Application for a Nobel Prize?

[Divine Insight]

Where do I apply for a Nobel Prize?

I just discovered a proof of why no eternal intelligent God can exist.

The proof is actually so simple it's hard to believe that no one saw before me.

Here it is:

Intelligence cannot exist without reliance upon the second law of thermodynamics. Especially if we are defining intelligence as dynamic conscious thought that is capable of memory and making logically reasoned decisions. The ability to do this requires the second law of thermodynamics in order to perform the necessary functions.

Yet if the second law of thermodynamics is in force, then the system must necessarily run down over time and eventually become inactive. In other words, no perpetual motion is permitted in a system where Entropy rules. Therefore any intelligent system cannot be eternal. Thus if an intelligent conscious God exists, it cannot be eternal. Or if an eternal "God" exists it cannot be intelligent or conscious.

Therefore no eternal intelligent conscious God can exist.

This proof already exists in known physics. Nothing new needed to be added.

So this is a universal truth I 'discovered' and not something I 'invented'.

Where do I apply for my Nobel Prize?

[Divine Insight]

Sean Carroll an atheist cosmologist wrote a book on this very subject of an eternal universe and the arrow of time called "From Eternity to here". This would help in making a coherent argument with a modern concept of cosmology. And he would even help your entropy argument because he believes that life is a result of entropy.

You can buy it here. But remember to tell them who sent you.

I already read the book years ago. Not only this but I have watched Sean Carroll's lectures and interviews including those on Closer to Truth. I'm fully aware of Sean's position on entropy as well as many other subjects. In fact, I even have several college lectures on DVD by Sean Carroll.

No, the argument is that there is something that has to be eternal. Whether it be an eternal universe or God there has to be something that is eternal to give us the universe that we perceive that we exist in.

So how would that refute my position? Nowhere did I ever demand or even suggest that nothing could be eternal. I'm simply pointed out that if something is eternal it cannot also be coherently intelligent during the entire eternal existence.

So perhaps you aren't paying attention to the details?

Using Carroll's description of an eternal universe, not only would God have to be enteral time would also have not meaning. He would also be omnipresent at every point along the timeline. So this would mean that in God's frame of reference the entire timeline would occur at the same instant. Past, present and future all existing at the same time. Just as Einsteins equations say they should. Atheist Cosmologist Brian Green describes this in his book "Fabric of the cosmos".

Sean Carroll is an atheist. I seriously doubt that he would support your misinterpretations of his position on things.

I made no argument about intelligence at all.

Sure you did. You demanded that a "God" must exist. Are you suggesting that your notion of "God" is a notion of an entity that has no intelligence? If so, why call it "God"?

But Jonny's program does have a fatal flaw. Because the catalyst that has caused all of these problems with the big bang theory are the fundamental constants and laws of nature. There is no reason why the constants have to be the values that they have. And there is no reason why the laws of nature have to be what they are.

You aren't in any position to say what causes the laws of nature or whether they need to be what they are or not. Besides, it actually incorrect to say that anything obeys "laws of nature". Laws of nature are really nothing other than our observation of how things behave. The idea that they are being restrained by "laws" is ridiculous. They just do what they do and when we observe this we call that behavior "the laws of nature". The idea that there are actually laws that guide things to behave the way they do is simply unnecessary.

Brian Greene outlines this in one of his older books called "The Elegant Universe" which you can find here.

Oh please. That book is so old it's almost outdated. I read the book, and watch the documentary several times over. Why are you assuming that I am not aware of all these ideas in physics. Keep in mind also that Brian Green's book talks about ideas in String Theory which have no yet been proved to be true. So you need to understand this and not just accept that everything he's saying is verified fact.

You made the intelligence argument. I was simply describing how the characteristics that whatever created the universe had to have. Life and intelligence is a biological argument not a cosmological argument.

I do believe that you mentioned "God".

Yep, here it is:

So everyone is subject to the laws of God whether you want to or not.

So are you claiming to have an unintelligent God?

No, whatever it was the created the this wonderful universe that we do had to be eternal.

And I never argued against that. I simply pointed out that if it is indeed eternal, then it cannot also be intelligent.

So again, you just aren't paying attention to what my position has been.

There is no problem with an eternal substrate that periodically becomes a physical universe that takes on a temporary condition of entropy. This would then allow for complex structures to evolve including things like intelligence and consciousness. It's just that this state of intelligence and consciousness cannot itself be eternal. Our universe, as we know it, must eventually run down until all intelligence and consciousness is lost.

All I'm saying is that there cannot be any such thing as an eternal intelligent being.

It needs to be one or the other. Either eternal, in which case it cannot be intelligent, or temporary, in which case it can be intelligent.

So my position is that there cannot be an eternal intelligent "God".

