Thermodynamics and Entropy

Entropy is often described as order vs disorder or chaos.
An increase in entropy would mean an increase of chaos.

But that's sometimes difficult to grasp in every-day events. Let's put some milk into a cup of coffee. At first the milk will be somewhat separated from the coffee. Then, slowly, over time, the milk will diffuse and mix with the coffee - resulting in a homogenized fluid, at least at the level of what the human eye can see. When the milk is not yet diffused in the cup then the mixture is more ordered than after the homogenization. Why? - Because that effect is happening effortlessly. Chaos comes about without effort, while an increase in order requires energy and focus towards something, a set direction.

Entropy is a measure for how much chaos or order in a given system exists. This can become quite abstract. The science of thermodynamics is very much focused on "closed" systems. That means that the system has no connection to anything outside and that it is finite. If that does apply to the universe is a different story.

Another approach is to talk about energy dispersal when describing entropy. So... that cup of coffee with some milk... There is a flux, a flow happening in that cup. The milk is dispersing within the coffee (or the coffee within the milk).If we put the milk into the coffee at one side of the cup then at the end there will have been a net flow of milk to the other side of said cup. Otherwise it wouldn't have spread out in the cup evenly after enough time has passed. For that directed flow to take place the energy which was stored in the more ordered state at the beginning was dissipated.

There was no will behind that - chaos just comes about. It's destructive.

Yet, at the same time that unwilled move towards chaos, that dispersal of energy is also a source for life itself.
Without change there would be no reason, no possibility, for life. If what is now would be fixed, unmovable, then there would be no consciousness or will on any level, also no reason to develop any. That is where the feminine and the masculine together bring about life. The act of ordering can only take place because change is possible. That ordering is a focused, directed change. It is possible to bring about willed, directed order but that possibility also brings about the unwilled flow towards more chaos, the dissipation - unfocused energy.

Life doesn't bring about more order than was before, what it does is directing the flow. Plants absorb the sunlight and create their own order but there are limits to efficiency, usually a lot of energy is just dissipating. What life-forms do, is collecting energy, using that energy to maintain themselves and using the excess for growth and offspring.

More complex organisms require more energy. Plants -> Animals -> Order within groups

Plants take in sunlight and produce chemically stored energy, bio-matter, which has a higher energy density.
Animals eat bio-matter and sustain their more complex and energy consuming way of life. Groups enable animals to be more efficient in procuring bio-matter, energy.

The group has the possibility for growth as long as enough energy can be collected - what factors in here is availability of energy and the way the group is organized - whether the growth in group size brings more energy per individual into the collective or not. This is the field of techniques, engineering, technology and individual/group behavioral psychology.

Energy is a limiting factor in complexity.

To excel means to surpass the previous - that, which came before. Hard work alone produces at best variations of the already established. But if what is valued is variations of the already established (see modern art) then it will be fine, at least for a time...
In nature we observe the constant struggle of all life against entropy. To produce one recycled copy after another would be certain doom, not only through the competition of other species but also through mutations which would slowly destroy the genetic integrity. This is part of the reason why producing clones won't even preserve the established, yet alone improve upon it.
This can be applied to many human constructs as well. This is one reason for the necessity of quality to keep things functioning in the long run. Selection pressure through striving for excellence and not settling for the mediocre.

Can't sit through 35 minutes of those hideous 4 chords in that cheesy keyboard effect played over and over again.

But maybe when you're done with this, you can explain to satyr how entropy can decrease locally. He's a little confused on that, but he won't take it from me.

phoneutria wrote:

But maybe when you're done with this, you can explain to satyr how entropy can decrease locally. He's a little confused on that, but he won't take it from me.

My understanding from watching the videos is that entropy can only decrease locally by taking energy from somewhere else. But this still means that entropy has increased overall, as energy has dissipated over a larger area.

Make sense?

I've heard of all theories, dear.
The emergence of life would be a decrease in randomness, as life is ordering.

The idea of a closed system, we call Universe, was questioned by Hawkin who tried to prove that energy was lost in Black Holes.
He gave up on the idea, given his health.
There is also the theory of multiverses, dear, where a universe is imagined like a membrane, as they call it, where mutiple membranes stack like pancakes - and, often, one membrane interacts with others, in theory, where energies are exchanged.

Some tried to explain the relative weakness of the gravitation force, in comparison with the other forces, by using multiverses.

This would be stretching the idea of a universe, in my mind.

