Don't play your bullshit with me, padraic. I asked you what is wrong with patterns in debate as such ("Do you think your posts follow no pattern?"). You attack the guy ad hominem on the basis of him being a member of an identifiable group of theists with a consistent pattern of reaction, a fallacy known as generalisation. So don't wiseguy me with your ability to google through Wikipedia.

I'll defend myself thank you. I made the mistake of posting before I went on my weekend and the bookmark isn't at home. Thus is the nature of shift-work. On to more questions:

(December 3, 2009 at 5:10 am)leo-rcc Wrote: Just because the universe seizes to function does not mean it stops existing. The universe is then still there.

Ceasing to function does not equal ceasing to exist. For my purposes of existing, from the perspective I have as a life form in a cold universe(or that of life forms in general), ceasing to function is ceasing to exist by definition of existing being living. I supposes if motion, existance, gasses and solids are all states of belonging then being at an absolute stand still is a state. I just wouldn't call that existance.

(December 3, 2009 at 8:02 am)Joe Bloe Wrote: Reality Test #1
See the tree over there...put your head down and charge.

Thanks I like that. I like dealing with the senses to test my reality as well. I won't be testing life vs death theories anytime soon with those tools though (hopefully).

(December 4, 2009 at 7:56 pm)padraic Wrote: My cynicism comes from previous experience with self- identifying Christians on this forum.Those people almost invariably have an agenda and are incapable of independent thought. A hint is a broad question without stating a position.The question itself often reveals some basic ignorance. In your case a lack of understanding of the term 'atheist'.

Then,after having a few teeth extracted the apologist will present its own position, invariably heavy on authority and dogma and light on science and logic.

When pressed,the apologist will attempt to provide a scientific explanation for its position and fail badly. Perhaps THE most popular apologist cliche is an appeal to the Second Law Of Thermodynamics.The explanation given invariably shows a profound ignorance of that law.

Your posts have followed a tediously predictable pattern.I neither resile from nor apologise for my initial cynicism.


Bored now

Apologies from you are moot, none required, I'm the new guy. I am capable of independant thought and I am not locked on any course, but I do have an agenda. You obviously have some preconcieved notions of who I am and that is defeatest to any kind of open discussion. I'm not trying to earn your trust just didn't want to offend anyone. Sorry if I bore you. Feel free not to help me.

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Oh boy, it seems your statements suffer from what they are describing: total chaos.

Nope, that is not at all what the second law states. Please be sure not to parrot something you do not understand.
What decreases according to the second law is entropy. Not energy. Energy is conserved according to the much appraised law of Energy Conservation, that same law that ensures that miracles like the ones in the bible can not happen. If you use science to prove or disprove things, be prepared to deny facts from the bible you might hold dear. It is not that you can cherry pick a random law of nature and deny others.

I understand very little and am endeavoring to learn so excuse my parroting. I won't know if I understand something correctly unless I put it out there and someone smater than me debunks it. I am wholly (no pun intended) prepared to disprove the bible, my beliefs and the things I hold nothing dear. That's why I'm here.
O.K. here's my more detailed undertanding and please point out specifics that are wrong:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Entropy is the measure of the disorder or randomness of energy and matter in a system and it increases in a closed system. Just after the Big Bang all forces were momentarily unified then thermodynamic skicked in. Because of the second law of thermodynamics both energy and matter in the Universe are becoming less useful as time goes on. The Universe will attain maximum entropy and absolute zero when all energy and matter is randomly distributed across space. It applies to all macroscopic systems with well-defined temperatures.

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: No, the second law is valid only for isolated systems with constant heat energy. In the case of our universe the heat energy is constantly fed by burning stars, which is basically a conversion of nuclear energy to heat energy.

Are you saying our universe is not a macroscopic closed system?

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: The term 'usually' is quite funny. Do you mean that the law of nature sometimes has a day off?

No meerly my attempt at being tentative and equivocal

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: There is no law of nature that prescribes degradation. Degradation is a moral or ethical value, not a physical one.

degredation in this case was my laymens term for loss of exergy. In thermodynamics, the exergy of a system is the maximum useful work possible during a process that brings the system into equilibrium with it's reservoir. If the reservoir is space then exergy is the potential of a system to cause a change.

