What is time?

[get-lit]

Now, if you apply this to the previous post about randomness, realize that pure and true randomness does not exist. A result is ALWAYS based upon something else. A computer for instance isn't capable of true random function. For the most demanding random functions, such as for strong encryption, some sort of random input is required, but that input is also not random but based upon other more intricate things. When the intricacy reaches a level at which can not be feasibly reproduced, it is considered random enough, but never purely random.

If, the process of varied iteration can repeat indefinitely, the encyclopedia Britannica would be reproduced. But nothing in our universe can support the process of indefinite varied iteration. The monkey at the keyboard would not live long enough, nor all of the monkeys in the world typing at once. Nor all of the computational power of all of the computers could support indefinite varied iteration that could repeat such intricate things. Possibly they eventually could by iterating the entire character set one additional character at a time, but that is about as far from a random process as you could get. No matter what is done, none of it is purely random. The means of some things are just less related to the result than others.

The ONLY purely random function for us is what occurs within the wave state of matter. From the matter's perspective, it is not random but completely pre-determined; but from our perspective, it is the single pure random function at hand - behind which is the strongest encryption that is futile for us to decrypt by design. Encryption technology developers are trying to harness that pure randomness for the ultimate encryption function. We could only use it for generating pure randomness, but we will never be able to decrypt the random function behind the wave state of matter itself. I sure would like to though. We would be left with absolutely no randomness, and the future would be known. I'm quite sure it's a closely guarded secret by whomever created the function, and I'm sure it would take the complexity of the entire universe itself to solve it, in other words ultimately beyond our means.

 

[get-lit]

One additional thought.. When contemplating whether life as we know it has reached this point with some sort of assistance outside of randomness as discussed earlier, I suggest that Phi be considered. As all life is driven to emulate Phi, it would be a worthy endeavor to research its implications. Pretty interesting stuff.

 

[Badbeams3]

Time is thought :tinfoil:. It is the speed of the tranfer of information within ones brain. For each one of us time moves at a slighly differant rate. And even from moment to moment the rate/speed can change within ones own mind. Diet, lack of sleep ect, can speed/slow time for you. We use clocks in our modern world to keep every one (as a collective) in a general agreement of time.

Time started for you (thought} when you were born (or perhaps the sperm hit the egg, for those who like detail).

As a collective we use events (artifacts) as a measure of time. Night...day. A human life span...the amount of time it takes to smoke a cig...eat our lunch...take a shower...pick Tommy up at school and bring him home.

If ones mind were really slow...say one thought per day...you might see sparks/flashes in a forest...not understand how a faster mind could roast a marshmellow over a campfire. Never even occur to you :tired:.

If you had a thought per 100,000,000 years, you would see flashes all over the heavens. And you simply could not imagine that\ millions of people have lived and died...gone to school and held jobs (and pondered time) in between the birth/death of a sun...or flash.

Just little moving sparkels in the night sky.

If any of this were true...how would a faster mind see things...say just ten times faster? Does speed = smart? Or just quicker at doing stupid things :thinking:

Can time be measured as TPaL? Thoughts per average lifetime. How many thoughts do you have per minute...LOL. How many thoughts are worthwhile...productive. Subtract the naked lady ones and how many do you have left per minute...

 

[TedTheLed]

yes the universe is fine tuned to produce among other things, us. if it were not, we wouldn't be here thinking about it..
but think of all the time and energy expended in this effort;
more than we can imagine, I imagine..eternity is a long time and is so long so as to allow the chance of us occuring, to put it in a rather solipsitic way..
that's why eternity is so long, and space is so big, most of the time the universes didn't/don't work out -- (that is; produce w us cogitaters..)
look at the span of our lives in relation to the span of creation; not much; hardly anything really.. if there is a god he wasted alot of time getting it wrong, before getting it right, for a fraction of a moment, in a very tiny, limited place..