But the human brain, being based on abstraction/simplification, must construct absolutes to make phenomena comprehensible.
I'm not convinced energy is not lost....but even if there is no loss, it changes nothing in my metaphysics.

But theories aside...
Can you understand why life can only emerge in a state of towards increasing entropy, and why time, as we use it, is a measure of a linear change, which means towards increasing randomness?
Can you understand how all interactions result in friction, a release of energies which add to the increasing chaos?
Can you understand why need is the experience of ordering within this towards randomness, making suffering "easy" and pleasure a result of effort, struggle, work - a Sisyphean struggle: you must increase suffering to enjoy a period of comfort?
Of course comfort and comfort being relative terms - relating to the organism's endurance - its tolerance levels - its strength.

When you understand that, get back to me, with something more than your usual insinuations.

These vids support my positions, dear.

I already know you are clueless, dear...no need to maintain the facade with me.
I know how you think and the ploys you use to appear deeper than you are.
Best you reserve them for the others.

Redictivist wrote:

My understanding from watching the videos is that entropy can only decrease locally by taking energy from somewhere else. But this still means that entropy has increased overall, as energy has dissipated over a larger area.

Make sense?

That makes sense.
 

phoneutria wrote:

That makes sense.
 

You should have used something more flirty, more coy, more girlish...more insinuating.

Your Brazilian spontaneity is exposing the fissures in your skin - the wrinkles.
Excuse yourself; go to the bathroom, powder your nose, push up the titties, put on those high-heels that pop your ass, fix your hair, and come out again, all aloof and elegant.

Nobody noticed.

If entropy can only increase then at some point the universe will reach a state of equilibrium where all "energy boxes" are distributed evenly and no activity, requiring energy, can occur.

So, why has this not already happened? Or, how did the universe first achieve a state of lower entropy in order for entropy to increase in the first place?

apaosha wrote:

If entropy can only increase then at some point the universe will reach a state of equilibrium where all "energy boxes" are distributed evenly and no activity, requiring energy, can occur.

So, why has this not already happened? Or, how did the universe first achieve a state of lower entropy in order for entropy to increase in the first place?

I'm not a proponent of entropy.

However, if the universe is infinitely big, and infinitely small, you can always divide energies a little more, so if you divide x energy from y energy, sub x energy and sub y energy, both residing in energy x, still need to be divided, and after they're divided, sub, sub energy x and sub, sub energy y, both residing in sub energy x, still need to be divided, and so on and so forth ad infinitum.

If the universe spontaneously generated ex nihilo, then time began at a particular time and place, but may never end, which would be bizarre, but nonetheless, the universe could've began in a state of less entropy than it is now.

Of course gravity will unite, whatever entropy divides, but that's another story.

apaosha wrote:

If entropy can only increase then at some point the universe will reach a state of equilibrium where all "energy boxes" are distributed evenly and no activity, requiring energy, can occur.

So, why has this not already happened? Or, how did the universe first achieve a state of lower entropy in order for entropy to increase in the first place?

That's the question.

As one approaches infinite space, energies are so evenly distributed and weak that one approaches the nil.

In my mind, as one approaches infinity - the absolute - and if you think of space as possibility, then possibility increases towards the infinite.
Probability becomes uniform possibility.
All becomes possible.

This is where Hawking's idea that Black Holes lose data comes in. Because a Black Hole, or something vastly more singular, might be the beginning of a new universe.
When I first heard that Hawking was working on proving that energy was lost in Black Holes I got excited - because I had been thinking that this is the case.
But he gave it up, claiming he was wrong.
I think his health was a factor.

We haven't come to the end of physics.   
The idea that Laws hold true everywhere until the end of time, is human hubris.
The forces were once one, right after the Big Bang, then two, and are now four (strong, weak, gravity, electromagnetism)...and they are continuing to fragment.
They considered Newton's Laws unquestionable until man discovered the quantum level which contradicts them.  

These present theories lead to a cold ending, contradicting the cycle's theories which are part of many spiritual teachings.

Then there's the multiverse theories where one membrane interacting with another - one universe, essentially with another - birth a new universe...but this also requires a loss of energies.

Satyr wrote:

This is where Hawking's idea that Black Holes lose data comes in. Because a Black Hole, or something vastly more singular, might be the beginning of a new universe.
When I first heard that Hawking was working on proving that energy was lost in Black Holes I got excited - because I had been thinking that this is the case.
But he gave it up, claiming he was wrong.
I think his health was a factor.