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: If you apply your version of the law to the universe it will indeed become a messy business, but the universe will not stop to exist (as leo stated already).

see above

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Indeed the universe will still be growing, since it expands and its expansion rate is increasing.

Are you saying that infinitely before the BigBang the universe existed and will continue infinitely after all things in it entropy?

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: It does not follow from the fact that things have an end that they must have had a beginning. That's pure nonsense.
It does not follow from the fact that things have an end that they must be finite, since they could be infinite to start with.
Also be careful not to mix up infiniteness in terms of volume, with infiniteness in terms of age.

I define infiniteness in any terms as boundless, illimitable and immeasurable. If the universe is the space or heat reservoir of the objects (or smaller closed systems easier to measure) in it and has an absolute value equal to maximum entropy then it has a defined and measurable point. Thus it is my conclusion that it has an end that is measurable and therefore minimum entropy (perfect balance) would be constituant to a begining

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Ah, chaos theory, another poorly understood yet much abused theory to arrive at mystical conclusions.
Tell me, how exactly does nature prove chaos theory? Generally a scientific theory is tested to nature by man and then the theory , if verified, is said to describe nature. Nature does not act as an intelligent agent on its own embarking on a scientific endeavour to prove some theories.

perhaps I'll start another thread on having the chaos theory explained to me. I'd like to keep this one as focused as possible so I can learn something, one at a time.

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Which part of nature is outside the universe??

no part of nature is outside of universe in my opinion.

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: When you apply scientific results/theories correctly you cannot draw your conclusion. Also, if you adopt your conclusion you'll have to deny empirical findings, like star formation, you see around you.

I enjoyed your taggy attack, but sadly to say it is no way near a coherent argument.

It wasn't an attack or an argument, just a very simple statement of my premise. Why are you on the defensive? I'd like just to have a discussion without the usual staunch standpoints, argumentative debate and egos. I'm willing to agree to disagree if it comes to it.

(December 6, 2009 at 4:38 am)tackattack Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 5:10 am)leo-rcc Wrote: Just because the universe seizes to function does not mean it stops existing. The universe is then still there.

Ceasing to function does not equal ceasing to exist. For my purposes of existing, from the perspective I have as a life form in a cold universe(or that of life forms in general), ceasing to function is ceasing to exist by definition of existing being living.

That may be your definition, but the law of thermodynamics you so blatantly tried to butcher there has no bearing on life or function, but matter and energy. You cannot have it both ways. Either you use existence in its proper context and use the laws of thermodynamics in that context or discuss life, but then do not bring the laws of thermodynamics into it.

(December 6, 2009 at 4:38 am)tackattack Wrote: I supposes if motion, existance, gasses and solids are all states of belonging then being at an absolute stand still is a state. I just wouldn't call that existance.

I have no use for your labeling, don't make stuff up and assume that we are on the same page here.

Whether or not the universe ceases to function (where function is also relative, a black hole has no concept of function any more than a flower does) has no bearing on its existence.

(December 6, 2009 at 6:27 am)leo-rcc Wrote:

(December 6, 2009 at 4:38 am)tackattack Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 5:10 am)leo-rcc Wrote: Just because the universe seizes to function does not mean it stops existing. The universe is then still there.

Ceasing to function does not equal ceasing to exist. For my purposes of existing, from the perspective I have as a life form in a cold universe(or that of life forms in general), ceasing to function is ceasing to exist by definition of existing being living.

That may be your definition, but the law of thermodynamics you so blatantly tried to butcher there has no bearing on life or function, but matter and energy. You cannot have it both ways. Either you use existence in its proper context and use the laws of thermodynamics in that context or discuss life, but then do not bring the laws of thermodynamics into it.

I have no use for your labeling, don't make stuff up and assume that we are on the same page here.

Whether or not the universe ceases to function (where function is also relative, a black hole has no concept of function any more than a flower does) has no bearing on its existence.

Exactly, the universe does not cease to exist, it simply exists differently. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, just moved and transformed.

(December 6, 2009 at 4:38 am)tackattack Wrote: I supposes if motion, existance, gasses and solids are all states of belonging then being at an absolute stand still is a state. I just wouldn't call that existance.

That is a complete nonsense statement. Do you want to actually go learn some physics and then we'll have this discussion?

