Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

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).

I was working from James’ posting of this:

He proposed that a single line (1 dimension) has infA^2 segments (using the real number set),
a single plane (2 dimensions) has infA^2 * infA^2 = infA^4, and
a single volume (3 dimensions) has infA^2 * infA^4 = infA^6 segments

whereas a timelime (not using his 3 dimensional time) has only infA^2 segments.

thus “space is bigger than time”

Or when he used merely the whole number system:

Note that at each location, there is a measure of affect, called PtA, that can range from 0 to infinite. For existence to replicate, that measure of PtA must be identical from the first time moment to the replicated time moment in every of the infA^6 locations in space.

And then the possibility of space being at any specific chosen state is absolute zero. That is to say that the actual state of the universe at any given time cannot replicate or even be known under any circumstances.

You can tell the amateurish level of mathematics that we’re dealing with by its presentation.

He’s brazenly multiplying infinities all over the place. What do you get when you multiply, or perform any arithmetical operation on something that’s undefined? Something that’s undefined. Even adding 1 to quantity that has no bound still has no bound - his is the realm where you can make mathematical nonsense such as 0=1. E.g. “Infinity + 1 = Infinity, subtract infinity from both sites of the equation and bam” - that’s what you get when you treat infinity like a finite quantity.

You can sum up what you’ve quoted of him in a couple of lines:

1. Conventionally we use 3 dimensions to measure space and 1 dimension to measure time, therefore space is bigger than time.
2. There’s more ways to be heterogenous than homogenous, therefore heterogeneity is more likely i.e. everything being the same has lower entropy than everything not being the same.
   The first line says nothing, and the second line just says “entropy”.

So I take it back, you can sum up all that nonsense in one word: “entropy”. There’s no need to make a fool out of yourself just to explain what one word already explains.

Yeah and tell James to stop brazenly multiplying infinities all over the place, too! Fucking affectance ontologists. They’re almost as bad as value ontologists.

Speaking of one who should look things up before posting.

James addressed that issue nicely by first acknowledging what happens when you try to use “infinity” in maths. He explains it doesn’t work. He explains that “infinity” is insufficiently defined for mathematical use. Then he gives infA precise definition.

(I finally got that link thing working )

In short, it appears that James knew what he was talking about.

And yet:

3/4 * Pi * infinity^6 is just as infinite as merely saying “infinity”. And as I covered, multiplying however many indetermined quantities gives you an indetermined quantity.

He’s defined infA the same as you would define infinity, just in an amateur format.

Admittedly writing in unicode for posts here is limited as far as I can work it, but something similar to the following (where i=1 should be below the sigma, and ∞ above) is how you represent how he presented his infA - in terms of an infinite sum:
i=1 ∞∑ 1ᵢ
Yet this is the same as representing infinity. Swapping the term out for “infA” does nothing.

He then goes on to treat infinity algebraically like a finite quantity, and then performs some more algebra to represent a logical tautology…

Next is an attempt to vitiate actual definitions that you use at all levels of education as merely elementary education, as his best attempt to legitimise what looks like a merely elementary education of his own - presumably to make it seem as though there’s no point wasting your time with actually learning higher education, which would not incidentally reveal the nonsense behind his formulations, and potentially draw in amateur level mathematicians to his sophistry, who never wanted to get into higher education in the first place.

“infinity / infinity = indeterminate” is not like saying “length / length = indeterminate”.

Length is a unit, and letting the numerator be x and the demoninator be y, you get x/y, which is determined in that form. Dividing one length by another just means the result has no units, not that it has “indetermined” units: it is determined as having no units.

Then he finishes off your first quote with a conclusion based on his invalid premises.

The second quote is more of the same infinity-algebra, pretending that things like an indeterminable quantity + 1 can be determined with precision, like you would do with determined quantities.

In short, your quotes show nothing of the sort.

I really miss this guy, crackling sharp.

Of course he’s right, the number of real numbers is greater than the numbers of integers, even though of both there are infinitely many.

In the same way an unlimited three dimensional space is greater than an infinite line.

I like the argument that time is smaller than space, but I am not sure what is meant by the universe as consisting of all possible states. Except if all possible states means all necessary states. Possible states would comprise a meta universe that is never fully attained.

Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state ?

Initial or original - appears here that this needs a real distinction. There may not be one, or even, it may not even necessitate a proof for one. That is the first introduced fallacy.

Second, states are a continuum. Prior states are infinitely divisible, and correspond to particular variables. Passing over this leads to a circularity with which to argue space/time is invalid. Invalidity and boundary problems are relativistic .

The reduction will appear in 3 forms , then, phenomenological, eidectic - ontological, and entropycal , - all part of the continuum modally. - changing timespace in terms of preception, understanding and representation.

At that point visualizing absolute space/time will not become feasable.with the problem approaching irresolutability.

That it is so embedded, is the problem.
Other way- absolute, and infinitely regressed fallibility. They may become obsolete by definition, including mathematical ones.

Also entropy isn’t technically a state because A=A doesn’t apply to it.

Entropy means the absence of order, not a particular constellation of disorder, which would be a weird thing.

The laws of thermodynamics presuppose order, where heat as well as heath death are derivates of it.
Existence isn’t actually of an expansive but rather a contracting nature.

The question James’ work first of all evokes, is how there can be different qualities of infinitesimals?
Which actually addresses the deeper question of how one could compute one infinitesimal with another if they have no distinct features. So we do this by using different orders of infinity.

An infinitesimal of the rational order is smaller than one of the integer order. It is the noise within the noise.
I don’t know if there is an infinite number of classes of infinity, but I don’t think so. So thats a start.

I prefer to give an infinitesimal a quality of affect - namely, valuing. Which draws it out of strict analytical infinitesimally - it just has no size or mass requirement to it, it is a minimal concept of a being rather than a concept of a minimal being.

For something to affect it must also be affected. Resistance.

In the end resistance, or friction, is the real cauldron of logical being.

(and traction is what’s referred to as momentum)

“the moon grinding through space” - Capable