We haven't come to the end of physics.

Black holes radiate the energy they consume back into the universe over vast amounts of time, so they don't break the second law of thermodynamics, allegedly. I think that was Hawking's own work.

Divergense wrote:

I'm not a proponent of entropy.

But then we should expect to see evidence of energy being created ex-nihilo like perpetual motion machines and stars not running out of energy and dying.

It's unlikely that gravity will reunite the remnants as dark energy is accelerating the universes expansion and will eventually tear apart atomic bonds.

Recidivist wrote:

Black holes radiate the energy they consume back into the universe over vast amounts of time, so they don't break the second law of thermodynamics, allegedly. I think that was Hawking's own work.

From what I understood Hawking thought some data was lost....

Divergense wrote:

apaosha wrote:

If entropy can only increase then at some point the universe will reach a state of equilibrium where all "energy boxes" are distributed evenly and no activity, requiring energy, can occur.

So, why has this not already happened? Or, how did the universe first achieve a state of lower entropy in order for entropy to increase in the first place?

I'm not a proponent of entropy.
.

I'm not a fan of death, myself.

And I vote against predation.
If I were given a vote I would vote pro-Paradise.
A reality where all animals live together in love and harmony, everything was provided for, and all we did is sit around and play.

I am, also, not a fan of need and suffering, and I really hate pain...and yet I am not stupid enough to think that my hopes and preferences mean anything in a world that did not ask for my opinion about how it should of been, or could have been....and within which I emerged BECAUSE of how it is.
Now, since I like who and what I am, exactly as I am, I do not hold a grudge....in fact I would not have it any other way.

You, on the other hand, have your issues.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Linked page wrote:

To Alfvén, the most critical difference between his approach and that of the Big Bang cosmologists was one of method. "When men think about the universe, there is always a conflict between the mythical and the empirical scientific approach," he explained. "In myth, one tries to deduce how the gods must have created the world, what perfect principle must have been used." This, he said, is the method of conventional cosmology today: to begin from a mathematical theory, to deduce from that theory how the universe must have begun, and to work forward from the beginning to the present-day cosmos. The Big Bang fails scientifically because it seeks to derive the present, historically formed universe from a hypothetical perfection in the past. All the contradictions with observation stem from this fundamental flaw.

There is the underlying idea behind modern cosmology that there is an Alpha and an Omega.
A beginning and an end.
The believe in an end is kind of depressing for moderns - "It's all in vain anyway then. Why bother?" And so there is this trend in popular science to look for an escape - the perpetual playing of games in all eternity.

And before that, fortune was a wheel, ever turning.
But in that case, nobody can or will ever escape suffering.

The last couple of thousands of years in monotheistic tradition seem to have been about the mind trying to escape its bodily fate.

There is a generation which creates myths and understands them as myth.
And there are following generations which understand them as truth.
And then come generations which understands myth as Truth.
And finally, there comes a generation which doesn't even remember that the Truth is a myth.




Edit - grammar

I've been saying this for years.

Most of science presupposes the absolute.
God has morphed into alpha/omega beginning/end, as you noted.
In math it is reflected in the 1/0, upon which all of science depends.
The code.

And scientists, basing their thinking on this, are always searching for the absolute temperature, the absolute fabric of the universe, the beginning, and/or the god-particle, the indivisible atom, the edge of reality, the all encompassing theory (M-Theory).
And this is characteristic of all moderns - the idea that all can be known is the prevailing mythology of Alexandrianism, resulting in the reduction of life, of all phenomena to codes.
They want an end, a final solution, a universal meaning, purpose, ideal - they want certainty to cope with their anxieties.
A negative answer is better than no answer.
They would go insane without it, or they would cease to care about anything.

It's why I say that you cannot reason with most minds - the issue is self-preservation, and as many evolution psychologists point out, truth is not the purpose of life. ]
If the organism needs to fool itself, needs to believe in a lie, to survive, it will do so.

You can't convince a other of something it intuitively knows will drive it mad.
That's why in order to explain, to themselves, why some minds can go beyond survival, or have higher tolerance levels, they search more secret motives, an illness, an emotional reason.

It's, also, why I say that the Judeo-Christian God has not died...it has changed monikers, symbols, names, codes.
We live in a Judeo-Christian meme - a nihilistic one, a secular variant which I call [M]odernity; it is also called Americanism or New World Order.
Many times it is called enlightenment, progressiveness.

