Maybie You're a week old...

[SlitheryDee]

I don't remember where I heard this, but it's pretty interesting to me. I think someone brought it up in a debate about whether god exists or not. I think they were arguing about whether the universe was simply created from nothing by god, or if the big bang theory is true. This was the creation-by-god debator's best argument I think.

It goes like this. The universe is subject to entropy. That is the gradual descent of any ordered system into chaos. Statistically speaking it is more likely for a system to exist in a advanced state of chaos such as the universe would have been in if created by god, than for the universe to exist in the state that it must have been in immediately after the big bang. That is to say, the higher the chaos, the more likely the system. Therefore it is more likely that the universe just sprang into existence yesterday in the state of entropy in which it now exists, than if it were created by the big bang.

What this idea doesn't address is that for every second that passes the most statistically likely time for the universes creation would always be the second before that.

Any thoughts on the scientific relevance of this argument?

 

[Eli]

Uh-oh, you said "God".

/equips ceramic coated asbestos suite

 

[3chordcharlie]

I think what it doesn't address is that you have no way to evaluate those probabilities.

It is always most likely that the universe was more organized yesterday than it is today though.

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
I don't remember where I heard this, but it's pretty interesting to me. I think someone brought it up in a debate about whether god exists or not. I think they were arguing about whether the universe was simply created from nothing by god, or if the big bang theory is true. This was the creation-by-god debator's best argument I think.

It goes like this. The universe is subject to entropy. That is the gradual descent of any ordered system into chaos. Statistically speaking it is more likely for a system to exist in a advanced state of chaos such as the universe would have been in if created by god, than for the universe to exist in the state that it must have been in immediately after the big bang. That is to say, the higher the chaos, the more likely the system. Therefore it is more likely that the universe just sprang into existence yesterday in the state of entropy in which it now exists, than if it were created by the big bang.

What this idea doesn't address is that for every second that passes the most statistically likely time for the universes creation would always be the second before that.

Any thoughts on the scientific relevance of this argument?

You have no measurements. The length of a second is merely relative. To me, the extreme order of the universe is proof of a planned entropy and therefore of an modern and active God, not merely an observant Creator. The current "amount" order in the universe is no indication of how orderly it could have been nor is it indicative of how disorderly it could become.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
I don't remember where I heard this, but it's pretty interesting to me. I think someone brought it up in a debate about whether god exists or not. I think they were arguing about whether the universe was simply created from nothing by god, or if the big bang theory is true. This was the creation-by-god debator's best argument I think.

It goes like this. The universe is subject to entropy. That is the gradual descent of any ordered system into chaos. Statistically speaking it is more likely for a system to exist in a advanced state of chaos such as the universe would have been in if created by god, than for the universe to exist in the state that it must have been in immediately after the big bang. That is to say, the higher the chaos, the more likely the system. Therefore it is more likely that the universe just sprang into existence yesterday in the state of entropy in which it now exists, than if it were created by the big bang.

What this idea doesn't address is that for every second that passes the most statistically likely time for the universes creation would always be the second before that.

Any thoughts on the scientific relevance of this argument?

What the argument does not address is the actual chances of the of the Big Bang. What precisely are the odds of this occuring? I'll ignore the obvious conjecture that God caused a Big Bang.

 

[JDub02]

if you're actually interested in the creation/evolution argument, check out Dr. Kent Hovind's lecture series. Quite fascinating if you have an open mind.

 

[edro]

I believe the universe is "cooling" down... not "heating" up, therefore, the universe would have been much more chaotic in the early years.

 

[StageLeft]

It's a logical fallacy to use the word statistics and God in the same sentence. By its very definition, the moment you add in something divine (ie. non-scientific), it becomes ridiculous to try and apply statistics to it.

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
I don't remember where I heard this, but it's pretty interesting to me. I think someone brought it up in a debate about whether god exists or not. I think they were arguing about whether the universe was simply created from nothing by god, or if the big bang theory is true. This was the creation-by-god debator's best argument I think.

