Would a perfect world be static?

[dragulagu]

The laws of thermodynamics.
Are they always correct?

If so, there would not have been a big bang. If not, we could not speculate about the future of the universe.

These came after the Big Bang though. I don't think there's any theory that could state with certainty that the Thermodynamic laws would work in accordance to a state before
the Big Bang. There is an exception which is proposed as the Cyclical Universe (eg. the Universe would return to a Singularity state, revoking a new Big Bang, so we can then take essentially take
thermodynamic laws into account within the whole process before/after the big bang). Though I don't think that can currently be proven. At least, current observation leans more towards endless expansion.

Cyclical Universe
https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/e06/PAPERS/THESPA01.PDF
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/endlessuniverse/askauthors.html

Expanding Universe
https://www.space.com/13393-universe-endless-void-big-crunch.html
https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_fate.html

I'm not completely following on the speculate part?

If you know the story of Münchhausen and his horse..., it will be impossible to prove anything from within itself.
Even mathematics cannot prove itself (Gödel)

I do not know the story, no. What is it about?

Gödel's incompleteness theorems are an interesting take.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/

The first incompleteness theorem states that in any consistent formal system F
within which a certain amount of arithmetic can be carried out, there are statements of the language of F
which can neither be proved nor disproved in F.

According to the second incompleteness theorem, such a formal system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent (assuming it is indeed consistent).

So if we take these into account, assuming these are true. It would mean we (in an extreme extent use of these theorems) as part of the Universe's system, are not able to
give a complete description of our Universe within the Universe system, given these descriptions are based on our arithmetic system. We can only describe an approximation...hmm.

 

[Sorn]

Cyclical Universe

Yes, I am familiar with this idea.

But the problem of thermodynamics still remains.
I think it is quite simple to say that the laws of physics had no meaning at the time of the Big Bang.
It is possible that quantum effects had the upper hand at that time and that the universe was in an undefined state.
By this I mean that it is possible that several universes were created in a state of superposition.
So either living or dead (Schrödingers) cat. In the moment when observers were present, our universe stabilised.
(Now I guess I'm back to the falling tree, which has no listeners.)

Baron Münchhausen pulled himself and his horse out of a swamp by his own hair.

We can only describe an approximation...hmm.

According to your above argument that thermodynamics did not yet exist, you would now have to claim that logic did not exist at the time of the Big Bang.
At least that would be an argument to my idea that the big bang was a superposition state at the quantum level.

 

[dragulagu]

But the problem of thermodynamics still remains.

what problem, that these aren't always correct?

I think it is quite simple to say that the laws of physics had no meaning at the time of the Big Bang.

Yes and no, we define our laws of physics on events observed after the Big Bang, the laws before are speculations.

It is possible that quantum effects had the upper hand at that time and that the universe was in an undefined state.

It's possible, we're talking about Loop Quantum gravity?

By this I mean that it is possible that several universes were created in a state of superposition.
So either living or dead (Schrödingers) cat. In the moment when observers were present, our universe stabilised.
(Now I guess I'm back to the falling tree, which has no listeners.)

I think it's wrong to mix up uncertainty of Quantum states with Macroscopic Scales, Superposition doesn't define a possible state of a Universe. The Schrödingers's experiment
was described as a metaphor to the uncertainty of an element's decay state (it being a statistical chance to the decaying process of the element and it being the trigger to release poison in the box).
We can't extrapolate that to an event like the Big Bang. Unless it's triggered by a single quantum state, who knows. As there were no observers within the Universe at the moment of the Big Bang, we can't really
say whether our Universe would or would not establish from our perspective. We can just conclude it established based on its current state.

Baron Münchhausen pulled himself and his horse out of a swamp by his own hair.

Baron Münchhausen did a lot of things, according to Münchhausen

According to your above argument that thermodynamics did not yet exist, you would now have to claim that logic did not exist at the time of the Big Bang.
At least that would be an argument to my idea that the big bang was a superposition state at the quantum level.

Yup, that's one of the theoretical Multiverse models proposed by Tegmark, the Level IV Multiverse model. Where each Universe would have it's own Mathematical construction, and as such its own physical laws.
Yours would be a Level III (quantum) Multiverse model.

https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html

 

[Sorn]

what problem, that these aren't always correct?

I don't think it is okay to bend the laws of physics as necessary just to make a hypothesis seem truer.
If I tell someone that the perpetual motion machine they are about to build will never work,
I cannot explain in the next sentence that our entire universe is a perpetual motion machine.
You simply push the first moment of the Big Bang aside, because you realise that you are
getting into infinities that you could not explain any more.

The same applies to a cyclical universe. Again and again the thermodynamic laws have to
be shut down to make the universe expand again.