The same salvation myths; the same life-hating, self-denouncing (anti-ego), attitudes; the same denial of fear and escape through love (love being the christian word for their God); the same rejection of the past (nature = sum of all previous nurturing) - only in Modernity nature is to be "corrected", intervened upon, altered in accordance with current ideals -; the same sheltering of weakness; the same reversal of meanings and attitudes towards the real; the same denial of appearances, of phenomena; the same obsession with words, symbols, numbers, codes (Biblical text and  the Torah replaced by dictionaries, philosophical text, scientific studies - data interpretation similar to Biblical interpretations of Delphic-like ambiguities), with the noetic, the idealized, detached, abstraction usurping the real (solipsism).  

In mythology the absence is masked in allegory.
In science it is masked in code - words/numbers.

Satyr wrote:

These present theories lead to a cold ending, contradicting the cycle's theories which are part of many spiritual teachings.

The prevailing view at the moment seems to be a towards dissolution, a linear view. All is moving in one direction; entropic decay. From a state of higher order to disorder.

Order ----> Disorder

It doesn't quite establish how order originates, however, since it is all progressing in one direction. Order requires an intervention upon chaos to establish itself, but leads to an increase in entropy as that energy is consumed.

In one of those videos an example of entropy was given as the burning of petrol, the breakdown of order (the petrol) to bring about useful work. But petrol, oil, is a fossil fuel which formed from the decay of ancient organisms and is itself the product of entropy. So it seems to me that disorder inevitably produces order, at least in this instance.

If this can be extended to a metaphysical viewpoint, then the concept of the cycle is still valid.

Perhaps all will reach the state of non-active equilibrium, be sucked up by a singular super-massive black hole which will then spit out a new universe.... or the same one, regurgitated.

Satyr wrote:

I've been saying this for years.

I know, I've just re-connected the dots.

This quote I posted was from a marxist site, it seems. They are probably trying to eradicate the old myths, any myths, and replace them with pure scientific empiricism. But that doesn't work - like secular humanism it just tries to hide the myths, the axioms, the basic assumptions under a lot of empiricism.
And instead of being honest about the myths, which would make them to be truths, it is dishonest, it hides them and makes them to be Truths.
The secular, modern man claims to be beyond myths and superstitions, when actually, truths are not enough for him - Not to mention Truths - he's not even aware of the Truths he swallowed whole, which he can't do without.

apaosha wrote:

In one of those videos an example of entropy was given as the burning of petrol, the breakdown of order (the petrol) to bring about useful work. But petrol, oil, is a fossil fuel which formed from the decay of ancient organisms and is itself the product of entropy. So it seems to me that disorder inevitably produces order, at least in this instance.

Ancient organisms had to be compressed under enormous pressure for millions of years before they turned into oil, greatly increasing the density and energy content of the matter. Hence the energy contained in oil has been transferred in from the environment.

Overall, though, that has resulted in increased entropy for the world, because more energy has been put in that one can get out.

This is why it's not possible to make oil artificially, as the amount of energy you have to put into the process is greater than what you get out.
Entropy again.

Recidivist wrote:

Ancient organisms had to be compressed under enormous pressure for millions of years before they turned into oil, greatly increasing the density and energy content of the matter. Hence the energy contained in oil has been transferred in from the environment.

Exactly.
Stress, in this case, condenses the energies.
Stress condenses, comfort dilutes.

Recidivist wrote:

Overall, though, that has resulted in increased entropy for the world, because more energy has been put in that one can get out.

But as time/space expands this energy is evenly distributed, tending towards uniformity.
As possibilities increase probabilities become evenly distributed...lost in the towards infinite space/possibility.

The dilution of probability is a reduction in matter, or in divergent patterns.
Some think that chaos is complexity produced by this fragmentation.

I think complexity is an initial stage...and that chaos, proper, is the absence of patterns...or ordering.

This would be a slow degradation towards uniform randomness where no distinguishing patterns are present, and so no types of matter/energy.
Everything becomes equally possible, and impossible.
This would result in the increasing possibility of a singularity, a near/absolute, point in space/time to emerge - which would mean a new universe, or a continuance in the cycle.
The singularity would include its own contradiction...which is what the Big Bang is.
A near-absolute singularity exploding into multiplicity - Yin/Yang dynamics.

apaosha wrote:

In one of those videos an example of entropy was given as the burning of petrol, the breakdown of order (the petrol) to bring about useful work. But petrol, oil, is a fossil fuel which formed from the decay of ancient organisms and is itself the product of entropy. So it seems to me that disorder inevitably produces order, at least in this instance.

