2nd law of thermodynamics argument

paisleyartmachine
paisleyartmachine's picture
Posts: 33
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
2nd law of thermodynamics argument

Hello everyone. I am a self-described Atheist. Recently I have been attending meetings of our church group on my college campus. They have been hosting weekly sessions where they show videos from a series titled 'The Truth Project' which is a well produced and obviously well funded lecture series in which a christian apologetics 'professor' supports Christianity as academically valid. I was curious about the arguments that Christians might have so I thought that I would learn a little bit more about it.

I have been through about 5 weeks now, and am surprised by how convincing some of their arguments are. The one in particular that has been frustrating me is their argument about the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the entropy of the universe. They state that our universe is slowly reaching an equilibrium in which heat will spread out across the emptiness of space and create an even temperature which is too low to support life. They argue that this indicates that the universe must have infact had a beginning and that it is impossible for the universe to have simply always existed because the universe would have reached this equilibrium by now.

I am no student of astrophysics, and when I am presented with this argument I don't know how to respond. Is this true? Does science indicate that the universe is slowly reaching an equilibrium with no hope for the recollection of matter and energy to cause another big bang? Is it true that science indicates the universe had a beginning?

What does this mean?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
paisleyartmachine Does

paisleyartmachine Does science indicate that the universe is slowly reaching an equilibrium with no hope for the recollection of matter and energy to cause another big bang?

[/quote wrote:

Yes

Quote:

Is it true that science indicates the universe had a beginning?

 

 

yes

 

Quote:

What does this mean?

 

The Universe had a begining.

 

 


paisleyartmachine
paisleyartmachine's picture
Posts: 33
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Well... so... that seems

Well... so... that seems like a pretty valid argument for the existence of a creator. I have been operating under the assumption that the universe has simply always existed and that time is an illusion, but it sounds like I may have to rethink that whole idea.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
paisleyartmachine

paisleyartmachine wrote:

Well... so... that seems like a pretty valid argument for the existence of a creator.

It does? If unthinking naturalistic processes created all that we consider to be the universe, doesn't that satisfy the need for a beginning and lack a creator? This creator they speak of is conscious and intellent. If unconscious and unintelligent natural processes made all that we consider to be the universe, then there could be a beginning to all that we know of and no intelligent and conscious creator.

I really don't see the jump from "there was a beginning" to "so that beginning necessarily must have been caused by a thinking intelligent being that I will call 'god'." And if it is proven that all things including the universe must have a beginning, why does their creator get a special exemption from this otherwise unbreakable rule? That sounds like special pleading to me. And if they come up with a reason why the creator gets a special exemption, then unthinking naturalistic processes that could have created the universe could also have that same exemption.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Unrepentant_Elitist
Science Freak
Unrepentant_Elitist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2009-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Hi paisleyartmachine,The

Hi paisleyartmachine,

The concept of time as regards the beginning of the universe is a muddle at best. When you mention time as "an illusion," you're not too far off the mark: mathematically speaking, time is an equivalency used to give meaning to other physical concepts. As such, time need not be thought of as "beginning and ending;." rather, no mathematical description is necessary for an "arrow of time." Granted, we seem to perceive things as "past, present, or future," but this is an unnecessary constraint- hence this question of time's "arrow" remains one of the true mysteries of physics.

Likewise, to describe the "beginning of the universe" as a physical point along such a time line is equally suspect. While decent models exist for the early stages of the universe, quantum mechanics begins to break down at around the 10^-44 second looking "backwards. In short, current models indicate that time and the universe began at some "point," but describing anything that might have happened "before the beginning" is meaningless.

As to the continual expansion of the universe, this is a matter of some conjecture as well. To be honest, I would be more than a bit skeptical of anyone who claims to speak definitively on the subject. This sort of argument must be based in no small part on the exact origin of the universe. Absent a quantum theory of gravity or the possible validation of brane cosmological interpretations, I suspect that to blindly choose entropy as an over-riding consideration is a bit short-sighted. 

If we speak of a beginning as a convenient method of defining a point in illusory time from which we can proceed with some assurance, I would ask the question of your campus group: what is the point of inserting god into the process? This sort of thinking is merely adding on an unnecessary layer to an incredibly complex idea. Slapping a proverbial band-aid on the limits of our scientific knowledge by reaching a point where we feel it useful to default into "god did it" is intellectually dishonest at best and smacks of outright chicanery at worst. 

Welcome to the forum, by the way!  


paisleyartmachine
paisleyartmachine's picture
Posts: 33
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander

Jormungander wrote:

paisleyartmachine wrote:

Well... so... that seems like a pretty valid argument for the existence of a creator.

If unconscious and unintelligent natural processes made all that we consider to be the universe, then there could be a beginning to all that we know of and no intelligent and conscious creator.

I really don't see the jump from "there was a beginning" to "so that beginning necessarily must have been caused by a thinking intelligent being that I will call 'god'."

 

Good point. The only reason that I have been presented with as to why the universe must have originated from a conscious creator thus far is because the bible said so, and the bible is infallible. An origin does not mandate a conscious creator.

I still find the notion of a universe with a definitive beginning and an end upsetting. If the universe began and is slowly diffusing into nothing it makes life feel quite a bit harsher. Anyways, thank you for the logic.  


paisleyartmachine
paisleyartmachine's picture
Posts: 33
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Hello Unrepentant_Elitist,

Hello Unrepentant_Elitist, thank you for your reply. As far as the concept of time is concerned I think I follow you. I will try to paraphrase just to make sure I am understanding: time is not tangible in that it is a measurement of change and not necessarily a flow of past into present into future.

Now when you talk about a quantum theory of gravity or the possible validation of brane cosmological interpretations in regards to the expansion of the universe, are you saying that there are current models which imply an alternative to the heat death of the universe? I would love to learn more... although I have found the majority of articles about models of the universe almost completely incomprehensible. 

Thanks for the welcome! Happy to be here.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 So... you're Paisley,

 So... you're Paisley, right? 

Shouldn't you have a theist badge, mister?  By the way, you know we don't take kindly to theists pretending to be atheists.  We can spot them a mile off.  Especially when they've trolled the boards for months beforehand.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


MrPal
Superfan
MrPal's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2009-11-30
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: So...

Hambydammit wrote:

 So... you're Paisley, right? 

Shouldn't you have a theist badge, mister?  By the way, you know we don't take kindly to theists pretending to be atheists.  We can spot them a mile off.  Especially when they've trolled the boards for months beforehand.

 

 

Ruh roh.

 

 

That quote aside, the base of your argument off of a notion that life can't exist in conditions we have on earth.  That's fairly presumptuous.  Now if we pretend that's a fact, there's still the (actual) fact that for those conditions to exist there has to be the precursor we have now...  Asking "Why hasn't it happened already" is silly.

 

Edit:  Also I don't even think that the equilibrium argument is a fact either, but I'd love to hear otherwise.

I never thought there were corners in my mind until I was told to stand in one.

I have learned so much, thanks for keeping it real RRS.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forum,

Welcome to the forum, paisleyartmachine!

The 2nd law of themodynamics does state that entropy of a closed/isolated system always increases. If the universe is a closed system, then there is a scientific basis for suggesting that the universe will eventually lose all it's ability to do work, and...fizzle out, so to speak. Of course, there are other models, such as the ones in which the universe follows cycles of expansions and contraction(?).

