Moral Compass

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Wow. You're stuck on the basic deduction that something that is decaying will die? You think it's a "blatant lie"?

[Atla]

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.

You think heat-"death" means that the universe actually dies?

[Atla]

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.

Wow. You're stuck on the basic deduction that something that is decaying will die? You think it's a "blatant lie"?

Yes, when it comes the universe. You are very confused.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

You think heat-"death" means that the universe actually dies?

I see you don't know the term.

Britannica can help.

"The example of a heat engine illustrates one of the many ways in which the second law of thermodynamics can be applied...if the universe is an isolated system, then its entropy too must increase with time. Indeed, the implication is that the universe must ultimately suffer a “heat death” as its entropy progressively increases toward a maximum value and all parts come into thermal equilibrium at a uniform temperature. After that point, no further changes involving the conversion of heat into useful work would be possible."

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, when it comes the universe. You are very confused.

Well, somebody is. We can let any informed observer decide who.

[Atla]

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.

You think heat-"death" means that the universe actually dies?

I see you don't know the term.

Britannica can help.

"The example of a heat engine illustrates one of the many ways in which the second law of thermodynamics can be applied...if the universe is an isolated system, then its entropy too must increase with time. Indeed, the implication is that the universe must ultimately suffer a “heat death” as its entropy progressively increases toward a maximum value and all parts come into thermal equilibrium at a uniform temperature. After that point, no further changes involving the conversion of heat into useful work would be possible."

Can't you read what you just quoted? Where does it say that the universe literally ends, dies?

[Immanuel Can]

You think heat-"death" means that the universe actually dies?

I see you don't know the term.

Britannica can help.

"The example of a heat engine illustrates one of the many ways in which the second law of thermodynamics can be applied...if the universe is an isolated system, then its entropy too must increase with time. Indeed, the implication is that the universe must ultimately suffer a “heat death” as its entropy progressively increases toward a maximum value and all parts come into thermal equilibrium at a uniform temperature. After that point, no further changes involving the conversion of heat into useful work would be possible."

Can't you read what you just quoted? Where does it say that the universe literally ends, dies?

I'm sorry...I don't have time to do Science 101 for you. If you can't understand it, you'll have to do your own reading.

[Harbal]

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.

I'm not rejoicing, none of this matters that much to me.

What Atla said sounds fine to me. You seem to be making a lot of fuss over all this. All I'm saying is that I don't know what will ultimately happen to the universe, and I don't see how anyone else can know for sure. You might not agree with me, but it's not like I'm making some wildly outrageous claim, so why the determination to argue me out of it? I'm guessing it has to do with something it says in the Bible, but I obviously don't know what.

[Atla]

I see you don't know the term.

Britannica can help.

"The example of a heat engine illustrates one of the many ways in which the second law of thermodynamics can be applied...if the universe is an isolated system, then its entropy too must increase with time. Indeed, the implication is that the universe must ultimately suffer a “heat death” as its entropy progressively increases toward a maximum value and all parts come into thermal equilibrium at a uniform temperature. After that point, no further changes involving the conversion of heat into useful work would be possible."

Can't you read what you just quoted? Where does it say that the universe literally ends, dies?

I'm sorry...I don't have time to do Science 101 for you. If you can't understand it, you'll have to do your own reading.

Heat-death means that the universe reaches a final, unchanging thermal equilibrium, maximum entropy. It's a final, eternal state. Not an actual end, not an actual death. There's of course all kinds of speculations whether or not something would happen after that anyway, and what that could be. I guess the idea that the universe will just "end", is one speculation.

But even heat-death itself is just speculation (personally I don't even believe in it). We don't have actual empirical evidence that heat-death will happen, it's a possible projection.

And it's also speculation that if there's an end, there must be a beginning. And it's also a speculation that God is needed.

So like you're presenting a chain of 4 speculations as fact.

Also, if you see the expression "Milky Way", that doesn't mean it's made of milk.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

I'm not rejoicing, none of this matters that much to me.
What Atla said sounds fine to me.

It shouldn't. If it does, I'd say you're setting the critical thinking bar on that one way too low.

The idea can be made very, very simple...so simple nobody can miss it. If something is "entropic," it means that it's decaying. If things are decaying, it tells us two things for sure: 1. There was a time when they began, and 2. There is an inevitability to their ultimate dissolution.

The universe is entropic. So we know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the universe had a beginning point and will inevitably have an end state.

It's really that simple. And nothing can be more scientific, empirical or definite.

You'll also notice that this line of logic contains no statements asking for belief in God. It would all be true even if we didn't think about that at all. It's a totally secular point.

[Immanuel Can]

It's a final, eternal state. Not an actual end, not an actual death.

If you knew anything about the term "heat death," you'd know it's a metaphor...and not one I invented, but one in common use in science. It was invented by Lord Kelvin (yes, that "kelvin") in 1851. You've got some catching up to do.

"Heat death" actually puts emphasis on the word "heat," since heat and energy are correlated. In a universe in which all the energy becomes equally and randomly distributed, there is no longer any "heat," and thus the term, "heat death." But I shouldn't have to explain this to you. It's all available to somebody with Google. I'll leave it with you to inform yourself as necessary, since it's boring for me to do.

Now, since there's also no life anymore, heat death is actually the "death" of the universe: but that's not the point. You need to do some research, obviously.

[Atla]

It's a final, eternal state. Not an actual end, not an actual death.

If you knew anything about the term "heat death," you'd know it's a metaphor...and not one I invented, but one in common use in science. It was invented by Lord Kelvin (yes, that "kelvin") in 1851. You've got some catching up to do.

"Heat death" actually puts emphasis on the word "heat," since heat and energy are correlated. In a universe in which all the energy becomes equally and randomly distributed, there is no longer any "heat," and thus the term, "heat death." But I shouldn't have to explain this to you. It's all available to somebody with Google. I'll leave it with you to inform yourself as necessary, since it's boring for me to do.

Now, since there's also no life anymore, heat death is actually the "death" of the universe: but that's not the point. You need to do some research, obviously.

You haven't ever actually looked up "heat-death" prior to this discussion, have you

Well since you are unable to feel embarrassment: fyi, at this point most people would feel embarrassment if they were in your place.

[Immanuel Can]

You haven't ever actually looked up "heat-death" prior to this discussion, have you.

Well, somebody hasn't. That much is pretty clear.

[Atla]

You haven't ever actually looked up "heat-death" prior to this discussion, have you.

Well, somebody hasn't. That much is pretty clear.

Still nothing about the actual end / actual death of the universe, in case of heat death. Keep looking.

[Immanuel Can]

You haven't ever actually looked up "heat-death" prior to this discussion, have you.

Well, somebody hasn't. That much is pretty clear.

Still nothing about the actual end / actual death of the universe, in case of heat death. Keep looking.

Yes, do.