The United Nations and I both believe in renewable energy.

[exchemist]

49 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Studiot brought thermodynamics into my thread. He got me started on that one. 

This is a Science discussion site and technically  'renewable energy'  is a contradiction in terms since it contravenes the laws of thermodynamics.

Thermodynamics laws might only hold true in a closed system but the universe is an open system.  The universe consists of matter, energy and other components.  None of those items could have ever had a beginning. I personally hold the universe to be infinitely old and to be eternally changing. Energy is an essential component for change. Nature will not ever permit a universal heat death. 

https://www.noemamag.com/life-need-not-ever-end/

 

Boltzmann’s model also ignored the influence of gravity, which is often described as an anti-entropic force due to its clumping effects on matter. Gravity’s effects on small objects like gas molecules are essentially so tiny that they are negligible for all practical purposes, meaning you can leave the force out of the model and still make accurate predictions about the state of the system. But at the scale of the universe, the effects of gravity become extremely important to the evolving structure of the system. Gravity is one factor driving the growth of order in the cosmos, and a good example of why the evolution of the universe looks very different from a gas spreading out in a box.

Of course, the attractive force of gravity doesn’t explain the emergence of life, which has been defying Boltzmann’s tendency toward disorder for about four billion years. Not only does life represent the formation of complexity, it constructs more of it. What explains this paradox? How does the biosphere grow more complex and organized if there’s a tendency for organized systems to fall apart? If cosmic complexity is to grow continuously, the process would then seem to curiously depend on life, the only form of complexity that can create more organization and actively sustain itself.

The quantum physicist Erwin Schrodinger explained this paradox in his 1944 book “What is Life?”. What Schrödinger noticed was that instead of drifting toward thermodynamic equilibrium — which for life means a state of death and decay — biological organisms maintained their ordered living state by consuming free energy from the environment (which he called “negative entropy”). Boltzmann’s law of increasing disorder only applies to closed systems, and life on Earth is an open system. It is constantly receiving usable energy from the sun, which drives it away from thermodynamic equilibrium.  

But the universe is a closed system, surely? After all, there is nothing "outside" it. So while Schrödinger's remarks make perfect sense, they don't tell you anything about the universe as a whole.

The argument you cite about gravity looks wrong to me. No gravitational process reduces net entropy, so far as I can see. I wonder if the author of the Noema article has  confused entropy with simple "disorder" in distributions of matter. Entropy is "disorder" of a specific kind, namely disorder in the way energy is distributed. Gravitational attraction may pull things together, but this converts potential energy to kinetic, which ultimately is converted to heat, which dissipates, increasing the disorder in the energy involved. I have never heard of gravity being described as anti-entropic. Do you have a source for that? 

[JohnDBarrow]

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

But the universe is a closed system, surely? After all, there is nothing "outside" it. So while Schrödinger's remarks make perfect sense, they don't tell you anything about the universe as a whole.

The argument you cite about gravity looks wrong to me. No gravitational process reduces net entropy, so far as I can see. I wonder if the author of the Noema article has  confused entropy with simple "disorder" in distributions of matter. Entropy is "disorder" of a specific kind, namely disorder in the way energy is distributed. Gravitational attraction may pull things together, but this converts potential energy to kinetic, which ultimately is converted to heat, which dissipates, increasing the disorder in the energy involved. I have never heard of gravity being described as anti-entropic. Do you have a source for that? 

 

Please explain why there is still life, motion and consciousness after the literal passing of an infinite amount of elapsed time.  Look at our very solar system with its highly orderly planetary orbits. I don't think thermodynamic laws can correctly predict the absolute enteral fate of everything.  Nature is much more complex and mysterious than that.  The universe is infinitely large with no limits, no boundaries. Things still move. Stars still emit light. 

Edited August 21 by JohnDBarrow

[exchemist]

34 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

 

Please explain why there is still life, motion and consciousness after the literal passing of an infinite amount of elapsed time.  Look at our very solar system with its highly orderly planetary orbits. I don't think thermodynamic laws can correctly predict the absolute enteral fate of everything.  Nature is much more complex and mysterious than that.  The universe is infinitely large with no limits, no boundaries. Things still move. Stars still emit light. 

What? There has not been a literal passing of infinite time, according to the dominant cosmological model. The universe is thought to be ~14bn years old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

 

Edited August 21 by exchemist

[TheVat]

8 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Thermodynamics laws might only hold true in a closed system but the universe is an open system.  The universe consists of matter, energy and other components.  None of those items could have ever had a beginning. I personally hold the universe to be infinitely old and to be eternally changing. Energy is an essential component for change. Nature will not ever permit a universal heat death. 