None of these models provide any evidence for the existence of a God, which is an incoherent and nonsensical concept to begin with. All of these annoying cosmological arguments are just attempts to exploit the last great God of the gaps. Once science formulates a real, precise explanation, they'll be out of a job.

Edit:

Hambydammit wrote:
So... you're Paisley, right? 

 

Shouldn't you have a theist badge, mister?  By the way, you know we don't take kindly to theists pretending to be atheists.  We can spot them a mile off.  Especially when they've trolled the boards for months beforehand.

Meh....it doesn't seem like Paisley. 

If Paisley came back pretending to be an atheist, I don't think he would put "paisley" in his username. And, the content of his posts seem to show that he's real, as well as intelligent and open-minded.

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paisley_%28design%29

 

it could be a word used in more than one username.  Who knows, it could very well be. That said he hasn't posted a video yet.

 

 

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
The argument "universe came

The argument "universe came out of nothing therefore God exists" is a bit dubious. There is no such thing as "nothing". The universe is afraid of nothing. Every cubic milimeter of space is filled with energy of vacuum, with dark matter, cosmic radiation, and so on. "Something" is a basic state of everything.
So why the universe started? Well, everything in nature works with cycles. There are cycles within cycles within cycles and so on. From atomic vibration to rotation of galaxy. It is therefore well possible, that the universe itself exists in cycles. Breath-in, breath out, as Vedas of ancient India would say. The linear illusion of beginning and end is just a short-sighted look at cyclic nature of everything.

And what will happen when the universe gets too old? One of my favorite hypotheses is, that dark matter works to dissolve the normal matter back into itself.
In this process possibly electric forces appear. And so, Big Bang might not be what it is currently considered. Today most of people think that the universe was in one tiny point (the most improbable state ever) and then it exploded. This is, because there is a red shift, so we assume that everything is moving away from us. But if there are other things that can cause red shift, then the universe might originally be something else than a single point. If Big Bang was an act of precipitation of matter from dark matter, then it didn't have to be in a single point.
Of course, this begs a question of what causes the precipitation and dissolution of matter. I'd rather not answer that now, because it would again set off the red woo alert Smiling

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
There is no clear 'arrow of

There is no clear 'arrow of time' at the particle level, where quantum effects rule.

But as we consider more complex assemblages of particles, statistical probabilities do point in a very definite direction, and the Second Law is intimately involved.

There are vastly more ways for a collection of atoms/molecules to be 'arranged' in a relatively structureless, disordered way than in any neat structure with significant new properties.

So, overall, and in the ultimate, closed systems progress in the direction of increasing disorder, which effectively defines an arrow of time. Time could be thought of as an emergent property of large assemblages of particles.

The current opinion in cosmology is that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, and will have no finite end, just progressively more spread out and isolated fragments.

There are some theories which suggest that when individual fragments become sufficiently isolated, and under the influence of Dark Energy which by then will have become dominant over gravity, new Big Bang singularities can form. An interesting aspect of this is that altho the overall entropy of the Universe will have become much larger since the original BB, the share of this entropy in each fragment will be tiny, so the new BB starts of with minimal entropy, avoiding any violation of the second law.

A 'God' really doesn't fit into or clarify or 'explain' any of this, just introduces something far harder to explain than the sort of spontaneous quantum twitch needed to start of the BB scenario.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

That said he hasn't posted a video yet.

 

 

You would know about it if you watched it.

 

 

Which you obviously haven't.

 

 

 

/Paisley

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Unrepentant_Elitist wrote:Hi

Unrepentant_Elitist wrote:

Hi paisleyartmachine,

The concept of time as regards the beginning of the universe is a muddle at best. When you mention time as "an illusion," you're not too far off the mark: mathematically speaking, time is an equivalency used to give meaning to other physical concepts. As such, time need not be thought of as "beginning and ending;." rather, no mathematical description is necessary for an "arrow of time." Granted, we seem to perceive things as "past, present, or future," but this is an unnecessary constraint- hence this question of time's "arrow" remains one of the true mysteries of physics.

Likewise, to describe the "beginning of the universe" as a physical point along such a time line is equally suspect. While decent models exist for the early stages of the universe, quantum mechanics begins to break down at around the 10^-44 second looking "backwards. In short, current models indicate that time and the universe began at some "point," but describing anything that might have happened "before the beginning" is meaningless.

As to the continual expansion of the universe, this is a matter of some conjecture as well. To be honest, I would be more than a bit skeptical of anyone who claims to speak definitively on the subject. This sort of argument must be based in no small part on the exact origin of the universe. Absent a quantum theory of gravity or the possible validation of brane cosmological interpretations, I suspect that to blindly choose entropy as an over-riding consideration is a bit short-sighted. 

If we speak of a beginning as a convenient method of defining a point in illusory time from which we can proceed with some assurance, I would ask the question of your campus group: what is the point of inserting god into the process? This sort of thinking is merely adding on an unnecessary layer to an incredibly complex idea. Slapping a proverbial band-aid on the limits of our scientific knowledge by reaching a point where we feel it useful to default into "god did it" is intellectually dishonest at best and smacks of outright chicanery at worst. 

Welcome to the forum, by the way!  

Ah, the sweet sound of science.

And the students smiled and played
With the neon light they made
And the sign flashed out its spectrum
In the words of its speculation
And the sign said "The words of the professor are written in our lecture notes
And RRS posts
And whispered in the sound of science

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


paisleyartmachine
paisleyartmachine's picture
Posts: 33
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Paisley the theist. Just

Paisley the theist.

 

Just for clarification, no, I am not paisley. Although I am delighted to hear about a theist with an appreciation for psychadelic art. I understand the confusion though, no hard feelings.


paisleyartmachine
paisleyartmachine's picture
Posts: 33
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:None of

butterbattle wrote:

None of these models provide any evidence for the existence of a God, which is an incoherent and nonsensical concept to begin with. All of these annoying cosmological arguments are just attempts to exploit the last great God of the gaps. Once science formulates a real, precise explanation, they'll be out of a job.

Yes, I agree. I think the underlying principal here is just because we have come to a limit in our understanding of the universe it does not mean that we have to 'Default to God'did'it' as stated earlier. I think I was just a little bit shaken from finding out the universe is more likely to be dispersing towards heat death than it is to be cyclical.


paisleyartmachine
paisleyartmachine's picture
Posts: 33
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:One of my favorite

Quote:

One of my favorite hypotheses is, that dark matter works to dissolve the normal matter back into itself.

 

Where did you hear this concept? Can you point me in it's direction?


paisleyartmachine
paisleyartmachine's picture
Posts: 33
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The current opinion in

Quote:

The current opinion in cosmology is that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, and will have no finite end, just progressively more spread out and isolated fragments.

There are some theories which suggest that when individual fragments become sufficiently isolated, and under the influence of Dark Energy which by then will have become dominant over gravity, new Big Bang singularities can form. An interesting aspect of this is that altho the overall entropy of the Universe will have become much larger since the original BB, the share of this entropy in each fragment will be tiny, so the new BB starts of with minimal entropy, avoiding any violation of the second law.