Those plants soaked up a lot of energy from the sun, they stored that energy by using it to build plant material. The energy is stored in their carbon-hydrogen, C-H, bonds. This stored energy ends up in the petroleum.

Pretty much all organisms on the planet ultimately rely on energy from the sun. Though there are a few which grow in the depths of the ocean, close to under-sea volcanos - extracting the energy they need for their growth and maintenance from the hydrogen-sulfides. They also form eco-systems there whereby the basic source of energy which sustains all life are bacteria who can use the energy stored in the H-S bonds to grow C-H material which in turn is consumed by other organisms.

Maybe the laws of physics are not as eternal as science axiomatically assumes them to be - maybe forces have their own rhythm but their periodicity is such a long timeframe that we haven't or can't measure it (yet).

Satyr wrote:

But theories aside...
Can you understand why life can only emerge in a state of towards increasing entropy, and why time, as we use it, is a measure of a linear change, which means towards increasing randomness?

Time is not always a measure toward increasing entropy. If entropy can decrease locally, then locally time is perceived as a measure of decreased entropy.
Time, as you know, is relative

Quote :

Can you understand how all interactions result in friction, a release of energies which add to the increasing chaos?

Yes.... except I prefer to use the word "balance".
To use chaos to define a state of entropic balance can be misleading, as to say that no transfer of energy is possible is not the same as to say that there is chaos. The state of energy death of the universe for example, which is a state of complete entropic balance, is a state of relative physical order.

Quote :

Can you understand why need is the experience of ordering within this towards randomness, making suffering "easy" and pleasure a result of effort, struggle, work - a Sisyphean struggle: you must increase suffering to enjoy a period of comfort?
Of course comfort and comfort being relative terms - relating to the organism's endurance - its tolerance levels - its strength.  

Need is the wish to remain orderly, the experience of ordering is pleasure.
And yes, I understand that. I don't think I've ever said a thing to contest entropy, dear, so it perplexes me that you should talk to me in this tone.

Quote :

When you understand that, get back to me, with something more than your usual insinuations.

These vids support my positions, dear.

I already know you are clueless, dear...no need to maintain the facade with me.
I know how you think and the ploys you use to appear deeper than you are.
Best you reserve them for the others.

Perhaps you should try reading what I post instead of skimming it for provocations.
I am not here to debunk you, dear. However when I see factual/conceptual incoherences, I am inclined to point them out.
I will once again write this under an uncontrollable urge to crush, and ignore it.

phoneeee wrote:

Satyr wrote:

But theories aside...
Can you understand why life can only emerge in a state of towards increasing entropy, and why time, as we use it, is a measure of a linear change, which means towards increasing randomness?

Time is not always a measure toward increasing entropy. If entropy can decrease locally, then locally time is perceived as a measure of decreased entropy.

In brief, your answer is no.
You have no clue why life can only emerge in a state of increasing entropy.  
And, in your predictable style, you do not say so, but go on and on about something that has nothing to do with it - a spineless creature, you are, pissing ink stains.

phoneeee wrote:

Time, as you know, is relative

Subjectivity cannot save you from time, dear.
Blink, wink, laugh all you like...

Time is a measure of change.
Notice how I said "change", not entropy.
Linear time, is a towards increasing entropy.
You can call it pleasure, pain, black, white, balance...you can call increasing entropy God, or ordering...give it whatever word, symbol, comforts you, a "rose by any other name..."

You can't escape using words.

The rest about what you prefer, what you like, what is good, what your tastes are, what words you like to use.....yawn.

Cultivate the bovine to be a hypocrite like you dear.
Teach him how to say nothing and appear brilliant; teach him image building and maintaining; teach him the art of word games; train him in how to use words to stimulate emotional responses, your bread and butter.
Make him a female.
Make him a needy woman, desperate for an emotional man, like you.

phoneeee wrote:

Perhaps you should try reading what I post instead of skimming it for provocations.
I am not here to debunk you, dear.

Oh, sweetie, I already know what you hunger for.
You are not hear for anything other than to feed your need for attention.
You are an emotion-vampire; making the other (re)act gives you a high.