I personally hold the universe to be a marble swallowed by a robot kitten named Louise.  We both have the same empirical basis for our beliefs.  Assertions are not evidence.  Or valid arguments.  And the universe is by definition a closed system.  That's what is called an analytic truth.  The terms being equated, universe and closed system both denote the same things.  

Cosmology has moved on since the 19th century.

1 hour ago, JohnDBarrow said:

The universe is infinitely large with no limits, no boundaries

Robot.  Kitten.  Louise.  Marble.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Please explain why there is still life, motion and consciousness after the literal passing of an infinite amount of elapsed time.

An  infinite amount of elapsed time has NOT literally passed, yet you double down on such by bolding it. Do you understand what "literally" and "infinite" mean, especially when used together?

[JohnDBarrow]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

An  infinite amount of elapsed time has NOT literally passed, yet you double down on such by bolding it. Do you understand what "literally" and "infinite" mean, especially when used together?

My mother once told me so about the universe. Mother knows best.  Can you please show me the limit line of the universe? 

Can you show me where time began? If it did indeed begin, then what was the cosmic trigger that set it off in the first place? 

Some initial cause to beget time had to have preexisted time if that was the case. Scientists often overlook first principles. 

 

Here is an interesting link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

If God exists then what are his/her/it's origins?  What or who made God? 

Remember, nothing comes from nothing. 

It's hard to put an end on the existence of something if you can't even pinpoint its very beginning. 

My definition of UNIVERSE is the absolute sum total of everything, known or unknown, to any and all conscious beings. 

It's hard to quantify the absolute sum total of everything.  Human scientists don't know everything. 

Edited August 21 by JohnDBarrow

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, JohnDBarrow said:

My mother once told me so about the universe. Mother knows best.  Can you please show me the limit line of the universe? 

Can you show me where time began? If it did indeed begin, then what was the cosmic trigger that set it off in the first place? 

Some initial cause to beget time had to have preexisted time if that was the case. Scientists often overlook first principles. 

So no, you don't understand what "literally" and "infinite" mean, especially when used together. None of what you just said addresses my comment, like you didn't really read it.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, JohnDBarrow said:

My mother once told me so about the universe. Mother knows best.  Can you please show me the limit line of the universe? 

Can you show me where time began? If it did indeed begin, then what was the cosmic trigger that set it off in the first place? 

Some initial cause to beget time had to have preexisted time if that was the case. Scientists often overlook first principles. 

 

Here is an interesting link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

If God exists then what are his/her/it's origins?  What or who made God? 

Remember, nothing comes from nothing. 

It's hard to put an end on the existence of something if you can't even pinpoint its very beginning. 

My definition of UNIVERSE is the absolute sum total of everything, known or unknown, to any and all conscious beings. 

It's hard to quantify the absolute sum total of everything.  Human scientists don't know everything. 

Suggest you read the link I provided about the age of the universe. Extrapolating from the Big Bang hypothesis, one suggestion is an initial singularity, meaning that the whole of spacetime expanded from an original, infinitely small, 4D dot. So there would have been no "before", since time  itself would have started at that point. But it's conjecture, since one can't apply the laws of physics to such a condition.

But of course you're right that we don't know - it's conjecture. What we can say, though, based on observational evidence, is that the the cosmos seems to have expanded from a small, dense state about 13.8bn years ago. Such a small, dense state implies there was, for whatever reason, a low entropy condition 13.8bn years ago. So that is sufficient, by itself,  to account for the universe not having run down to thermodynamic heat death today. 

[Mordred]

How did we go from renewable energy to conservation of energy in regards to the Observable universe ?

 

[JohnDBarrow]

54 minutes ago, Mordred said:

How did we go from renewable energy to conservation of energy in regards to the Observable universe ?

 

Somebody converted my thread of renewable energy to laws of thermodynamics somehow. My highly orderly thread must have slipped into some degree of disorder. 

We have a case of conversational entropy here. 

However, we all here should agree that whatever is bound to happen will happen. Shall my conscious soul both enjoy and suffer an eternal existence in whatever and however many incarnated bodies it happens to find itself in? ?  Only the hand of fate will decide. I cannot easily accept that manmade science has my future sealed to absolute eternal death. Man spends so much precious energy and time worrying about what may or may not happen tomorrow. 

[zapatos]

12 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Shall my conscious soul both enjoy and suffer an eternal existence in whatever and however many incarnated bodies it happens to find itself in?

Now you want to talk religion and philosophy? Look, a penny! 

[studiot]

On 8/20/2024 at 7:02 PM, swansont said:

But it’s not the Pedant forum; most understand what’s meant by renewable energy.

But it certainly stimulated further discussion.

[JohnDBarrow]

8 hours ago, zapatos said:

Now you want to talk religion and philosophy? Look, a penny! 

I'm interested in all facets of human thought. It is my endeavor to seek what is TRUE. 

