Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Nature
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-24-2011, 11:16 AM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,201,428 times
Reputation: 3321

Advertisements

I'm predicting this thread will devolve into some kind of violation of Godwin's law. Wait for it...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-24-2011, 12:12 PM
 
6,484 posts, read 6,594,130 times
Reputation: 1275
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
I'm predicting this thread will devolve into some kind of violation of Godwin's law. Wait for it...
nice
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 02:09 PM
2K5Gx2km
 
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system. Since the system is isolated, it has a finite amount of energy to do work. Once that energy is exhausted (it is never destroyed, only converted to something else, i.e., matter, for instance via E=mc2), the system is said to be in equilibrium. There can be no perpetual motion machines because the universe has a finite amount of matter and energy. It is a closed system. The universe is finite but unbounded. So to suggest that there is something rather than nothing therefore something has to be eternal is an example of Reductio ad absurdum.
There is a problem with these two statements. The 2nd Law does not apply to the Vacuum. This is both true on SED and QED physics in my understanding.

1) Are you arguing that all matter/energy does not exist? I do not think so.

2) If not then explain how matter/energy becomes nothing - yet 'it is never destroyed only converted to something else', as you said.

Your assuming that there is an endpoint of the conversion to a non-usable enegy state. The vacuum is not such a state.

Note: I am not using some specialized definition of 'nothing' but the common usage of absolutely no-thing. If that existed then there would never be any-thing.

Reductio ad absurdum just shows a contradiction if the conclusion is not true. My conclusion is true given the 4 statements I made previously - if there is no proof that matter/energy did not exist at one point and if there is no proof that something other than matter/energy exists then matter/energy (in whatever form or state) must have always existed - otherwise nothing would/could have ever existed.

What is more absurd - 1) trying to prove that we do not really exist, 2)that no-thing ever existed yet now exist, or my conclusion 3) something has always existed and based on what we know it is matter/energy? Until you can show that matter/energy (in whatever form or state) did not exist and that something other than matter/energy exists then it is not untrue nor absurd that something exists eternally and that this is matter/energy in some form, state, or ongoing transformations.

Here is what is absurd - something can come from nothing (#2 above). Here is a contradiction in the conclusion based on the definition of the terms.

Who knows maybe I am completely out to lunch on all this but that's my story and I am sticking to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 03:02 PM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,201,428 times
Reputation: 3321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
There is a problem with these two statements. The 2nd Law does not apply to the Vacuum. This is both true on SED and QED physics in my understanding.
Whether or not that is true is irrelevant to the fact that the universe is a closed system, and as such the 2nd law applies; anything that violates the 2nd law in a close system cannot be true.

Quote:
1) Are you arguing that all matter/energy does not exist? I do not think so.
What? No. Where did that come from?

Quote:
2) If not then explain how matter/energy becomes nothing - yet 'it is never destroyed only converted to something else', as you said.
Who said matter/energy becomes nothing? Right. You said that. Just now. I didn't. Natural processes have a preferred direction of progress. Heat flows from something hot to something cold, but can only flow to something hotter via the external addition of more energy. If you are adding energy, you have an open system. If your system is close, the amount of energy is finite, and evntually the system will reach equilibrium. So the second law applies, meaning entropy reins supreme, and eventually everything in the universe will reach equilibrium (meaning the lowest possible energy state). At that point the universe will be essentially dead because it cannot climb out of this state without the addition of more energy. Hence, there are no perpetual motion machines. Hence, your statement "since there is something rather than nothing then something has to be eternal" has no meaning. But don't just take my word for it. Here is the math:



Quote:
Your assuming that there is an endpoint of the conversion to a non-usable enegy state. The vacuum is not such a state.
Whatever gave you that idea?

Quote:
Note: I am not using some specialized definition of 'nothing' but the common usage of absolutely no-thing. If that existed then there would never be any-thing.
Well, that's a problem, since in physics, there is a specialized definition of "nothing", and it refers to zero point energy, or vacuum energy, and more and more experimental data indicates that something akin to vacuum energy (which is a form of negative energy) does exist. So it is not "nothing" as you define it.

But if you want "something from nothing", how about some virtual particles, that is, sub-atomic particles that pop in and out of existence "from nothing".

