Don't forget we're talking about a closed system in which no state of thermodynamic equilibrium exists. We can meaningfully say that the system tends towards a state of thermodynamic equilibrium and it does this by seeking its lowest energy state. This occurs at all scales of physical reality and the convention in statistical thermodynamics is that this means hot bodies cool down, not the other way around. Disordered systems become more ordered and we have 13.8 billion years worth of evidence which shows us that this is exactly what has happened since the big bang. In the light of your earlier statement about the "almost" infinite high entropy state which obtained at the big bang I don't know how you could possibly claim that this is not so. Why can't reality simply be what it appears to be?Dubious wrote: When I said 'misleading' I meant your statement: ...do you dispute the fact that hot and high entropy are synonymous constructs? The phrase Synonymous constructs doesn't apply since cold and high are equally valid based on the state of thermal equilibrium in the system.
This is an appalling use of language for the reasons which I have clearly stated. Random motion would produce a universe with no order at all. Linearly determined motion would produce a universe which starts off in a highly ordered state and then becomes more disordered over time. Chaotically determined motion would produce a universe which starts off in a highly disordered state and then becomes more ordered over time.Dubious wrote:How is that so different from: ...high or maximal entropy refers to thermal equilibrium or extreme states of randomness. How is this an appalling use of language?
As you can see the philosophy of the bloody obvious has been aptly named. We live in a non-Newtonian universe.
Replacing the continuum of space and time with a continuum of gravity and time will resolve absolutely ALL of the paradoxes and metaphysical absurdities in the current models of physics and make them compatible with each other. This is all I ever set out to do and I've never claimed that this will be the last word on the subject. However I do see this as the end of physics and that physics itself will eventually be subsumed within the overarching science of non-linear computation. Whatever problems might arise in that pursuit will be many orders of magnitude above my pay grade and not even of particular interest to me. Science is always an incremental approach to the acquisition of human knowledge and we can't be expected to find answers to questions which haven't even been invented yet.Dubious wrote:As for replacing space-time with gravity-time some current problems may disappear but it begs the question how many more will arrive in its wake. You can't honestly say that you know the answer to that as well.