The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2016, 04:46 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 02:35 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 09:17 AM)u196533 Wrote:  That is the primary concept of the 2nd Law. The energy in any system will disperse as much as possible. (When it disperses some of it is lost (heat, friction, noise), and cannot be recaptured to do work. That lost energy is defined as entropy.) Energy will never spontaneously concentrate; that requires an outside influence.

So yes. Concentrating all of the energy of the universe into a single point would clearly be a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermo.

Are you saying that the second law is being violated because entropy would somehow have to be reversed prior to the big bang?

If so, I have several objections to that.... if not, could you please clarify why you think the second law has anything at all to do with the big bang?

We only have data from the Big Bang onward. All of the energy in the universe concentrated into on point just exploded. (Eventually the universe will die a heat death when all of the energy is dispersed as much as possible per the 2nd Law.)
I am stating that science will never be able to explain the source of that energy or how it became concentrated. Concentrating all of the energy into a single point would violate the 2nd Law and would be supernatural.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 04:49 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 01:19 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 01:09 PM)u196533 Wrote:  The energy in the universe had to originate somewhere. Science cannot explain how it was concentrated into one point, so a supernatural agent is logical. It is not unreasonable to consider an external agent. It is certainly more reasonable than the assertion that it was created from nothing.

Totally false. If, as Roger Penrose thinks, it always existed, your presumption is wrong. Bangs and re-bangs. You should read some science sometime.
The fundamental nature of Reality is non-intuitive. What appears to be "reasonable" to the human brain, is not how it works. Is Relativity logical ? Is Uncertainty logical ? You jump to your gap god, as you lack creativity, and any other explanation. You do this as you suffer from Low Ambiguity Tolerance, and a need for Cognitive Closure. How many times do you have to be told, an "external agent" requires Space-time a priori. It's a meaningless set of words, in the absence of space.

Quote:"There is no "prior" because that presumes time existed before time came into existence."
The whole premise is that an agent outside the universe unaffected by the constraints of the physics in our universe. Also we do not know that time was created at the Big Bang. We have no idea what/if anything existed prior to the Big Bang.

Bangs and Rebangs are obviously bullshit. The 2nd Law prevents that as that would be the ultimate perpetyal motion machine. Penrose is an idiot.

Great. Then stop making up shit about what you don't know.

Bangs and Re-bangs are obviously bullshit. The 2nd Law prevents that since that would be the ultimate perpetual motion machine. Penrose is an idiot.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 05:00 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 04:49 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Bangs and Re-bangs are obviously bullshit. The 2nd Law prevents that since that would be the ultimate perpetual motion machine. Penrose is an idiot.

What's the First Law of Thermodynamics?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 05:32 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 04:46 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 02:35 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Are you saying that the second law is being violated because entropy would somehow have to be reversed prior to the big bang?

If so, I have several objections to that.... if not, could you please clarify why you think the second law has anything at all to do with the big bang?

We only have data from the Big Bang onward. All of the energy in the universe concentrated into on point just exploded. (Eventually the universe will die a heat death when all of the energy is dispersed as much as possible per the 2nd Law.)
I am stating that science will never be able to explain the source of that energy or how it became concentrated. Concentrating all of the energy into a single point would violate the 2nd Law and would be supernatural.

To say that it became concentrated implies that it was dispersed and was collected which implies time. We do not know the state of the energy before the big bang, nor do we know that time has any meaning in that context.

Also, the second law applies to the universe after the big bang. At the point of the big bang we do not know what happens to the laws. You are extrapolating the laws into and beyond the big bang and I don't see how that is valid.

As many have pointed out, saying that we will never be able to understand something is not a historically good bet. We are just beginning to probe the quantum world, dark energy, dark matter, etc. They are not yet well defined, let alone well understood, so where they will lead is an open question.

