Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

If matter has existed from infinite past, then entropy is such that it can be reset to a previous state.

If this was not true, the world would be approaching much closer to a fully entropic state than what we experience right now. Or else perhaps we’d be in a fully entropic state.

If it has lasted forever, then it already would have run down, yes. It would have finished already, no matter how long it takes to do that.

This subject is on the list of seemingly new ideas that Jame S Saint introduced to the world. The idea that the universe has always existed or has an infinite past isn’t new, but James explained why it must be true and also why the universe can never repeat. He explains that space is larger than time.

I’m still struggling through the maths, but the logic seems easy enough. Check the logic:

If you have 100 envelops to address but only 50 addresses, you know that you will have to repeat an address.

If you have 100 envelops and more than 100 addresses, you might accidentally repeat an address, but might not.

If you have 100 envelops and an infinite list of addresses, you cannot accidentally repeat an address because the probability becomes zero.

If the universe has more possible states to exist in than the timeline has moments in which to exist, the universe might be able to accidentally repeat itself.

The infinite timeline has an infinity of points in time, but the universe has more than a simple infinity of states in which it can exist. That means that it doesn’t have to repeat itself even given an infinite amount of time.

Space apparently has infinitely more states in which to exist than the infinite timeline. Therefore, without intentionally arranging to do so, the universe has zero probability of ever repeating any one state even given an infinite past.

He also went through the maths about why the universe has more than a simple infinity of possible states but if I followed it right, the above is the end result.

Additionally he also explained that the universe is not actually falling into heat death or maximum entropy.

I don’t think it becomes zero, not if it’s me filling out the envelopes, but I think most people might repeat at a million envelopes. Why not? What stops them? It might be the analogy is a poor one, since we are goal driven creatures with so much memory space, and addresses have only so many letters and spaces.

We would have to know this. I think this would have to mean that in some way the universe is infinite. If it has a finite set of particles, say, then over infinite time it could repeat itself. In fact, it would.

I think those particles would also have to have only a finite set of locations and a finite set of exact sizes. How many divisions can be applied to a finite line?

The universe doesn’t have to be infinite in size for the same logic to apply.

True, but there would have to be an infinite number of positions or whatever. If space is quantized, I think this would again entail infinite size.

Of course it would be an unbelievably high number of positions, even in the world of unbelievably high numbers, but infinity would crunch those numbers.

So for the logic to not work, we have to believe that the universe has a finite size, any straight line must have only a finite number of segments or locations, and also all particles must be of quantized sizes.

Do we have any actual evidence of any of those premises? All of them must be true to defeat the logic.

Actually you first criterion related to finite size is what I was arguing needs to be the case. So that is off the table in relation to my posts. I don’t think we have evidence that the universe is finite. Recently cosmology I have read seems quite heartily open to the possibility it is infinite. I am not saying consensus is that that it is infinite, not at all. Just that it is not ruled out.

The second two qualities I think are the same. It seemed that way for a while, but it was more like a model than something with empirical evidence. The jury is out on whether it is quantized or continuous. I don’t assume either.

I’m no expert, but I don’t think that there is anything that says that any of it is actually quantized. Without some kind of evidence, I see no reason to terminate an infinite progression or division. And that means that even with an infinite timeline, there would never be a “reset to an initial or previous state”.

James’ maths go even further into what he calls “absolute zero” chance of repetition - “infinitely less than zero chance” (whatever that means).

But slightly related to this is that apparently there is 100% chance (“absolute certainty”) that there is an identical you somewhere out there in the infinite expanse.

So apparently there is never a chance that the entire universe repeats, but a certainty that you always will.

Didn’t someone say that Hell is endless repetition? :slight_smile:

This all assumes entropy is not infinite as well as time.

There would either have to a source of new energy or differentials, say in temperature. There is a basement where no work can be done and nothing will do anything.

They don’t know, which is why I said ‘if.’

Now you’re saying it is infinite. If it is infinite then it doesn’t matter if it is quantized or not. And, yeah some people think there must be other exact and then also similar yous out there, if the universe is infinite, not even getting into a multiverse.

Well until someone comes up with a believable answer to that question, “What’s on the other side of that boundary to everything”, I’m going to have to go with an infinite universe. “Nothing” is not an answer.

Same issue with, “What was there before time began?”

“We”?
How would “we” exist in a fully entropic state?
Maybe you understand your error. In that case, I advise you to discipline yourself and try to write properly.

Yeah, the concept “before” is an attribute of the concept “time”. “Before time” is yet another phrase indicating that language doesn’t automatically translate into logic.

Why?

My comment makes sense, as the direction of time is thought of as increasing entropy: Time increases = Entropy increases.

So why does the OP assume time is infinite, but not entropy?
The OP is only a problem because it takes time as infinite and not entropy - “therefore over infinite time we ought to have reached maximum entropy infinitely long ago”… unless they were both finite, or both infinite - as the 2nd law of thermodynamics suggests, they track one another, and one may as well simply be the other. So they should both be assumed to be either infinite or finite, ridding the OP of its issue.

It’s interesting to think that there is a point at which “no work can be done and nothing will do anything” - suggesting maximum entropy and therefore maximum time: a final limit on both that is “the end of the universe”. So in that case, if they are infinite, that infinity stretches out behind that “end” unlimitedly (i.e. there is no beginning of the universe).
For both to be infinite, either there is a beginning and no end (no maximum entropy), there is an end but no beginning (no minimum entropy) - or neither beginning nor end, in which case entropy/time is increasing similarly to a “Shepherd Tone” - seemingly never ending or suggesting any beginning. Either that or it’s all finite with a beginning and end. Or multiverse etc. But whatever the case, the OP problem is invalid.

