Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

I assume you mean “Sufficient”? I guess they’re similar in meaning and maybe it’s a translation thing, but just so you know, I believe the English convention is to use the term “Sufficient”. This is probably why obsrvr524 didn’t know what you meant.

By definition no, since a line represents 1d space.

I assume this is your basis for the concept in your next post:

But the distinction between a line and volume is irrelevant to the infinitude of either, because the information contained along an infinite line can also be represented in 3 dimensions.

Your argument would appear to be that the form of the representation of infinity affects the “quantity” of the infinity, for which you’re using the term “depth” - but comparing depths implies comparing quantities.

They’re both representations of that which has no bound and therefore can’t be defined. As I’ve been explaining to obsrvr and as you probably already know, finitude is the derivational root of the terms “finite” and “define”, meaning bounded. You can define finites, and you can represent the tendency towards the infinite through constructions that specify finites (infinite series), but strictly logically that’s the closest you can get to “defining” infinites such that you can compare them. But one definition of a divergent series that tends to infinity has no bound just the same as a definition of a different divergent series - there’s no final bound either way to compare the final result. All you can compare is the construction that uses finites. As such you can manipulate and perform arithmetic on the constructions because they use finites, but the final result is undefined whatever construction you use to represent a divergent series.

The difference in “depth” is in the representation, not in the result.
Even though this escapes obsrvr, perhaps you understand this?

As I explained to obsrvr, it doesn’t have an echo, nor does it need an echo.

Entropy is non-linear, as demonstrated by the equation for change in entropy: ΔS = ∫₀∞ δQ/T.

The higher the δQ (difference in energy), the higher the ΔS (change in entropy) - a proportional relationship - and as spacetime uncurves and the constant energy of the system spreads out, there’s overall less and less differences between points of higher and lower energy, meaning there’s less and less change in entropy. In short, the rate of entropy increase slows down: therefore it’s not linear.

But the equation also shows that the higher the temperatures involved, the lower the change in entropy (they are inversely proportional, hence the T being on the denominator). So areas of high temperature gain entropy slower - which might give the impression of entropy being constant, or even resetting itself (echoing back on itself) when the temperatures are really high - such as in stars and black holes. But overall the entropy still increases, just slower (again, not linear).

You need to get out while you still can, Jake. If you stick around you’re gonna get pwned cuz sil ain’t playin’, homes.

It seems to me that if the universe has always existed and the universe is infinite in size, the average entropy level for the universe as a whole could never change. For every location where the entropy is increasing there must be a location where the entropy is decreasing. I don’t see any way around that.

And it probably never stays the exact same in any one place.

Interesting that the term “adequate” exposes so much literacy problems. A good indication of why it is so difficult to argue with “experts”.

Indeed. A line is 1 dimension.

No. It could be construed that way, with some effort, but thats not very elegant.

In fact the definition occurs at the formulation, at the outset.
Thats what the key to James’ calculations is. Work with the formulation, not with the results.

That goes for “infinity” in general. There is no “result”.

That was a joke dude.

Oh shut up you tool. Seriously. Don’t tell me to be impressed by someone who can recite the ABC.
I had a solid background in theoretical physics when I was 8. Fuck off.

“I had a solid background in theoretical physics when I was 8.”

Falling off the monkey bars doesn’t count, Jakester.

Alright alright. Jesus. I wuz just playin’.

Yeah temper temper

Actually Silhouette, what you said is wrong, or my saying it could be construed that way was wrong -

what I mean with a deeper infinity is one which expands quicker. The rate of adding up is greater with a deeper infinity. Why does this matter?
It matters because this is how James arrives at the idea that space is “larger” than time and cant be reduced to it, thus why there is no cyclical universe, no eternal recurrence of the same.

