does the first law of thermo dynamics show us that the universe has and always will exist and that the notion that things must have a beginning or a end is a human fallacy of thought?

one would say you have a beginning or a end, but the particles that compose you have always existed and always will, yet your mind must have a end for there is no after life.

Just wondering as listening to the many debates I listen to with atheist vs theists I have not heard the answer to the question " well where did it all come from then " being simply that it has and always will exist.

the whole idea that the simplest answer is usually the correct one strikes me as being relevant here for what could be simpler than removing the need for a creation or ending.

That things must have a beginning and end is indeed a fallacy and limitation of human thought, but that does not exclude the possibility that things might have a beginning and end. As for the laws of thermodynamics, people far to often use them too broadly. They apply to closed systems and focus on the properties of energy within said system. We can assume the universe is a closed system, but this is by no means certain, and thus the laws of thermodynamics cannot be definitively applied in this context.

I can imagine that the reason not many people hang their hat on the answer that things always existed and always will is because the universe is expanding, and as far as we know there was a time when it all "began", if such a word can be used in the context of the big bang. We can postulate as much as we want in relation to what happened "before" the big bang, again not really the right word to use, but until further scientific advances are made we cannot say for certain. What we can say is that the universe did not exist in it's current state at the time of the singularity, and as such that can be said to be the beginning of the universe.

The simplest answer is often the right one, but not always, and sometimes what seems the simplest isn't.

(May 2, 2011 at 8:13 pm)Boreasos Wrote: That things must have a beginning and end is indeed a fallacy and limitation of human thought, but that does not exclude the possibility that things might have a beginning and end. As for the laws of thermodynamics, people far to often use them too broadly. They apply to closed systems and focus on the properties of energy within said system. We can assume the universe is a closed system, but this is by no means certain, and thus the laws of thermodynamics cannot be definitively applied in this context.

I can imagine that the reason not many people hang their hat on the answer that things always existed and always will is because the universe is expanding, and as far as we know there was a time when it all "began", if such a word can be used in the context of the big bang. We can postulate as much as we want in relation to what happened "before" the big bang, again not really the right word to use, but until further scientific advances are made we cannot say for certain. What we can say is that the universe did not exist in it's current state at the time of the singularity, and as such that can be said to be the beginning of the universe.

The simplest answer is often the right one, but not always, and sometimes what seems the simplest isn't.

what i have often thought in this context is that

1) if minimums and maximums exist
(as in there is a point in the universe which is the hottest/coldest)
2) if gravity exists and pulls matter towards it
3) if matter cannot be created or destroyed

then the universe is a result of the highest point of gravity over time pulling all matter together, the result of which is the big bang, and the result of that is me and you typing on this forum eventually

so, perhaps we are caught up in this explosion and our lives will occur during the expansion of the universe, but at the universe expands eventually this central point of gravity will pull it back causing the explosion to occur again, with the exact same matter, compressed in the exact same way because it is the only way the matter can become as tightly compacted as possible

the result of this explosion as the laws do not change, and the matter does not change, will be the same, eventually leading to me and you sitting on our computers typing on this forum.

this would explain that the universe does not have a beginning or a end, but simply has a cycle

it also would really be horrible as you would never be aware of it and everything you do would be predetermined , so i guess hope you are born in a rich family

again i am not being rhetorical but please point out the flaw in this as i oh so hope it cannot be true


edit: wow alot of people have thought this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return

Yeah, the thought of eternal return, or a wheel of time or similar is an ancient concept. Many religions have been based around it, and today there are plenty of people who think it or believe it a possibility.

The thought of a "big crunch" as it's known used to be prominent hypothesis after the big bang theory was established, but more recent evidence suggests that the universe is accelerating rather than slowing down as it seems it should due to gravity. If this trend continues we can reasonably assume that the Universe will simply expand indefinitely and become an endless void, thus avoiding the possible wheel of time.

However, even assuming the universe did fall back in on itself and another big bang occurred, the outcome would not automatically be the same even if the rules are the same. Remember that the laws that govern the universe set limits on what can happen, but not so stringently as to allow only one possible outcome. The best way to demonstrate this is with quantum fluctuations, which ensure that this is a universe of statistical probabilities, not certainties. You also assume that a singularity can only be compacted in one specific way, but I will point out that all the laws of the universe break down at such a state and everything becomes uniform in every way. This would in essence make any pattern beyond absolute symmetry impossible.

We can of course not say with absolute certainty that eternal return cannot happen, but current understanding seems to preclude the possibility of such a cycle.



Note: I have to nitpick one thing you said, and that is that you called the big bang an explosion. The big bang is poorly named, and the name was originally intended as a mockery of the theory yet it stuck. The correct description would be rapid expansion. I only point it out because some people use the term explosion for the big bang out of ignorance as a way to mock it, mostly creationists.

(May 3, 2011 at 4:02 am)Boreasos Wrote: Yeah, the thought of eternal return, or a wheel of time or similar is an ancient concept. Many religions have been based around it, and today there are plenty of people who think it or believe it a possibility.

