1. Find your way through the deepest dungeon in the 18th Mini Mapping Contest Poll.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. A brave new world lies beyond the seven seas. Join the 34th Modeling Contest today!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Check out the Staff job openings thread.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Hive 3 Remoosed BETA - NOW LIVE. Go check it out at BETA Hive Workshop! Post your feedback in this new forum BETA Feedback.
Dismiss Notice
60,000 passwords have been reset on July 8, 2019. If you cannot login, read this.

Entropy points to the existence of a Creator

Discussion in 'Medivh's Tower' started by 1)ark_NiTe, Apr 24, 2009.

  1. 1)ark_NiTe

    1)ark_NiTe

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,680
    Resources:
    5
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    3
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    5
    I saw this argument posted on a website and I myself cannot find anything wrong with it that makes it invalid. It seems very logical to me.

    However, I have a feeling there is something wrong with it because we'd probably hear this argument more often. Can anyone find something wrong with this argument?

     
  2. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    Not this one again... yawn.

    Incorrect. Gravity could theoretically cause the dominance of supermassive black holes (Which already exist) which could then recombine into a single singularity, and there we have it. This is all hypothetical, but so is heat death in the first place.

    Note that heat death also assumes the universe is a closed system (which we're not sure of) and that the distribution does not have to be uniform.

    EDIT: Some numbers -

    Age of the universe: 1.37*1010yrs
    Life of a main sequence red dwarf: 1014yrs
    Life of an unsupplied supermassive black hole (~1011 solar masses): 10100yrs
    Estimated heat-production age of the universe assuming heat death: up to 101076yrs

    Don't wait up. Unless the universe is truly infinite and heat death applies, well, don't count on it any time soon.

    See the first quote. Also, the volume does not have to increase with time - for example, one hypothesis for the end of the universe is a big bounce.

    No we haven't.

    This argument was refuted hundreds of years ago by anyone with a brain (the implied creator part).

    Invalid assumption. Take the singularity theory and the big bang after it. That's something greater than or equal to itself, last time I checked.

    Oh, and there is also a lot of evidence backing it up (rather than the lack thereof for a creator).

    Assuming the universe was not uncaused, which is an invalid assumption. Also assuming something cannot cause itself, which is also an invalid assumption.

    It is impossible to be infinite in time (implied: outside of time), as time is defined by events, and to be a mover then it has to interact with time.

    If you mean simply eternal, then this can be called as supporting both sides since the assumptions that attempt to restrict it are all invalid.

    Not a valid assumption, as outlined above.

    Invalid conclusion as the assumptions are invalid. It does not have to be incredibly powerful, either - with sufficient energy density the universe is spontaneous.

    Also, if there was some theoretical way to modify constants (go into the constant library of the universeTM or something), changing planck's constant would, among other things, potentially allow you to violate conservation of energy.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2009
  3. 1)ark_NiTe

    1)ark_NiTe

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,680
    Resources:
    5
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    3
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    5
    Thanks for the response, however I have some problems with what you've written. Keep in mind that I DID NOT write the argument I posted, I found it.

    Yes, but Occam's razor would favor a less complicated assumption. I actually think the first assumption makes the most sense. If the universe was infinitely old then the entropy of the universe would be infinitely great. The universe would be unordered and chaotic. Which it is not. Which is why we know the universe had a beginning and has not always existed.

    If I may politely correct you, the theory of singularity says that all of the energy that exists now was super-condensed into an infinitely minuscule point. The quality of energy that existed at that moment was much, much greater than what resulted afterward.

    The universe would have to be caused if it has not always existed. Furthermore, I don't quite see how it is invalid to assume that something cannot cause itself. How can an Effect be a Cause?
     
  4. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    Occam's razor would predict the lack of a creator as it is an unnecessary variable, so that argument really falls in its own face.

    And heat death assumes the fundamental interactions do not overcome it, which is not necessarily valid. It also, as I mentioned, assumes a closed universe. It also assumes the lack of a bounce. It also assumes dark matter is not particularly important. It also assumes... (you get the idea).

    The amount of the energy did not increase, of course (as far as we know - energy isn't conserved at any one point in time, contrary to popular belief). However, space and time emerged (for example).

    Because the first cause has to cause itself or be eternal, either of which can apply to basically anything, as shown above.
     
  5. 1)ark_NiTe

    1)ark_NiTe

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,680
    Resources:
    5
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    3
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    5
    Hmmmmm. Fair enough! I had a feeling this one was too good to be true. By the way you are extremely intelligent for being 17.

    Do you think that there is any possible to decrease entropy in closed system?

    And judging by what you said above, are there arguments that say the Universe may be an open system?
     