(December 6, 2009 at 6:27 am)leo-rcc Wrote: I have no use for your labeling, don't make stuff up and assume that we are on the same page here.

Whether or not the universe ceases to function (where function is also relative, a black hole has no concept of function any more than a flower does) has no bearing on its existence.

I definately do not assume that we are on the same page otherwise I wouldn't have looked at this forum at all. I see both your points, it's just in a different state. I'm still a little ify on the how you perceive matter that is at maximum entropy. That's why I'm here I'm expanding my definition of existance to more than just living. It's simply a percieved state correct?

The existence therefore, of a phenomenon, is but another word for its being perceived, or for the inferred possibility of perceiving it. --J. S. Mill. [1913 Webster]

I'm know I'm not the smartest cookie. I may not convey my beliefs very well and have some facts mixed up, but at least I'm genuine. I think I've learned a little for now. It's starting to get a little barbed in here. I came here to grow in my perspective not get attacked. Opviously our definitions of civil differ as well. I'll keep my slanted views to myself then and maybe come back when I can lower my defences again.

(December 6, 2009 at 4:38 am)tackattack Wrote: O.K. here's my more detailed undertanding and please point out specifics that are wrong:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Entropy is the measure of the disorder or randomness of energy and matter in a system and it increases in a closed system. Just after the Big Bang all forces were momentarily unified then thermodynamic skicked in. Because of the second law of thermodynamics both energy and matter in the Universe are becoming less useful as time goes on. The Universe will attain maximum entropy and absolute zero when all energy and matter is randomly distributed across space. It applies to all macroscopic systems with well-defined temperatures.

Hmmm. The view that entropy is a measure of disorder in circles of scientists is generally believed to be a very sloppy conclusion easily leading to confusion especially in combination with chaos theory. Thermodynamics is not some force that suddenly kicks in but a statistical law concerning interactiing particles.One could speak of the thermodynamics of the particles in the primordial big bang soup. Since there is no clear view on the laws of nature on a time scale smaller than the Planck time, there is no easy conclusion however with what entropy the universe started. Generally however it is accepted that the universe at the Planck time started with some finite low entropy. The second law only applies to isolated systems.

(December 6, 2009 at 4:38 am)tackattack Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: No, the second law is valid only for isolated systems with constant heat energy. In the case of our universe the heat energy is iple constantly fed by burning stars, which is basically a conversion of nuclear energy to heat energy.

Are you saying our universe is not a macroscopic closed system?

The short answer is that we do not know since we cannot investigate beyond the borders of the visible universe and account for some features on the universe on a cosmic scale. As a result in cosmology there is still debate as to how to interpret the second law. The universe certainly is not like the system that is portrayed in the law. For instance, the universe is expanding, meaning that the number of possible micro states in the universe is increasing just as a result of that. In a system with fixed infinitely hard walls, as intended by the second law, the number of possible micro states is fixed.

(December 6, 2009 at 4:38 am)tackattack Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: The term 'usually' is quite funny. Do you mean that the law of nature sometimes has a day off?

No meerly my attempt at being tentative and equivocal

Fair enough, but just to be sure, a (temporal) breach of the laws of nature would indeed shake the foundations of our understanding of it.

(December 6, 2009 at 4:38 am)tackattack Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: There is no law of nature that prescribes degradation. Degradation is a moral or ethical value, not a physical one.

degredation in this case was my laymens term for loss of exergy. In thermodynamics, the exergy of a system is the maximum useful work possible during a process that brings the system into equilibrium with it's reservoir. If the reservoir is space then exergy is the potential of a system to cause a change.

Again, there is no loss of energy. Energy is preserved in the universe as we know it. What most closely matches your description is entropy a meausure that expresses the ability of a system to do work, the higher the entropy the less the system is capable thereof.

(December 6, 2009 at 4:38 am)tackattack Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: If you apply your version of the law to the universe it will indeed become a messy business, but the universe will not stop to exist (as leo stated already).

see above

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Indeed the universe will still be growing, since it expands and its expansion rate is increasing.

Are you saying that infinitely before the BigBang the universe existed and will continue infinitely after all things in it entropy?

No. We are talking of the alleged end of the universe here. Not of its beginning. If you die in a car crash it does not follow that you therefore were born in a car crash. If we conclude that the universe will exist forever, from that it cannot be concluded, that the universe must already have existed an infinitely long time, nor that it only can have existed an finite time up till now.

(December 6, 2009 at 4:38 am)tackattack Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: It does not follow from the fact that things have an end that they must have had a beginning. That's pure nonsense.
It does not follow from the fact that things have an end that they must be finite, since they could be infinite to start with.
Also be careful not to mix up infiniteness in terms of volume, with infiniteness in terms of age.

I define infiniteness in any terms as boundless, illimitable and immeasurable. If the universe is the space or heat reservoir of the objects (or smaller closed systems easier to measure) in it and has an absolute value equal to maximum entropy then it has a defined and measurable point. Thus it is my conclusion that it has an end that is measurable and therefore minimum entropy (perfect balance) would be constituant to a begining

Your phrasing makes it hard to understand you, but here is what I think you mean: since the entropy of the universe is finite it must have a beginning and an end

Let's start with the beginning of the universe. The amount by which entropy of the universe increases per say billion year, might increase in time. In fact to reach a certain finite entropy might take an infinite time. But the general idea of science indeed is that our universe started off with low entropy some 13.7 billion years ago (a conclusion not based on the second law at all).

Now for the end, we haven't reached a state of maximum entropy yet (since there is obvious no thermal equilibrium at the moment) and we don't know if our universe will expand forever. If we rely on our best knowledge we know the universe is 13.7 billions year old now and is in acelerated epansion. Some speculation is about what will happen when the expansion has accelareted so much that the expansion starts to interfere on the atomic and quantum level. Remember, the expansion we're talking about is not the hurling away of fragments and debris from the center of an ordinary explosion, space itself is expanding. Some speculate that this will result in what's referred to as the Big Rip, the structure of spacetime will be ripped apart and possibly result in innumerable fragments that might become daugther universes. So the end of our universe might result in the beginnings of other universes. End of the line: we still don't know and there are no easy conclusions about it from the second law.

(December 6, 2009 at 4:38 am)tackattack Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Ah, chaos theory, another poorly understood yet much abused theory to arrive at mystical conclusions.
Tell me, how exactly does nature prove chaos theory? Generally a scientific theory is tested to nature by man and then the theory , if verified, is said to describe nature. Nature does not act as an intelligent agent on its own embarking on a scientific endeavour to prove some theories.

perhaps I'll start another thread on having the chaos theory explained to me. I'd like to keep this one as focused as possible so I can learn something, one at a time.

These concepts are not easy. It's a good idea to take one step at a time.

(December 6, 2009 at 4:38 am)tackattack Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Which part of nature is outside the universe??

no part of nature is outside of universe in my opinion.

Then there is no reason to suggests that one is part of the other.

(December 6, 2009 at 4:38 am)tackattack Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: When you apply scientific results/theories correctly you cannot draw your conclusion. Also, if you adopt your conclusion you'll have to deny empirical findings, like star formation, you see around you.

I enjoyed your taggy attack, but sadly to say it is no way near a coherent argument.

It wasn't an attack or an argument, just a very simple statement of my premise. Why are you on the defensive? I'd like just to have a discussion without the usual staunch standpoints, argumentative debate and egos. I'm willing to agree to disagree if it comes to it.

OK, I enjoy debate and on the basis you describe, I welcome it. Good arguments are about the matter of the facts, not about persons and I've tried to stick to the matter. But argumentative debate is not the same as having an argument, I just hope you'll appreciate the difference.

(December 2, 2009 at 6:34 am)tackattack Wrote: I'm new, but I'm trying to find some answers and hopefully you guys/girls can help.
I know this is kind of a broad question but,

What is the general view of the average atheist regarding reality as it pertains to causality or just reality generally? Thanks!

-Dave

Shit happens

(December 6, 2009 at 1:02 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(December 2, 2009 at 6:34 am)tackattack Wrote: I'm new, but I'm trying to find some answers and hopefully you guys/girls can help.
I know this is kind of a broad question but,

What is the general view of the average atheist regarding reality as it pertains to causality or just reality generally? Thanks!

-Dave

Shit happens

something I unequivocably can agree with

(December 6, 2009 at 11:21 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: No, the second law is valid only for isolated systems with constant heat energy. In the case of our universe the heat energy is iple constantly fed by burning stars, which is basically a conversion of nuclear energy to heat energy.