 

[SFG2Lman]

.. if there is a god he wasted alot of time getting it wrong, before getting it right, for a fraction of a moment, in a very tiny, limited place..

who said we are the first civilization? or the only civilization? I don't think there is really any way to know that the rest of space and time is wasted. Assuming this is the only planet that has ever hosted life seems more unscientific than believing in God at this point

 

[TedTheLed]

..who? certainly not I...again, all I suggest is that most of the space we can see is empty (of folx, not energy) -- and we haven't found any indication there is anyone else,..and considering the extent of the 'fine tuning' of our universe makes duplication of our universe even more unlikely...yet again, eternity is a long time..
for all we know there could have been a million civilisations like ours in the past, or in another place..
(also recall I doubted the 'purpose' of the universe was to make us..implying we are merely an accidental by-product of this particular universes creation)

 

[mightysparrow]

Thank you DoctaDink!

Although I haven't read that particular book from Wiker yet, I do know who he is and have listened to him on several podcasts hosted by Greg Koukl. I was just listening to Ravi today at while at lunch...haha, and I'm a regular podcast subscriber and news letter reader to William Craig, Greg Koukl, Jim Wallace, Hank Hanegraaf, Charles Colson and all the great scientists over at Reasons.org.

If you're versed in the something from nothing arguement, most philosiphers of science will agree that something can't come from nothing. Yes, there are a few hold out's from guys like Vic Stenger who always revert to saying that something could come from nothing due to bound up energy offsetting the negative energy of gravity, which causes the expansion of the universe, but this is purely wild haired guessing and is based off of nothing empirical. The majority though, whether secular or theists will grant the basic premise that something can't logically come from nothing.


Regarding "3" I'm afraid that you're behind the curve on this one. Even secular science will concede that for some reason the universe looks as if it's fine tuned, even though they can't explain why. For example one of the leading secular atheists Richard Dawkins will say about life, "yes, it has the appearance of fine tuning but it is not." When pressed about how the mathematical language of DNA could seemingly come from no where, Dawkins admits that we don't no where it came from, but perhaps aliens deposited the technology here. In other words, even he recognizes the mathematical problem of life spawning by purely natural processes given the age of the physical universe compared to the relatively stagnant rate of gene mutation. The denial of precise turning seems completely at odds with what science understand about the universe. Gravity, the proton to neutron ratio, the proton to baryon ration, the nuclear force, and electromagnetic force all have to work harmoniously for anything to work or exist. For physical life to be possible in the universe, manyl attribute must take on specific and consistent values.

1. Strong nuclear force constant
2. Weak nuclear force constant
3. Gravitational force constant
4. Electromagnetic force constant
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
6. Ratio of proton to electron mass
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
8. Ratio of proton to electron charge
9. Expansion rate of the universe
10. Mass density of the universe
11. Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
12. Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
13. Ratio of space energy density to mass density
14. Entropy level of the universe
15. Velocity of light
16. Age of the universe
17. Uniformity of radiation
18. Homogeneity of the universe
19. Average distance between galaxies
20. Average distance between galaxy clusters
21. Average distance between stars
22. Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
23. Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
24. Electromagnetic fine structure constant
25. Gravitational fine-structure constant
26. Decay rate of protons
27. Ground state energy level for helium-4
28. Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
29. Decay rate for beryllium-8
30. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
31. Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
32. Polarity of the water molecule
33. Epoch for hypernova eruptions
34. Number and type of hypernova eruptions
35. Epoch for supernova eruptions
36. Number and types of supernova eruptions
37. Epoch for white dwarf binaries
38. Density of white dwarf binaries
39. Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
40. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
41. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
42. Mass values for the active neutrinos
43. Number of different species of active neutrinos
44. Number of active neutrinos in the universe
45. Mass value for the sterile neutrino
46. Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
47. Decay rates of exotic mass particles
48. Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
49. Size of the relativistic dilation factor
50. Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
51. Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
52. Positive nature of cosmic pressures
53. Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
54. Density of quasars
55. Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
56. Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
57. Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
58. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
59. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
60. Number density of metal-free pop III stars
61. Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
62. Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
63. Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
64. Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
65. Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
66. Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
67. Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
68. Flatness of universe's geometry
69. Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
70. Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
71. Constancy of dark energy factors
72. Epoch for star formation peak
73. Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
74. Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
75. Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
76. Level of charge-parity violation
77. Number of galaxies in the observable universe
78. Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
79. Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
80. Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
81. Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
82. Water's temperature of maximum density
83. Water's heat of fusion
84. Water's heat of vaporization
85. Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
86. Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
87. Location of clumpuscules in the universe
88. Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
89. Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
90. Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
91. Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
92. Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
93. Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field