It can be eternal, or intelligent, but not both. And if it's not intelligent then why call it "God"?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

There is no problem with an eternal substrate that periodically becomes a physical universe that takes on a temporary condition of entropy. This would then allow for complex structures to evolve including things like intelligence and consciousness. It's just that this state of intelligence and consciousness cannot itself be eternal. Our universe, as we know it, must eventually run down until all intelligence and consciousness is lost.

It is in possible for something to be eternal and periodically become a physical universe with an intelligence. This statement assumes that time is ticking. That events are ordered in some sort of chronological event. Those that have read Carroll's book understand that in his eternal universe the arrow of time runs in both directions. So time in that universe would be meaningless, "time" flows in both directions. So if an intelligent being did live outside of this universe it would also exist outside of our concept of time. If such an intelligence lived outside of time then it would be impossible for the intelligence to run down. In fact that intelligence would be omnipotent never running out of energy because there is no such thing as time. So any intelligence existing outside of our universe would never be subject to the second law of the thermodynamics because the second law of thermodynamics is dependent on time.

2nd The Bible has always described Yahweh as being omnipresent. Not just omnipresent in the present but also across time, this is why Yahweh described Himself as "I am". All of time is present tense to Yahweh. So every moment of time in this universe from creation until it's destruction where it will dissolve away as simply as it appeared, is all the same moment for Yahweh. Every moment in the timeline of this universe is He is present. Yahweh is unaffected by time because Yahweh does not travel through time as we are dragged along by time. He is already present at the end of time just as much as He is at the beginning of the timeline. Anything that exist outside of this universe is not subject to the arrow of time that directs this universe.

[Divine Insight]

Those that have read Carroll's book understand that in his eternal universe the arrow of time runs in both directions. So time in that universe would be meaningless, "time" flows in both directions.

And if you actually understood what he wrote you would understand that he was speaking purely speculatively, not as a scientific fact. And also that he states that there is nothing in our physics that demands that events must only unfold in one specific direction. However, this is actually incorrect, since entropy does demand that events within our universe can only unfold in one direction.

According to the laws of physics, there is no reason why an egg that falls to the floor and break and splatters all over the floor could not happen in reverse. There are no primal laws of physics that prevent this from happening. However, it never happens, and never will happen in our universe because of the thermodynamic law of entropy.

I'm quite sure that Sean Carroll knows that our universe has a very mandatory arrow of time.

So if an intelligent being did live outside of this universe it would also exist outside of our concept of time. If such an intelligence lived outside of time then it would be impossible for the intelligence to run down.

The problem is that it couldn't be intelligent if it lived outside of entropy. That's the part you seem to be unable or unwilling to recognize.

In fact that intelligence would be omnipotent never running out of energy because there is no such thing as time. So any intelligence existing outside of our universe would never be subject to the second law of the thermodynamics because the second law of thermodynamics is dependent on time.

Any entity that existed outside of time altogether could not do anything. It would be frozen and could not change.

2nd The Bible has always described Yahweh as being omnipresent. Not just omnipresent in the present but also across time, this is why Yahweh described Himself as "I am". All of time is present tense to Yahweh. So every moment of time in this universe from creation until it's destruction where it will dissolve away as simply as it appeared, is all the same moment for Yahweh. Every moment in the timeline of this universe is He is present. Yahweh is unaffected by time because Yahweh does not travel through time as we are dragged along by time. He is already present at the end of time just as much as He is at the beginning of the timeline. Anything that exist outside of this universe is not subject to the arrow of time that directs this universe.

That's a nice fairy tale, but where is there any evidence that such a situation could ever actually exist on any level?

By the way, if you need to demand that your imaginary God is "beyond Logic", then why not just say so? Then you could save yourself the trouble of trying to make "logical arguments" for the existence of an illogical God.

Once you realize that your theology requires an illogical God there is no longer any need to try to make logical arguments for it. In fact, any attempt to do so would be quite silly don't you think?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 71 by Divine Insight]

And if you actually understood what he wrote you would understand that he was speaking purely speculatively, not as a scientific fact.

He would have to speak speculative, because nothing he is proposing is testable.

And also that he states that there is nothing in our physics that demands that events must only unfold in one specific direction. However, this is actually incorrect, since entropy does demand that events within our universe can only unfold in one direction.

The question why does entropy flow the direction it does in this universe. For that to happen the original universe had to have entropy flow in both directions. This is why Carroll had entropy flowing in both direction.

According to the laws of physics, there is no reason why an egg that falls to the floor and break and splatters all over the floor could not happen in reverse. There are no primal laws of physics that prevent this from happening. However, it never happens, and never will happen in our universe because of the thermodynamic law of entropy.

Why?

I'm quite sure that Sean Carroll knows that our universe has a very mandatory arrow of time.

His theory is an attempt to describe why entropy flows the way it does.

