Entropy, Kalam, and First Cause

[Anomalocaris]

I would just like to add that there is a logical problem with assuming that the laws of the universe apply to the universe itself. Our universe can be described as the 'set of all things within our space/time continuum, including space and time'. A wall made of indestructible bricks isn't necessarily an indestructible wall. A universe that is a closed system where entropy holds may not itself be entirely subject to entropy. For instance, a bang/crunch cycle could apply that 'resets' the entropy to a lower level. I don't particularly think that is the case, but it isn't disproven by an appeal to thermodynamics.

If laws governing the universe does not menifest itself in laws of the universe, how would you know what they are??

The problem with this is laws of the universe is the only set we have reason to believe to apply anywhere based on observation, If one cavalierly throws out the only set of law that we have reason to suspect to exist, then one might as well admit one is not trying to find out what really was, but is prepared to accept anything thay sounds good without constraint.

[Norman Humann]

I wish I could tell you that it was a witty pun involving certain aspects of the moduli potential in the supergravity limit of type IIB string compactifications and how they are stabilized by D - anti D brane configurations in a Klebanov-Strassler throat. Unfortunately, it is nothing of the sort, and just me speaking emphatically put in writing.

I don't see the sarcasm sign, so I'm assuming you're serious.

But... but... arrghh!

I know, I know. I'll talk to a professional about that. It's just... orthography... I... bah.

[Alex K]

I don't see the sarcasm sign, so I'm assuming you're serious.

But... but... arrghh!

I know, I know. I'll talk to a professional about that. It's just... orthography... I... bah.

It's not quite sarcasm.... It's something more subtle, in which I say something true (the physics is roughly correct), but in unnecessary and unexpected detail and with a bit of theatrical hyperbole, for comedic effect. I don't know whether there is a name for that. I think if successful, it generates some of the comedy by contrasting an exaggerated explanation with a sudden negation. According to a book by freud I once read, that element of surprise is how most jokes generate their humour.

[Norman Humann]

It's just... That's not how it's spelled. It bugs me a lot. I'm shutting up now.

[Alex K]

I'll say it once more for you to get you out of your grammarspelling OCD:

"Exactly."

[Norman Humann]

Phew. Thank you. And I prefer the term "linguistic pedantry".

[Jenny A]

Phew. Thank you. And I prefer the term "linguistic pedantry".

Spelling Nazi? It has nothing to do with grammar.

"So who does you think you is anyways?" Cause spelling ain't grammar and ain't is in the dictionary.

[Clueless Morgan]

I don't see how you would conclude that. If it randomly shifts into a more orderly state by accident in some pocket of space, that's entirely sufficient. See "eternal inflation".

I was going to suggest something along this line (not exactly this, but something kind of similar) but I'll let the particle physicist do the explaining <-- You know, the person who actually knows what they're talking about.

I suppose my response could be an addition to the conversation though, if only so I learn more about entropy and thermodynamics (which I've always found cool):

The Earth is an example of local order, or a local decrease of entropy, in the universe, but that doesn't mean that somewhere else in the universe there is local disorder, or a local increase of entropy to maintain thermodynamic equilibrium. Like a wave pool, the amount of water doesn't increase or decrease, but the location of the peaks and troughs of the waves fluctuates, likewise, why couldn't the universe have some thermodynamic equilibrium value (the amount of water in the pool) and what changes throughout the universe is the location of the local increases or decreases of entropy (the peaks and troughs of the waves)?

There. There's my ignorant, high-school-physics-level non-answer :p

I really am interested in hearing what the physicists have to say about this, though. Am I totally off base asking this?

[Mister Agenda]

If laws governing the universe does not menifest itself in laws of the universe, how would you know what they are??

We don't.

The problem with this is laws of the universe is the only set we have reason to believe to apply anywhere based on observation.

Yes, that is quite a problem for us, which probably has a lot to do with why we don't know exactly what happened before T=0.

If one cavalierly throws out the only set of law that we have reason to suspect to exist, then one might as well admit one is not trying to find out what really was, but is prepared to accept anything thay sounds good without constraint.

The constraint is logic. To presume that the laws within the universe apply to the universe is to commit a fallacy of composition. Any implication that this means "one might as well admit one is not trying to find out what really was, but is prepared to accept anything thay sounds good without constraint" is entirely in your own mind. I am not prepared to accept any statement, no matter how good it sounds, about the universe unless it is supported by evidence.

[AFTT47]

...I just can't wrap my mind around the idea of there being absolutely no First Cause at all...

We all have our limits regarding what we can wrap our head around. It's important to recognize though that reality is in no way bound by our intuitive limitations. Common sense fails in areas like this so we must use more powerful tools like science and logic.