 

Thank you so much for your response. I really appreciate the quality of science people are willing to drop here. Can you by chance point me in the direction of this theory so that I can get a better understanding of it? I know a bit about Stephen Hawkings and the membrane/dark matter theories, but I don't really understand how dark matter relates to our universe other than it's gravity helping hold it together. 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Luminon, you set off the woo

Luminon, you set off the woo alert when you show up. That's not necessarily a bad thing - it keeps me on my toes.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
paisleyartmachine

paisleyartmachine wrote:

Quote:

The current opinion in cosmology is that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating, and will have no finite end, just progressively more spread out and isolated fragments.

There are some theories which suggest that when individual fragments become sufficiently isolated, and under the influence of Dark Energy which by then will have become dominant over gravity, new Big Bang singularities can form. An interesting aspect of this is that altho the overall entropy of the Universe will have become much larger since the original BB, the share of this entropy in each fragment will be tiny, so the new BB starts of with minimal entropy, avoiding any violation of the second law.

Thank you so much for your response. I really appreciate the quality of science people are willing to drop here. Can you by chance point me in the direction of this theory so that I can get a better understanding of it? I know a bit about Stephen Hawkings and the membrane/dark matter theories, but I don't really understand how dark matter relates to our universe other than it's gravity helping hold it together. 

I am not sure exactly where I heard that particular argument first, I think it was part of a series of podcasts from Slacker Astronomy, from interviews with people at the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago.

There are variations on it of course, and I have been Googling for more references. I will try and post some more specific links later. It takes longer to skim thru podcasts for such references, unless they include enough info in the associated text description.

Just to correct a point there, it is Dark Energy which is the main player here, not Dark Matter. Yes, Dark Matter could well be helping to shape and hold together individual galaxies, but Dark Energy is what is seen as probably driving the accelerating expansion. They are not particular connected, other than both being hard to detect directly ( ie 'Dark' ).

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
A rule of thumb for

A rule of thumb for atheists. If you want to entertain them, that is one thing. But when they bring up science, keep in mind that they want to justify a book written by tribal goat herders long before modern science.

"Second Law" will not justify magical beings knocking up girls or human flesh surviving rigor mortis anymore than it would justify the Ancient Egyptians claim that the sun itself was a thinking being.

The reason these Klingon Jesus arguments exist is because believers realize that the old "poof" by proxy of popular belief isn't working anymore. So they attempt to dress their skunk up in a cheap tuxedo(buzz words and psuedo science) to make it sound possible.

Isn't it funny how their "second law" argument leads you to their god? I wonder what a Muslim lead science class would lead the students to if they were also arguing "second law"?

They still want to convince you of "poof" fully grown adults popping out of dirt, beings with no body or penis knocking up girls. And it is all possible because of a being with no body, no brain, no neurons or cerebellum.

"Second Law" can no more justify those absurdities than if I claimed I could fart a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:A rule of

Brian37 wrote:

A rule of thumb for atheists. If you want to entertain them, that is one thing. But when they bring up science, keep in mind that they want to justify a book written by tribal goat herders long before modern science.

"Second Law" will not justify magical beings knocking up girls or human flesh surviving rigor mortis anymore than it would justify the Ancient Egyptians claim that the sun itself was a thinking being.

The reason these Klingon Jesus arguments exist is because believers realize that the old "poof" by proxy of popular belief isn't working anymore. So they attempt to dress their skunk up in a cheap tuxedo(buzz words and psuedo science) to make it sound possible.

Isn't it funny how their "second law" argument leads you to their god? I wonder what a Muslim lead science class would lead the students to if they were also arguing "second law"?

They still want to convince you of "poof" fully grown adults popping out of dirt, beings with no body or penis knocking up girls. And it is all possible because of a being with no body, no brain, no neurons or cerebellum.

"Second Law" can no more justify those absurdities than if I claimed I could fart a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass.

Or you could just point out that 'God' is just one enormous violation of the Second Law, so it is stupid to attempt to explain a problem by something which has essentially the same problem (of origin, etc), just to an infinitely bigger degree.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Brian37

BobSpence1 wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

A rule of thumb for atheists. If you want to entertain them, that is one thing. But when they bring up science, keep in mind that they want to justify a book written by tribal goat herders long before modern science.

"Second Law" will not justify magical beings knocking up girls or human flesh surviving rigor mortis anymore than it would justify the Ancient Egyptians claim that the sun itself was a thinking being.

The reason these Klingon Jesus arguments exist is because believers realize that the old "poof" by proxy of popular belief isn't working anymore. So they attempt to dress their skunk up in a cheap tuxedo(buzz words and psuedo science) to make it sound possible.

Isn't it funny how their "second law" argument leads you to their god? I wonder what a Muslim lead science class would lead the students to if they were also arguing "second law"?

They still want to convince you of "poof" fully grown adults popping out of dirt, beings with no body or penis knocking up girls. And it is all possible because of a being with no body, no brain, no neurons or cerebellum.

"Second Law" can no more justify those absurdities than if I claimed I could fart a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass.

Or you could just point out that 'God' is just one enormous violation of the Second Law, so it is stupid to attempt to explain a problem by something which has essentially the same problem (of origin, etc), just to an infinitely bigger degree.

I'll point out what I want to point out. You are not going to take away my "2 trick pony" from me. I don't care how much your argument makes sense. (note to readers: inside joke).

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10147
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
BobSpence1 wrote:Or you

BobSpence1 wrote:
Or you could just point out that 'God' is just one enormous violation of the Second Law, so it is stupid to attempt to explain a problem by something which has essentially the same problem (of origin, etc), just to an infinitely bigger degree.

That's a lot more fun. I love theists who try using the 'Law'(s) of science. By using them at all they subject their beliefs to science, which then annuls them. Laughing out loud

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


MrPal
Superfan
MrPal's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2009-11-30
User is offlineOffline
 Hey scientist guys, I have

 Hey scientist guys, I have a question that is somewhat related somewhat unrelated.

 

I've heard about attempts at observing some sort of quantum particles, and there was a lot of confusion because direct observation led to a difference in their behavior?  Does anyone know what I'm talking about?  If not I'll be glad to "hit the books" and try to find some more info.  

Don't take my lack of knowledge and research as offensive, take it as a compliment.  I trust you guys more than I would random Google sites.

I never thought there were corners in my mind until I was told to stand in one.

I have learned so much, thanks for keeping it real RRS.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
MrPal wrote: Hey scientist

MrPal wrote:

 Hey scientist guys, I have a question that is somewhat related somewhat unrelated.

 

I've heard about attempts at observing some sort of quantum particles, and there was a lot of confusion because direct observation led to a difference in their behavior?  Does anyone know what I'm talking about?  If not I'll be glad to "hit the books" and try to find some more info.  

Don't take my lack of knowledge and research as offensive, take it as a compliment.  I trust you guys more than I would random Google sites.

The basic problem with observing quantum scale particles is summed up in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which states 

Wikipedia wrote:

that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision. That is, the more precisely one property is known, the less precisely the other can be known. This statement has been interpreted in two different ways. According to Heisenberg its meaning is that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and velocity of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty. According to others (for instance Ballentine[1]) this is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics.

They specifically are excluding errors in the measuring devices.

I think it is determined by the need to actually interact in some way with the particle, either by bouncing a photon off it, or measure its electromagnetic field, which requires letting its field change some magnet or electric charge, which inevitably changes the forces on the particle via that field.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Unrepentant_Elitist
Science Freak
Unrepentant_Elitist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2009-07-15
User is offlineOffline
MrPal wrote: Hey scientist

MrPal wrote:

 Hey scientist guys, I have a question that is somewhat related somewhat unrelated.