At the moment I would even prefer a steady-state theory. I know about their problems.
But there is also the theory that black holes radiate because particles from the quantum
vacuum near the black holes enter our universe and cause the slow dissolution of the
holes.

 

[dragulagu]

That's how most of physics theories go through though within the discovery process.."bending" existing laws.
Not stating any specific theory either here, just going with a what-if approach.

And honestly, this is beginning to jump into a lot of conclusions..in the paper I've linked on the Cyclic Universe Penrose tries to stay in line with Thermodynamic laws.

But there is also the theory that black holes radiate because particles from the quantum
vacuum near the black holes enter our universe and cause the slow dissolution of the
holes.

What's your scientific background if I may ask?

 

[shaelyn]

“Can perfection even exist?”

Perhaps as perfectly imperfect. Would we have any ability to recognize perfection in the absence of imperfection?

 

[just me]

Love

1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, 5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

verse 10

 

[Sorn]

What's your scientific background if I may ask?

Physics is more of a hobby for me.
I actually work in chemistry. And there I am currently programming rather than dealing with chemical reactions.

Perhaps as perfectly imperfect. Would we have any ability to recognize perfection in the absence of imperfection?

That is the question.

13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

And here you can see that even in a perfect world, which is addressed here, hope is still one of the greatest virtues.
Hope refers to what is to come, because the present does not yet correspond to the future.
Then don't I have to assume that the perfect will never be achieved, because otherwise hope would no longer be necessary?
So a perfect world would not be static.

 

[just me]

And here you can see that even in a perfect world, which is addressed here, hope is still one of the greatest virtues.
Hope refers to what is to come, because the present does not yet correspond to the future.
Then don't I have to assume that the perfect will never be achieved, because otherwise hope would no longer be necessary?
So a perfect world would not be static.

When that which is perfect is come( I read this as that will come). Those who are hoping will not hope any longer for this. We do not hope when we have received our wishes. More later.

 

[Sorn]

Likewise, faith is directed toward the future. Things that have not yet become. One hopes for these things and believes:

Hebrews 11:1 ^
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the sign that the things not seen are true.

 

[just me]

When the mature man of God has come, or when the mature men of God have come to be Godly and Christ-like, they will be then considered perfect in Him. This will happen. The world will go through many changes.

 

[larcipelago]

Could a perfect world change?
Because that would perhaps mean that later is different. Would it then be perfect for everyone again?
A black hole is a "perfect" sphere. Except that it can get bigger, it remains a perfect sphere. Everything is sucked in to be even bigger and more "perfect"?
Shouldn't absolute perfection include the whole universe?
Can perfection even exist?

 

[Sorn]

Thanks, I already knew these theories.
What I always find interesting is that right at the beginning it is claimed that the big bang actually took place.
But it is only one of the possibilities.
And secondly, I find it interesting that people do not know exactly enough about the value of the cosmological constants
to make clear statements about the future of the universe.
Why is the value at time not clearly smaller than 1 or clearly larger than 1?
No, it is so close to 1 that we have to think about it and cannot be sure.

At the moment we have the time when the people here have to sweep the leaves of the trees in front of their houses.
There are people who do this every day with an incredible perfection. "Hey, there are still two leaves, they have to be removed as well".
They have the ambition to bring the cleanliness of the street to 100%. Let's assume that there were 1000 leaves on the road and 2 leaves are left.
That would be 99.8% perfection.
Is that enough?
One of my colleagues in the lab always tries to weigh exactly. For example, 2.0000 g of a substance is required.
For the third digit after the decimal point he needs maybe 20 seconds for the last one but certainly 10 times as long.
For each additional digit he would need 10 times longer than for the previous one.
He has no feeling for how much or how little his weighing error would affect the final result.

Some time ago I gave up trying to make things perfect. First of all, every person has different ideas, and secondly,
my time is too precious to waste it on unimportant things like sweeping leaves.
As an INFJ it was hard for me, but it was also a liberating feeling to realize that the earth is still spinning.
People easily think that a paradise would be a perfect place. But perfection is not in the realm of what people think.

Now I leave a few leaves each time I sweep. Tomorrow the trees will surely add another 1000.

 

[dragulagu]

He has no feeling for how much or how little his weighing error would affect the final result.

When you have to cook, it is of uttermost importance to weigh to

 

[Ren]

“Can perfection even exist?”

Perhaps as perfectly imperfect.

What would it mean for something to be perfectly imperfect?

 

[dragulagu]

What would it mean for something to be perfectly imperfect?

+1

I wonder if that could even be described...as "opposite" to perfection.
Hmm, mathematically...perhaps Pi or any other irrational number?

 

[Sorn]

Hmm, mathematically...perhaps

(Pefection + Imperfection) / 2 = Something_normal