  6. TheDivineBoss

    TheDivineBoss

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Messages:
    4,562
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Quotes, copying and maturity have more in common with Poot (and us).



    I don't say there is or is not a God, but there was a Big Bang and all.

    Imagine this:

    God: Hey let's clap with my hands and create a bang! I call it a Big Bang!
    God: Now let's see what'll happen after a few billion years.
     
  7. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    As I said, in the case of a closed system it tends to boil down to the behaviour of the interactions versus the amount of heat present. Also, I should add here that if you give any one particle enough energy it starts going into producing more matter, so heat death also requires pretty strange conditions.

    Plus, as I said, we're not really sure what dark matter and dark energy does or does not do in relation to 'regular' matter, or the nature of their existence for that matter. In general, the heat death question can't be much more than speculation with our current understanding of the universe.

    Very many. We're not too sure on how many dimensions there are, whether there are or are not plausible arguments for alternate universes, what the behaviour of an open universe space-wise would do (and the big bang theory predicts three shapes, two of which are open), etc.
     
  8. Teh_Ephy

    Teh_Ephy

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    3,042
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    The first law of entropy: All systems tend towards disorder.

    Find the start and end of a Möbius strip, or a circle.
     
  9. WILL THE ALMIGHTY

    WILL THE ALMIGHTY

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,352
    Resources:
    56
    Models:
    42
    Icons:
    8
    Packs:
    1
    Skins:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Tutorials:
    3
    Resources:
    56
    Thread reopened, as long as it stays away from religious debating, all right?
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2009
  10. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    Actually, it only applies to closed systems, which is hugely different.

    "the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."
     
  11. Hoernchen

    Hoernchen

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    365
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    2
    You do realize that matter and energy can not be destroyed, but only transformed? This is one of the most basic physical laws. To say that the universe was created is to suggest that this law is invalid.

    Furthermore, the ass-umption, that if something wasn't there in the first place, a God has had to have created it, isn't thought-out very well, and is a paradox, since you'd have to explain what would have created the creator, and all these arguments could then just as well be used on explaining why the universe is infinite.

    Wouldn't it be possible for the universe to not have been created, but instead have changed. Many think that the universe was created from the big bang, but could it be that this bang is just a part of an endless cycle of the universe expanding and collapsing, like a Phoenix is born, falls to ashes and reborn again.
     
  12. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    Matter can be created and destroyed, and that's been known for the better part of the 20th century (at least). Also, energy is not really conserved as long as it is within the fundamental uncertainty, as I mentioned in my first post (look into fundamental interactions and the heisenburg uncertainty principle for more).

    Hell, we routinely create matter in experiments.
     
  13. Hoernchen

    Hoernchen

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Messages:
    365
    Resources:
    2
    Maps:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    2
    Wikid what you said ("Matter creation:conversion of massless particles into one or more massive particles") and matter can still not be created of nothing. As I said before, matter and energy can only be transformed, hence to create matter you need at least some energy or other matter (massless particles) in order to create it and vice versa, you can turn matter into energy.

    Matter and energy can not pop into existence without cause, because they can only be transformed. Hence, they have to have existed in some form or another since infinity.
     
  14. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    Yes they can. See: particle interaction (it is cause, but not in the traditional sense, and it violates conservation of energy at any given point in time).
     
  15. Pyritie

    Pyritie

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Messages:
    11,356
    Resources:
    60
    Models:
    30
    Icons:
    9
    Packs:
    3
    Skins:
    12
    Tools:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Tutorials:
    4
    Resources:
    60
    Stars do it all the time. So do black holes.
     
  16. Captain Griffen

    Captain Griffen

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,001
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    3
    Resources:
    3
    You assume shit loads. EG: You assume the universe hasn't been continually expanding and contracting (or big banging-big crunching). That assumption alone, together with the expansion of the universe (assuming that has been continuing since the big bang), is sufficient to prove the universe is not infinitely old. You don't need entropy when you make huge contentious assertions like that.
     
  17. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    No they don't. Well, black holes are theorized to create matter, but that's a separate issue.
     
  18. Pyritie

    Pyritie

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Messages:
    11,356
    Resources:
    60
    Models:
    30
    Icons:
    9
    Packs:
    3
    Skins:
    12
    Tools:
    1
    Maps:
    1
    Tutorials:
    4
    Resources:
    60
    What about white holes then?
     
  19. PurplePoot

    PurplePoot

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,161
    Resources:
    3
    Maps:
    1
    Spells:
    1
    Tutorials:
    1
    Resources:
    3
    There is no evidence to suggest that white holes exist and plenty to suggest they don't.
     
  20. BlargHonk

    BlargHonk

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,119
    Resources:
    0
    Resources:
    0
    Apparently most of you don't know of Hawking Radiation

    Hooray for Virtual Particles