When we look out into space, at the universe, what we see and measure, is the light that came from matter long time ago. We do not see the matter, directly,in real time. But we infer the matter, from light released by the matter. Once the light is released from matter, like light from the sun, the light is dissociated from the matter. There is no physical connection after it is released. Light from a star a million light years away only tells us about the star a million year ago, the instant the star released the energy. After that, there is no connection between the light and the star. There is another consideration, connected to entropy. There are two types of entropy; information entropy and material entropy. Material entropy is a state variable meaning for a given state of matter, there is a fixed amount of entropy. For example, the entropy of water at 25 ◦C and 1 atm is 188.8 joules/(mole K). All labs will measure the same entropy value, for this state of water, whether they reach that final state from hot to cold and/or high to low pressure. Material entropy is not random, but is a fixed value for a given state of matter. In many ways, entropy is like a fingerprint for a state of matter. Information entropy is different. This type of entropy is more connected to randomization and loss. If we send a signal out into the universe, the signal will change and suffer loss over time, due to entropy, but not into a repeatable state, like water at 25C. The second law says that the entropy of the universe has to increase. This means both the matter and the information released by the matter will need to gain entropy. The matter will change into new states, while the information will suffer randomization and loss. What we think we see, is not what is. There is one last consideration. Material entropy needs energy to increase to a new state. For example, to increase entropy of water at 25C, to the state of water at 50C we need to add heat. This heat often comes from the information signals, that once stemmed from different early states of matter. The heating element, releases energy, that is absorbed by the water in my experiment. The net affect is secondary matter can create the information entropy in the signal from the first matter. The randomization and loss, due to information entropy increase, can be connected to different matter increasing its own entropy, thereby impacting the information assumed to be connected to the original matter. If the water heats to 50C, the heat signal information from the heater source, suffers loss. The new information is now a composite of new and old. It has loss energy or red shifted. What they think they see in space has an entropy balance problem.
This topic should probably be in the physics section, since it may be too complex for philosophy. Entropy considerations tells us that we think we see is an illusion, unless you can do an entropy balance. What I have done is use a law of science; 2nd law of entropy, to challenge theories, with a law of science carrying more weight than any theory. That is why it is called a law. Theories are a dime a dozen, but there only a handful of laws of science. Science hierarchy, means the law needs to addressed, before we can move forward with a theory. This is where philosophy begins. Is too big to fail a sufficient excuse to ignore the fact that some theories break the law? Or is cheating the law fine, if there is enough resources and prestige involved such that obeying the law can be disruptive?
I'm not sure what I am missing here As for the light from the star carrying information The two obvious ones brightness and speed of moving away can be calculated from what light does arrive and can be studied So explain what I am missing and more about entropy balance Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I have always considered a "break" In the laws of entropy a form of time moving backwards. Where time is equivalent to information entropy, while the concrete concept of entropy itself is a concept in between math and theory. We can understand it and use it to our advantage slightly but not enough to take the holistic advantage of the concept fully. Eg. A correct future tense sight into this construct. So if everything were done at zero point energy between two differing heat sources the information input and output could be controlled. On the other hand if everything happened in the most caotic circumstances the outcome would be the same protected as a closed system.
I have always considered a "break" In the laws of entropy a form of time moving backwards. Where time is equivalent to information entropy, while the concrete concept of entropy itself is a concept in between math and theory. We can understand it and use it to our advantage slightly but not enough to take the holistic advantage of the concept fully. Eg. A correct future tense sight into this construct. So if everything were done at zero point energy between two differing heat sources the information input and output could be controlled. On the other hand if everything happened in the most caotic circumstances the outcome would be the same protected as a closed system.
A "problem" in whatever particular disciplinary area can be dodged around / ignored if it can be asserted that progress can still be made without concern for remedying it. If there is evidence of the latter happening (i.e., advancement in the field despite _X_), then the excuse grows teeth and may go sporadically unchallenged; and whatever it blocks from receiving attention thereby brushed aside for decades or indefinitely. An example is how brain and AI related sciences can dodge the "hard problem of consciousness" on the grounds that experience (the assorted qualitative manifestations of awareness) serve no function in a mechanistic analysis of the interacting components and agencies, anyway. Thus their endeavors can proceed without solving it. Anil Seth: The study of consciousness may also have been retarded by people worrying about what the philosopher David Chalmers called the "hard problem". This says, let's say we can understand everything about how the brain works, we know how you generate behaviour and perceptions... but we would still have no idea why there was anything like experience generated by this stuff. In other words, why is there consciousness [experience] in the universe at all? Nowadays, more of us realise that we don't need to answer that "why?" question to make a lot of progress. Consciousness exists, we know when we're conscious and when we're not, and what we're conscious of. We can start to study those differences in the same way physicists have made progress without worrying about why there's a universe in the first place. (LINK) Purely a side-note detour here with regard to the quote above: The problem of experience is actually a "how" puzzle rather than a "why" puzzle. The latter suggests and is open-ended toward biological processes (minus intelligence) being able to yield anything at their higher level of complexity if there is a mere "reason" for _X_ to be naturally selected. Imagine crows being able to teleport to another habitable, extrasolor world if a mere evolutionary benefit to such was the only factor needed. Ludicrous, because the biological stratum does not float on its own but emerges from the precursor affairs of chemistry and physics, and the limits of their principles and emergent or combinational properties. (Even a primitive ability to conjure disorganized, random "shown qualitative events" is not a power attributed to elemental matter and its relationships. There are no non-fringe, non-pseudoscience precursors posited.) - - -
Definitely not, as there is a lot of gibberish here, from a thermodynamic point of view. Can't you work liberals and hydrogen bonds into it somehow? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! From a philosophy of science viewpoint, a "law" is merely a universally observed relationship. As such it has no different status from any scientific theory, because the law will be broken if (as for example with Newton's law of gravitation) instances are found in which the relationship is found not to hold, and we can never exclude in principle the possibility of such instances being found. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