What you have is an elaborate argument from ignorance. To jump from "we do not understand X" to "X was caused by an intelligent, supernatural agent" makes no sense. Why do you rule out a multiverse of some kind? Why do you rule out a universe from nothing as Lawrence Krauss proposes? I don't claim either is the case but I see no reason to discount a potential natural explanation in favor of something that we have no evidence for or experience with. We know that natural processes explain a great deal and that everything we have figured out so far has turned out to be natural. Nothing supernatural has ever been identified.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
01-07-2016, 05:39 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 04:40 PM)u196533 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 02:26 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And now a straw man.

You don't paper arrogant, you are arrogant. This isn't helped by the constant stream of baseless assertions being paraded about as if they are scientifically or evidentially supported.

These are not baseless assertions. I was trying to correct whoever it was that thought the 2nd law of Thermo only applied to isolated systems. I provided a simple example of how it operated in an open system and provided another example of the Krebs cycle. It is a well established scientific fact that it applies to ALL systems. You would die if it didn't.

Drinking Beverage still a straw man

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 06:42 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 05:00 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 04:49 PM)u196533 Wrote:  Bangs and Re-bangs are obviously bullshit. The 2nd Law prevents that since that would be the ultimate perpetual motion machine. Penrose is an idiot.

What's the First Law of Thermodynamics?
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Only transformed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 06:43 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 05:39 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 04:40 PM)u196533 Wrote:  These are not baseless assertions. I was trying to correct whoever it was that thought the 2nd law of Thermo only applied to isolated systems. I provided a simple example of how it operated in an open system and provided another example of the Krebs cycle. It is a well established scientific fact that it applies to ALL systems. You would die if it didn't.

Drinking Beverage still a straw man

No it was a tangent that I forced to pursue when someone claimed the 2nd Law only applies to isolated systems.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 07:10 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 04:46 PM)u196533 Wrote:  We only have data from the Big Bang onward. All of the energy in the universe concentrated into on point just exploded.
The big bang isn't an explosion, is is an expansion.
There wasn't necessarily a singularity. It is impossible to have infinite density, infinite heat, etc.

Science just doesn't know enough, so we can't assume that a singularity was there.

(01-07-2016 04:46 PM)u196533 Wrote:  (Eventually the universe will die a heat death when all of the energy is dispersed as much as possible per the 2nd Law.)
Our expanding universe doesn't look like it will contract. But whose to say that our expanding universe is all that there is? We just don't know enough.


(01-07-2016 04:46 PM)u196533 Wrote:  I am stating that science will never be able to explain the source of that energy or how it became concentrated. Concentrating all of the energy into a single point would violate the 2nd Law and would be supernatural.
No, there's no such thing as supernatural.
There is a natural reason why we had such low entropy, there is a natural reason why our universe started to expand around 14 billion years ago. We just don't know the reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 07:27 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 11:33 AM)u196533 Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 11:20 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And given that you don't understand that science isn't still debating evolution and that there aren't any scientific reasons to doubt it, I assume the former possibility in my prior question. Drinking Beverage

Evolution is absolutely being debated by biologists. Horizontal gene transfer is causing a major upheaval. The Tree of Life is being completely redrawn. New theories that explain the gaps in the fossil record are being presented. I don't deny evolution, but if you think it is a done deal, you are clueless.

No one said it is a done deal. Evolution is, however, a fact.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 07:33 PM
RE: The creation of the universe is "beyond the remit of science".
(01-07-2016 04:34 PM)u196533 Wrote:  I have none. I am stating that I think it is more reasonable to believe in a first cause that created the energy in the universe than to state that it popped into existence from nothingness. Quantum Fluctuations require a pre-existing energy field.

You keep asserting that, however it is not true.

Quote: So it begs the question where the energy for the energy field came from. The 1st Law of Thermo states that energy can't be created from nothing.

Quote:Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure. Vacuum energy may also be responsible for the current accelerated expansion of the universe (cosmological constant).

Note: No pre-existing field.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: