Do we have to change the laws of physics?

Post Reply New Topic

A very simple question has entered my mind recently, but I believe it has profound repercussions:

If we can agree the universe is ultimately exothermic in nature (moving towards a heat death), do we then have the right or ability to change (or as liberals like to say "reinterpret") the second law of thermodynamics to suit an atheistic viewpoint?

What? Is this a joke post?

'Liberalism' refers to a very broad set of political viewpoints. Many liberals are religious.

I've never heard any liberal atheists suggest that we should change or reinterpret the laws of physics to suit atheism. Rather they would disagree that those laws imply the existence of god/s. Certainly, I don't see how heat death, or the second law of thermodynamics in general, would imply that.

.

Modern science likes to imply the universe sprang out of nothingness. This would directly contradict the laws of entropy. Things do not tend to spring into order.

Mr Zappa let me interpret for you he said
"hello, I don't understand thermodynamics, biology, atheism or politics please explain them to me."

What does the question of the universe being exothermic or endothermic have to do with religion? If you believe in a supernatural God (or Gods) that created the whole shebang to start with, why would you have to boggle at the idea of said God/Gods being able to alter that universe at His/Her/Their own Will? That has nothing to do with physics whatsoever, any more than one is required to abandon the laws of conservation of mass/energy in order to accept the tale of the loaves and fishes in the Gospels. (He made it, so He gets to screw with it if He wants, basically.)

I don't see how the tale of the loaves and fishes contradicts the laws of physics. It's quite possible to move matter and energy from one location within the universe to another. Or did I miss something fundamental about the universe there?

You mean that modern science upholds the Big Bang theory. This has nothing to do with entropy, as the laws governing entropy have to do with the dissolution of orderly forms of energy due to inefficiency in transmission.

So, a Big Bang can occur, and entropy can still hold within the currently working universe. The causes of the Big Bang are still going to be difficult to determine with various cosmological theories used.

Sure, but where did the energy come from? Science doesn't know, so it relies on it's own form of fairy tales to explain it. I can accept the answer "I don't know." but I won't accept science fairy tales like bubble universes for example, it's childish and stupid.

.... ok? Science doesn't "rely on fairy tales", it comes up with models on the matter. Some of these models are more plausible than other models. Some of them are rejected. For the most part, there isn't a dogma that I am aware of on the issue, and if there was, it would likely be taken on the grounds of a good model.

How do crystals grow in entropy?
does God intelligently design them?
Have you ever thought that complexity != energy?
That complexity is actually an argument against a designer?
If I find a pocket watch with 7 moving parts that tell perfect time I think it must have been designed.
if I find one with 11 billion moving parts I would guess that it is evolved.
Arguments against evolution using the laws of thermodynamics tag their users as dopes.
if you love God love God.
if you want to convince people of his existence . . .
I got nothing.

Models of free energy. I still don't buy it.

I'm pretty sure that's where the science is at the moment - we don't know, and nobody's claiming otherwise. There are a bunch of different ideas flying around, but, as far as I'm aware, there's no consensus.

.

The causes of the Big Bang are still going to be difficult to determine with various cosmological theories used.

And there it is. As far as I'm concerned you cannot create a model of the Big Bang without either A. reversing entropy, or B. using an outside agent. The universe started out as a perfect mass of energy and through quantum fluctuation the symmetry broke. How or where did that energy come from? Any and all theories always seem to point to some outside source.

Take for example any business you might start. It could start small and through complexity eventually grow into a behemoth. Did said business start on it's own without any exertion from an outside source?

Quantum mechanics don't change. They are infinitely complex and through complexity forms a universe with all of its flavors, but they don't work without energy.

I don't argue against evolution, ever.

So this has nothing to do with the man upstairs?
The business analogy is faulty. crystals form without outside help (get larger more complex etc).
Actually the Big Bang was rejected for years as being theistic.
Let there be light and all that.
Quantum mechanics don't change?
has the high energy hadron collider taught us nothing?
it seems that things work very differently at different energy levels.
maybe you should believe in God because he cured your drinking
and try to convince me he can cure mine.
(this is an endorsement of and not a swipe at Lee)
or show his love in your actions and how you live your life?

Crystals do not form without energy. Help = Energy. In this case kinetic and chemical, and thermal.
The LHC is merely showing us how the universe works in ways we couldn't see before. Nothing's changed, the laws grew out of the complexity of the growing universe. It'll never be able to show us energies at the Big Bang level, so we'll have to go on theory.

I am both a theist (not by hobby) and a cosmologist (by hobby). I'll believe in a "fairy tale" until science can prove otherwise. I also give god more credit than southern baptists. I think it's definitely within the power of something such as a "god" to create a small speck of immense energy only to have it evolve into what we see today. Things always start very small (quantum), and grow and evolve. It can be an idea, a single raindrop that is the first to fill a giant lake with many more to come. Such is the nature of things.

The "laws of physics" reflect the way the world is. The only change we can do is understand the way the world is and sharpen up our expression of the "laws of physics" The world is what it is. We cannot change it at will.

ruveyn