Let’s look at this “precise definition”:
infA = (1+1+1+…+1)

Now to perform some arithmetic:
infA ^ 2 = (1+1+1+…+1) * (1+1+1+…+1)

Time to sequentially multiply the terms as you do for multiplication of values in parentheses, let’s see…
11 = 1, ok. 11 = 1 as well, let’s keep going and what do we get?
(1+1+1+…+1) * (1+1+1+…+1) = (1+1+1+…+1)
infA ^ 2 = infA, huh…

Now, let’s compare this with infA * 2:
(1+1+1+…+1) + (1+1+1+…+1)
But instead of putting one after the other like you would normally do for addition of finites (which the very formulation of “(1+1+1+…+1)” tries to do in the first place!!), which would get “infA” just the same as if you multiply them, let’s remember there is no end to add the next term to, and sequentially add the terms the same as you do for multiplication:
1+1 = 2, ok. 1+1 = 2 as well, let’s keep going and what do we get?
(1+1+1+…+1) + (1+1+1+…+1) = (2+2+2+…+2)
infA + infA = 2 * infA

Ooo, have we got somewhere? Let’s check against the rule:
“x^2 > 2x” iff “x > 2”

Ok, so “infA > 2” check.
Therefore infA^2 should be “larger” (deeper?) than infA2
Recall:
“infA * infA” was “infA” and “infA + infA” was “2 * infA”, wait what?
Our results show infA^2 < infA2…, which would only be true if infA was less than 2…
(1+1+1+…+1) < 2? Nope…

Looks like even being able to recite your ABCs and using the secret of James’ calculations and working with the formulations is a good start to being able to see how it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I told ya, dude. I fucking told ya.

For those about to die, we salute you.

salute

Hahahahaha

Yes, beautiful, Silhouette literally comes out proudly demonstrating that he knows how to make 1+1 add up to 2, and Promethean is actually impressed. Probably thinks it is relevant to my point about different orders of infinity. Go ILP.

I should really leave this to you two geniuses.

James adds 1s together with “(1+1+1+…+1) = infA” and everyone loses their minds over his genius that inspires readership and ideas in others, or makes others want to compare their own ideas to his.

Sil unproudly shows it falls apart at its most basic level and is ridiculed for actually doing the arithmetic at its most basic level to prove it.

Go ILP indeed.

There’s no point in anyone staying anyway because nobody ever wants to learn anything.
Make claims, ridicule counter-claims, flatter self and either leave or repeat.

Let’s have a look at “depth” and prove what I’ve just said as well:
“Expands quicker”/“rate of adding up is greater”

This assumes a finite time taken to add up each element in constructing the infinity, and an equal time taken to add up each element for each construction of infinity.
Otherwise adding up (1+1+1+…+1) twice as fast as (2+2+2+…+2) makes each “expand at the same rate” and the “rate of adding up is the same”.
Either that or don’t assume a finite time taken to add up each element, and instead add each up equally instantaneously → “expand at the same rate” and the “rate of adding up is the same”.
Ergo different depths/orders of infinity argument is unjustified yet again.

Destroying ILP arguments is too easy, but getting people to listen and accept, nevermind learn and grow is impossible.

But at least he took your advice, promethean, and got out while he could - well a bit late.

At this point, I have to accept that Silhouette is just being the anti-James political pundit reminiscent of Juan on Fox’s The Five, the paid-to-be anti-Trump pundit for the show. Juan ends up making such ridiculous and stupid arguments that no one can believe that even he believes what he spouts even though he does deliver it as though perfectly serious.

Sometimes it is really difficult to tell if pundits just believe that their audience is stupid, as US democrats seem to believe, or whether they really are that stupid themselves. Perhaps they are just trying to gather up all of the really stupid people for future purposes.

I won’t bother to play into the game of pointing out obvious reasoning errors with someone apparently just making dumb arguments for sake of hating on the other guy. Whether political or just stupid, such people only learn in private, when at all.

I thought you people wanted to talk entropy.

I. don’t. care. about. James.

I neither hate, like, disrespect, admire, anything him, nor anyone else here. Arguments either hold or don’t hold completely irrespective of their author and anyone’s emotions.

Me pointing out that arguments, which happen to be authored by him are flawed doesn’t give me an agenda - what’s with all this ad hom paranoia? Your “Traitorous Critic Fallacy” is invalid.

