Moral Compass

[Immanuel Can]

There are people far better qualified than I who also don't feel able to just assume that is the case,

Name one.

I'm afraid I can't do that without their permission, it would be unethical.

So...I'm just supposed to take your word for all these "better qualified" types? Alright, then.

[Harbal]

Name one.

I'm afraid I can't do that without their permission, it would be unethical.

So...I'm just supposed to take your word for all these "better qualified" types? Alright, then.

I would advise against it, in case it turns out to be untrue.

[Atla]

And the universe, we also know, had a beginning. We know it not just deductively, but empirically, because of entropy. Entropy is observable, measurable, and quantifiable.

But we have never empirically observed a universe coming to an end, have we? You are deducing that the universe will end because you can't think of a reason why it shouldn't, but you can't know for sure that there is no reason. Alternatively, maybe God also suffers from entropy, if entropy is always inevitable.

IC is simply lying, we have no empirical evidence that the universe began. It's simply not possible for us to make such claims.

When we look back in time, we have empirical evidence that the observable universe comes from a low-entropy state (and even this debatable imo because of our poor understanding of black holes). But the observable universe probably isn't the whole universe, and there's actually no reason whatsoever to associate entropy with beginnings and endings. And even when we do this looking back in absolute time, we ignore the detail that absolute time doesn't exist.

[Harbal]

And the universe, we also know, had a beginning. We know it not just deductively, but empirically, because of entropy. Entropy is observable, measurable, and quantifiable.

But we have never empirically observed a universe coming to an end, have we? You are deducing that the universe will end because you can't think of a reason why it shouldn't, but you can't know for sure that there is no reason. Alternatively, maybe God also suffers from entropy, if entropy is always inevitable.

IC is simply lying, we have no empirical evidence that the universe began. It's simply not possible for us to make such claims.

When we look back in time, we have empirical evidence that the observable universe comes from a low-entropy state (and even this debatable imo because of our poor understanding of black holes). But the observable universe probably isn't the whole universe, and there's actually no reason whatsoever to associate entropy with beginnings and endings. And even when we do this looking back in absolute time, we ignore the detail that absolute time doesn't exist.

Thanks, Atla, I was starting to think I was the only one who doesn't know what will eventually happen to the universe.

[Atla]

But we have never empirically observed a universe coming to an end, have we? You are deducing that the universe will end because you can't think of a reason why it shouldn't, but you can't know for sure that there is no reason. Alternatively, maybe God also suffers from entropy, if entropy is always inevitable.

IC is simply lying, we have no empirical evidence that the universe began. It's simply not possible for us to make such claims.

When we look back in time, we have empirical evidence that the observable universe comes from a low-entropy state (and even this debatable imo because of our poor understanding of black holes). But the observable universe probably isn't the whole universe, and there's actually no reason whatsoever to associate entropy with beginnings and endings. And even when we do this looking back in absolute time, we ignore the detail that absolute time doesn't exist.

Thanks, Atla, I was starting to think I was the only one who doesn't know what will eventually happen to the universe.

Wait, it gets even worse when we try to predict what will eventually happen to the universe. Not only does the general expansion rate of the universe seems to have changed at least 3-4 times in the past already, but now some scientists are wondering if it doesn't expand uniformly either.

So it's not unlikely that there will be more changes in the future. So we can never really be sure what will happen.

[Harbal]

IC is simply lying, we have no empirical evidence that the universe began. It's simply not possible for us to make such claims.

When we look back in time, we have empirical evidence that the observable universe comes from a low-entropy state (and even this debatable imo because of our poor understanding of black holes). But the observable universe probably isn't the whole universe, and there's actually no reason whatsoever to associate entropy with beginnings and endings. And even when we do this looking back in absolute time, we ignore the detail that absolute time doesn't exist.

Thanks, Atla, I was starting to think I was the only one who doesn't know what will eventually happen to the universe.

Wait, it gets even worse when we try to predict what will eventually happen to the universe. Not only does the general expansion rate of the universe seems to have changed at least 3-4 times in the past already, but now some scientists are wondering if it doesn't expand uniformly either.

So it's not unlikely that there will be more changes in the future. So we can never really be sure what will happen.

You seem to know a lot more about the subject than I do; maybe I could quote you the next time IC asks for my sources.

[Immanuel Can]

IC is simply lying, we have no empirical evidence that the universe began.

So you don't believe in entropy? You don't think the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is true?

Good news: that means you're not getting older, and you're never going to die.

[Immanuel Can]

Wait, it gets even worse when we try to predict what will eventually happen to the universe. Not only does the general expansion rate of the universe seems to have changed at least 3-4 times in the past already, but now some scientists are wondering if it doesn't expand uniformly either.

Were that true, it would change nothing.