You have nothing to say in all subjects, except emotional, sensational, ones.
Some would call you a troll, but I know you can't help yourself - this is your nature, your need, your hunger.
You are a dull wench who likes being noticed and causing a stir.
You got more of a fix from the idea that I spent hours researching your Varda past...that's how desperate you are, dear.

I've got to tell you, the difference between then and now, is what makes you easy.  

"Debunk" me?
Ha!!!
You have no clue what I am saying dear.
Up until recently, if not still, you considered Modern to be synonymous with technologies, medicines; I a Luddite wanting to get rid of flour and penicillin, because only in this system are these tools possible; a romantic idealist fighting windmills.
 
Your only retort is "It ain't that bad"...and I am the romantic idealist?
Let's wait until it is "bad" before we speak of it.
Until then, you dumb woman, go back to feeding that metabolic appetite.

Satyr wrote:

Divergense wrote:

apaosha wrote:

If entropy can only increase then at some point the universe will reach a state of equilibrium where all "energy boxes" are distributed evenly and no activity, requiring energy, can occur.

So, why has this not already happened? Or, how did the universe first achieve a state of lower entropy in order for entropy to increase in the first place?

I'm not a proponent of entropy.
.

I'm not a fan of death, myself.

And I vote against predation.
If I were given a vote I would vote pro-Paradise.
A reality where all animals live together in love and harmony, everything was provided for, and all we did is sit around and play.

I am, also, not a fan of need and suffering, and I really hate pain...and yet I am not stupid enough to think that my hopes and preferences mean anything in a world that did not ask for my opinion about how it should of been, or could have been....and within which I emerged BECAUSE of how it is.
Now, since I like who and what I am, exactly as I am, I do not hold a grudge....in fact I would not have it any other way.

You, on the other hand, have your issues.

Yes.

I'm indolent and impotent.

I'm too weak for this world.

What helps me cope is, God, neh, that'd be irrational... or not very hip and trendy, and too patriarchal like.
What helps me cope is my brand spanking new, revolutionary theory I'm concocting, which'll help me earn the attention I so desperately crave and deserve.
Get this, the cosmos is not actually hostile to our existence... in fact, it's benevolent, unconsciously so (again, if it were conscious, it'd sound too much like God), and all we have to do is ride the wave of love, and the cosmos will carry us to the promise land.
We don't lift a finger... just let it in... accept.
People like you, negative people, deplete us, spoil the fun, and actually interfere with the anentropic processes.
So pain and suffering are illusory, a bad dream, perpetuated by psychic vampires, who themselves are possessed by off world or nightmarish entities - soulless/spiritless, their only subsistence is our negative feelings and thoughts.
I know the universe is benevolent, just because.
Again, let it in, the more you question, the more they win.
Of course we can't rely on the cosmos for everything, there is one thing we, the elect, have to do.
Rather than produce anything of value on our own, we must rob people like you, of your wealth, power, and most of all, your beauty... it's not robbing really, we're merely taking back what's rightfully ours, what you stole from us, and restoring perfect equality, happiness and harmony to the cosmos.
We reserve our, we don't call it hate, our despise, contempt, scorn or ridicule for people like you, and because we repress ourselves so often (we must wear masks to hide our true nature, which is actually several orders of magnitude lower than yours, or the magick won't manifest), we really unleash it on people like you... but it's completely justified, you're inhuman.


Who needs heroin when you have philosophy?

The purpose of philosophy is to make people like me feel better.

People like you pilfered it, we're taking it back.

You can't win, we are legion, we have mother nature and quantities on our side.



(An)entropy at "work" -

Recidivist wrote:

Divergense wrote:

I'm not a proponent of entropy.

But then we should expect to see evidence of energy being created ex-nihilo like perpetual motion machines and stars not running out of energy and dying.

It's unlikely that gravity will reunite the remnants as dark energy is accelerating the universes expansion and will eventually tear apart atomic bonds.

Exactly, the notion anything, let alone the cosmos itself, had an absolute Beginning with a capital B, is a contradiction of common experience, as well as the notion space/time is a thing, that can be affected/effected, expanded/contracted, is outlandish, preposterous.
Space is merely the relative absence of matter/energy in between two or more relative presences of matter/energy.
Space isn't 3 dimensional, it isn't anything, it doesn't have properties, it's matter/energy that's 3 dimensional, and has properties, and can move hither and thither because of its nature, not the nature of space.