Are you going to tell me that I’m a paid political pundit against every single person whose arguments I’ve disproven? And why bring politics and association fallacies or any other red herrings into it at all?

Perhaps this reflex of yours is indicative of your own approach to argumentation: argue for the person rather than their content, making any criticism of the content an attack on the person. But whether or not this is true has no bearing on the content itself, you see? I don’t give it a second thought because the argument would be the same whoever came up with it - and it would still be wrong in exactly the same way.

The whole reason you brought up James’ misuse of infinities was in response to something Dan said about your very first post on the thread, so presumably your argument about entropy relied on it?

If so, now I’ve disproven this infA nonsense, you can re-evaluate your position on entropy that relied on it.
If not, then you have no grounds to complain that you thought we wanted to talk about entropy when it was yourself who de-railed with misusing infinities.

On the topic of entropy, I also have scientific consensus against me, the same as you.
Whilst you don’t accept the laws of thermodynamics and relativity, I don’t accept that the universe is perfectly flat or at least that it was always flat as explained in a previous post as follows:

You rejected this as drinking koolaid, because James said some things that made you firmly make up your mind that the scientific consensus is wrong.

If you wanted to further the discussion on entropy, perhaps you should explain the exact reasoning of these things that convinced you that the scientific consensus is wrong.
However, if there’s flaws in this reasoning, I would ask you to please not take it as an attack on James himself because I don’t think anyone here has an interest in defaming or slandering anyone, including me.

Oh I believe that. As I said earlier, “this is more about you than James”.

So are you saying that if I point out your convenient mistakes in your misuse of infA, you will happily accept that you are still too amateur to be mocking James, Euler, Robinson and the rest and give up this “only God could understand anything that I don’t” attitude?

Good, then as the very next line says “Arguments either hold or don’t hold completely irrespective of their author and anyone’s emotions.” you’ll believe that it’s not about me either.

Enough with your appeal to motive fallacies, please do get back to the content and let me know what my convenient mistakes are - I’ve obviously missed them and I’m relying on you guys to point out what I’ve missed, and likewise you can rely on me to point out if there’s anything you’ve missed in pointing out what I’ve missed.

As for putting James in the same list as Euler and Robinson, that remains to be seen.
Again I’m an atheist, so “only God could understand anything that I don’t” is not my attitude - Euler and Robinson no doubt understood plenty that I don’t, but that’s been thoroughly and perfectly acceptably proven and pier reviewed unlike the considerably less known and less expertly scrutinised James - potentially for good reason, potentially not.

But that part of your quote, I did not believe.

That’s a yes or no question. Yes? Or No?

Hey if you don’t have any argumentation, only loaded questions intended to humiliate, nor believe what I say then there’s no discussion to be had.
James’ arguments will just have to remain defeated, without anything reflecting on him as a person.

That’s what I thought. Liberal minds never commit else they risk losing control of the narrative. Truth means nothing to them because life is all about themselves. They are certainly not interested in seeing their mistakes revealed.

Still no content, only claims.

I too could pin this on assumed political leanings and biased stereotypes attributed to them, but it would be equally as vapid as your accusations.

I literally asked you what my mistakes are and you say I’m “certainly not interested in seeing my mistakes revealed”.

“Truth means nothing to them” is literal psychological projection on your part - confirmed.

Are you going to stop wasting our time now? If so, you have two options only:
Option A) Continue the discussion and reveal my mistakes - I am interested.
Option B) Cease posting. The motion that you have nothing is carried.

If neither are met in your very next post, should you make one at all, that is indisputable proof that you intend only to waste both of our time.

The moment of truth has come, let us see who you really are…

Still no commitment.
Too predictable.

They also have an amazing lack of courage even in debate. It would have been easy enough to just say “yes” and then continue your deny, deny, deny tactic. You were going to do that anyway but at least then you would have been able to learn something if learning about your mistakes was of even the least interest.

I feel like Trump talking to the Pelosi debacle.