Moral Compass

[promethean75]

I hate to admit it, but your homeboy IC grasps the entropy-in-an-infinite-universe problem precisely.

But of course he's gonna exploit it for his purposes of pushing Christianity. Remember tho what i said earlier. Going from 'transcendent being/intelligence/agency/power responsible for creating the universe' to 'and this thing is the god talked about in the bible', involves a giant leap.

[Janoah]

...in the Big Bang, something that already existed exploded.

Matter is contingent and entropic: scientifically, we can see that it's not eternal.

First of all, there is no proof of "Heat death of the universe", and it is unlikely there will be,
It should be expected that an isolated system fragmented into subsystems does not necessarily come to thermodynamic equilibrium and remain in non-equilibrium steady state. Entropy will be transmitted from one subsystem to another, but its production will be zero, which does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics.

But the main thing for the worldview is not what will happen in billions of years, or what happened billions of years ago, but what matters in our days, matter follows natural Law, and this is understandable if you don’t confuse yourself.

[Immanuel Can]

...in the Big Bang, something that already existed exploded.

Matter is contingent and entropic: scientifically, we can see that it's not eternal.

First of all, there is no proof of "Heat death of the universe", and it is unlikely there will be,
It should be expected that an isolated system fragmented into subsystems does not necessarily come to thermodynamic equilibrium and remain in non-equilibrium steady state. Entropy will be transmitted from one subsystem to another, but its production will be zero, which does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics.

A "subsystem" is not the universe. Heat death is a scientific postulate about the whole universe, not merely its "subsystems," which can pick up energy from each other; it's about ALL systems.

But the main thing for the worldview is not what will happen in billions of years, or what happened billions of years ago, but what matters in our days, matter follows natural Law, and this is understandable if you don’t confuse yourself.

Projection. I'm not a bit confused.
Entropy is a natural law. And it's readily observable. And it doesn't just tell us about "billions of years in the future," but it has very serious implications for what "pasts" it is rational for us to believe in.

One thing it tells us for sure is that the universe is NOT eternal in the past, and that matter is contingent. So it kills the "eternal universe" hypothesis. At some point, by some means, a massive infusion of order happened. We know, because it's manifestly from higher order to lower that the universe itself is declining. And we know that pattern cannot possibly last forever. So on both ends, science gives us conclusive evidence that the universe is not eternal.

Or, as famed cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin discovered, my point would be this:

Disorder increases with time. So following each cycle, the universe must get more and more disordered. But if there has already been an infinite number of cycles, the universe we inhabit now should be in a state of maximum disorder. Such a universe would be uniformly lukewarm and featureless, and definitely lacking such complicated beings as stars, planets and physicists – nothing like the one we see around us.

One way around that is to propose that the universe just gets bigger with every cycle. Then the amount of disorder per volume doesn’t increase, so needn’t reach the maximum. But Vilenkin found that this scenario falls prey to the same mathematical argument as eternal inflation: if your universe keeps getting bigger, it must have started somewhere.

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent ... beginning/

[Iwannaplato]

...in the Big Bang, something that already existed exploded.

Matter is contingent and entropic: scientifically, we can see that it's not eternal.

First of all, there is no proof of "Heat death of the universe", and it is unlikely there will be,

I would word it as 'there is no consensus in physics that the heat death of the universe will undergo heat death.' IC like to state as certain scientific ideas that fit with his metaphysics and generally ignores complexity or that there are a number of theories or positions.

[Atla]

I hate to admit it, but your homeboy IC grasps the entropy-in-an-infinite-universe problem precisely.

He's so precise that he thought I was crazy when I reminded him twice that the law of entropy is a statistical law. Something everyone learns in the first 10 minutes about the law.

[Janoah]

Matter is contingent and entropic: scientifically, we can see that it's not eternal.

First of all, there is no proof of "Heat death of the universe", and it is unlikely there will be,
It should be expected that an isolated system fragmented into subsystems does not necessarily come to thermodynamic equilibrium and remain in non-equilibrium steady state. Entropy will be transmitted from one subsystem to another, but its production will be zero, which does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics.

a natural law.

Once again, “Heat death of the universe” has not been proven, and in general, ex nihilo, it has not been proven (there are assumptions, but there is no unambiguous proof).

What is fundamental and relevant is that matter follows natural Law.
Do you agree that matter follows natural Law?

[Immanuel Can]

Once again, “Heat death of the universe” has not been proven,

Entropy has. It's arguably the most well-substantiated physical law we know. And the deduction is very simple: if the universe is entropic, then it means that it had to have a beginning point, and it will have an end point. The end point anticipated by science, on the basis of entropy, is heat death.

Do you agree that matter follows natural Law?

Sure. Entropy is a natural law. I agree that matter is entropic. I can't imagine how you manage even to doubt it.

[Janoah]

Do you agree that matter follows natural Law?

Sure.

Thanks, that's good.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you agree that matter follows natural Law?

Sure.

Thanks, that's good.

Entropy is natural law. Entropy proves that the universe is not eternal, either in the past or in the future. So it turns out that it is your view, not mine, that denies natural law.

[Janoah]

Sure.

Thanks, that's good.

So it turns out that it is your view, not mine, that denies natural law.

For the next billions of years, it is enough that you agree that matter follows natural Law. And then, we'll see.

[Harbal]

Sure.

Thanks, that's good.

Entropy is natural law. Entropy proves that the universe is not eternal, either in the past or in the future. So it turns out that it is your view, not mine, that denies natural law.

Maybe universes are like buses; another one will come along in due course.

[Immanuel Can]

Thanks, that's good.

So it turns out that it is your view, not mine, that denies natural law.

For the next billions of years, it is enough that you agree that matter follows natural Law. And then, we'll see.

You misunderstand what "natural law" means, then. You think it means "the way things have to stay for a billion years." That's not at all what it means. It just means, "the most common pattern [of strictly-physical things] we think we see now." Your belief that is has to stay that way for a billion years is based on nothing inherent to natural law. What you're trusting in can be upset in the next ten or twenty seconds, for that matter.

[Immanuel Can]

Thanks, that's good.

Entropy is natural law. Entropy proves that the universe is not eternal, either in the past or in the future. So it turns out that it is your view, not mine, that denies natural law.

Maybe universes are like buses; another one will come along in due course.

You'll be on a different bus line, though.

[Janoah]

So it turns out that it is your view, not mine, that denies natural law.

For the next billions of years, it is enough that you agree that matter follows natural Law. And then, we'll see.

You misunderstand what "natural law" means, then.

Once again, it is enough that You agree that matter follows natural Law.

[Immanuel Can]

For the next billions of years, it is enough that you agree that matter follows natural Law. And then, we'll see.

You misunderstand what "natural law" means, then.

Once again, it is enough that You agree that matter follows natural Law.

"Enough" for what?

If matter follows natural law, then it follows entropy. If it follows entropy, it's neither eternal in the past nor eternal in the future. So any thought of an eternal material universe is debunked, and we have to account for the huge infusion of order that suddenly appeared in the universe at some time in the past, and from which it's been entropically declining.

That's a very simple and obvious deduction. So one thing it's not "enough" for, is for anybody to continue to believe in the eternality of matter. So I suppose that, yes, it's "enough," but certainly not "enough" to allow that mistake to persist...at least, not for rational persons.