It goes like this. The universe is subject to entropy. That is the gradual descent of any ordered system into chaos. Statistically speaking it is more likely for a system to exist in a advanced state of chaos such as the universe would have been in if created by god, than for the universe to exist in the state that it must have been in immediately after the big bang. That is to say, the higher the chaos, the more likely the system. Therefore it is more likely that the universe just sprang into existence yesterday in the state of entropy in which it now exists, than if it were created by the big bang.

What this idea doesn't address is that for every second that passes the most statistically likely time for the universes creation would always be the second before that.

Any thoughts on the scientific relevance of this argument?

What the argument does not address is the actual chances of the of the Big Bang. What precisely are the odds of this occuring? I'll ignore the obvious conjecture that God caused a Big Bang.

The Pea Instanton Theory (1996, Hawking) ALMOST comes to this, but you have to learn about false vacuums. It explains how the black hole exploded. It doesn't explain, however, how the black hole got there.

 

[yoda291]

Someone explained that chaos also has a tendency to generate order. I'm sure there's big flaws everywhere, but I like the idea. For example: I have a thousand "a"s on a piece of paper and I change one character to another at random every nanosecond. Over time, the paper eventually degrades into a jumble and a mess. Over an infinite span of time, however, at some point, I should return to a thousand "a"s, which in turn degrades once again.

 

[Savij]

Maybe we're actively devolving? We are going towards some cold bleak blob that randomly consumes all of the land/water/plant and it will all become one disorganized mess inside of one giant super human.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: edro13
I believe the universe is "cooling" down... not "heating" up, therefore, the universe would have been much more chaotic in the early years.

No, it's only 'cooling down' because it's expanding. Heat/entropy is constantly increasing, unless there is some process converting energy back into matter, that we are currently unaware of.

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: yoda291
Someone explained that chaos also has a tendency to generate order. I'm sure there's big flaws everywhere, but I like the idea. For example: I have a thousand "a"s on a piece of paper and I change one character to another at random every nanosecond. Over time, the paper eventually degrades into a jumble and a mess. Over an infinite span of time, however, at some point, I should return to a thousand "a"s, which in turn degrades once again.

Or, as I see it, there is order in the disorder as the histogram for the letters flattens out.

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: edro13
I believe the universe is "cooling" down... not "heating" up, therefore, the universe would have been much more chaotic in the early years.

No, it's only 'cooling down' because it's expanding. Heat/entropy is constantly increasing, unless there is some process converting energy back into matter, that we are currently unaware of.

Entropy is increasing because of the RADIATION of that heat which cannot be fully recycled. (Recall that it only applies to closed systems.) I sometimes wonder if the large amount of order in the earth is somehow caused by the extreme entropy in the rest of the universe.

If there was a bank that converted between order and entropy, I can't imagine what the exchange rate would be!

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's a logical fallacy to use the word statistics and God in the same sentence. By its very definition, the moment you add in something divine (ie. non-scientific), it becomes ridiculous to try and apply statistics to it.

30% of posters in the midwest would disagree with you

 

[AMDZen]

Do you believe in a god that satisfies,
Do you believe in a god that open's eyes,
Do you believe in a god that tells you lies,

Or do you believe in me

Do you believe in a god that brings you down,
Do you believe in a god that wears a crown,
Do you believe in a god that makes you frown,

Or do you believe in me

We are the first of cyber devotion,
We are the first to program your future,
We are the first,
We are the last.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It's a logical fallacy to use the word statistics and God in the same sentence. By its very definition, the moment you add in something divine (ie. non-scientific), it becomes ridiculous to try and apply statistics to it.

While the argument was used in that context. God doesn't necessarily need to be in this debate. It could simply be about the likely hood of the big bang versus another possible creation theory. I will not speculate on what that "other theory" might be, but if adding god in there bothers you, consider it a completely secular question.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
I don't remember where I heard this, but it's pretty interesting to me. I think someone brought it up in a debate about whether god exists or not. I think they were arguing about whether the universe was simply created from nothing by god, or if the big bang theory is true. This was the creation-by-god debator's best argument I think.