If entropy is happening, it would not matter if it declined quickly, slowly or both. All that would change is the rate, not the fact of entropy. Your theory could, perhaps, slow our estimated down or speed them up: but given enough time, exactly the same result would follow.

[Harbal]

Wait, it gets even worse when we try to predict what will eventually happen to the universe. Not only does the general expansion rate of the universe seems to have changed at least 3-4 times in the past already, but now some scientists are wondering if it doesn't expand uniformly either.

Were that true, it would change nothing.

If entropy is happening, it would not matter if it declined quickly, slowly or both. All that would change is the rate, not the fact of entropy. Your theory could, perhaps, slow our estimated down or speed them up: but given enough time, exactly the same result would follow.

It was Atla who said that, not me, although we do seem to pretty much agree on this particular issue.

[Atla]

IC is simply lying, we have no empirical evidence that the universe began.

So you don't believe in entropy? You don't think the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is true?

Good news: that means you're not getting older, and you're never going to die.

That didn't make much sense. The universe isn't known to have a finite lifecycle, like lifeforms here on Earth do. And even when a lifeform dies, it doesn't just entirely end/disappear, its corpse remains.

[Immanuel Can]

IC is simply lying, we have no empirical evidence that the universe began.

So you don't believe in entropy? You don't think the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is true?

Good news: that means you're not getting older, and you're never going to die.

That didn't make much sense. The universe isn't known to have a finite lifecycle, like lifeforms here on Earth do. And even when a lifeform dies, it doesn't just entirely end/disappear, its corpse remains.

Right. So your claim I'm lying is obviously...untrue. You do believe in entropy, and that means that there is empirical evidence that the universe had a beginning and empirical evidence that it will have an end.

[Atla]

Wait, it gets even worse when we try to predict what will eventually happen to the universe. Not only does the general expansion rate of the universe seems to have changed at least 3-4 times in the past already, but now some scientists are wondering if it doesn't expand uniformly either.

Were that true, it would change nothing.

If entropy is happening, it would not matter if it declined quickly, slowly or both. All that would change is the rate, not the fact of entropy. Your theory could, perhaps, slow our estimated down or speed them up: but given enough time, exactly the same result would follow.

If entropy is universally increasing then yes. But even if that's the case, that wouldn't mean that the universe would end.

[Immanuel Can]

Wait, it gets even worse when we try to predict what will eventually happen to the universe. Not only does the general expansion rate of the universe seems to have changed at least 3-4 times in the past already, but now some scientists are wondering if it doesn't expand uniformly either.

Were that true, it would change nothing.

If entropy is happening, it would not matter if it declined quickly, slowly or both. All that would change is the rate, not the fact of entropy. Your theory could, perhaps, slow our estimated down or speed them up: but given enough time, exactly the same result would follow.

It was Atla who said that, not me, although we do seem to pretty much agree on this particular issue.

Sorry...I picked up the wrong attribution tag. Culpa mea.

But you rejoice too soon. Atla's criticism isn't right, and fails at the most obvious sort of level, as even a moment's thought will show you.

[Atla]

So you don't believe in entropy? You don't think the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is true?

Good news: that means you're not getting older, and you're never going to die.

That didn't make much sense. The universe isn't known to have a finite lifecycle, like lifeforms here on Earth do. And even when a lifeform dies, it doesn't just entirely end/disappear, its corpse remains.

Right. So your claim I'm lying is obviously...untrue. You do believe in entropy, and that means that there is empirical evidence that the universe had a beginning and empirical evidence that it will have an end.

No, it's simply a blatant lie from you that increase in entropy means that we have empirical evidence that the universe had a beginning and will end. Increase in entropy is evidence for increase in entropy.

[Immanuel Can]

Wait, it gets even worse when we try to predict what will eventually happen to the universe. Not only does the general expansion rate of the universe seems to have changed at least 3-4 times in the past already, but now some scientists are wondering if it doesn't expand uniformly either.

Were that true, it would change nothing.

If entropy is happening, it would not matter if it declined quickly, slowly or both. All that would change is the rate, not the fact of entropy. Your theory could, perhaps, slow our estimated down or speed them up: but given enough time, exactly the same result would follow.

If entropy is universally increasing then yes. But even if that's the case, that wouldn't mean that the universe would end.

Yes, it would: entropy shows there's a finite amount of order in the universe, and that it's declining at a measurable, predictable rate. In other words, decay happens. Unless something of miraculous and super-scientific provenance intervenes to interrupt or reverse entropy, the universe will predictably end in heat death.

But more importantly, it shows the universe also had a beginning. It's not eternal. It's not self-sufficient or self-renewing. It's not a necessary entity. It's contingent, perishable and limited. And Something had to get it started.