Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

“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.

As suggested by my hyperbola model in my previous post, the maximal spacetime curvature of the singularity approaches “absolute anentropy and simplicity” without ever having been it - so this poses no problem with consequently giving rise to relatively more entropy and complexity.

Energy is a constant.

A system going on infinitely just has energy being spread out infinitely across spacetime as entropy increases. No need to worry about infinite energy - though as the hyperbola I referred to tends towards zero entropy as represented by the y-axis of spacetime curvature, the total constant amount of energy condensed to a singularity would indeed “hurt a lot” - yes. Would not recommend loitering at such a point in spacetime.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. And now made me go have to look it up.

I meant that the measuring scale itself doesn’t go to infinity.

In the information theory world, entropy is an average of possible outcomes. An average cannot be infinite unless all possible events convey infinite information. I’m not sure what that means, but it seems to imply an irrational situation.

In thermodynamics:

In the thermodynamics world, to get infinite entropy would require that at absolute zero temperature, heat energy is still being transferred. That is an irrational situation considering that zero temperature also means zero heat.

The idea of heat death comes from the idea that there is only a finite amount of energy expanding into an infinite space. I don’t accept the finite energy premise and I’m certain that science has no such evidence. But all of this seems like nonsense anyway.

While stars are dying out, black holes are growing. Apparently (again by a James theory) the black holes eventually collide and create new stars. The process never ends. And there is no expanding other than from the exploding black holes littered throughout the infinite expanse.

That is the only theory I have heard that answers all of the questions so until I hear a simpler or more evident one, that is the one I’m settled with. I see no reason to doubt it and nothing more evident to challenge it. So I’ll leave it at that.

I think there’s a general misunderstanding or at least misuse of the term “infinity” going on here.

“To get infinite entropy” makes it sound like infinite entropy is a boundary that can be gotten to - you see the contradiction in reaching a finite bound of infinity (no bounds).
You tend towards infinity, you don’t get there.

You can’t define dealing with infinities, because definition (as you can see it derives from the exact same root of “finitude”) contradicts infinities.

Also, have you wondered why heat energy and temperature have different units? As in your quote, heat energy has the units of joules and temperature has the units of kelvin. Yet as you rightly point out, lower temperatures coincide with lower heat energy. But does that mean they are the same thing?

Heat flows from hotter temperatures to lower temperatures. An analogy with grammar, which I think works out, is to consider the temperatures as the “nouns” and energy as the “verbs”. Energy is flowing, temperature is the state of things that energy flows from and to. To equate or conflate them might be akin to saying “being” is “becoming”, to use an important philosophical distinction as analogy.
The equation ΔS = ∫₀ δQ/T means that change in entropy is less when the temperature states involved are all high (and more when they are low), and change in entropy is higher when there’s a lot of heat energy flowing between these states (and lower when there’s not much heat energy flowing). Note too that it’s change in entropy, not absolute entropy. This is just what happens when you observe things, it’s not irrational.

Yes, stars are dying out and black holes are growing and eventually colliding, but this does not mean that these huge amounts of energy in increasingly isolated parts of the universe amount to entropy decreasing overall, or energy being reintroduced into the system as a whole (or eliminated from it).

You sound like you’re set on siding with things James has said more than you’re open to “simpler or more evident” answers to your questions, which isn’t the ideal mindset for learning more about the concepts that you’re dismissing as irrational before you settle on theories about them. So if you want to leave it at that, I can’t stop you.

I have to disagree with your interpretations of the maths. I didn’t even look to see if James said anything about the universe’s entropy. And if he did, I’ll eventually run across it. The equations don’t allow for a value of infinity is what I was saying. I didn’t mean to start an argument over it.

I don’t think this issue is relevant to the thread because the size of the space is infinite and doesn’t change. The amount of energy in space is infinite and doesn’t change. The timeline is infinite and doesn’t change. The total complexity doesn’t change. And the resultant entropy value for the entire universe doesn’t change. Changes in entropy, like changes in energy, can only happen locally. The average throughout the universe never changes because for every rise there is an equal fall.

So back on the subject of the thread, due to space being infinitely larger than time, the universe can never repeat. And even more, since the entropy value is constant anyway, whether it repeats is irrelevant.

I don’t believe that the universe’s total entropy is ever changing.

Sure, no equations allow for a value of infinity by definition. They can only allow for tending towards infinity. It’s not anything to start an argument over in the first place, it’s just a fact. So no need to worry about that. And it’s not merely an interpretation of the maths that I’m explaining.

The timeline does change when time dilates around particularly large bodies of mass where gravity is very large, and in conditions of very high speeds (as observed by experimentation in both cases) - both of which happened around the theorised singularity referred to as the big bang. Complexity increases as entropy increases as time increases, because more and more states become possible with more equal chances - this is what entropy means according to the information theory that you brought up before. And clearly this is the case since there’s very few states that a singularity can be in (hence the name deriving from the same root as “single”), and all the different states that can occur as it breaks down into the complex universe we see today. So the evidence is that entropy is increasing - it does change, and universally too in the way I just described. Not just locally.

It seems as though your objection, to what observation tells us, is that you think there’s a balance between the ever increasing entropy and some decrease in entropy, which I assume is what you mean to communicate by the black hole example that you brought up in a previous post. Why are you assuming that the starting entropy, before a large enough star collapses into a black hole, is the same as the entropy after black holes form new stars? The mass is all the same, the energy of the systems involved is constant, but none of this means the entropy of the local system or that of the entire universe’s entropy is the same.