It goes like this. The universe is subject to entropy. That is the gradual descent of any ordered system into chaos. Statistically speaking it is more likely for a system to exist in a advanced state of chaos such as the universe would have been in if created by god, than for the universe to exist in the state that it must have been in immediately after the big bang. That is to say, the higher the chaos, the more likely the system. Therefore it is more likely that the universe just sprang into existence yesterday in the state of entropy in which it now exists, than if it were created by the big bang.

What this idea doesn't address is that for every second that passes the most statistically likely time for the universes creation would always be the second before that.

Any thoughts on the scientific relevance of this argument?

You have no measurements. The length of a second is merely relative. To me, the extreme order of the universe is proof of a planned entropy and therefore of an modern and active God, not merely an observant Creator. The current "amount" order in the universe is no indication of how orderly it could have been nor is it indicative of how disorderly it could become.

The second is exactly defined as the time it takes light in vacuum to travel 1/299792458 meters.

Things are in motion, that's why people believe in the big bang, it looks like everything is moving away from something. The common theory used to be that the universes expansion would slow down and then reverse retracting in to yet another singularity. However, it looks as though the expansion is not slowing down, but indeed increasing, that's where dark matter comes into the game.
Modern mathematics points towards there being different universes, not 2, but 11 as you might know. And if you go straight ahed in space forever, you would go the same route for ever as you would go like round a bubble.

And yes the length of a meter is measured as how far light moves in vacuum during a second. It's still the definition.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
I don't remember where I heard this, but it's pretty interesting to me. I think someone brought it up in a debate about whether god exists or not. I think they were arguing about whether the universe was simply created from nothing by god, or if the big bang theory is true. This was the creation-by-god debator's best argument I think.

It goes like this. The universe is subject to entropy. That is the gradual descent of any ordered system into chaos. Statistically speaking it is more likely for a system to exist in a advanced state of chaos such as the universe would have been in if created by god, than for the universe to exist in the state that it must have been in immediately after the big bang. That is to say, the higher the chaos, the more likely the system. Therefore it is more likely that the universe just sprang into existence yesterday in the state of entropy in which it now exists, than if it were created by the big bang.

What this idea doesn't address is that for every second that passes the most statistically likely time for the universes creation would always be the second before that.

Any thoughts on the scientific relevance of this argument?

What the argument does not address is the actual chances of the of the Big Bang. What precisely are the odds of this occuring? I'll ignore the obvious conjecture that God caused a Big Bang.

The Pea Instanton Theory (1996, Hawking) ALMOST comes to this, but you have to learn about false vacuums. It explains how the black hole exploded. It doesn't explain, however, how the black hole got there.

I know that one, but even Hawking has some doubts about his theories.

There is also a hypothesis that the Big Bang was not uniform in all directions, and Inflation removed vast areas of different concentrations of matter and of various entropies not casually connected. So we might be in a highly ordered area, and there may be lower. If that is the case we could exist even though the average entropy of the universe is much different.

 

[Vic]

As opposed to the Big Bang or Creation, I subscribe to the infinite and eternal universe theory. Entropy doesn't apply as the amount of energy is infinte (therefore all is static but changing).

IMO, human beings have a rather annoying habit of translating their mortality to things that are not mortal. Hence, we have to give the universe a "birth" and a "death" in order to make it understandable to us.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: edro13
I believe the universe is "cooling" down... not "heating" up, therefore, the universe would have been much more chaotic in the early years.

No, it's only 'cooling down' because it's expanding. Heat/entropy is constantly increasing, unless there is some process converting energy back into matter, that we are currently unaware of.

Entropy is increasing because of the RADIATION of that heat which cannot be fully recycled. (Recall that it only applies to closed systems.) I sometimes wonder if the large amount of order in the earth is somehow caused by the extreme entropy in the rest of the universe.

If there was a bank that converted between order and entropy, I can't imagine what the exchange rate would be!

