Have fun skiing. And watch out for the infinite char lift.

If we assign the second law the modal status you recommend, it would straightforwardly contradict both classical mechanics and quantum theory. According to the Poincare Recurrence Theorem, any closed Hamiltonian system must eventually return arbitrarily close to its initial conditions. This means that if we start with a drop of dye localized at the center of a glass of water and wait long enough, it MUST eventually return to this state. Of course, in the relative short term it will diffuse, as the second law predicts. But in the long term it must eventually violate the second law. Of course, it’s not really a violation once you understand that the law is statistical. Say it is a law that a coin I flip has a 50% chance of landing heads. If I flip the coin long enough I am very likely to eventually get a string of, say, 100000 heads. Taken by itself, this string might seem like a violation of my law, but understood as a part of a much longer sequence, it isn’t.

As for your rejection of actual infinites: I don’t deny it is a coherent position, but I still don’t see any compelling reason to hold it. You’ve just asserted that it’s impossible. It’s true that I (or a Turing machine) can’t generate an infinite output in finite time, but in the multiverse scenario we’re not talking about the infinity being generated in finite time. It’s just there. I still fail to see why you think this is conceptually impossible (I presume you mean conceptual impossibility rather than logical impossibility. An actual infinity is clearly logically possible – it doesn’t entail a contradiction.)

I’ve found that when making assumptions upon which I build a system of conclusions that it works better if the assumptions are true. Just a thought.

Indeed, which is why I asked this question earlier:

The problem is with your assumption in step 1. How do you know that there cannot be an infinite number of physical things?

tgpeeler:

It’s logically possible that heat can move from a cooler object to a warmer object or that a drop of dye in a glass of water will remain a drop and not diffuse throughout the water in the glass but it’s not physically possible that these things will ever occur because of the statistical LAW they would be violating.

The fact that the SLoT is a statistical law means that it is physically possible, just very, very unlikely.

So, for example, I would agree that the set of integers, or positive integers, or negative integers, is infinite. But that is a conceptual infinite. As soon as you start to write them down, i.e. make them concrete, then you are dealing with a finite set, even if it is one that goes on indefinitely.

And earlier you wrote:

But I do know that there are not an infinite number of [universes]. Because if you start showing them to me I can count them.

At any point in time, the set of integers that you have already written down is finite. That is because you are writing them down one at a time. Nevertheless, the set of all integers remains infinite. You will never finish writing them down.

Likewise, suppose that there are an infinite number of universes, and I begin showing them to you at a constant rate. At any point in time, the number of universes you have counted is finite, because you are seeing them one at a time. Nevertheless, the number of universes remains infinite. You will never finish counting.

The logic is the same in both cases. The idea of an infinitude of universes is just as coherent as the idea of an infinitude of integers.

Do you see your mistake?

What would you consider evidence for theism?

Exactly.

Of course it is but there’s a reason it is called a LAW. Is there any ‘law’ in nature that is more certain that this one? Eddington thought not. It’s the physical equivalent to the law of non-contradiction in logic. If your argument breaks it, it’s wrong. If your theory ‘breaks’ the 2nd law of thermodynamics it’s wrong. See perpetual motion machines.

It’s logically possible that heat can move from a cooler object to a warmer object or that a drop of dye in a glass of water will remain a drop and not diffuse throughout the water in the glass but it’s not physically possible that these things will ever occur because of the statistical LAW they would be violating.

“Of course this is all academic. We currently have excellent evidence that the age of the universe is finite. Just an interesting sidebar to the discussion.”

Yes, ‘we’ do. Well, not me but everyone who knows seems to say so. I would add that, once again, the empirical world offers up evidence that validates a logical truth. There is an argument from pure reason that says the age of universe is finite and lo and behold the evidence confirms it. Reason is the ultimate ruler when it comes to truth.

“Do you think a spatially infinite universe is logically impossible?”

Yes, I do. But let me explain before you declare me beyond hope. By definition it is impossible to have a finite infinite or an infinite finite. So how can the universe be finite (in terms of matter/energy and age) yet be infinite in terms of space? That said, I think the universe could expand indefinitely, but that is not the same as it being infinite. Or so I say. The infinite, as I understand its technical sense and as I use the term, is always abstract. So, for example, I would agree that the set of integers, or positive integers, or negative integers, is infinite. But that is a conceptual infinite. As soon as you start to write them down, i.e. make them concrete, then you are dealing with a finite set, even if it is one that goes on indefinitely. It’s just impossible to have an infinite number of finite things. Just like it’s impossible to have a square circle. Even God can’t make a square circle. It violates reason (law of identity) and therefore cannot possibly be true.

I’m not. Conserved means neither created nor destroyed (yet here we are) which means no more of it is being “made” which means finite. The energy changes from ‘available’ or a state of lower entropy, to ‘unavailable’ or a state of more entropy. Maximum entropy being a state of no ‘available’ energy. I hope this helps.

p.s. I’ve found that when making assumptions upon which I build a system of conclusions that it works better if the assumptions are true. Just a thought.

I agree. I don’t recall ever claiming that one did. Did I?