Assuming this example is the main reason for your objection, I’m guessing you’re taking the type of creation event being similar to some previous creation event as equivalent to it, when it is not. New stars are neither a reset button nor a fall in entropy to balance any previous rising. Everything is more dispersed as spacetime uncurves due to gravity decreasing in line with the inverse square law as everything moves away from everything else, and pockets of mass and gravity that result in black holes and new stars are likewise more dispersed. As the equation for change in entropy suggests, even with huge clusters of mass and energy reaching temperatures as high or higher than those in the past, the transfer of energy between them and the ever lower temperatures of evermore dispersed matter and energy around it only increases entropy faster. So with less and less collisions forming new stars as time goes on, dispersing energy more and more as things move apart, each new star has higher entropy than what it replaced, and there’s less and less of them as time goes on. The logic matches the observations.

But like you said, you don’t believe that this is true. Would you admit though that you’re not an expert on the concepts about which you have already made up your mind? The only irrational situation here seems to be that you’ve made up your mind already. Both science and philosophy are not about trying to prove yourself right at any cost, but knowing as much as possible about how you could be wrong, and adapting accordingly.

x = 1/0
x = infinity

X isn’t going toward infinity. If the denominator is 0 (as in zero K temperature), and the numerator is greater than zero (as positive heat flow), then x is infinite.

If you have learned some other maths, we are just at an impasse.

As for the rest of your argumentation, you don’t seem to be able to separate the total of the universe from far more restricted and local events. I don’t think that relativity has anything to do with the universe as a whole. Perhaps some people just can’t comprehend infinity and the necessary logical consequences.

Unfortunately it would appear that you are unaware that 1/0 is undefined.

Please do look things up more than you are before answering. Last time you did, you made it sound like I was causing you an inconvenience… - this is the opposite to what ought to be the case.

Infinity isn’t a quantity, it can’t “equal” something. If you studied maths at a higher level you would know that you only formulate tendencies to infinity, and infinities or division by zero is a serious problem if it’s ever discovered in your formulations. The same goes for mathematical equations in physics, which you would know if you were familiar enough with either subject to be so certain about the topics we’re discussing.

If you think you can comprehend infinity, you are either giving bounds to infinity or implying your comprehension is infinite. So are you contradicting yourself or professing godlike capabilities?
It’s by definition only possible to comprehend the tendency towards infinity, which is why maths deals with tendencies instead of infinities. This shouldn’t be hard to comprehend.

If you don’t think relativity has anything to do with the universe as a whole then either you don’t understand the extent to which it models the universe as a whole and holds up to experimentation, or you have some experimental evidence that the entire scientific community is not yet aware of, and/or some imminent thesis with extensive mathematical support to be the next revolutionary to Einstein with regards to his theories. So are you lacking knowledge or are you one of the greatest geniuses that the world has recently seen? I won’t rule out the latter without you presenting anything to support this yet, but probabalistically and based on what I’ve seen so far I strongly suspect that I’m dealing with the former.

And yes, I can separate the total of the universe from local events. I was referring to both, so it’s strange how you don’t think I know the difference.

I will grant you that they call it “undefined”, but I could still argue that it has meaning anyway.

The greater issue is that you have merely made your case worse.

I was saying that the equation could not rationally produce an answer of “infinite”. You have now confirmed that not only can it not produce a value of infinite, but the best it can do is to become completely undefined.

So your idea of the universe’s entropy being infinite just got even more impossible. At zero K, entropy is undefined, void of meaning. And at anything above zero K, entropy is less than infinite.

People who say things like that are saying that only God can understand things that they don’t.

It would not be able to define conditions that can’t exist, sure. For all the conditions that can exist, we’re ok.
Why can such conditions that make the equation produce undefined results not exist? Read on.

Cooling something down to absolute zero requires the cooling agent to also be at absolute zero, or below which appears impossible, because the energy of whatever is doing the cooling is always transferring to what it’s cooling. You can get very close…

Again, I’m afraid I must inconvenience you to read up on absolute zero.

Not sure I follow the logic. Also, I’m an atheist, which would make me seem even worse if I was saying nobody can understand things that I don’t - which isn’t what I mean to say I can assure you!

I’m using the adjective “godlike” hyperbolically here, because logically nobody can have infinite comprehension: “comprehension” is by definition putting mental bounds around something, which contradicts infinity. Being godlike is a contradiction in the same way, so really what I’m saying is that your implication of understanding infinity is necessarily a contradiction regardless of how much I know or don’t know. I’m sure many people understand things that I don’t, but I’m more sure that nobody comprehends infinity by definition - and the best that can be done is comprehending tending towards infinity.

Does that dispel your suspicions about my arrogance or lack thereof?

Its not necessarily very easy.
But Relativity seems to me to be a natural consequence of an infinitely extended potential for power concentration curvature, simply because infinity doesn’t allow for a centre.

Your statement implied your arrogance, not mine. I would say instead that you attempt to argue almost any irrelevant issue even to your own demise. You like to argue. I prefer people who like to find agreement.

Again I’m not sure I follow your logic, and again arrogance is not intended - the above was an invitation for you to explain how you arrived at that conclusion.

The fact that you did not accept this invitation, nor elaborate on the subject matter, and that you express distaste toward discussion with me indicates that we are done. Thank you for the debate.

What you did say is only valid if the universe is defined as all possible states. Only in this case, you would have 2^ininifty (number of possible states) > infinite (number of points on time). Universe is however not all possible states, it is one point in 3 (space dimension) * infinity (number of particles)* infinite (number of point in each dimension) = infinite (number of point on time).