 

I've heard about attempts at observing some sort of quantum particles, and there was a lot of confusion because direct observation led to a difference in their behavior?  Does anyone know what I'm talking about?  If not I'll be glad to "hit the books" and try to find some more info.  

Don't take my lack of knowledge and research as offensive, take it as a compliment.  I trust you guys more than I would random Google sites.

Mr Spence's reply is right on (which I suppose should come as no surprise to readers of these forums) in that he references the difficulties in positional and velocity-indexed as a function of observational difficulties. Additionally, quantum electrodynamics dictate that prior to observation any possible location is equally possible (regardless of its fundamental probability) for a given particle as locale is considered independent of motion. Obviously, this leads to a bit of circular thinking; however, through utilization of sum-over histories, a rough approximation of both position and motion can be given. Recognize, unfortunately, that said histories require the use of path integrals which are at best a rough approximation. Nonetheless, meaningful information can be gleaned if a single physical property is sought or a generalization of a particle's path and velocity is adequate for the model in question.

Thank you for your comment on my introduction forum, by the way!


Unrepentant_Elitist
Science Freak
Unrepentant_Elitist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2009-07-15
User is offlineOffline
For the most part, you are

For the most part, you are correct. Time is an arbitrary place-marker that is useful in describing isentropic systems. Unfortunately, I see little evidence to suggest a uniform distribution of entropy or entropic variation; thus I am led to conclude that time itself (while useful to describe individual points) is largely irrelevant. As concerns theories of the "end of the universe," (for lack of a better term) the number that exist may be somewhat daunting. However, if I may suggest  a few, you might consider: Heat Death (as you have previously mentioned), Gradual Cooling (which is not exactly an "end of time scenario" but rather an abrogation of time), or Multiverse interpretations of cosmology. On a personal note, though I am far from being qualified in astrophysics, I find that the Mulitiverse scenario is most consistent with my chosen field of atomic physics (perhaps I might be biased). However, I leave you to your own thoughts. Happy hunting, and if I may be of any help (how egotistical is that phrase?) please let me know...chances are, I'm lurking around these pages somewhere...


Unrepentant_Elitist
Science Freak
Unrepentant_Elitist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2009-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Ah, well...

As usual, while nuclear reactors make sense, computers do not...

My comment above should be addressed to paisleyartmachine's comment concerning my earlier post.

My apologies for the confusion.

 


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I think it

BobSpence1 wrote:

I think it is determined by the need to actually interact in some way with the particle, either by bouncing a photon off it, or measure its electromagnetic field, which requires letting its field change some magnet or electric charge, which inevitably changes the forces on the particle via that field.

Interestingly enough this actually has nothing to do with the measuring technique. Even if you could build a perfect detector that in no way interacted with the particle of interest, there would still be limits on how accurately you could measure the particle's velocity and position simultaneously. The Schrodinger's Equation presents terms in such a way that being able to measure one term more accurately necessarily decreases the maximum possible accuracy of another term. Velocity and position is the example usually used to illustrate this point, but some other pairs of properties of particles also have this problem. On the other hand other pairs of properties could be simultaneously measured to any arbitrarily high degree of accuracy. There is a mathematical method used to check if any two properties commute or not.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Unrepentant_Elitist
Science Freak
Unrepentant_Elitist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2009-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander

Jormungander wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

I think it is determined by the need to actually interact in some way with the particle, either by bouncing a photon off it, or measure its electromagnetic field, which requires letting its field change some magnet or electric charge, which inevitably changes the forces on the particle via that field.

Interestingly enough this actually has nothing to do with the measuring technique. Even if you could build a perfect detector that in no way interacted with the particle of interest, there would still be limits on how accurately you could measure the particle's velocity and position simultaneously. The Schrodinger's Equation presents terms in such a way that being able to measure one term more accurately necessarily decreases the maximum possible accuracy of another term. Velocity and position is the example usually used to illustrate this point, but some other pairs of properties of particles also have this problem. On the other hand other pairs of properties could be simultaneously measured to any arbitrarily high degree of accuracy. There is a mathematical method used to check if any two properties commute or not.

I have enjoyed your Libertarian-oriented quotes in some of the other forums (I, too, am one of the unwashed few...)!

If I may, I would like to ofter a slight technical correction (if my understanding is correct) to the arguments made by you and BobSpence. I believe you both are correct, but for different reasons: BobSpence argues form a measurement perspective that is altogether rational and perhaps prescient given the current LHC experiments. However,  jormungander is likewise correct in his mathematical interpretation of the singular equation. 

As an opinion: both contexts are correct. BobSpence is arguing from an observable, testable model that reflects (accurately) our instrument error and presuppositions regarding measurement techniques. Jormungander is arguing from a strict mathematical interpretation that ignores (perhaps rightly so) the Copenhagen Convention. In my opinion, neither of you are " wrong," but experimental data seem to be lacking in both cases.  As a precursor to further debate, I believe that Casimir Effect must be studied further with respect t vacuum fluctuations before a lucid application of Heisenberg may be applied.  


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I am aware of the more

I am aware of the more purely mathematical interpretation, but I see no way to actually measure the position and momentum (not velocity) without some actual interaction. Please enlighten me if there is a way to do this.

The more interesting attempts to measure without interaction involve measuring the particle (photon or electron) after the quantum interaction point, such as well after the double slit, in such a way as to be able to infer their position or momentum at the point of encountering the slits. AFAICR, this still doesn't kill the interference, but then it also doesn't necessarily determine the state of the wave function at the time of encountering the slits. I am not able to locate references to this right at the moment, so please don't hold me to it. There are a series of experiments involving inserting grids corresponding to the positions of the black lines in the interference pattern normally observed at that position and then observing the results further down the track. I should try and retrieve these sources.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
paisleyartmachine

paisleyartmachine wrote:
Quote:
One of my favorite hypotheses is, that dark matter works to dissolve the normal matter back into itself.

Where did you hear this concept? Can you point me in it's direction?

It's a renegade science. Search for people like Sobolev, Kanarev, Bearden, Naudin, or older guys like Wilhelm Reich and Tesla, which are surely familiar to you. A lot can be also found here, it's not very dark-matter-friendly, but has some merit too. However, I will need to search for where exactly was this written. Very possibly it's a hypothesis mentioned in a discussion on a different forum.
The reason why do I agree with that deeply, is because both my own observations and other sources contain that possibility naturally. For example, writings of Alice Bailey. I see all these sources as describing the same thing from different perspectives. At the same time, there is a great criticism to some contemporary scientific models. This article, for example.

My information is, that the dark matter or whatever it's called, is not homogenous. There are other kinds of matter, than just dense, liquid and gaseous. There are gradually still more fine states of matter, that are not so easy to detect. I like to call that "fineness" which differs all these states from each other a 4th dimension. If we imaginarily move along this 4th dimension, we could find ourselves in a different world, with different use of natural laws. So-called natural laws are just universal exceptions for this anomaly, called dense matter. And what is all the rest of it? The correct word is... aether. In some cases, aether may violate 2nd law of thermodynamics, because it behaves differently to other forms of energy. For example, many types of capacitors charge themselves automatically during days with low relative moisture.
The reasons behind my opinion are both my studies and observations in practice. I'm a highly physically sensitive individual and I have an inborn ability to sense aetheric phenomena, at least these participating on my physiology. I have found out, that there is aetheric aspect of our living processes and that many methods of alternative medicine, seemingly having no basis, work with this aetheric part of our bodies.