Quote:
Reductio ad absurdum
Quote:
just shows a contradiction if the conclusion is not true. My conclusion is true given the 4 statements I made previously - if there is no proof that matter/energy did not exist at one point and if there is no proof that something other than matter/energy exists then matter/energy (in whatever form or state) must have always existed - otherwise nothing would/could have ever existed.
Science is not about proof. There are proofs in mathematics and logic, but there are no proofs in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else being equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.


Quote:
What is more absurd - 1) trying to prove that we do not really exist, 2)that no-thing ever existed yet now exist, or my conclusion 3) something has always existed and based on what we know it is matter/energy?
This is not about what is absurd and what is not. This is about what is and what isn't. What isn't is that science says that "no-thing ever existed yet now exist". That is not what science says. The big bang theory (I hate that phrasing, by the way, particularly since it was coined by someone who opposed the theory) says that the universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly, and as it rapidly expanded it cooled, and as it cooled, energy converted to matter, and that matter clumped together to form all the crap that fills the mostly empty space that is the universe. Now, being in an extremely hot and dense state does not indicate that universe started from nothing. If it was extremely hot and dense, it had to be something, so there was a beginning, and that was the beginning of our universe. My point is that since the big bang, the universe has been winding down due to entropy, and that is why you cannot have a perpetual motion machine because everything will eventually reach a state of equillibrium. That was my only point here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 04:41 PM
2K5Gx2km
 
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
Whether or not that is true is irrelevant to the fact that the universe is a closed system, and as such the 2nd law applies; anything that violates the 2nd law in a close system cannot be true.



What? No. Where did that come from?



Who said matter/energy becomes nothing? Right. You said that. Just now. I didn't. Natural processes have a preferred direction of progress. Heat flows from something hot to something cold, but can only flow to something hotter via the external addition of more energy. If you are adding energy, you have an open system. If your system is close, the amount of energy is finite, and evntually the system will reach equilibrium. So the second law applies, meaning entropy reins supreme, and eventually everything in the universe will reach equilibrium (meaning the lowest possible energy state). At that point the universe will be essentially dead because it cannot climb out of this state without the addition of more energy. Hence, there are no perpetual motion machines. Hence, your statement "since there is something rather than nothing then something has to be eternal" has no meaning. But don't just take my word for it. Here is the math:





Whatever gave you that idea?



Well, that's a problem, since in physics, there is a specialized definition of "nothing", and it refers to zero point energy, or vacuum energy, and more and more experimental data indicates that something akin to vacuum energy (which is a form of negative energy) does exist. So it is not "nothing" as you define it.

But if you want "something from nothing", how about some virtual particles, that is, sub-atomic particles that pop in and out of existence "from nothing".



Science is not about proof. There are proofs in mathematics and logic, but there are no proofs in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else being equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.




This is not about what is absurd and what is not. This is about what is and what isn't. What isn't is that science says that "no-thing ever existed yet now exist". That is not what science says. The big bang theory (I hate that phrasing, by the way, particularly since it was coined by someone who opposed the theory) says that the universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly, and as it rapidly expanded it cooled, and as it cooled, energy converted to matter, and that matter clumped together to form all the crap that fills the mostly empty space that is the universe. Now, being in an extremely hot and dense state does not indicate that universe started from nothing. If it was extremely hot and dense, it had to be something, so there was a beginning, and that was the beginning of our universe. My point is that since the big bang, the universe has been winding down due to entropy, and that is why you cannot have a perpetual motion machine because everything will eventually reach a state of equillibrium. That was my only point here.
I think were are talking past one another - or I mistook your points. My point about nothing was in a philosophical sense (in regard to Calvinist) not a physics sense - I agree with you on that in regard to zero-point-energy and virtual particals, etc. I was not trying to define the vacuum as 'nothing' in a physics sense. I was only using it as a state from which matter sprang into existence instead of his Metaphysical Creator that is ontologically different from matter/energy.

If the universe is going to end in a heat death how do think it started out in a hot dense state? Was this hot dense state always there? This is my point - that something other than a Metaphysical Being was there - whatever that might be (even if it is intelligent in some sense) and that this explains our existence and the universe - not as theology says that there was nothing (non-physics sense) then The Metaphysical Being spoke and then something (matter/energy) came into existence.