I think the issue you’re encountering here is in the intuitive “everyday” conception of space and time, rather than thinking in terms of relativity where spacetime can curve. If you think about the curvature of spacetime reaching a maximum, that resembles a boundary without being one. And what curves spacetime to a maximum? Gravity, which is at a maximum when mass is at a maximum - say at a singularity where all the mass of the universe is compacted into a point like theorised by the big bang? This is also consistent with time dilation and length contraction being at a maximum closest to the speed of light, which is the kind of speed everything is travelling at with the electromagnetic force maximally overpowering the gravitational force in the closest of quarters, such as in a singularity. Shortest distances with length contraction? Check. Longest durations with time dilation? Also check. So time eases in from a maximum point, maximally slowly - simulating a start to time, without being a beginning. Not really infinite because otherwise it would never start, and not really finite because there is no “line” that presents your problem of “what’s on the other side”?

So basically I think your question has already been answered by relativity.

I don’t think the scale for entropy goes to infinity.

I drank that koolaid long ago too. And it wasn’t easy bursting my little bubble of belief in it.

I started observing James before he came here and watched him debate relativity with Carleas for a very long time. He had made a convincing argument long before that which destroyed my faith in the big bang theory. I think that was on a Catholic site as well as others. So when it came to his objections to relativity, I was willing to listen carefully.

What James eventually revealed to those who followed along was that relativity is just a shortcut maths method for making the necessary calculations involved in things that move extremely fast or are in an extreme gravity situation. If you pretend in your mind that space bends and time distorts, you can calculate what is going to actually happen easier than trying to work through all of the more complicated details of what is actually going on (which he also eventually explained at this site). But the space bending method doesn’t always work because it is really only a metaphorical representation of the reality and thus has limits.

When it comes to the entire universe, relativity doesn’t seem to actually mean anything. The universe represents an extreme dispersion of mass and gravity, not at all dense. And then “moving relative to what?” The whole relativity bubble pops into nothing but a pocket calculator for nuclear physicists working with extremely tiny things that move extremely fast relative to other things. It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with actual physical reality.

I think of people having what I cal “bubbles of belief”. With that thought I can better understand and predict people’s behavior. It is easier than neuroscience. But that doesn’t mean that people literally have little bubbles in their brains. It is just a metaphor or analogy for predicting some kinds of behavior.

So I am still quite confident that

That’s the only part I can’t get my head around… the always.

How would that even be testable? My belief system does not allow me to simply accept that as fact, but as theory. The easy option would be to accept it as fact, so that we don’t have to think about the ‘how’ anymore, so that our minds stop searching for the ‘how’ and finds peace with itself, in such a fundamental question as existence itself.

Then you don’t think the scale for time goes to infinity either.

So the opening assumption of “infinite past” does not hold. Problem solved.

All modelling of reality is a metaphor because functionally, “signifiers” are never “signifieds”… I’m perfectly willing to accept better metaphors if you have any. I debated James myself at length on various topics and didn’t find any from him, so if you have one of his that I missed or didn’t engage with - it doesn’t matter who made it - I eagerly await you sharing.

The logic is backwards here: “Moving relative to what?” is the exact foundation of relativity, it does the opposite of popping its bubble…

I think intelligence is indicated by the number of bubbles that one is able to accurately entertain in good faith, and wisdom the ability to traverse them, bring them together and rearrange them depending on the situation. Genius would be the ability to create new bubbles that haven’t been created yet - commonly confused with ignorance of bubbles that already exist. Perhaps this conception as a whole would be defined by yourself as a bubble of its own, but that would be tautologous. But this is off topic.

I have nothing against that, depending on how “creation” is defined.
Either way, this would appear to be consistent with the metaphor of the Shepard Tone that I mentioned in my last post: that there is no minimum or maximum time/entropy.
I’m not primarily arguing in favour of, or against a min/max for time/entropy, I’m just saying that by definition, the distinction between time as infinite and entropy as finite is invalid. Thus the opening dilemma is resolved due to its inconsistent assumptions.
If I were to take a position, as I hinted in my last post, it could be summed up by a graph of a hyperbola: letting one asymptote serve as the y-axis that denotes spacetime curvature, and the other asymptote perpendicular to it and serving as the x-axis that denotes entropy - in a similar but not necessarily identical form to f(x) = 1/x. That is to say that entropy is inversely proportional to spacetime curvature. The hyperbola itself is infinite in length, tending towards each axis but never reaching either, and as such never reaches the bounds of “finite beginning and end” - making the conception of things like entropy either being finite or infinite invalid.

But if you wish to take the topic further, it might be more useful to more regularly restate/quote the content of these arguments of JSS and explaining them, than more regularly referencing the fact that they exist. You’re doing some of both, but the balance is the opposite to what it could be. Just a suggestion.

I can imagine absolute anentropy, and simplicity: a cosmos where all that exists is a single, solitary, immobile, indivisible particle.

However, I can’t imagine absolute entropy and complexity.

As entropic and complex as a cosmos is, it could always be infinitely more entropic and complex.

Wait…perhaps nothingness is more anentropic and simple than a single, solitary something?

But could a single, solitary something or nothingness give rise to entropy and complexity, if it wasn’t already entropic and complex in some way to begin with?

Maybe it began absolutely anentropic and simple, but with the potential to become entropic and complex?

If energy is being added to the system, ok, it could go on infinitely. The this adding energy to the system is negentropic. Since entropy is happening everywhere, an infinitely large universe doesn’t allow for infinite time, unless there was infinite energy at every point, which there isn’t, or it would hurt a lot. That’s why I am saying there is either an end point or reinvigoration. Or ongoing invigoration.