The problem is that it couldn't be intelligent if it lived outside of entropy. That's the part you seem to be unable or unwilling to recognize.

Entropy is a construct of this universe and effects matter in this universe. Time is a construct of this universe, matter is a construct of this universe. That means that God would not be made of matter and would be unaffected by time. Action on a timeline is a construct of this universe. God is present at every point on the timeline acting at every point on the timeline. All of eternity would be the same moment to God.

That's a nice fairy tale, but where is there any evidence that such a situation could ever actually exist on any level?

We exist and what ever caused this universe had to exist outside of this universe. So for us to be here something had to have the qualities of God. You could call it an universe. And yet again rely on random chance. But in this case random chance will not save the day. String theory predicts that there are 10^500 different combinations or orientations that space can have. Each of these different orientations having different laws of nature. So there must be an infinite number of universes in this multiverse. The problem with having an infinite number of universes is the probability of forming a boltzmann brain is more likely than forming an universe like ours.

So the only way that we can have a universe in which we are the actual material beings is if there was a God that created everything.

[Divine Insight]

The question why does entropy flow the direction it does in this universe.

The answer to this question is fully understood within the concept of entropy itself.

You need to understand that entropy is a macro property of our universe, not a quantum property. It is the large scale composition of objects within our universe that causes entropy to occur. In other words, large scale objects are made up of a very large quantity of smaller objects. And this is the cause of entropy.

For that to happen the original universe had to have entropy flow in both directions. This is why Carroll had entropy flowing in both direction.

Entropy cannot flow in both time directions simultaneously. Also, I'm quite certain that Carroll did not have entropy flowing in both directions. What he may have done is proposes the time can flow in both directions. But in order for that to occur there could not be any entropy occurring at all in either direction.

According to the laws of physics, there is no reason why an egg that falls to the floor and break and splatters all over the floor could not happen in reverse. There are no primal laws of physics that prevent this from happening. However, it never happens, and never will happen in our universe because of the thermodynamic law of entropy

.

Why?

I just told you, because of the thermodynamic law of entropy. Entropy is why a broken egg will never spontaneously put itself back together again. An egg is a macro object composed of trillions of molecules.

I'm quite sure that Sean Carroll knows that our universe has a very mandatory arrow of time.

His theory is an attempt to describe why entropy flows the way it does.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here specifically. I do believe that Sean Carroll has asked how we can explain the initial low entropy state of our primal universe. Although, for me personally, the answer to this question is easy. Our universe was born from a quantum state which had no entropy at all. Non-directional time.

Entropy is a construct of this universe and effects matter in this universe.

That is correct.

Time is a construct of this universe.

This is not necessarily correct. In fact, if we accept that our universe began as a quantum fluctuation then this is necessarily false.

Time is not a construct of this universe. However, uni-directional time is. In other words, on a macro scale, because of the effects of entropy, things much change according to the law of entropy, thus giving "Macro Time" a uni-directional arrow.

But "Quantum Time" does not need to obey entropy (in fact it cannot obey entropy), and thus "Quantum Time" has no direction. In other words, "Quantum Time" is simply dynamic motion that has not past or future but rather it only has an eternal dynamic "Now".

That means that God would not be made of matter and would be unaffected by time. Action on a timeline is a construct of this universe. God is present at every point on the timeline acting at every point on the timeline. All of eternity would be the same moment to God.

Why call that "God"? It's just the Quantum Domain. Moreover, it cannot have any organized intelligence, sentience, or intent, precisely becasue it lacks entropy. The Quantum World cannot exhibit entropy. Therefore it cannot have sentience, consciousness, memory, or thought.

So why call it "God"?

We exist and what ever caused this universe had to exist outside of this universe.

Outside? Perhaps "prior" would be a more accurate description.

If our universe did arise from a quantum fluctuation, then all that existed prior to our universe were quantum fields fluctuating. Our current universe is not a result of those quantum fields vibrating in a manner that produced "macro objects" (i.e. objects made from large conglomerations of quantum vibrations). This then creates entropy which allows for complex objects to evolve and come into being. Including us.

So for us to be here something had to have the qualities of God.

The qualities of God? What's "God"? As far as I can see all that "God" amounts to is an ill-defined word that you continually use without any justification at all.

You could call it an universe. And yet again rely on random chance. But in this case random chance will not save the day. String theory predicts that there are 10^500 different combinations or orientations that space can have. Each of these different orientations having different laws of nature. So there must be an infinite number of universes in this multiverse.

First off there very well may be an infinity of universes in the multiverse.

Secondly, String Theory is actually nothing more than an unproven hypothesis at this point in time. It's basically speculation based mainly on ideas of pure abstract mathematics which could be entirely wrong.

String Theory is NOT proven science.

The problem with having an infinite number of universes is the probability of forming a boltzmann brain is more likely than forming an universe like ours.

