bahman wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 9:09 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:56 pm
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 08, 2021 1:52 am
There are two proofs for this. A) The physical argument (the second law of thermodynamics) and B) The metaphysical one (the logical one).
Proof of A: Heat death is the final state of any close system eventually. This is due to the second law of thermodynamics that states that entropy (disorder) increases in any close system. We are not in heat death therefore there was a beginning.
Proof of B: There are two scenarios for the eternal past (eternal past being whatever that exists in past): 1) One can reach from the eternal past to now or 2) One cannot. In the first case, we have a beginning since we just need to look at the past to see the eternal past. In the second case, we cannot reach from the eternal past to now, therefore, there is no beginning. We however are at now. Therefore there is no eternal past. Therefore the second case is wrong. We are left with (1) that is plausible. Therefore, there is a beginning.
I didn't directly comment before on what you said here. So let me now.
For your "Proof of A", etropy asserts 'closed' to define the meaning. But the actual space is 'open' and, according to the expansion of space, permits the "heat death" to present scientific concensus. I don't necessarily agree with this, but your argument doesn't hold and in fact is argued for the opposite, ....that given space is assumed open (for 'growing'), they reverse this in time and assume the singularity as the point at which no space exists and its 'origin'. Again, this has its paradoxes and so either way, science cannot argue for 'beginnings', something that I justify dropping the Big Bang theory for a Steady State version instead.
The whole is closed since there is nothing left to interact with.
I already understood you to interpret this as the case. I'm saying that the 'closed' need to describe entropy is for definition only. If you had a closed container, this is mostly true but still has the problem that the container, no matter what it is made up of, will eventually lose the heat through its containing walls. So the IDEAL meaning of entropy is to imagine a container of which walls are perfectly non-conducting and reflects 100% of energy of particles internally. Then, given there is a fixed amount of particles in this container, AND further assuming these particles have energy (ie, movement), the meaning of entropy is that if you imagine beginning with all particles on one side of the container, the motion will bump all the particles in a way that will more often fill the whole space such as to distribute its contents evenly. This is just an average based upon a 'bell' curve. So the 'odds' of all the particles to actually become 'ordered', such as starting from any mixed state to become in a state with all the molecules on only one half, is still possible but highly improbable given all possible arrangements.
Because the Standard model believes in the Big Bang model, they didn't start off with an assumption of a finite container, only an assumption of finite ENERGY. This theory and its competing one, the Steady State, use the inference of space to be 'expanding' (or space being added from nowhere) such that the concentration of matter to space is continuously decreasing. As such, the 'singularity' inferred when you reverse time SUGGESTS that there was a point in time that the Universe was all at one point. [Steady State theory treats this as an illusion or that no matter how far back in time you go, there will ALWAYS still be some space, something that is more rational to me.]
But given the Standard model by the majority supporting the Big Bang, suggests that entropy decreases and we WILL end in heat death. You falsely interpreted that a closed container LOSES energy when it is actually 'conserved'. Note too that the Steady State model suggests that the DENSITY of energy per unit of space remains contant and so no heat death occurs. This though means that the universe would be more likely open and infinitely the same throughout time. Although today scientists recognize these as facts, the desire to keep the Big Bang model is likely due to political necessity, not logical correctness. The Big Bang is not LOGICALLY valid but permits the view that the singularity is nevertheless real
contrary to the contradictions. They just act like the religious when they then add, "the Universe works in mysterious ways" where this is implied by "the laws of physics breaks down there."
Anyways, that's a digression. The point is that science regardless cannot justify a literal 'origin' to this Universe or similar ones to it. My own argument in the other similar thread to this argues for Absolute Nothingness which acts
as a logical
origin, not something referring to time but to the source of time(s) and space(s) and energy, etc.
What is the relation of Zeno's paradoxes with my argument?
If you recall Zeno's paradox of the Tortoise and Achilles, for one, he argued that if you give the slow tortiose a head start of say 1 unit distance, then when Achilles begins a unit behind, although he can run faster, time still is needed for both to move ahead. If the tortoise can go 10% of Achilles' speed, then by the time Achilles reaches the Tortoise's starting point 1 unit ahead, the tortoise would be 1/10 of a unit further ahead. Then when Achilles reaches the point at 1/10 further, the Tortoise is 1/100 of a unit further given time still exists for both. When this is continued, Zeno argued that Achilles could never actually catch up to the Tortoise and so should lose. The problem is that the series of additions APPROACH a real point that exists, not merely a virtual one. So as long as there is time and space BEYOND the fixed REAL goal point, Achilles should win if the distance is greater than or equal to 1.1111... units.
Now if there was a point (goal post) in which no time nor space is inferred, as the Steady State assumes a real singularity refers to, then Zeno's logic would work because the closer to the virtual singularity you get, those in such a space and time would appear slower to us (if we could see them from here) WHILE the space is also smaller, both never actually zero. As such, the Steady State version asserts that given we cannot KNOW what is at or beyond that apparent
singularity, you cannot presume you can ever reach it. The apparition is similar to parallel lines meeting up to an apparent point, like a straight road going off in the distance. The road still exists even though it appears
as though it meets. And if we were to use a telescope to see this, car on the road would appear to be shrinking (though it is not) as would the appearance of it to be going 'slower' the further out it is. [Because there still is an actual point in space and time beyond the apparent perspective point, the car would still disappear unless the road were literally infinite.]
This does not MEAN that the singularity (or some possible other point beyond what we can observe) DOES NOT exist, though. This only means that we cannot INFER that the singularity is literally real or just virtual. The default should be to not assume the certainty of the appearance of the point but rather the opposite because if it were real, physics would definitely be unable to be the same there as it is here and now. That is why I asserted that you still have a logical rationale for this but that you can only at best infer that SOME (more than one) 'beginning(s)' exist, rather than ONE specific one. [My extention for Totality is to assume NO specific origin but that the 'absolute' state of nothing suffices to justify a fixed origin if it refers to the 'causes' of time and space apriori
. That would 'statically' be the 'background' nothingness to which all other things that exist NOW rely on.