge the gap between metaphysics and science.

Off the top of my head I think one of the experiments of the Large Hadron Collider is to try and record particles disappearing from our universe. I think this would be evidence in favour of existence of extra dimensions.

[ebaines]

Hi Strikley,
Off the top of my head I think one of the experiments of the Large Hadron Collider is to try and record particles disappearing from our universe. I think this would be evidence in favour of existence of extra dimensions.

Not quite. It is hoped that the Large Hadron Collider will either confirm or deny the existence of the Higgs boson, which is the only particle that is part of the "standard model" of quantum machanics that has not yet been directly observed. This is the particle that is thought to be responsible for giving mass to certain messenger particles such as the W and Z bosons, (which mediate the weak force) while other particles such as the photon are massless (photons mediate electromagnetism). I don't think there is any objective here to see if particles "disappear" from our universe.

By the way, while string theory postulates the existence of ten dimensions (or eleven, depending on how you count), the theory is purely mathematical. There is way of ever observing strings directly, short of building a collider that is larger than our solar system. They're going to have to come up with other ways to experimentally confirm or deny string theory.

[TUT317]

Not quite. It is hoped that the Large Hadron Collider will either confirm or deny the existence of the Higgs boson, which is the only particle that is part of the "standard model" of quantum machanics that has not yet been directly observed. This is the particle that is thought to be responsible for giving mass to certain messenger particles such as the W and Z bosons, (which mediate the weak force) while other particles such as the photon are massless (photons mediate electromagnetism). I don't think there is any objective here to see if particles "disappear" from our universe.

By the way, while string theory postulates the existence of ten dimensions (or eleven, depending on how you count), the theory is purely mathematical. There is way of ever observing strings directly, short of building a collider that is larger than our solar system. They're going to have to come up with other ways to experimentally confirm or deny string theory.

Hi ebaines,

Yes, the search for the Higgs boson is the most widely known project. I am sure the one I was thinking of was the Graviton. I think it was related to the possibility of gravitons escaping our membrane. Assuming of course we live on a membrane. So you are right strictly speaking gravity doesn't actually 'leak' from our universe.


As far as the second part of your entry is concerned I think you are correct. Unfortunately, String Theory gets too much for me most of the time.

Tut

[Strickley]

Agreed

[Strickley]

I like it ! Its always at lease entertaining to chat about opening up the mind. After all if we don't communicate about theory and things not thought of regular thought, then we aren't really exp. Being the Humans
We are.

[Strickley]

Gravity? Ha, gravity is so simple... lol

[Strickley]

I just want to say thank you to all those minds I have touched ! You are all amazing people and I know one day we will be the cause of the fountain of youth and all its wisdom will come to light because of the brave people that put ideas out there just to test just to see . For the love of everything..! Sorry about the bad english grammar lol . I like to place thoughts out quickly on paper and I'm human I make mistakes lol>~!