[net.religion] Gd and causality

berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) (04/17/85)

	I want to sound off an idea I had, it may have flaws.
If any are found, please respond concisely, clearly and *politely*.
				Thank You

	Everything in this universe (once you get above Plank's 
constant and Schroedinger) has a cause. Every cause preceeds its
effects. This would leave me with one of two cunclusions; either
1- the universe (I mean space-time, which might have preceeded
the big-bang. What caused the big-bang, anyway?) is infinitely
old, or 2- there was a cause which is not of this universe that started
the whole thing.
	Now, if the net entropy of the universe never decreases,
wouldn't an infinitely old universe have to be infinitely entropous?
If the entrepy stayed constant for a stretch, we again have to ask
what *caused* the present trend to start?
-- 

-------------
Micha Berger			{philabs|cucard|pegasus|rocky2}!aecom!berger
A Fugue in One Voice

garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (04/19/85)

> 	I want to sound off an idea I had, it may have flaws.
> If any are found, please respond concisely, clearly and *politely*.

There are flaws, but there are also assumptions which not everyone
will accept.  So even if you clear up the flaws, your argument
(which is not original) will not be convincing to many.

> 	Everything in this universe (once you get above Plank's 
> constant and Schroedinger) has a cause.

First big assumption, which not everyone will accept.  Why the
two exceptions? If you allow two, there may be more.

> Every cause preceeds its effects.

Second big assumption.  How do you know that time has such a
unidirectional nature?

> This would leave me with one of two conclusions; either
> 1- the universe (I mean space-time, which might have preceeded
> the big-bang. What caused the big-bang, anyway?) is infinitely
> old, or

The statement "space-time is infinitely old (or may be)" is circular.
You cannot measure the age of time, since time is the measure
of age.  Time has "always" existed, pretty much by definition.

> 2- there was a cause which is not of this universe that started
> the whole thing.
> 	Now, if the net entropy of the universe never decreases,
> wouldn't an infinitely old universe have to be infinitely entropous?
> If the entropy stayed constant for a stretch, we again have to ask
> what *caused* the present trend to start?

A quantity can be strictly increasing without becoming infinite,
if it approaches some value asymptotically.  E.g.  f(x) = 1 - 1/x
is strictly increasing, but will never exceed 1.  Even if entropy
were infinite, that would not be a problem, in at least two cases.
First, if the universe is infinitely large, then it could be infinitely
entropous and infinitely non-entropous simultaneously.  Second, if
the universe is infinitely divisible, there could be an infinite amount
of entropy in a finite space.  Traditional arithmetic doesn't work well
with infinities (aka transfinite numbers).  For example, there are an
infinite number of even numbers, yet not all numbers are even.  Similarly,
there could be an infinite amount of entropy, yet not all is entropy.

> 				Thank You
You're welcome.

> Micha Berger			{philabs|cucard|pegasus|rocky2}!aecom!berger
> A Fugue in One Voice

Gary Samuelson

barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (04/22/85)

	I was quite struck by the synchronicity of Misha's article on
causality appearing at about the same time mine did (on net.religion). Because
of the similarities, I'm going to inject my nose into this debate.
>> = Misha Berger
>  = Gary Samuelson

>> 	Everything in this universe (once you get above Plank's 
>> constant and Schroedinger) has a cause.
>
>First big assumption, which not everyone will accept.  Why the
>two exceptions? If you allow two, there may be more.

	Good point. As I argued in my article, cause-and-effect clearly lacks
the necessary generality and explanatory power to "explain" the fact of our
existance.

>> Every cause preceeds its effects.
>
>Second big assumption.  How do you know that time has such a
>unidirectional nature?

	Right again, but I don't think this is really a second assumption,
just the first assumption in a new guise.

>> This would leave me with one of two conclusions; either
>> 1- the universe (I mean space-time, which might have preceeded
>> the big-bang. What caused the big-bang, anyway?) is infinitely
>> old, or
>
>The statement "space-time is infinitely old (or may be)" is circular.
>You cannot measure the age of time, since time is the measure
>of age.  Time has "always" existed, pretty much by definition.

	Well, the terminology gets confusing, here. In a way, you're right: to
say that time has "always" existed must be true, by definition. Yet, we still
speak of the universe as being 20 billion years old, and since time may not
have any meaning apart from the universe, it may also be correct to say that
time "started" 20 billion years ago. How do we phrase this?

>> 2- there was a cause which is not of this universe that started
>> the whole thing.
>> 	Now, if the net entropy of the universe never decreases,
>> wouldn't an infinitely old universe have to be infinitely entropous?
>> If the entropy stayed constant for a stretch, we again have to ask
>> what *caused* the present trend to start?
>
>A quantity can be strictly increasing without becoming infinite,
>if it approaches some value asymptotically.  E.g.  f(x) = 1 - 1/x
>is strictly increasing, but will never exceed 1.  Even if entropy
>were infinite, that would not be a problem, in at least two cases.
>First, if the universe is infinitely large, then it could be infinitely
>entropous and infinitely non-entropous simultaneously.  Second, if
>the universe is infinitely divisible, there could be an infinite amount
>of entropy in a finite space.  Traditional arithmetic doesn't work well
>with infinities (aka transfinite numbers).  For example, there are an
>infinite number of even numbers, yet not all numbers are even.  Similarly,
>there could be an infinite amount of entropy, yet not all is entropy.

	I see a couple of problems, here. For one thing, current astrophysics
strongly suggests that our universe is *not* infinite, either in space or in
time. And particle physics is even more firm in rejecting an infinitely
divisible universe. So I think Misha's points are relevant to the universe we
seem to actually inhabit.
	Nor would infinities invalidate the second law of thermodynamics. It
is true that an infinitely large universe would take an infinite amount of
time to completely run down, but it could reach a good approximation of this
state in finite time. If energy differentials only exist over *very* large
distances, no really interesting energy transfers can take place, and the
universe will be, in all but the most technical sense, dark, cold, and dead,
dead, dead. What needs explaining, if we suppose an infinitely old universe,
is how our universe could be at such a *low* state of entropy after an
infinite length of time. When we trace back the present rates of entropy, we
find ourselves at the singularity point only 20 billion years ago. Whether
there was nothing before this, or some earlier form of reality, *something*
unique must have happened some few billion years ago, to put us where we find
ourselves today. So I think Misha's question (and mine) remains unanswered:
how does one explain the origin of the apparently finite universe we find
ourselves in, without concluding that cause-and-effect is not an adequate
principle for dealing with the beginning of our universe?

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                      Kenn Barry
                                                NASA-Ames Research Center
                                                Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 	USENET:		 {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry

mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (04/22/85)

> 
> 	I want to sound off an idea I had, it may have flaws.
> If any are found, please respond concisely, clearly and *politely*.
> 				Thank You
> 
I found one flaw:
>
> 	Now, if the net entropy of the universe never decreases,
> wouldn't an infinitely old universe have to be infinitely entropous?
>
No - consider a simple example:  Suppose that the entropy of the universe
increases continuously (in accordance with current theory), but suppose
that each year it increases by half the amount that it did in the previous
year.  Then, in any arbitrary starting year, it increases by x, and the
following year it increases by x/2, and then x/4, and so forth.  If you
sum the infinite series, you get 2x, which is far short of infinity, so
an infinitely old universe could have a very finite entropy.

Mike Gray