Last edited by 2K5Gx2km; 08-24-2011 at 04:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 04:53 PM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,201,428 times
Reputation: 3321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
I think were are talking past one another - or I mistook your points. My point about nothing was in a philosophical sense (in regard to Calvinist) not a physics sense - I agree with you on that in regard to zero-point-energy and virtual particals, ect. I was not trying to define the vacuum as 'nothing' in a physics sense. I was only using it as a state from which matter sprang into existence instead of his Metaphysical Creator that is ontologically different from matter/energy.

If the universe is going end in a heat death how do think it started out in a hot dense state? Was this hot dense state always there? This is my point - that something other than a Metaphysical Being was there - whatever that might be (even it it is intelligent in some sense) and that this explains our existence and the universe - not as theology says that there was nothing (non-phsics sense) then The Metaphysical Being spoke and then something (matter/energy) came into existence.
The answer to the first question is that if you wind the clock back and all the physical laws with it, what you end up with is a state of the universe that is proposed to have existed at the instant of the big bang. The cosmic microwave background radiation is helping to provide validation for the theory, as are many other findings, such as the Hubble constant and the fact that the universe is expanding. And it makes sense when you consider how entropy works to bring everything to its lowest energy state over time. Run the clock backwards, and you get the reverse. So at the beginning we had a state involving unimaginable densities and energy levels.

As to the second question, the simple answer is that we don't currently know. This is why physicists are currently playing with all those multibillion dollar instrument packages - we are trying to find out.

But there are plenty of theories (or hypotheses, if you will), most focused around various string theories and multiverses. Stay tuned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 05:09 PM
 
Location: Richardson, TX
8,734 posts, read 13,763,968 times
Reputation: 3807
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
I'm predicting this thread will devolve into some kind of violation of Godwin's law. Wait for it...
Or PanTerra's Law. The law that states that as an online discussion, which delves into Creation/evolution, anywhere on C-D grows longer, the probability that it will get moved into the R-P forum approaches 1.

Last edited by PanTerra; 08-24-2011 at 05:27 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 05:25 PM
2K5Gx2km
 
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
The answer to the first question is that if you wind the clock back and all the physical laws with it, what you end up with is a state of the universe that is proposed to have existed at the instant of the big bang. The cosmic microwave background radiation is helping to provide validation for the theory, as are many other findings, such as the Hubble constant and the fact that the universe is expanding. And it makes sense when you consider how entropy works to bring everything to its lowest energy state over time. Run the clock backwards, and you get the reverse. So at the beginning we had a state involving unimaginable densities and energy levels.

As to the second question, the simple answer is that we don't currently know. This is why physicists are currently playing with all those multibillion dollar instrument packages - we are trying to find out.

But there are plenty of theories (or hypotheses, if you will), most focused around various string theories and multiverses. Stay tuned.
I agree, and am not sure what the whole argument is between us anymore. Whatever existed prior to the expansion - it existed and therefore was something not nothing (non-physics sense). This is where Calvinist jumps off into his Metaphysical 'proofs.' That is all I was arguing agaisnt - even on epistemological grounds. You made a philosophical point about my argument saying it was a Reductio ad Absurdum. Unless Calvinist can show that nothing (non-physics sense) was the state of existence at one point and that something other than matter/energy exists eternally then given what we do know it is more reasonable to conclude that what is eternal is some form, state, or ongoing transformation of matter/energy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2011, 05:54 PM
 
3,423 posts, read 3,201,428 times
Reputation: 3321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
I agree, and am not sure what the whole argument is between us anymore. Whatever existed prior to the expansion - it existed and therefore was something not nothing (non-physics sense). This is where Calvinist jumps off into his Metaphysical 'proofs.' That is all I was arguing agaisnt - even on epistemological grounds. You made a philosophical point about my argument saying it was a Reductio ad Absurdum. Unless Calvinist can show that nothing (non-physics sense) was the state of existence at one point and that something other than matter/energy exists eternally then given what we do know it is more reasonable to conclude that what is eternal is some form, state, or ongoing transformation of matter/energy.
I guess our difference is that I don't see that anything in this universe is eternal since the universe itself is finite. And since it is finite, how can anything in it or about it be eternal?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2011, 10:13 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,718,245 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman View Post
I guess our difference is that I don't see that anything in this universe is eternal since the universe itself is finite. And since it is finite, how can anything in it or about it be eternal?
Could we be mixing the idea of multiverse with that of a universe?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Nature
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top