Thermodynamics and The Universe

Hey, cavediver. Wave me off if this is getting off of the topic you wanted to discuss.I do find it amusing that people try to apply "physical laws", which are used to describe phenomena within the universe, to the "creation of the universe" (whatever that even means!) itself.Take the law of conservation of energy, for example. Even beside the very good points you made, the law of conservation of energy simply states that at each point in time, the energy of a closed system will remain the same. Well, the "creation of the universe" certainly does not violate this. "Before" the universe existed, there was no time -- hell, "before the universe existed" is itself a nonsensical phrase. "Before" the creation of the universe, there were no "points of time". So even in a classical universe existing for a finite amount of time, there is no violation of the law of conservation of energy: there was no point in time when the energy content of the universe was different.God, what a weird topic. This is going to wear out the quote key on my keyboard.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

quote:

---

I don't see how you can exempt laws of physics from the science of a system origin hypothesis which itself defies the the laws observed within the system.

---

I'm not, that is the point. I am saying that the law of conservation of energy simply states that the total energy at time 1 is the same as at time 2. Well, even if the universe has only existed for a finite amount of time, there has never been a time when the energy was 0. Time began with the universe and the existence of energy. t=0 (ignoring the quantum and GR complications that cavediver has been trying to point out), we had the universe with the energy content that we see today. But there was no prior time, no t=-1, so there was not time when the energy content was different. Hence, no violation of the conservation of energy.-

quote:

---

I don't see how you can exempt laws of physics from the science of a system origin hypothesis which itself defies the the laws observed within the system.

---

Because, as I have tried to point out, this involves applying the laws of physics to something that is not the universe, namely the nothing (Chaos, in the original Greek) that existed or didn't exist or whatever the hell I'm trying to say "before" there was a universe. To say, in this case, that conservation of energy has been violated, I would have to compare the energy content of the universe with the energy content in something that is not even the universe. I don't even know what that means.This is why I feel that "a cause of the universe" is a nonsensical statement. Until the universe exists, there is no stage on which a cause can act.Talking about "before" the universe when there isn't even any time, or actors when there isn't even any space in which to sit just doesn't make any sense. That is why I say that the universe simply exists. I can't make any sense of anything else.-

quote:

---

The only other alternative is that the Universe is infinite without beginning or end....

---

By the way, I have no trouble with this concept either; in fact, it's my preferred model. It's just that the evidence seems to indicate otherwise.

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

Hey, Buz.

quote:

---

Isn't your above statement pretty much what I claim regarding the creator designer, that he simply exits?

---

Chiroptera: The universe exists.Buzsaw: A designer exists, and this designer created the universe.Yeah, pretty much the same, but my statement has fewer moving parts. According to Occam's Razor, unless you have additional reasons to believe a designer exists (and I think you do, right?), then my statement should be preferred. Although I admit that Occam's Razor, besides being invoked inappropriately, does not guarantee truth.-

quote:

---

In all due respect, I don't see your statement as any more mainline fundamentally scientific than mine.

---

It isn't. I don't think that you can (at least at this point in our state of knowledge) say anything scientific about the "creation of the universe".

---

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

quote:

---

The statistical approach basically says "there are more ways to be disordered" so that is the most likely state the gas will be in.

---

Actually, the statistical approach says, "there are more ways for white molecules to be more or less evenly distributed throughout the box and for black molecules to be distributed throughout the box than for white molecules to be all on one side and for black molecules to be on the other side." The word disorder isn't really well defined, except that you say:

quote:

---

Or, to flip it around, the state that a system is most likely to be in is defined as "most disordered."

---

That's about the best definition for "disordered" that I've seen. I would, though, say that the macroscopic state that is produced by the largest set of microscopic states is the most disordered.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine