Hey fellas. So in a discussion with Nestor, I brought up the proposition that the second law of thermodynamics would prevent the use of an infinite regress of "causes and effects" as a counterexplanation to the Kalam argument. (thus you would either have to admit some kind of first cause, or explain things away in terms of many universes or cyclical theories) Nestor suggested I bring up the topic here:

Nestor Wrote:The Second Law of Thermodynamics pertains to entropy but it doesn't change overall energy in a system, and the cause of entropy as far as I know is possibly reducible to conditions in the early Universe. How it effects the so-called heat death in our Universe's future and what that means, I suggest you might want to ask Alex K or Surginator. They're the physicists. It would make a good post in the science section as I and I'm sure others could benefit from such a discussion.

So I'm curious what you guys have to say about this. Personally, my own knowledge of physics is far too lacking to carry on an educated discussion on this. I'm sure there are people here much more knowledgeable than me, and I'd like to learn more about this issue.
How does the law of entropy relate to the idea of a First Cause? In my (likely flawed) understanding, wouldn't it be impossible for the universe to have existed infinitely in the past? (even if you use cyclical explanations) It seems there would have to have been a "beginning" at which point some kind of force (outside and above the universe itself) intervened to create and set the universe in motion. (Deism, anyone? )
That force may or may not be personal, and perhaps it isn't even a mind. But I just can't wrap my mind around the idea of there being absolutely no First Cause at all...

Look, we've had a similar thread about the issue just today here:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-32196.html

But let's focuse more on the First Cause argument in this one here.

To start the discussion, can you try to outline in your own words the problem
and how you think a first cause solves it? Not as a test, just to get a clearer
starting point for the discussion.

The second law of TD is formulated taking a closed system as an axiom. It has very strict applications and it is not connected to bullshittery at any rate.

The problem I see here is that you picked this old canard of religion and commited an appeal to ignorance. You (nor I) know what was before the rapid expansion that we know as the big bang, neither do we know if it is a closed system, our universe. To postulate "what if"'s is just what religions do.

Scientific laws are bound by precise evidence and measurements. Please do not mix it with fantasy.

Alright.
If you trace a chain of causes and effects back far enough... well, you can't do so infinitely. Because of entropy over time, there had to have been some point at which the universe was in its "most orderly" state, and the entropy has increased from there. Wouldn't it make sense to conclude that an outside force (call it "god" if you feel like, though it isn't necessarily "god", according to any traditional understanding of that word) intervened to start the chain of cause and effect, to create the orderly universe and set it into motion?
I'm fully aware that my personal understanding of physics is inadequate for this discussion. The explanation seems to be that physics were entirely different prior to the Big Bang, and the second law of thermodynamics didn't apply then? (at least not in the same way it does now?)

The idea of an "outside" anything may be entirely incoherent, we don't know that there is an outside to our universe/reality.

(March 18, 2015 at 2:38 pm)GriffinHunter Wrote: Alright.
If you trace a chain of causes and effects back far enough... well, you can't do so infinitely. Because of entropy over time, there had to have been some point at which the universe was in its "most orderly" state, and the entropy has increased from there. Wouldn't it make sense to conclude that an outside force (call it "god" if you feel like, though it isn't necessarily "god", according to any traditional understanding of that word) intervened to start the chain of cause and effect, to create the orderly universe and set it into motion?

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".

One more thing: let's say you posit god as an agent which sets the entropy to a small value, and to find the most parsimonious explanation, strip it of all properties that aren't needed for that, personal God properties and all that are out of the window - what you are left with is a simple statement of the fact that the universe had once a low entropy state. There's no explanatory power there, and no handle to conclude anything about the properties of this God that would justify the name.

Quote:I'm fully aware that my personal understanding of physics is inadequate for this discussion. The explanation seems to be that physics were entirely different prior to the Big Bang, and the second law of thermodynamics didn't apply then? (at least not in the same way it does now?)

That's right, we don't know what's going on prior to the earliest moments we can capture with our current theories. In general, you have to be very careful when space expands or contracts, to take this into account in the entropy calculation. This changes things radically. If you are in a state where there is no smooth spacetime at all because of quantum gravity, then all bets are off.

In eternal inflation, everything expands, but a quantum fluctuation is enough to kick a basically empty pocket of space out of inflation. It then gets heated up and expands, and that's how you get a low entropy boundary condition. Roughly (I'm just a particle physicist, not a cosmologist!)

That's not what you told me when you were whispering sweet nothings in my ear :o

(March 18, 2015 at 2:42 pm)Alex K Wrote: (I'm just a particle physicist, not a cosmologist!)

Just a particle physicist? You bashful chap, you.

(March 18, 2015 at 2:46 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(March 18, 2015 at 2:42 pm)Alex K Wrote: (I'm just a particle physicist, not a cosmologist!)

Just a particle physicist? You bashful chap, you.

Hey, you gotta know your limits (i.e. C.Y.A.)

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.