The thought of a "big crunch" as it's known used to be prominent hypothesis after the big bang theory was established, but more recent evidence suggests that the universe is accelerating rather than slowing down as it seems it should due to gravity. If this trend continues we can reasonably assume that the Universe will simply expand indefinitely and become an endless void, thus avoiding the possible wheel of time.

However, even assuming the universe did fall back in on itself and another big bang occurred, the outcome would not automatically be the same even if the rules are the same. Remember that the laws that govern the universe set limits on what can happen, but not so stringently as to allow only one possible outcome. The best way to demonstrate this is with quantum fluctuations, which ensure that this is a universe of statistical probabilities, not certainties. You also assume that a singularity can only be compacted in one specific way, but I will point out that all the laws of the universe break down at such a state and everything becomes uniform in every way. This would in essence make any pattern beyond absolute symmetry impossible.

We can of course not say with absolute certainty that eternal return cannot happen, but current understanding seems to preclude the possibility of such a cycle.



Note: I have to nitpick one thing you said, and that is that you called the big bang an explosion. The big bang is poorly named, and the name was originally intended as a mockery of the theory yet it stuck. The correct description would be rapid expansion. I only point it out because some people use the term explosion for the big bang out of ignorance as a way to mock it, mostly creationists.

ahh thanks for the info, i always thought of the big bang as everything being compressed like a fist squeezing a ball of putty so tight that eventually it just bursts out between the fingers, i kind of imagined things being so compressed that atoms started splitting etc like a hugh universal atomic bomb

neiztche refers to eternal rec, or the person who points it out to you, as the worst possible devil.. lol

(May 3, 2011 at 7:01 pm)darkblight Wrote:

(May 3, 2011 at 4:02 am)Boreasos Wrote: Yeah, the thought of eternal return, or a wheel of time or similar is an ancient concept. Many religions have been based around it, and today there are plenty of people who think it or believe it a possibility.

The thought of a "big crunch" as it's known used to be prominent hypothesis after the big bang theory was established, but more recent evidence suggests that the universe is accelerating rather than slowing down as it seems it should due to gravity. If this trend continues we can reasonably assume that the Universe will simply expand indefinitely and become an endless void, thus avoiding the possible wheel of time.

However, even assuming the universe did fall back in on itself and another big bang occurred, the outcome would not automatically be the same even if the rules are the same. Remember that the laws that govern the universe set limits on what can happen, but not so stringently as to allow only one possible outcome. The best way to demonstrate this is with quantum fluctuations, which ensure that this is a universe of statistical probabilities, not certainties. You also assume that a singularity can only be compacted in one specific way, but I will point out that all the laws of the universe break down at such a state and everything becomes uniform in every way. This would in essence make any pattern beyond absolute symmetry impossible.

We can of course not say with absolute certainty that eternal return cannot happen, but current understanding seems to preclude the possibility of such a cycle.



Note: I have to nitpick one thing you said, and that is that you called the big bang an explosion. The big bang is poorly named, and the name was originally intended as a mockery of the theory yet it stuck. The correct description would be rapid expansion. I only point it out because some people use the term explosion for the big bang out of ignorance as a way to mock it, mostly creationists.

ahh thanks for the info, i always thought of the big bang as everything being compressed like a fist squeezing a ball of putty so tight that eventually it just bursts out between the fingers, i kind of imagined things being so compressed that atoms started splitting etc like a hugh universal atomic bomb

neiztche refers to eternal rec, or the person who points it out to you, as the worst possible devil.. lol

The exact composition of the singularity which was the start of the big bang is not often mentioned, so I can understand your thinking. An easy way to envision it is that the tighter things are compressed, the hotter it gets. Therefore when things get compressed enough it gets so hot that the atoms themselves break apart, and then it's components break apart until there is only energy. Eventually, like I said, the laws of the universe break down and the different forms of energy become the same. A singularity is an infintessimal dot, in other words infinitely small and hot.

lol the devil.

Boreasos Wrote:We can postulate as much as we want in relation to what happened "before" the big bang, again not really the right word to use, but until further scientific advances are made we cannot say for certain.

I agree, we just don't know yet.

(May 2, 2011 at 7:21 pm)darkblight Wrote: Just wondering as listening to the many debates I listen to with atheist vs theists I have not heard the answer to the question " well where did it all come from then " being simply that it has and always will exist.

The theist's answer is always God, which is - of course - a non-answer. Where and how anything came into being in the first place is currently beyond our comprehension, and very likely will always be so.

That's the beauty of being an atheist. I can say "I don't know" and be just fine with it.

I picture the Big Bang as an atomic bomb explosion (and yes, there are limits to analogy.) The reason I do that is that you can't tell from the explosion what the Manhattan Project did to built it.

(May 9, 2011 at 7:37 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: I picture the Big Bang as an atomic bomb explosion (and yes, there are limits to analogy.) The reason I do that is that you can't tell from the explosion what the Manhattan Project did to built it.

Oh now don't give the theists ammo. They can turn that statement around to say that "see, it had a creator!"