Regardless of whether one believes that it happened by deity or via a multiverse, things are indeed fine tuned. What else would you call it when a minimum of at least 90 subcategories of elemental forces have to work in unison where by if any one part of the equalization scale varied by as little as 1/10,000 throughout history the universe couldn't be? The question of fine adjustment really seems to be a non-argument. The argument in light of recent scientific discovery, which testifies to precision, is mainly about where the precision came from, not if it exists or not.
---------------------------------------

Patriot: you're missing my point. What I was saying was that science does not preclude, as you do, the possibility that there was never "nothing" in our universe. Therefore, it is not accurate to state that something has come from nothing. Current theories about our universe say that there always was something. Ever heard of the principle of the "conservation of mass?" It is not necessary for a coherent picture of the universe developing as we see it today to insist that there had to be a conscious creator outside of nature itself.

That leads to my next point: you seem to assume that intricate design has to come from "fine-tuning" by a higher power that seems much like a supernatural human-being. The phrase "fine-tuning" implies the assumption of a higher power determining what we see. That is not science. Science says that all of what we see could have come from the evolution of the universe through natural forces. This theory is supported more and more by what true scientists are discovering every day. The evidence is mounting and we are understanding more and more of what we are seeing and how it came to be. To conclude that what we can't comprehend must have super-natural origins is simply not science.

 

[mightysparrow]

Patriot: by the way, were you being fascetious in referring to Charles Colson as a "scientist?" How is he qualified as a scientist? He freely admits analyzing cosmology through theology, not science, so I don't understand the reference to him and his ilk as "scientists."

 

[Apollo Cree]

A day is measured by the Earth rotating 360 degrees in 24 hours.

Not quite correct. Most of us Earthlings use a solar day when we say "day."

A solar day is timed so that "solar" noon stays roughly the same time every day. By "solar" noon, I mean when the sun reaches the highest point in the sky. Because the Earth orbits the sun, one "day" is lost per year. A solar day is roughly 361 degrees of rotation of the earth.

A stellar day is based on the Earth's true rotation with respect to the stars. A stellar day is roughly based on the time it takes for a star to appear at the same point in the sky the next day. There's a 1/365 day shift between sidereal time and solar time every day.

Similarly, we use "solar" years for most purposes. This is not when the Earth makes a complete orbit around the sun relative to the stars. A solar year is based on keeping the vernal equinox at the same time every year. Because of the precession of the equinoxes, this throws in an extra year every 26,000 years or so.

This sort of makes sense. We think of days relative to sunrise and sunset. We think of years relative to the seasons in terms of the length of the day.

Or to simplify,

"Time flies like an arrow
Fruit flies like a banana."

 

[jtr1962]

That leads to my next point: you seem to assume that intricate design has to come from "fine-tuning" by a higher power that seems much like a supernatural human-being. The phrase "fine-tuning" implies the assumption of a higher power determining what we see. That is not science. Science says that all of what we see could have come from the evolution of the universe through natural forces. This theory is supported more and more by what true scientists are discovering every day. The evidence is mounting and we are understanding more and more of what we are seeing and how it came to be. To conclude that what we can't comprehend must have super-natural origins is simply not science.

Not to mention if you assume there is an intelligent being doing the fine-tuning, then what created that being? And what created this creater? And so on, ad infinitum. It's sort of like the argument about aliens helping to create life on Earth-you simply push back the creation argument one step. The same line of reasoning applies once one starts assuming a master creator of all things, or some sort of higher purpose to it all. I prefer the simpler explanation you outlined.