Boltzmann's Brain hypothesis is also an unproven speculation. This is not proven science. I personally reject Boltzmann's idea and believe that I can show why it is actually a quite absurd proposal to begin with.

In fact, here's a simple example. Take a large box from which all air has been removed. Basically an empty vacuum. Then take small vial of highly compressed air and set it in one corner of the box. Then break the vial. What will happen? The air in the vial will instantly explode out to fill the box. Given enough time these air molecules will eventually even out to fill the box with a "fairly uniform" pressure.

This is actually because of entropy and the gas is behaving as a macro object.

Question: Given enough time will these molecules eventually return to a highly compressed state back in the corner of the box where the vial was originally placed.

My answer is simply, "No". It won't matter how long you wait, that's never going to happen. Why? Because it's not just entropy at work here, but it's also all the other laws of physics. And there is simply no way for those air molecules to ever return to this highly compressed state.

In other words, "Boltzman's Brain" hypothesis is a joke. You could wait for eternity and you are never going to see a brain accidentally energy from quantum fields in a vacuum simply by pure random chance. It's not going to happen, ever.

So the Boltzmann's Brain idea is a purely philosophical notion that has no place in reality. It's based entirely on pure mathematical probability without taking into consideration all the physical factors that actually exist in a real world.

So the only way that we can have a universe in which we are the actual material beings is if there was a God that created everything.

There's that totally ill-defined word again.

What do you even mean by "God" if you can't define it or explain what it is?

You may as well be calling it "The Boogieman". Seriously.

You are arguing that our world was created by a non-material Boogieman.

That's all you are doing. Your argument has no merit at all.

Calling it a "God" doesn't give it anymore credibility.

[mgb]

In other words, no perpetual motion is permitted in a system where Entropy rules. Therefore any intelligent system cannot be eternal. Thus if an intelligent conscious God exists, it cannot be eternal. Or if an eternal "God" exists it cannot be intelligent or conscious.

You are forgetting that the universe and everything in it is part of God, eternally...

In other words, "Boltzman's Brain" hypothesis is a joke. You could wait for eternity and you are never going to see a brain accidentally energy from quantum fields in a vacuum simply by pure random chance. It's not going to happen, ever.

So the Boltzmann's Brain idea is a purely philosophical notion that has no place in reality. It's based entirely on pure mathematical probability without taking into consideration all the physical factors that actually exist in a real world.

I tend to agree with this. Just because the math of statistics say it can, abstractly, it is not going to happen physically.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 74 by mgb]

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

You are forgetting that the universe and everything in it is part of God, eternally...

Please support your assertion.

[Divine Insight]

You are forgetting that the universe and everything in it is part of God, eternally...

Perhaps you meant to say that I'm forgetting that theists believe this but have no evidence to back it up, or even remotely suggest that it might be true?

So I'm not "forgetting" anything. There simply is no reason to even think that a God exists, much less that the universe and everything in it is part of God, eternally.

In fact, if the universe is part of an eternal God then why does the universe have entropy? If the universe is part of an eternal God, as the theists would like to believe, then the universe should be eternal just like the God that it is part of.

So there are actually many reasons to dismiss this theological idea. It's not a matter of "forgetting" it. It's simply a matter of having no reason to accept it in the first place.

[mgb]

Perhaps you meant to say that I'm forgetting that theists believe this but have no evidence to back it up, or even remotely suggest that it might be true?

That is not the way the debate was going. You were arguing that the concept of God was wrong because of this question of entropy. I am saying that the concept of God is not incoherent or wrong because there are answers to your objection vis a vis entropy.

In fact, if the universe is part of an eternal God then why does the universe have entropy?

It is only partially run down. There is still a lot of heat differential and much work can be done. The universe is temporal and does not need to have eternally low entropy.

If the universe is part of an eternal God, as the theists would like to believe, then the universe should be eternal just like the God that it is part of.

Why? The universe is an event in eternity. Energy is eternal but events are not necessarily eternal. Only true existences are eternal and what is true and real in time is eternal.

So there are actually many reasons to dismiss this theological idea. It's not a matter of "forgetting" it. It's simply a matter of having no reason to accept it in the first place.

Your argument is that this idea is not viable because of entropy but it is because entropy exists in time and time is happening in eternity. Everthing is happening in eternity. There is nowhere else for it to happen.

[mgb]

Time is not a construct of this universe. However, uni-directional time is. In other words, on a macro scale, because of the effects of entropy, things much change according to the law of entropy, thus giving "Macro Time" a uni-directional arrow.

You are speaking about time in the classical universe as opposed to quantum time. Classical time is a construct of the classical universe. It is not defined by heat flow or entropy; it is a geometric construct. Broadly speaking, the arrow of time points in the direction of entropy but that does not mean entropy determines the structure of time. They are both moving in the same direction but this does not mean entropy defines classical time.