Matter and energy can be past-eternal

[ManofYesterday]

Matter and energy can be past-eternal. This statement is either true or false.

If the statement is true, then we may live in a universe or multiverse where an infinite number of changes occurred before the present occurred; and that there is an infinite amount of order in our universe or multiverse, which is why after an infinite number of changes, we still observe and measure only a finite amount of entropy, permitting new changes to occur in our universe. Moreover, the finite amount of entropy that we measure isn’t really finite. It's actually nonexistent because if the rate of change for entropy is positive and if it were increasing for infinity, then we should be observing a universe with infinite entropy. In other words, the entropy we observe now must either be really zero or it must naturally decrease after an unspecified amount of time despite us currently observing it increasing.

If the statement is false then that means we may live in a universe or multiverse where there has only been a finite number of changes and amount of order. The statement, “There is matter and energy” wasn’t always true. This means literally nothing—or not anything—or nonbeing—has the potential and causal power to produce matter and energy. For example, if there was not anything prior to the big bang, then the big bang would mark an entropy level of zero (or a very low number), but since the universe has only been around for 13.7 billion years, the amount of entropy we would currently be observing in such a universe wouldn't be infinite.

[Alex K]

Why would we run out of energy?

[ManofYesterday]

Why would we run out of energy?

I'm referring to entropy but I'll edit my post.

[Alex K]

Why would we run out of energy?

I'm referring to entropy but I'll edit my post.

Who says that when you keep goimg back, entropy needs to keep going down. If the big bang was a minimum of entropy, it goes up in both directions on the time line.

[ManofYesterday]

I'm referring to entropy but I'll edit my post.

Who says that when you keep goimg back, entropy needs to keep going down. If the big bang was a minimum of entropy, it goes up in both directions on the time line.

Scientists say. The big bang had an entropy level that was very low or zero, according to physicists. To talk about what happened before the big bang is meaningless. So entropy started off at zero or a very a low number, then rose over the course of 13.7 billion years. Are you saying there was something before the big bang?

[Alex K]

Who says that when you keep goimg back, entropy needs to keep going down. If the big bang was a minimum of entropy, it goes up in both directions on the time line.

Scientists say. The big bang had an entropy level that was very low or zero, according to physicists. To talk about what happened before the big bang is meaningless. So entropy started off at zero or a very a low number, then rose over the course of 13.7 billion years. Are you saying there was something before the big bang?

I don't know, but it is quite plausible. But you started with the past eternal thing.5

[ManofYesterday]

Scientists say. The big bang had an entropy level that was very low or zero, according to physicists. To talk about what happened before the big bang is meaningless. So entropy started off at zero or a very a low number, then rose over the course of 13.7 billion years. Are you saying there was something before the big bang?

I don't know, but it is quite plausible. But you started with the past eternal thing.5

What are your arguments and evidence for thinking it's quite plausible.

[Alex K]

I don't know, but it is quite plausible. But you started with the past eternal thing.5

What are your arguments and evidence for thinking it's quite plausible.

If you turn back time you get to a very dense and very hot state, and before that, either something like inflation or something alternative. When you turn the clock further you can run into singularities, but these do likely not exist in quantum theory and are just a sign that the classical theory becomes invalid. Quantum theory is expected to smooth these things out by virtue of the uncertainty principle etc, and if one then turns time back some more, what can happen other than going away from this extreme dense state again, i.e. entropy rises. The laws of nature are almost exactly the same backwards and forwards, so I'd expect that something similar can happen going back than when going forward.

[ManofYesterday]

What are your arguments and evidence for thinking it's quite plausible.

If you turn back time you get to a very dense and very hot state, and before that, either something like inflation or something alternative. When you turn the clock further you can run into singularities, but these do likely not exist in quantum theory and are just a sign that the classical theory becomes invalid. Quantum theory is expected to smooth these things out by virtue of the uncertainty principle etc, and if one then turns time back some more, what can happen other than going away from this extreme dense state again, i.e. entropy rises. The laws of nature are almost exactly the same backwards and forwards, so I'd expect that something similar can happen going back than when going forward.

"If you turn back time you get to a very dense and very hot state"

Turn back to what? Do you mean extrapolating backward to the point of the big bang?

"and before that"

Scientists don't know what happened before that. Scientific laws break down at this point. Some scientists say it doesn't even make sense to ask what happened prior to the big bang.

"When you turn the clock further you can run into singularities"

Further? The big bang itself is a singularity.

Moreover, the quantum vacuum itself would need a beginning, according to contemporary science.

In any case, the entropy problem isn't a problem unless you believe the universe is past-eternal and most cosmologists don't think the universe is past-eternal.

[Alex K]

What do most cosmologists think about the issue would you say?