Also, thank you for pretty much saying the same things in response to Patriot which I had intended to say. One is entitled to believe whatever one wishes for things which currently can't be explained by science. However, that doesn't make their belief the truth. I tend to think the big picture is incomprehensible to us in our present state of evolution. Man can't even conceive of non-linear time, for example, at least on a conscious level ( although there is some evidence we can perceive events out of order in the subconscious-think deja vu ). Our minds will have to expand several orders of magnitude for us to even begin to understand it all. Because we can only perceive time linearly, then we assume everything must have a cause, a beginning, and an end. Lose this assumption, and suddenly things start to make more sense intuitively. Problem is, most of the population is utterly incapable of doing so. As it is, only a tiny fraction of the population is able to understand the complex mathematics governing what little we've learned of the physical world. That should give us some idea of the scope of the problem-namely the limitation of our minds. It's not surprising then that we seek to explain this complexity in terms our minds can understand. It's far easier for most to assume there is some arbitrarily advanced being directing everything than it is to allow for the possibility that Earth and human beings are simply the consequence of billions of years of trial-and-error. And maybe there is a grain of truth here if highly advanced aliens had some say directing how life would evolve on Earth.

Given a long enough time for random events to sort themselves out, seemingly astronomical probabilities are overcome. What are the chances of getting 10,000 heads in a row flipping a coin? Astronomical I would think. Flip enough coins for a few billion years, and it'll happen quite a few times. That's my take on life. It exists because time is on our side. If stellar lifetimes were only 10 million years life likely wouldn't have existed. One fact to ponder is that the most common type of star by far in the universe is the red dwarf with lifetimes measured in the hundreds of billions of years. Now if planets form around those red dwarfs orbiting at the correct distance, then there is plenty of time for life to evolve. Put the right elements on planets in the right orbit, and life is not only a possibility, but virtually a certainty given enough time. What makes life special is it will likely never be exactly the same everywhere owing to subtle differences where it evolved. Just look at all the diversity of life even on our planet.

Another thought here regarding non-linear time is what if the possibility exists of transferring information not only over space, but over time, through some mechanism not as yet determined? If so, then in essence the arguments for there not being enough time for life to evolve via random means vanishes. Maybe that's how it works.

Just more random thoughts on the subject from someone stumbling in the dark. 😛

 

[CampLite]

I liked someone's thought... If humans are stardust, then it's like the stars became self aware and started thinking about their surroundings.:candle:

 

[Databyter]

Just want to express that I hate the fact that one can't have a conversation about theoretical physics without someone turning it into an argument about theology.

There can be a seperate thread for that.

This is a thread about an interesting article relating to a new theory by a brilliant man who may or may not be right.

It is made much less interesting when it turns into a discusion of theology.

Theology in itself is interesting when that is the subject, And I have spent many hours reading and discussing that.

But when it is cut and pasted onto a discussion of scientific theory, when it isn't applicable and doesn't add to the discussion at hand it only serves to distract.

Several people seem to have completely gone off the road here and turned a theory about time into a discussion about self worth, and athieism vs Godliness. A worthy discusion, but out of place here, since this theory, and science in general do not preclude theism or the lack of it.

It's apples and oranges guys, they are both fruits, but unless your talking fruit salad, you don't usually eat them together.

 

[SFG2Lman]

indeed, databyter you have my sincere apologies, its just very difficult not to get sucked into theology when contemplating the beginning and end of the universe and time itself. I know i contributed to this derailment for that I am sorry.

But to attempt to get things rolling again I still dislike the hypothesis a lot, it seems to be based on pure conjecture and wild ideas instead of observation, and this seems like dangerous science to me. Without more evidence than "I had this idea" It just doesn't hold up. I'll reiterate what I put before Einstein was the only person who could just make up theories and be right (I'm a huge fan) and this carrol guy seems to be trying but Einstein had a way of being proven right or wrong, this guy theorizes, but there will never be a way to prove anything in either direction either for or against him. It doesn't even seem like science...just making something up.

 

[CampLite]

Just want to express that I hate the fact that one can't have a conversation about theoretical physics without someone turning it into an argument about theology.

There can be a seperate thread for that.

This is a thread about an interesting article relating to a new theory by a brilliant man who may or may not be right.

It is made much less interesting when it turns into a discusion of theology.

Theology in itself is interesting when that is the subject, And I have spent many hours reading and discussing that.

But when it is cut and pasted onto a discussion of scientific theory, when it isn't applicable and doesn't add to the discussion at hand it only serves to distract.

Several people seem to have completely gone off the road here and turned a theory about time into a discussion about self worth, and athieism vs Godliness. A worthy discusion, but out of place here, since this theory, and science in general do not preclude theism or the lack of it.