The cosmos is, as far as we can ascertain, causal, shit doesn't come into or go out of void. Everything has history, a past.
The big bang is a magical, miraculous and mystical theory, dreamt up by a Catholic priest, supported by a cockamamie Jew, and NASA's precious redshifts or whatever.

Things come together and go apart, there's nothing more hostile about going apart than coming together, it's a relative balance of gravity and friction, anentropy and entropy that affords life the opportunity to survive and thrive, but there's no perfect harmony, which is why life must continually exert itself to sustain itself.

There is no dark energy, nor is there dark matter, dark matter was attempted to explain away what astronomers saw with their own telescopes, with what we see with our own eyes on a daily basis, that the cosmos isn't expanding anymore than it's contracting, it's clumping together, from galactic filaments to subatomic particles/waves, far more than the notion of spontaneous generation of MEST predicted.

When you really get into, life itself to didn't come from nothing, or a relative nothing, a bungle, it too has history, a past, stretching all the way back to infinity, which is how antiquated the cosmos in all probability is.

Time is just our ability to keep track of where things have been, where they are and where they're going as whole, in relation to one another, and there is no literal matter, matter is just energy neither in the process of exploding like light (the lowest concentration of energy), or imploding like "black holes" (the highest concentration of energy), which aren't tears in the fabric of space/time, merely the next stage in star development - super fiery, gravitational, dense and massive.

I am going to completely ignore all your provocations and address you solely on the subject of entropy.

Satyr wrote:

phoneeee wrote:

Satyr wrote:

But theories aside...
Can you understand why life can only emerge in a state of towards increasing entropy, and why time, as we use it, is a measure of a linear change, which means towards increasing randomness?

Time is not always a measure toward increasing entropy. If entropy can decrease locally, then locally time is perceived as a measure of decreased entropy.

In brief, your answer is no.
You have no clue why life can only emerge in a state of increasing entropy.  
And, in your predictable style, you do not say so, but go on and on about something that has nothing to do with it - a spineless creature, you are, pissing ink stains.

That is not entirely true. Even if you consider the body to be a closed system ( it isn't), entropy is fluctuating in both directions constantly. Metabolism is composed of two parts, anabolism and catabolism. And it isn't entropy what kills you in the end, it is oxidation.

Quote :

phoneeee wrote:

Time, as you know, is relative

Subjectivity cannot save you from time, dear.
Blink, wink, laugh all you like...

Time is a measure of change.
Notice how I said "change", not entropy.
Linear time, is a towards increasing entropy.

Toward increasing entropy, yes. Not toward increasing randomness.

Quote :

You can call it pleasure, pain, black, white, balance...you can call increasing entropy God, or ordering...give it whatever word, symbol, comforts you, a "rose by any other name..."

You can't escape using words.

The rest about what you prefer, what you like, what is good, what your tastes are, what words you like to use.....yawn.

Cultivate the bovine to be a hypocrite like you dear.
Teach him how to say nothing and appear brilliant; teach him image building and maintaining; teach him the art of word games; train him in how to use words to stimulate emotional responses, your bread and butter.
Make him a female.
Make him a needy woman, desperate for an emotional man, like you.

phoneeee wrote:

Perhaps you should try reading what I post instead of skimming it for provocations.
I am not here to debunk you, dear.

Oh, sweetie, I already know what you hunger for.
You are not hear for anything other than to feed your need for attention.
You are an emotion-vampire; making the other (re)act gives you a high.

You have nothing to say in all subjects, except emotional, sensational, ones.
Some would call you a troll, but I know you can't help yourself - this is your nature, your need, your hunger.
You are a dull wench who likes being noticed and causing a stir.
You got more of a fix from the idea that I spent hours researching your Varda past...that's how desperate you are, dear.

I've got to tell you, the difference between then and now, is what makes you easy.  

"Debunk" me?
Ha!!!
You have no clue what I am saying dear.
Up until recently, if not still, you considered Modern to be synonymous with technologies, medicines; I a Luddite wanting to get rid of flour and penicillin, because only in this system are these tools possible; a romantic idealist fighting windmills.
 
Your only retort is "It ain't that bad"...and I am the romantic idealist?
Let's wait until it is "bad" before we speak of it.
Until then, you dumb woman, go back to feeding that metabolic appetite.

[/quote]

Pardon me if I don't reciprocate.

Edit: Removed incorrect sentence : "Entropy is what breaks your body down when you're dead."