But I understand that those who can't observe aether in their daily life might find what I just wrote a huge turnoff. This is basically why people here have badges, like theist, atheist, or whatever. If you want, you can pick a person to converse with, according to what topic do you care about.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Or you

BobSpence1 wrote:

Or you could just point out that 'God' is just one enormous violation of the Second Law, so it is stupid to attempt to explain a problem by something which has essentially the same problem (of origin, etc), just to an infinitely bigger degree.

How so?  G-d isn't any "thing" that would be subject to the 2nd Law.  Trying to apply the 2nd Law to G-d is about as dumb as trying to apply the 2nd Law to 2+2.  Or the color red.  If violating 2nd Law is a disproof of something existing, I'm guessing that (Proof by Analogy), "2+2" and "red" also don't exist?  More significantly, the 2nd Law also doesn't apply to the 2nd Law, so by your reasoning, the 2nd Law also doesn't exist.  Quite the contradiction you've argued yourself into ...

And yeah, it does look like Heat Death, or The Big Rip is the most likely end for the Universe.  Not much we can do about it.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Or you could just point out that 'God' is just one enormous violation of the Second Law, so it is stupid to attempt to explain a problem by something which has essentially the same problem (of origin, etc), just to an infinitely bigger degree.

How so?  G-d isn't any "thing" that would be subject to the 2nd Law.  Trying to apply the 2nd Law to G-d is about as dumb as trying to apply the 2nd Law to 2+2.  Or the color red.  If violating 2nd Law is a disproof of something existing, I'm guessing that (Proof by Analogy), "2+2" and "red" also don't exist?  More significantly, the 2nd Law also doesn't apply to the 2nd Law, so by your reasoning, the 2nd Law also doesn't exist.  Quite the contradiction you've argued yourself into ...

And yeah, it does look like Heat Death, or The Big Rip is the most likely end for the Universe.  Not much we can do about it.

Fine.

Then you agree with me that God, or G-d, only exists as a concept, an idea, in the mind of believers.

I was targeting those dumb people who actually do believe God exists as some conscious entity independent of us, and not just a label for a property of natural objects (like "red" is), or a deduction from a set of definitions, like "2+2=4" is, neither of which exist as physical objects which one could apply the second law to, so they cannot "violate" it.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


MrPal
Superfan
MrPal's picture
Posts: 67
Joined: 2009-11-30
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Or you could just point out that 'God' is just one enormous violation of the Second Law, so it is stupid to attempt to explain a problem by something which has essentially the same problem (of origin, etc), just to an infinitely bigger degree.

How so?  G-d isn't any "thing" that would be subject to the 2nd Law.  Trying to apply the 2nd Law to G-d is about as dumb as trying to apply the 2nd Law to 2+2.  Or the color red.  If violating 2nd Law is a disproof of something existing, I'm guessing that (Proof by Analogy), "2+2" and "red" also don't exist?  More significantly, the 2nd Law also doesn't apply to the 2nd Law, so by your reasoning, the 2nd Law also doesn't exist.  Quite the contradiction you've argued yourself into ...

 

Did you seriously quote mine to say that?  How would you like it if someone took you out of context (for one sentence!) and built a bunch of assumptions of your beliefs and put idiotic words in your mouth?  

 

Not calling you an idiot, but you did your best to make him look like one with very silly examples.

 

I never thought there were corners in my mind until I was told to stand in one.

I have learned so much, thanks for keeping it real RRS.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Or you could just point out that 'God' is just one enormous violation of the Second Law, so it is stupid to attempt to explain a problem by something which has essentially the same problem (of origin, etc), just to an infinitely bigger degree.

How so?  G-d isn't any "thing" that would be subject to the 2nd Law.  Trying to apply the 2nd Law to G-d is about as dumb as trying to apply the 2nd Law to 2+2.  Or the color red.  If violating 2nd Law is a disproof of something existing, I'm guessing that (Proof by Analogy), "2+2" and "red" also don't exist?  More significantly, the 2nd Law also doesn't apply to the 2nd Law, so by your reasoning, the 2nd Law also doesn't exist.  Quite the contradiction you've argued yourself into ...

And yeah, it does look like Heat Death, or The Big Rip is the most likely end for the Universe.  Not much we can do about it.

Fine.

Then you agree with me that God, or G-d, only exists as a concept, an idea, in the mind of believers.

I was targeting those dumb people who actually do believe God exists as some conscious entity independent of us, and not just a label for a property of natural objects (like "red" is), or a deduction from a set of definitions, like "2+2=4" is, neither of which exist as physical objects which one could apply the second law to, so they cannot "violate" it.

Surely if you've read enough of my posts by now you should know that I don't think "God" is some guy sitting in a corner doing magic tricks.  Which is to say, G-d isn't a "thing".

So ... we have agreement --  "The 2nd Law doesn't apply to G-d just like the 2nd law doesn't apply to anything else that isn't a physical 'thing'".  Can you agree with that?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
MrPal wrote:FurryCatHerder

MrPal wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Or you could just point out that 'God' is just one enormous violation of the Second Law, so it is stupid to attempt to explain a problem by something which has essentially the same problem (of origin, etc), just to an infinitely bigger degree.

How so?  G-d isn't any "thing" that would be subject to the 2nd Law.  Trying to apply the 2nd Law to G-d is about as dumb as trying to apply the 2nd Law to 2+2.  Or the color red.  If violating 2nd Law is a disproof of something existing, I'm guessing that (Proof by Analogy), "2+2" and "red" also don't exist?  More significantly, the 2nd Law also doesn't apply to the 2nd Law, so by your reasoning, the 2nd Law also doesn't exist.  Quite the contradiction you've argued yourself into ...

Did you seriously quote mine to say that?  How would you like it if someone took you out of context (for one sentence!) and built a bunch of assumptions of your beliefs and put idiotic words in your mouth? 

I don't see anything of yours IN there.

 

MrPal wrote:
Not calling you an idiot, but you did your best to make him look like one with very silly examples.

Bob IS an idiot and no, they aren't silly examples.  Study how Reason and Argument work and then you'll understand that there is no such thing as a "very silly example".

The 2nd Law doesn't apply to everything that exists with in the universe.  And while I'm willing to concede, for the sake of moving forward with my argument that virtually all of the arguments used here against G-d are some form of the "Begging the Conclusion" logical fallacy, I did refrain from going off on a wild tangent and pointing out that the 2nd Law doesn't apply, for example, to the electrostatic repulsion between an electron cloud and the nucleus of an atom.  And hopefully Bob realizes that electrons AND atomic nuclei are both "things".  QED, the 2nd Law also doesn't apply to every "thing" in the Universe because there exist "things" in the Universe which violate the 2nd Law.  QED, G-d cannot be proven or disproven using 2nd Law arguments whether G-d is a "thing" or "no thing" or "nothing" or just a superstitious belief of a bunch of nomadic goat herders.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Or you could just point out that 'God' is just one enormous violation of the Second Law, so it is stupid to attempt to explain a problem by something which has essentially the same problem (of origin, etc), just to an infinitely bigger degree.