It's apples and oranges guys, they are both fruits, but unless your talking fruit salad, you don't usually eat them together.

Take a deep breath a chill out. :thumbsdow

 

[Badbeams3]

New Idea! :tinfoil: Time is motion/movement. If one could find a place that did not move...there would be no time! But...you cannot find a place that is not in motion.

So what put everything in motion? :thinking: Well, I think God slipped on a fruit peel whilst dancing the Hula with a cute little hottie :naughty: ...sort of started a chain reaction...resulted in a big bang.

 

[PayBack]

Einstein was wrong about some things, including this.

Is this your opinion? Or has it been proven wrong?

 

[StarHalo]

 

[Patriot]

Patriot;3303045]Thank you DoctaDink!

Although I haven't read that particular book from Wiker yet, I do know who he is and have listened to him on several podcasts hosted by Greg Koukl. I was just listening to Ravi today at while at lunch...haha, and I'm a regular podcast subscriber and news letter reader to William Craig, Greg Koukl, Jim Wallace, Hank Hanegraaf, Charles Colson and all the great scientists over at Reasons.org.

Patriot: by the way, were you being fascetious in referring to Charles Colson as a "scientist?" How is he qualified as a scientist? He freely admits analyzing cosmology through theology, not science, so I don't understand the reference to him and his ilk as "scientists."

Sparrow, are you kidding or just terribly confused? What gave you the impression that I claimed Colson was a scientist? Even a cursory look into Reasons.org would have revealed that Colson is not affiliated with them in any way, nor are any of the other names I mentioned. Additionally, none of the people I mentioned are scientist. My response was to DoctaDink and therefore would be best understood by him. I was simply naming some various postcasts which I listen to. 😉

 

[Patriot]

Databyter[/B];3305429]Just want to express that I hate the fact that one can't have a conversation about theoretical physics without someone turning it into an argument about theology.

Databyter, see your post #31. It's not as if you're standing outside the circle, you're right in the middle of it my friend. 🙂 As SFG2Lman touched on, it's really difficult not to arrive at theology when talking about universal beginning/s. I would guess that most of us here are not astrophysicists and there's really no point in trying to pick apart Carroll's hypothesis since I'm technically incapable of doing so. I am capable though of attempting to articulate what ideas like this me to me personally in my worldview. It's also far more tangible than something as impossible to test as quantum theory.

SFG2Lman
But to attempt to get things rolling again I still dislike the hypothesis a lot, it seems to be based on pure conjecture and wild ideas instead of observation, and this seems like dangerous science to me. Without more evidence than "I had this idea" It just doesn't hold up. I'll reiterate what I put before Einstein was the only person who could just make up theories and be right (I'm a huge fan) and this carrol guy seems to be trying but Einstein had a way of being proven right or wrong, this guy theorizes, but there will never be a way to prove anything in either direction either for or against him. It doesn't even seem like science...just making something up.

As for me, I guess I don't really have a big problem with the hypothesis nor do I think it's dangerous but as you stated so much of this is conjecture rather than science in it's pure form. On one hand that's ok as long as we hold it in proper perspective and the truth as it stands now is that nothing is provable or testable with regards to this subject, which you've properly pointed out.

mightysparrow

Patriot: you're missing my point. What I was saying was that science does not preclude, as you do, the possibility that there was never "nothing" in our universe. Therefore, it is not accurate to state that something has come from nothing. Current theories about our universe say that there always was something. Ever heard of the principle of the "conservation of mass?" It is not necessary for a coherent picture of the universe developing as we see it today to insist that there had to be a conscious creator outside of nature itself.

I don't think that I necessarily missed your point Sparrow. I understand what you're trying to say but disagreeing with you on some of the details. For example, I said that philosophers of science, even secular, will typically grant that something can not come from nothing. You're looking at this universe as single tiered instead of multi-tiered by evidence that you believe that this universe could come from nothing. Well, even Carroll and other quantum physicists aren't claiming that the universe came from nothing. They're simply pushing the event back one level by saying that it spawned from a multiverse, therefore they're speculating that the universe came from a multiverse, not nothing. The same logical application would then be assigned to the multiverse and that it also came from something, assuming it even exists. Additionally, it's not a large group of scientists who are focusing or breaking ground about multiverse hypothesis. Yes, there are some current theories about a multiverse but this is not mainstream science in general. Only a very small number are putting their time into the study/speculation of such ideas as compared to other astrophysical disciplines, the main reason being that there's no way of proving or disproving these ideas.

