bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 12:43 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 11:45 am
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 11:28 am
Matter cannot have existed since otherwise we should be in death heat right now.
I do not understand what you are saying here, will you elaborate?
It is about the second law of thermodynamics. This law says that the entropy is constantly increasing.
But the so-called 'second law of thermodynamics' here only applies to 'things' within the Universe. That so-called 'law' does not apply to the 'Thing', called the Universe, Itself. See, the so-called 'second law of thermodynamics' does not apply to the fundamental components of the Universe, Itself, because they cannot be created, nor destroyed.
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 12:43 pm
The ultimate state of the universe is when the energy is distributed equally so no further process is possible as a result of equal distribution of energy, that is heat death.
So, you are here 'now' saying and/or suggesting that, actually, 'energy' can be created, and destroyed, correct?
Also, is the claimed 'equal distribution of energy' throughout all of the whole Universe, Itself, an already proved Fact that 'this' will happen absolutely for sure without absolutely any doubt at all?
Or, is this just another presumption or belief of some of you human beings, only?
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 12:43 pm
Tthe process in the current state is possible as a result of the energy not being distributed equally in space.
So, how and when did this 'current' state begin, exactly?
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 12:43 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2024 11:42 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 11:25 am
Time also cannot have existed always since that leads to infinite regress.
But you do not yet know what 'infinite regress' is, exactly. So, how could you know what, supposedly, leads to what you do not yet know?
What do you mean? I know what infinite regress is.
Well you have provided two different definitions so far. So, are you going to provide more?
If yes, then how many, and what are they, exactly?
If no, then why not? And, which one of the two that you have provided so far do 'we' 'have to' agree with, and accept?
Also, let 'us' all not forget that what 'your' own personal definition of the term or phrase 'infinite regress' is here "bahman" absolutely no one has to nor will necessarily agree with and accept anyway.