How so?  G-d isn't any "thing" that would be subject to the 2nd Law.  Trying to apply the 2nd Law to G-d is about as dumb as trying to apply the 2nd Law to 2+2.  Or the color red.  If violating 2nd Law is a disproof of something existing, I'm guessing that (Proof by Analogy), "2+2" and "red" also don't exist?  More significantly, the 2nd Law also doesn't apply to the 2nd Law, so by your reasoning, the 2nd Law also doesn't exist.  Quite the contradiction you've argued yourself into ...

And yeah, it does look like Heat Death, or The Big Rip is the most likely end for the Universe.  Not much we can do about it.

Fine.

Then you agree with me that God, or G-d, only exists as a concept, an idea, in the mind of believers.

I was targeting those dumb people who actually do believe God exists as some conscious entity independent of us, and not just a label for a property of natural objects (like "red" is), or a deduction from a set of definitions, like "2+2=4" is, neither of which exist as physical objects which one could apply the second law to, so they cannot "violate" it.

Surely if you've read enough of my posts by now you should know that I don't think "God" is some guy sitting in a corner doing magic tricks.  Which is to say, G-d isn't a "thing".

So ... we have agreement --  "The 2nd Law doesn't apply to G-d just like the 2nd law doesn't apply to anything else that isn't a physical 'thing'".  Can you agree with that?

I always gave you more credit than to assume your idea of God was anything so anthropomorphic.

That still leaves open the question of whether you see your God as an entity in some 'higher', or 'non-physical', realm, independent of your thoughts, to which physical laws simply do not apply, or purely as something in the same or similar category as a dumb physical law or relationship, such as "2+2=4", or the color "red" as a label for the subjective effect on our visual perception of a certain distribution of light wavelengths.

Does your G-d have its own mind, thoughts, intentions? The OT certainly seems to rather strongly suggest that.

It would be invalid to say that "2+2=4" has thoughts, it is a thought.

Genuinely curious to get a handle on just how you conceive of 'G-d'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder, I was

FurryCatHerder, I was composing my last post while you responded to MrPal.

The second law, by definition, applies to material/physical objects, and collections of material objects.

In its basic form, it describes the relationships between the flows of heat and other forms of energy between physical objects, and introduces the concept of 'entropy', which is a measure of the quantity of energy flow divided by the absolute temperature of the body gaining or losing that quantity of thermal energy.

So of course it would be nonsense to apply it to ideas.

However, most views of God seem to envisage something more than just an idea. Usually as something which has extent, awareness, will, sentience, or at least some 'higher' analogues of such, as well as the ability to directly influence both physical objects and our thoughts.

So, extrapolating from our current understanding of earthly versions of such abilities and attributes, it would seem to imply that God was constituted of some supernatural analogue of matter, since everything we actually know about sentience strongly suggest that it requires some complex structure and organisation, such as the physical brain and its pattern of neuronal interconnections.

Structure and organisation in turn require some substrate to be expressed in. So it is hard to see how a sentient entity would not have some analogue of physical matter as its basis. This in turn opens the way for a version of the second law to apply, which is actually only dependent on very fundamental aspects of matter and energy, which would still apply to a different implementation or version of matter and energy. At least to something which could support a version of 'mind', which was analogous in some sense to our own, supposedly "created in the image" of that entity, altho I may be presuming too much in assuming you read that phrase that way.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

FurryCatHerder, I was composing my last post while you responded to MrPal.

The second law, by definition, applies to material/physical objects, and collections of material objects.

No, it doesn't.  I'm sorry, but there are "material/physical objects" to which the 2nd Law DOES NOT APPLY.

BobSpence1 wrote:
In its basic form, it describes the relationships between the flows of heat and other forms of energy between physical objects, and introduces the concept of 'entropy', which is a measure of the quantity of energy flow divided by the absolute temperature of the body gaining or losing that quantity of thermal energy.

So ... what is the energy flow between the particles in a hydrogen atom?  The components of a proton?  How does the 2nd Law affect (or not) neutron decay?

BobSpence1 wrote:
So of course it would be nonsense to apply it to ideas.

It would be ridiculous to apply the 2nd Law to a lot of things.

BobSpence1 wrote:
However, most views of God seem to envisage something more than just an idea. Usually as something which has extent, awareness, will, sentience, or at least some 'higher' analogues of such, as well as the ability to directly influence both physical objects and our thoughts.

Two of the three Abrahamic faiths would disagree with you on that.

Really -- this notion is a very Christian one (and they in turn got it from the Greeks and Romans and their pantheon of gods), in which their god sits on a literal, physical throne, scratches his chin, and decides whom to zap today.

BobSpence1 wrote:
So, extrapolating from our current understanding of earthly versions of such abilities and attributes, it would seem to imply that God was constituted of some supernatural analogue of matter, since everything we actually know about sentience strongly suggest that it requires some complex structure and organisation, such as the physical brain and its pattern of neuronal interconnections.

Perhaps the extrapolation is based on flawed assumptions?  In addition to not having a penis, G-d does not have a "brain".  Or "arms" or "hands".  Anthropomorphisms aren't descriptions of fact, they are literary devices by which things which cannot be explained are explained.  So long as the reader understands they aren't literally true in a physical sense.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Structure and organisation in turn require some substrate to be expressed in. So it is hard to see how a sentient entity would not have some analogue of physical matter as its basis. This in turn opens the way for a version of the second law to apply, which is actually only dependent on very fundamental aspects of matter and energy, which would still apply to a different implementation or version of matter and energy. At least to something which could support a version of 'mind', which was analogous in some sense to our own, supposedly "created in the image" of that entity, altho I may be presuming too much in assuming you read that phrase that way.

In a panentheistic religion, such as Judaism and Islam, G-d doesn't exist IN this universe, as in, "contained solely within the boundaries thereof".  So, there is simply no way to apply the 2nd Law to G-d (or Allah -- same thing in my opinion, just different languages) and neither Judaism nor Islam conceptualizes G-d (or Allah) in a way that the 2nd Law COULD apply, as either a proof or disproof.

And would you PLEASE quit dodging my objection to the "God doesn't work the way I think god should work, therefore god doesn't exist" fallacy you and others here have used.  For people who are so proud of their "logic" skills, I'd think you'd have gotten around to addressing this fallacy of yours by now.  Because now, in addition to looking ignorant of other religions and god-concepts, you're also looking extremely dishonest, hypocritical and downright stupid.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

FurryCatHerder, I was composing my last post while you responded to MrPal.

The second law, by definition, applies to material/physical objects, and collections of material objects.

No, it doesn't.  I'm sorry, but there are "material/physical objects" to which the 2nd Law DOES NOT APPLY.

BobSpence1 wrote:
In its basic form, it describes the relationships between the flows of heat and other forms of energy between physical objects, and introduces the concept of 'entropy', which is a measure of the quantity of energy flow divided by the absolute temperature of the body gaining or losing that quantity of thermal energy.

So ... what is the energy flow between the particles in a hydrogen atom?  The components of a proton?  How does the 2nd Law affect (or not) neutron decay?

Ok, it applies to anything to which the property of 'temperature' can be applied, and which can be meaningfully be considered to contain an amount of thermal energy. Which rules out the scale at which quantum behaviour dominates. IOW to macroscopic matter, from atoms up. Altho you could apply to a collection of electrons and protons, ie, a plasma. But, like other thermodynamic principles, it applies to the collective behaviour of particles, to which temperature and thermal energy are most applicable, as statistical properties.

