We...? Time is a concept to me '/shrug'. Call it causality if you want though... whatever makes it politically correct 
That which resembles time ≠ time in some sense??? A causal chain takes time ('in some sense'?) to occur. Is that politically correct enough? One does not have to be a physicist to think about the possibility of more ways to describe something than what-where-when... but one does have to 'not think' to be convinced that what-where-when are irrelevant descriptions because of more descriptions.
Entropy is just the degree of randomness in the system as far as I am concerned. That the universe can exist in many different forms... and only a cyclic universe (of which there could be different types) can be the original. Proving that the 'Big Bang' 'began' time... would also be to prove that our universe is not the original. Quite an achievement, if I may say so myself...
Entropy does not mean that the equality breaks down fundamentally, as doing so would lead to a singularity, or nothingness (righting the inequality)... but only if there is time (causation, whatever) in which to do so. That is the objective rule of existence (1=1, therefore something is itself). Time (concept of it!) is the continued progress of existence. Difference in location and time is to result in the change of the existence. Thus: physics by which 'what', 'when', and 'where' can be deduced. How, why, if... those are questions determining process, purpose, and possibility of what, when, and where.
You might be getting frustrated that I do not see how it is possible for something to progress without a time-'concept'. And before you scream 'causality!' at me... causality is a time-'concept'. It states that cause came before effect, that the effect came after the cause. This is dependent on time. You will notice before and after?
That which resembles time ≠ time in some sense??? A causal chain takes time ('in some sense'?) to occur. Is that politically correct enough? One does not have to be a physicist to think about the possibility of more ways to describe something than what-where-when... but one does have to 'not think' to be convinced that what-where-when are irrelevant descriptions because of more descriptions.
Entropy is just the degree of randomness in the system as far as I am concerned. That the universe can exist in many different forms... and only a cyclic universe (of which there could be different types) can be the original. Proving that the 'Big Bang' 'began' time... would also be to prove that our universe is not the original. Quite an achievement, if I may say so myself...
Entropy does not mean that the equality breaks down fundamentally, as doing so would lead to a singularity, or nothingness (righting the inequality)... but only if there is time (causation, whatever) in which to do so. That is the objective rule of existence (1=1, therefore something is itself). Time (concept of it!) is the continued progress of existence. Difference in location and time is to result in the change of the existence. Thus: physics by which 'what', 'when', and 'where' can be deduced. How, why, if... those are questions determining process, purpose, and possibility of what, when, and where.
You might be getting frustrated that I do not see how it is possible for something to progress without a time-'concept'. And before you scream 'causality!' at me... causality is a time-'concept'. It states that cause came before effect, that the effect came after the cause. This is dependent on time. You will notice before and after?
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
