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.
Ouch, MysticPhD, that was a loooong post. Will take time to digest all of it...
I am sorry . . . the questions were interrelated. I tried to simplify and analogize those relationships to reveal HOW and WHY our measurements and our minds produce the timespace that we try to understand. None of it is really simple.
How can you use the 2nd law of thermodynamics to disprove an infinite (or maybe I should say eternal) universe, when the first law says energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, meaning that it is impossible to have a universe of matter and energy when there wasn't one before?
Not sure i understand the question.
If we measure the amount of entropy in the universe and find out that we are not in a total state of entropy, then it proves that this universe has not existed an infinite amount of time--because unless entropy were to stop altogether, it would have completed by now.
As for your question of how can we use it if it states matter can't be destroyed or created? What's the problem? That just proves that there was a cause for matter's existence that is not part of the universe. Since nothing in this natural universe can do it, something supernatural must be responsible.
Quote:
I'm not saying the first law proves an infinite universe; I am saying that neither of the laws are valid for proofs about the 'beginnings' of the universe, especially when they both point to opposite conclusions. When it comes to the universe as a whole, thermodynamics is an "inexact science" that you feel perfectly comfortable using to prove your point.
I do feel comfortable using it. It's a Law that has yet to be disproven.
What's the problem? That just proves that there was a cause for matter's existence that is not part of the universe. Since nothing in this natural universe can do it, something supernatural must be responsible.
Completely indefensible. If it affects or occurs in our universe it is natural . . . whether we understand it or can explain it or not. There is no such thing as "supernatural."
Completely indefensible. If it affects or occurs in our universe it is natural . . . whether we understand it or can explain it or not. There is no such thing as "supernatural."
Sure there is. "supernatural" is simply to indicate that it's "not natural".
if this universe exists, it could not have caused itself to exist. Therefore something outside of the universe ("supernatural") caused it to exist.
Sure there is. "supernatural" is simply to indicate that it's "not natural".
if this universe exists, it could not have caused itself to exist. Therefore something outside of the universe ("supernatural") caused it to exist.
Common sense.
There is nothing sensible about such superstitious nonsense . . . but it is common. EVERYTHING is natural . . . everything is God . . . but everything is not known or understandable.
There is nothing sensible about such superstitious nonsense . . . but it is common. EVERYTHING is natural . . . everything is God . . . but everything is not known or understandable.
The concept of "coming into existence" is only relevant to a consciousness that has a beginning (ours). Our perspective is biased toward beginnings and endings because that which we use to comprehend it has a beginning and experiences time . . . reality needn't conform to our perceptual requirements . . . so neither does God.
How do you think everything came into existence? I don't know and neither do you.
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.