Sp it applies to the collective behaviour of any matter, but not to an individual particle.

I thought you might already be aware of that distinction, but obviously I was wrong.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
So of course it would be nonsense to apply it to ideas.

It would be ridiculous to apply the 2nd Law to a lot of things.

BobSpence1 wrote:
However, most views of God seem to envisage something more than just an idea. Usually as something which has extent, awareness, will, sentience, or at least some 'higher' analogues of such, as well as the ability to directly influence both physical objects and our thoughts.

Two of the three Abrahamic faiths would disagree with you on that.

But not all people who at least nominally identify with any of those faiths.

Quote:

Really -- this notion is a very Christian one (and they in turn got it from the Greeks and Romans and their pantheon of gods), in which their god sits on a literal, physical throne, scratches his chin, and decides whom to zap today.

You are straw-manning the beliefs of most contemporary believers, who claim to believe in something neither crudely anthropomorphic nor quite as utterly beyond our physical universe or abstract as what you seem to be hinting at.

I am not referring to the 'official' theology of any religion, rather to what many actual nominal adherents describe.

Quote:

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
So, extrapolating from our current understanding of earthly versions of such abilities and attributes, it would seem to imply that God was constituted of some supernatural analogue of matter, since everything we actually know about sentience strongly suggest that it requires some complex structure and organisation, such as the physical brain and its pattern of neuronal interconnections.

Perhaps the extrapolation is based on flawed assumptions?  In addition to not having a penis, G-d does not have a "brain".  Or "arms" or "hands".  Anthropomorphisms aren't descriptions of fact, they are literary devices by which things which cannot be explained are explained.  So long as the reader understands they aren't literally true in a physical sense.

More straw-manning of an argument I have not made.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Structure and organisation in turn require some substrate to be expressed in. So it is hard to see how a sentient entity would not have some analogue of physical matter as its basis. This in turn opens the way for a version of the second law to apply, which is actually only dependent on very fundamental aspects of matter and energy, which would still apply to a different implementation or version of matter and energy. At least to something which could support a version of 'mind', which was analogous in some sense to our own, supposedly "created in the image" of that entity, altho I may be presuming too much in assuming you read that phrase that way.

In a panentheistic religion, such as Judaism and Islam, G-d doesn't exist IN this universe, as in, "contained solely within the boundaries thereof".  So, there is simply no way to apply the 2nd Law to G-d (or Allah -- same thing in my opinion, just different languages) and neither Judaism nor Islam conceptualizes G-d (or Allah) in a way that the 2nd Law COULD apply, as either a proof or disproof.

I was not assuming God exists in this universe, merely that there are some really fundamental principles that apply to any 'Universe' or realm which is consistent with basic logic.

If you envisage your G-d inhabiting something beyond even that restriction, there is no way you can validly claim to know or reason anything with any certainty about such an entity.

Quote:

And would you PLEASE quit dodging my objection to the "God doesn't work the way I think god should work, therefore god doesn't exist" fallacy you and others here have used.  For people who are so proud of their "logic" skills, I'd think you'd have gotten around to addressing this fallacy of yours by now.  Because now, in addition to looking ignorant of other religions and god-concepts, you're also looking extremely dishonest, hypocritical and downright stupid.

I am NOT dodging your objection to "God doesn't work the way I think god should work, therefore god doesn't", since that is not what I am arguing.

You keep dodging my logical objections to what you have said, by saying I just 'believe' in "logic", implying that logic is just an idea that you don't accept. Which is becoming increasingly obvious. You clearly have no idea of what "logic" is, or what I 'believe'. As I cannot fathom just what is going on inside your head.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:It's a renegade

 

Quote:
It's a renegade science. Search for people like Sobolev, Kanarev, Bearden, Naudin, or older guys like Wilhelm Reich and Tesla, which are surely familiar to you. A lot can be also found here, it's not very dark-matter-friendly, but has some merit too. However, I will need to search for where exactly was this written. Very possibly it's a hypothesis mentioned in a discussion on a different forum.
The reason why do I agree with that deeply, is because both my own observations and other sources contain that possibility naturally. For example, writings of Alice Bailey. I see all these sources as describing the same thing from different perspectives. At the same time, there is a great criticism to some contemporary scientific models. This article, for example.

...'Renegade science'. Fucking awesome. 

 

"Gubmitt is sprayin' us wit dem kemmy kal trails an' shippin' us off ter dem FEMER camps, an' mah unkie had his tessy kals groped by dem ally yens,"

 

Bald assertion? Flaky testimony? Unreliable anecdote? 

Hell no; it's RENEGADE SCIENCE!

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:No, it doesn't. 

 

Quote:
No, it doesn't.  I'm sorry, but there are "material/physical objects" to which the 2nd Law DOES NOT APPLY.

Quote:
Bullshit about atomic particles and neutron decay

Well, this would be why there are distinct fields of study in science. You see, in science, people don't attribute every phenomena to any one single magical agency - they create different theories to address different systems, each derived from different branches of evidence.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply to quantum phenomena, which don't behave like material objects constructed of multiple atoms, and it doesn't have anything to say on the matter of neutron decay. 

 

This is... what, probably grade 1-2 level material? The idea that science is divided into multiple branches?

 

You you know what, though? Forget all that. You've said that Bob is 'an idiot', and trot yourself around like an expert - so let's see you put together a quantum equation. Piece of cake for a pro like yourself, right? 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

So ... what is the energy flow between the particles in a hydrogen atom?  The components of a proton?  How does the 2nd Law affect (or not) neutron decay?

Ok, it applies to anything to which the property of 'temperature' can be applied, and which can be meaningfully be considered to contain an amount of thermal energy. Which rules out the scale at which quantum behaviour dominates. IOW to macroscopic matter, from atoms up. Altho you could apply to a collection of electrons and protons, ie, a plasma. But, like other thermodynamic principles, it applies to the collective behaviour of particles, to which temperature and thermal energy are most applicable, as statistical properties.

Sp it applies to the collective behaviour of any matter, but not to an individual particle.

I thought you might already be aware of that distinction, but obviously I was wrong.

Ex-fucking-cuse me?  No, you don't get to try and pull a reversal on me like that.  I've had to beat you into submission on this "2nd Law" nonsense you were trying to spread and you're not going to pull a "I'm sure you know a fucking lot more about the 2nd Law than I'm pretending to know, but now that you proved I haven't a clue, I'm going to pretend you're stupid." stunt.

BobSpence1 wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:

Two of the three Abrahamic faiths would disagree with you on that.

But not all people who at least nominally identify with any of those faiths.

Hey -- a new Logical Fallacy.  Appeal to Heresy!

Judaism and Islam are both, 100%, absolutely, completely, totally and utterly opposed to any conceptualization of G-d that would include ANY form of anthropomorphism, physical existence within this Universe, etc.  As in, no, you'd be wrong.  Again.  And appealing to heretics doesn't get you around that.

BobSpence1 wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:

Really -- this notion is a very Christian one (and they in turn got it from the Greeks and Romans and their pantheon of gods), in which their god sits on a literal, physical throne, scratches his chin, and decides whom to zap today.

You are straw-manning the beliefs of most contemporary believers, who claim to believe in something neither crudely anthropomorphic nor quite as utterly beyond our physical universe or abstract as what you seem to be hinting at.