(December 6, 2009 at 11:21 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: The short answer is that we do not know since we cannot investigate beyond the borders of the visible universe and account for some features on the universe on a cosmic scale. As a result in cosmology there is still debate as to how to interpret the second law. The universe certainly is not like the system that is portrayed in the law. For instance, the universe is expanding, meaning that the number of possible micro states in the universe is increasing just as a result of that. In a system with fixed infinitely hard walls, as intended by the second law, the number of possible micro states is fixed.

so the second law doesn't apply because we can't prove that it's an closed system with constant heat.

(December 6, 2009 at 11:21 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Again, there is no loss of energy. Energy is preserved in the universe as we know it. What most closely matches your description is entropy a meausure that expresses the ability of a system to do work, the higher the entropy the less the system is capable thereof.

yes that's my definition of entropy. So let's define the universe. It is the total of space and the objects occuping them . I know it's an oversimplification, but I'm obviously the lowest common denominator here. It includes things outside our current perception based on statistics and science, but hopefully will be observable in the future. The walls are not definable because we only give walls to things we can emphatically prove, hence no known begining or end. Our enderstanding is that now it is expanding and we have no record of it contracting in our recorded time.Science predicted , based off what we know of entropy, that at some point in the future it will entropy. At some point in the past there was extremely low entropy statistically. That gives us a general idea of when the universe was created. Or is the big bang something that happened somewhere after the universes inception. Close?

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: No. We are talking of the alleged end of the universe here. Not of its beginning. If you die in a car crash it does not follow that you therefore were born in a car crash. If we conclude that the universe will exist forever, from that it cannot be concluded, that the universe must already have existed an infinitely long time, nor that it only can have existed an finite time up till now.

Do you have a handy reference to the science behind the begining of the universe? I would like to discuss both the start and the end and what's inbetween.

Is a planet a closed system? Isn't it affected by outside gravities and photons? I'm really struggling with the concept of a closed system.

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Your phrasing makes it hard to understand you, but here is what I think you mean: since the entropy of the universe is finite it must have a beginning and an end

Let's start with the beginning of the universe. The amount by which entropy of the universe increases per say billion year, might increase in time. In fact to reach a certain finite entropy might take an infinite time. But the general idea of science indeed is that our universe started off with low entropy some 13.7 billion years ago (a conclusion not based on the second law at all).

Now for the end, we haven't reached a state of maximum entropy yet (since there is obvious no thermal equilibrium at the moment) and we don't know if our universe will expand forever. If we rely on our best knowledge we know the universe is 13.7 billions year old now and is in acelerated epansion. Some speculation is about what will happen when the expansion has accelareted so much that the expansion starts to interfere on the atomic and quantum level. Remember, the expansion we're talking about is not the hurling away of fragments and debris from the center of an ordinary explosion, space itself is expanding. Some speculate that this will result in what's referred to as the Big Rip, the structure of spacetime will be ripped apart and possibly result in innumerable fragments that might become daugther universes. So the end of our universe might result in the beginnings of other universes. End of the line: we still don't know and there are no easy conclusions about it from the second law.

What is your opinion on the largest in scope closed system that the second law of thermodynamics applies and why?

(December 6, 2009 at 11:21 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

(December 6, 2009 at 4:38 am)tackattack Wrote:

(December 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Which part of nature is outside the universe??

no part of nature is outside of universe in my opinion.

Then there is no reason to suggests that one is part of the other.

Maybe I should define universe and known universe as as 2 seperate things. Nature is my concept of the laws that are the construct for which things operate within the known universe.

(December 6, 2009 at 11:21 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: OK, I enjoy debate and on the basis you describe, I welcome it. Good arguments are about the matter of the facts, not about persons and I've tried to stick to the matter. But argumentative debate is not the same as having an argument, I just hope you'll appreciate the difference.

I do and thank you.

So I'll address this to anyone then.
What is your opinion on the largest (in scope) closed system that the second law of thermodynamics applies and why?
The smallest if you want to add that too. Thanks!

(December 8, 2009 at 3:19 am)tackattack Wrote: So I'll address this to anyone then.
What is your opinion on the largest (in scope) closed system that the second law of thermodynamics applies and why?
The smallest if you want to add that too. Thanks!

The second law applies all closed systems, size is not a factor.