Edited August 22 by JohnDBarrow

[JohnDBarrow]

And if the 'universe' is only 14 billion years old, what came before that even? How do you even define "universe"?

 

You mean to tell me none of any or all the following ever existed before 14 billions years ago? 

 

time

space

matter

energy

gravity

motion

 

Everything just suddenly sprang from a complete void 14 billion years ago as if by magic? 

This Latin phrase should be the basis for all rational human thought: 

ex nihilo nihil fit 

To succumb to the notion that everything sprang from absolute nothing is utter madness. 

Edited August 22 by JohnDBarrow

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

And if the 'universe' is only 14 billion years old, what came before that even? How do you even define "universe"?

 

You mean to tell me none of any or all the following ever existed before 14 billions years ago? 

 

time

space

matter

energy

gravity

motion

 

Everything just suddenly sprang from a complete void 14 billion years ago as if by magic? 

The universe is a complex place that doesn't easily conform to our everyday experiences. Perhaps you are not yet ready to explore it.

[JohnDBarrow]

37 minutes ago, zapatos said:

The universe is a complex place that doesn't easily conform to our everyday experiences. Perhaps you are not yet ready to explore it.

Was there ever a time motion DID NOT exist anywhere?  

[exchemist]

On 8/22/2024 at 4:07 PM, JohnDBarrow said:

And if the 'universe' is only 14 billion years old, what came before that even? How do you even define "universe"?

 

You mean to tell me none of any or all the following ever existed before 14 billions years ago? 

 

time

space

matter

energy

gravity

motion

 

Everything just suddenly sprang from a complete void 14 billion years ago as if by magic? 

This Latin phrase should be the basis for all rational human thought: 

ex nihilo nihil fit 

To succumb to the notion that everything sprang from absolute nothing is utter madness. 

Latin phrases from centuries ago are not a definitive guide to modern science. 

On 8/22/2024 at 4:51 PM, JohnDBarrow said:

Was there ever a time motion DID NOT exist anywhere?  

It seems there may have been such a time. Before matter coalesced, one would presumably have had a sea of quantum mechanical entities, none of which can be said to be in “motion”, in the classical sense of following defined paths, because of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

[JohnDBarrow]

On 8/25/2024 at 12:23 PM, exchemist said:

Latin phrases from centuries ago are not a definitive guide to modern science. 

It seems there may have been such a time. Before matter coalesced, one would presumably have had a sea of quantum mechanical entities, none of which can be said to be in “motion”, in the classical sense of following defined paths, because of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.

For any change to have happened, something had to have caused the said change in the first place. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. How did motion arise from a total static state of all existence? 

Edited August 27 by JohnDBarrow

[iNow]

Sometimes saying, "we don't yet know" is the most correct answer

[JohnDBarrow]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Sometimes saying, "we don't yet know" is the most correct answer

That is the most honest answer in many cases? Will I ever experience consciousness beyond physical death? You know the answer to that question as much about that as I do. Nature holds many secrets from the minds of men. 

Edited August 27 by JohnDBarrow

[Mordred]

57 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

That is the most honest answer in many cases? Will I ever experience consciousness beyond physical death? You know the answer to that question as much about that as I do. Nature holds many secrets from the minds of men. 

The BB theory doesn't actually describe how the universe came into existence. We can only describe how and why it expands from 10^{-43} seconds onward.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, JohnDBarrow said:

For any change to have happened, something had to have caused the said change in the first place. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. How did motion arise from a total static state of all existence? 

Because as matter formed, it would have been in a gravitationally unstable state. So it would have begun to move to a lower gravitational potential  energy configuration. But it’s all rather speculative, as we have no observations that reach back that far in time.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Will I ever experience consciousness beyond physical death?

In this case saying, “almost certainly not” is the most correct answer. 

[JohnDBarrow]

19 hours ago, iNow said:

In this case saying, “almost certainly not” is the most correct answer. 

That is a very closed-minded attitude. Even Dr. Carl Sagan once said he could not prove of disprove the existence of God. 

The bottom line is only time will tell as to what the hand of fate shall ultimately dish out. Perhaps living people should strive to live

as if their current life is the only one they shall ever have. But I have no crystal ball. I personally feel that not only is the hereafter even possible,

it is quite probable in my mind. 

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

Even Dr. Carl Sagan once said he could not prove of disprove the existence of God.

How about you start with defining it as something more than an ill-defined 3-letter word? Talk to 10 different people and you'll get 10 different ideas of what god means, and I don't mean "god is love" or "god is nature," because we already have words for those things. We call them "love" and we call them "god." Shoe-horning ambiguous god(s) in there does nothing to further our understanding. 

11 minutes ago, JohnDBarrow said:

living people should strive to live

as if their current life is the only one they shall ever have.

Agreed