I am not referring to the 'official' theology of any religion, rather to what many actual nominal adherents describe.

Cherry Picking, No True Scotsman, Appeal to Heresy.

There are DIFFERENT religions being discussed and they have widely divert beliefs.  You seem to be sticking with what you think you know about Christianity and trying to apply it to religions OTHER than Christianity.

BobSpence1 wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:

Perhaps the extrapolation is based on flawed assumptions?  In addition to not having a penis, G-d does not have a "brain".  Or "arms" or "hands".  Anthropomorphisms aren't descriptions of fact, they are literary devices by which things which cannot be explained are explained.  So long as the reader understands they aren't literally true in a physical sense.

More straw-manning of an argument I have not made.

I call "bullshit".  You very clearly DID make an argument that assumed into existence some kind of bearded old white guy with a skull on top of his shoulders and a brain inside his noggin, for various values of "bearded", "old", "white", "guy", "skull", "shoulders", "brain" and "noggin".

I've been arguing religion with polytheists long enough to know when I'm confronting an argument that depends on G-d having some kind of "physical manifestation", "brain", "arms", "legs", "penis", and that's precisely what you pre-supposed below --

BobSpence1 wrote:
Structure and organisation in turn require some substrate to be expressed in. So it is hard to see how a sentient entity would not have some analogue of physical matter as its basis. This in turn opens the way for a version of the second law to apply, which is actually only dependent on very fundamental aspects of matter and energy, which would still apply to a different implementation or version of matter and energy. At least to something which could support a version of 'mind', which was analogous in some sense to our own, supposedly "created in the image" of that entity, altho I may be presuming too much in assuming you read that phrase that way.

I didn't make you construct a fallacious argument, and not believing in "Satan", I don't think the devil made you do it either.  That leaves, uh, YOU.

BobSpence1 wrote:
FurryCatHerder wrote:
And would you PLEASE quit dodging my objection to the "God doesn't work the way I think god should work, therefore god doesn't exist" fallacy you and others here have used.  For people who are so proud of their "logic" skills, I'd think you'd have gotten around to addressing this fallacy of yours by now.  Because now, in addition to looking ignorant of other religions and god-concepts, you're also looking extremely dishonest, hypocritical and downright stupid.

I am NOT dodging your objection to "God doesn't work the way I think god should work, therefore god doesn't", since that is not what I am arguing.

You keep dodging my logical objections to what you have said, by saying I just 'believe' in "logic", implying that logic is just an idea that you don't accept. Which is becoming increasingly obvious. You clearly have no idea of what "logic" is, or what I 'believe'. As I cannot fathom just what is going on inside your head.

No, I very much believe in Logic.  I happen to think that you worship Logic as if it were some magical sky-daddy that you can twist to suit whatever rhetorical needs you have, regardless of how seriously you mangle Logic in order to do so.  Makes you happier that I used Logic with a capital-L instead of putting "logic" inside quotes?

Which leads me to the following conclusion --

In addition to you having no clue about Thermodynamics, you also have no clue about Logic.

If you want to claim I'm engaging in a strawman argument, would you PLEASE explain how this

Quote:
However, most views of God seem to envisage something more than just an idea. Usually as something which has extent, awareness, will, sentience, or at least some 'higher' analogues of such, as well as the ability to directly influence both physical objects and our thoughts.

is not a prime example of "Begging The Conclusion".  You've defined "god" according to YOUR specifications, which I think I've also established is based on Christian / Greek / Roman polytheistic beliefs rather than any other religion's far more abstract, and significantly less "bearded old white guy sitting on a throne", god-concepts.

As I told Vastet a while back, if you want to start a "Why Christianity is Stupid" thread, I'll gladly join.  Now, kindly quit pretending that every other religion on the planet is Christianity, because it is very wrong and very annoying.  But also because I'll gladly pwn any Atheist who's entire bone of contention is that the Christian gods don't make much sense.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

Quote:
No, it doesn't.  I'm sorry, but there are "material/physical objects" to which the 2nd Law DOES NOT APPLY.

Quote:
Bullshit about atomic particles and neutron decay

Well, this would be why there are distinct fields of study in science. You see, in science, people don't attribute every phenomena to any one single magical agency - they create different theories to address different systems, each derived from different branches of evidence.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply to quantum phenomena, which don't behave like material objects constructed of multiple atoms, and it doesn't have anything to say on the matter of neutron decay. 

 

This is... what, probably grade 1-2 level material? The idea that science is divided into multiple branches?

 

You you know what, though? Forget all that. You've said that Bob is 'an idiot', and trot yourself around like an expert - so let's see you put together a quantum equation. Piece of cake for a pro like yourself, right? 

 

Don't have to know how to put together a quantum equation to know (which I got right and Bob got wrong) that the 2nd Law doesn't apply to quantum phenomena.

The premise that Bob advanced is that the 2nd Law can be applied, somehow or other, to "god" as a concept because "god" has to have some kind of "substrate" existing within this universe's space-time in order to be "sentient" such that the 2nd Law would apply.

False premise, invalid argument.  And that is Logic 101.  Also pronounced "Bob is an idiot".

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Don't

FurryCatHerder wrote:
Don't have to know how to put together a quantum equation to know (which I got right and Bob got wrong) that the 2nd Law doesn't apply to quantum phenomena.

The premise that Bob advanced is that the 2nd Law can be applied, somehow or other, to "god" as a concept because "god" has to have some kind of "substrate" existing within this universe's space-time in order to be "sentient" such that the 2nd Law would apply.

False premise, invalid argument.  And that is Logic 101.  Also pronounced "Bob is an idiot".

And claiming that something that isn't part of this universe is called "special pleading". Pronounced "FurryCatherder's head rattles when you shake it".

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3506
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Let's see, a generally

  Let's see, a generally hostile, confrontational demeanor.... talk of chopping off penis's with a machete .... calling people "idiot."  I'm afraid that for the moment FCH may be experiencing a condition that renders her ceremonially unclean.  Go easy on her guys.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I am aware

BobSpence1 wrote:

I am aware of the more purely mathematical interpretation, but I see no way to actually measure the position and momentum (not velocity) without some actual interaction.

I thought that position and momentum and position and velocity don't commute. I'll have to disagree with the "(not velocity)" part of that post.

The whole point of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that there are theorectical limits on the accuracy that we can acheive for measurements of pairs of properties that don't commute. Even if we make better and better measuring techniques that afford greater and greater accuracy, we will still run into accuracy limits that are entirely unrelated to our equipment. Also, on an entirely unrelated note regarding the uncertainty principle, our equipment does introduce error into our measurements.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Let's see, a generally hostile, confrontational demeanor.... talk of chopping off penis's with a machete .... calling people "idiot."  I'm afraid that for the moment FCH may be experiencing a condition that renders her ceremonially unclean.  Go easy on her guys.

LOL!

No, too old for that.  I'm a Nice OLD Jewish Lady.

It's just extremely hypocritical of Bob to use the 2nd Law to disprove the existence of G-d when the 2nd Law can't be used to prove (or disprove) "2 + 2 = 4".

And I wasn't threatening Bob, I was suggesting that perhaps Bob is experiencing cognitive dissonance at being bested by a woman that's not unlike having a woman stand next to him with a machete.  As in "Oh, sh*t -- my precious manhood is going to shrivel up and blow away!"

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."