Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Buffy
I guess the main issues here, given your definition of "gives direction" to be causing an "irreversible change from one state" to another are two fold:
1) Items 2-5 which are the four fundamental forces of nature (well, two, since 3-5 have been shown to be directly related to one another), are all reversible. As an example, gravity causes a spacecraft to fall towards the planet it is orbiting, but application of force by a rocket "reverses" the "change in state".
|
With regard to the four fundamental forces, I consider them all to be directly related to each other. For me they are different aspects of a single cause. However, I do not want to begin this debate on the premise that I am correct. I speak of them separately, so that others may give their view on each in either an isolated sense or as a functioning group. I am presenting them in their foundational, theoretical sense. First they were each identified as fundamental forces. My postion is that errors in theoretical interpretations were introduced right from the beginning analyses.
I am avoiding trying to place my views out front. I would like to take it step by step, so I have an opportunity to expose what I consider to be faulty theory. In the early stages of this discussion, I expect that we will talk about properties in a very limited sense. Oftentimes, it can be pointed out that first, simple, definitions are indequate to properly define properties. I think that is ok for now. I would experience the same problem if I tried to present my own views. It doesn't work well to jump right to conclusions. There are also inadequacies in this step by step analysis. It sometimes includes using misleading steps. But, the misleading step may be necessary to make an intermediate point when enough is not yet known to properly make the point. It is not unusual to not fully understand a phenomenon before we fully understand it. How's that for double talk.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Buffy
I guess my question would be here, that the definition of "direction" you have given here is still a bit fuzzy and would benefit from further defintion. It would also be useful to describe your purpose in defining "direction." Several earlier posts by others indicate they have interpreted your meaning as "time" which you have not mentioned in this list.
|
I think it is a bit fuzzy. I am assuming it will necessarily remain fuzzy. That is because until we agree on a nature for the universe, the direction itself remains debatable. Perhaps it will be debatable even afterwards. I would be satisfied if others agreed there is direction, even if their views were different on what that means. For me, establishing that there is direction means there is an orderly process being followed. Then we can pursue, still from a fundamental point of view, how that orderly process should be theoretically represented. It seemed to me in my discussion with Tormod, that I would not be able to begin by just stating the universe has direction. It seems clear to me that the universe has direction, but I need for others to agree for good reasons so that I may proceed.
As for time, it is also sometimes, as you point out, referred to as possibly being reversible. I think the introduction of a position such as this should wait. I would not be allowed to get away with that practice if I were presenting my own views. If we look at the universe at its early stages and then consider what we expect to happen in all of the future that can be reliably predicted, then I believe we see direction. That direction, for me, is described by the changes the universe has gone through and the time period during which it has happened. I would be satisfied with this definition. I prefer the definition to be practical and not theoretical. Its modification can be proposed by anyone at any later point.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Buffy
Time is generally believed to be irreversible, however Einsteins and others theories indicate that faster than light travel would proceed in reversed time (you may wish to see some of the discussions elsewhere here regarding tachyons).
|
I think it would be inappropriate to include Einstein's and others theories at this early stage. Insofar as this thread is considered, we have only begun the journey, and the correctness of Einstein or anyone else is not yet established. I would resist attempts to begin by including any assumption that Einstein was correct. I think, if he is correct, it will become shown in this analysis. My own prediction is that it will be shown to be incorrect. You would not accept that kind of position from me at this point, and I do not accept that Einstein is proven correct at this point. I think we should not try to get too complicated so fast.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Buffy
2) Item 1 on your list is also a good candidate for showing direction, as it is generally accepted that the second law of thermodynamics implies that entropy increases irreversibly over time in a *closed* system, which the Universe appears to be. Repeating from my earlier post that Thormod seems to have lost in the move of the thread, it is very important to note that this law does *not* apply to systems that are open to external inputs. The law actually shows that if energy/matter is added to a system, that its entropy *decreases*. This is why it is believed by many that the Earth, which is receiving huge amounts of energy from the Sun and vast quantities of matter raining down from the solar system can easily support processes that can be perceived as being "creative" and reducing "chaos." Thus to put this into the discussion of "entropy showing direction", in an open system, energy inputs can locally "reverse" the general entropy direction of the universe, and therefore produce order, and possibly life and intelligence. Thus entropy in and of itself cannot be used effectively to argue that life and intelligence cannot evolve.
Cheers,
Buffy
|
I wouldn't try that line of argument. If I understand your point correctly, you are implying that argument might be used by someone who wished to justify crediting the evolution of life to a miracle. I oppose the use of either religious or scientific miracles. Ok, I find myself already feeling obliged to write long responses. I prefer taking this journey using smaller steps. I want to learn what it is that we can agree on.
James