Actually, the 'order' on earth comes directly at the expense of increased entropy; every single energy transaction, from photosynthesis to the internal combustion engine, produces a net result of 'less organized' energy. Most of the eventual byproduct, heat, is radiated into space.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
I don't remember where I heard this, but it's pretty interesting to me. I think someone brought it up in a debate about whether god exists or not. I think they were arguing about whether the universe was simply created from nothing by god, or if the big bang theory is true. This was the creation-by-god debator's best argument I think.

It goes like this. The universe is subject to entropy. That is the gradual descent of any ordered system into chaos. Statistically speaking it is more likely for a system to exist in a advanced state of chaos such as the universe would have been in if created by god, than for the universe to exist in the state that it must have been in immediately after the big bang. That is to say, the higher the chaos, the more likely the system. Therefore it is more likely that the universe just sprang into existence yesterday in the state of entropy in which it now exists, than if it were created by the big bang.

What this idea doesn't address is that for every second that passes the most statistically likely time for the universes creation would always be the second before that.

Any thoughts on the scientific relevance of this argument?

You have no measurements. The length of a second is merely relative. To me, the extreme order of the universe is proof of a planned entropy and therefore of an modern and active God, not merely an observant Creator. The current "amount" order in the universe is no indication of how orderly it could have been nor is it indicative of how disorderly it could become.

The current order in the universe is quite explanable, or at least believeable.
What you have to imagine is a big gas cloud that developes irregularities at certain points,
then these points starts retracting and starts getting hot in the center and voila, you have the 10million degrees required to start nuclueuear [/bush] processes, and thereby create a star. Planets are formed from the dust we know lies in belts around newly formed stars. What we don't know is how it happens. But it does seem quite logical dcoesn't it. Galaxies attract eachother and we have merging galaxies somewhere. And everything is apparently moving away from some point in space. Voila, big-bang. That's why we have that theory.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Vic
As opposed to the Big Bang or Creation, I subscribe to the infinite and eternal universe theory. Entropy doesn't apply as the amount of energy is infinte (therefore all is static but changing).

IMO, human beings have a rather annoying habit of translating their mortality to things that are not mortal. Hence, we have to give the universe a "birth" and a "death" in order to make it understandable to us.

Could you explain "infinite and eternal" more? Are you saying the Universe had no beginning? If so, Obler's Paradox pretty much shoots that down. Now it may be meaningless to ask precisely when the Universe began because at high enough densities the concept of time doesn't even exist. Interesting stuff, eh?

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Vic
As opposed to the Big Bang or Creation, I subscribe to the infinite and eternal universe theory. Entropy doesn't apply as the amount of energy is infinte (therefore all is static but changing).

IMO, human beings have a rather annoying habit of translating their mortality to things that are not mortal. Hence, we have to give the universe a "birth" and a "death" in order to make it understandable to us.

In the case of the big bang theory, I don't really consider it a birth, merely a stage cycle of events. However the creation by god theory is predicated on the belief that there was a definite beginning. My question is ,all other things aside, is it true that statistically the universe is more likely to exist in a state of advanced chaos than in any less advanced state whether that is yeterday or 100 billion years ago. And does that translate into the idea that mathmatically speaking is it more likely that the universe sprang from nothingness to it's current state than to have ever existed in a lower chaotic state. Don't give me anything about common sense or anything like that, either.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: edro13
I believe the universe is "cooling" down... not "heating" up, therefore, the universe would have been much more chaotic in the early years.

No, it's only 'cooling down' because it's expanding. Heat/entropy is constantly increasing, unless there is some process converting energy back into matter, that we are currently unaware of.

Entropy is increasing because of the RADIATION of that heat which cannot be fully recycled. (Recall that it only applies to closed systems.) I sometimes wonder if the large amount of order in the earth is somehow caused by the extreme entropy in the rest of the universe.

If there was a bank that converted between order and entropy, I can't imagine what the exchange rate would be!

Actually, the 'order' on earth comes directly at the expense of increased entropy; every single energy transaction, from photosynthesis to the internal combustion engine, produces a net result of 'less organized' energy. Most of the eventual byproduct, heat, is radiated into space.

Wth are you talking about, i don't follow. Are you saying niternal combustion engines create energy that isn't there?