Sparrow
That leads to my next point: you seem to assume that intricate design has to come from "fine-tuning" by a higher power that seems much like a supernatural human-being. The phrase "fine-tuning" implies the assumption of a higher power determining what we see. That is not science. Science says that all of what we see could have come from the evolution of the universe through natural forces. This theory is supported more and more by what true scientists are discovering every day.

Hopefully I'm not misunderstanding but it seems that I've covered that point earlier.

Patriot
Regardless of whether one believes that it happened by deity or via a multiverse, things are indeed fine tuned. What else would you call it when a minimum of at least 90 subcategories of elemental forces have to work in unison where by if any one part of the equalization scale varied by as little as 1/10,000 throughout history the universe couldn't be? The question of fine adjustment really seems to be a non-argument. The argument in light of recent scientific discovery, which testifies to precision, is mainly about where the precision came from, not if it exists or not.

also.....

Patriot
When pressed about how the mathematical language of DNA could seemingly come from no where, Dawkins admits that we don't no where it came from, but perhaps aliens deposited the technology here. In other words, even he recognizes the mathematical problem of life spawning by purely natural processes given the age of the physical universe compared to the relatively stagnant rate of gene mutation.

Sparrow, I've only pointed out fine-tuning, whether you believe that a deity cause fine tuning or a semi-conscience universe, or "the evolution of the universe through natural forces" as you say, it still possesses fine tuning. You're the only one who has a problem with the phrase "fine-tuning" since most secular scientists will still refer to the natural world as finely tuned in one vocabulary or another. Watch any Discovery Channel documentary like Planet Earth for example, and you'll hear phrases like, "marvelously designed" "magnificently crafted" and "wonderfully tuned." This is the language used albeit they usually mean by purely undirected natural causes. If they don't have a problem with the verbiage, why should you?

Sparrow
The evidence is mounting and we are understanding more and more of what we are seeing and how it came to be.

The evidence is mounting but not really in the way that you might be trying to portray. In many ways the more that science knows the less it actually understands. David Berlinski is very good at articulating this idea and the question of 'what is science actually capable of telling us'? He touches on some of these points in an interview with Greg Koukl here in the Oct 19 podcast. Famous philosopher and evidentialist Antony Flew can no longer support his life long notion that the universe could have spawned from random chance firings directed by purely undirected natural forces. He's since come to the conclusion that a mind must exist in order for what we are witnesses to in this universe. Science is discovering things about our natural world at an unprecedented rate but at the same time, it's also no closer to proving or disproving the existence of a primeconsciousness, nor can it.

 

[SFG2Lman]

i don't know if i agree with the idea of entropy either, everything we have observed seems to support cycles. Stars are born and stars die, but new ones are still born, the universe doesn't appear to be running out of fuel. Stars die when too much of their hydrogen is fused into helium and thats fused into lithium etc etc until iron. Once the star turns too much of its fuel into iron, it dies. Iron is considered nuclear(ly) inert. By now, everything in the universe should have turned into iron, or at least be moving towards that end. But we see stars being born from the leftovers of dead stars, we see black holes tearing matter apart possibly for reuse (my theory no one else's). Even though stars try to burn through the universes fuel, something is still perpetuating the cycle, even galaxies are still being born. Everything that can be done, can be undone, and redone, forever. The law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of matter tell us this. Even the iron would eventually receive enough radiation to undergo fission back into more useful elements. It has been proposed that black hole have eaten the entire universe because even they emit x-rays and will eventually "evaporate" through x-ray emission. All that iron from the former giant star gets turned into radiation. There may be much we don't understand about the universe, but I cannot see it turning into a bunch of cold dead rocks and stagnation, the cycles will keep running forever.

That being said, if the universe is expanding, i suppose the general energy and matter density of the universe would be getting lower, meaning the cycle may slow down. But then you have to start looking at each galaxy as an independent closed system because they don't really interact with each other....oops there it went, that was all my cognitive reasoning for the day.