Thermodynamic entropy used to define time - suggests STS association with time?

Here's the video section that started this thought: https://youtu.be/w2iTCm0xpDc&t=612

I'm also reading slowly through The 5th Option, and just got to where it starts talking about the laws of thermodynamics.

In the video, Steve Mould mentions after giving an explanation of entropy in relation to physics and how engines work (i.e. the equalization of energy imbalances), that the increase of entropy can be used to define the direction of time, and that therefore time might be considered a statistical phenomena (due to the statistical aspect of entropy increase and resultant disorganization). Bryant Shiller makes a similar statement in his book.

So if the direction of time and the increase of entropy are the same, and if we assume for this exercise that time is actually an illusion, it implies that increase toward maximum entropy is also an illusion. And this could be a little hint that time is a concept that we're "stuck with" at present because of our particular STS situation - either as a control mechanism useful to external STS forces, or a natural artifact of our own particular STS state, or both.


Further musings:
I don't know how many are familiar these terms, but for those who understand the following terms, I have further been wondering if this means that a Fourier transform or something like it might actually be a more accurate representation of reality. In a Fourier transform you take a set of data, like a sound file which has time on the X axis and magnitude on the Y axis when you graph the waveform - 2 variables. The Fourier transform does its wizardry and produces a new set of data that is described by 3 variables - magnitude, frequency, and phase. A Reverse Fourier Transform is capable of turning that data back to its original form, so no information is lost. Keep in mind that I'm not technically knowledgeable in mathematics so I may have things off.

But in principal any data in this time-based form with any number of variables recorded over time can be converted by a Fourier transform, if I recall correctly. Part of what this means, is that any set of data which includes time as a dimension can instead be described in terms of the phase and frequency of each variable.

In fact, I recall the C's saying distance was an illusion as well, and you can do a Fourier transform on a (greyscale, for example) pixel image to represent the data as brightness, (spatial) frequency, and phase.

As I understand it, a Fourier transform redefines a set of data as a set of frequencies of different intensities, which interfere constructively and destructively with each other according to the phase aspect.

Of course, since all you done is recombine data that was based in time or space, I sort of doubt we could say that we've dealt with the illusion properly, but at least it suggests interesting lines of thought: Is a frequency-oriented mode of perceiving the universe more objective? Is the "timeless" experience of disembodied spirits due to experiencing reality in a more frequency oriented way, like a Fourier Transform-ish mode of perception?

Anyway, just thoughts.

[Edit: Added question mark to title, and sectioned off my latter more wandering thoughts.]

HowToBe said:

Here's the video section that started this thought: https://youtu.be/w2iTCm0xpDc&t=612
I'm also reading slowly through The 5th Option, and just got to where it starts talking about the laws of thermodynamics.

Click to expand...

Well I don't know about that, but all I've got from the website above is 404 'Not found' tends to indicate that "time" tends to be 'off the menu' as far as human thinking is concerned, which is curious in and of it's self. But alas, I don't know for sure. Is this some sort of an error? Also, I'm not sure what thermodynamics has to do with time. Perhaps the video will tell us?

Oh, and if 'time' doesn't exist (as we are aware of it), then who's going to tell our scientists? I'm not sure they all know that this concept isn't as they previously thought. Or perhaps they do? Or, at least some of them may?
(snip)

HowToBe said:

So if the direction of time and the increase of entropy are the same, and if we assume for this exercise that time is actually an illusion, it implies that increase toward maximum entropy is also an illusion. And this could be a little hint that time is a concept that we're "stuck with" at present because of our particular STS situation - either as a control mechanism useful to external STS forces, or a natural artifact of our own particular STS state, or both.

Click to expand...

Well, I like assumptions, hints, and musings and all that, but, evidence is always more compelling. Time may be an illusion, but what does that mean to us here in 3D? It may mean that 4D have control (albeit not very good one, as we understand it) over time, and that it raises more questions about time than ever before.

HowToBe said:

(snip)
But in principal any data in this time-based form with any number of variables recorded over time can be converted by a Fourier transform, if I recall correctly. Part of what this means, is that any set of data which includes time as a dimension can instead be described in terms of the phase and frequency of each variable.

In fact, I recall the C's saying distance was an illusion as well, and you can do a Fourier transform on a (greyscale, for example) pixel image to represent the data as brightness, (spatial) frequency, and phase.

Click to expand...

So, it's left the majority of us all wondering what is time, per se? Is it an illusion, and if it is, what type of an illusion? There must be more than one type, but that is just guessing on my part.
(snip)

I would appreciate if someone could elaborate:

1. What part time plays in scientific research, and...
2. If it is different between disciplines - obviously some disciplines rely on time as a marker! Well, it looks like it could be many disciplines here on 3D STS Earth.

If it is a natural force, then it stands to reason that 4D STS can manipulate it, (and would try do so). But, if it is a natural force, then this would require energy and cost to them...

HowToBe said:

So if the direction of time and the increase of entropy are the same, and if we assume for this exercise that time is actually an illusion, it implies that increase toward maximum entropy is also an illusion.

Click to expand...

If I correctly remember Schiller also mentions that this inexorable drift towards more entropy only applies to inanimate things. Indeed, the living system falsifies this 'law' since it keeps evolving towards more complexity and more order. This may not apply to living forms taken individually since their fate is death but it seems a valid point when applied to the living system as a whole.

Pierre said:

HowToBe said:

So if the direction of time and the increase of entropy are the same, and if we assume for this exercise that time is actually an illusion, it implies that increase toward maximum entropy is also an illusion.

Click to expand...

If I correctly remember Schiller also mentions that this inexorable drift towards more entropy only applies to inanimate things. Indeed, the living system falsifies this 'law' since it keeps evolving towards more complexity and more order. This may not apply to living forms taken individually since their fate is death but it seems a valid point when applied to the living system as a whole.

Click to expand...

I was thinking something similar. The guy in that video doesn't mention consciousness. Doesn't denser energy mean more information? And a conscious being can choose to order the energy, or perhaps even create energy? This reminds me of a transcript when it was asked how much gravity Ed Leedskalnin used to make Coral Castle. And it was said something like all gravity in existence. The point being that we really don't know how these things work.

I watched the whole thing, but here's where I think HowToBe was referring to: https://youtu.be/w2iTCm0xpDc?t=6m12s

HowToBe said:

So if the direction of time and the increase of entropy are the same, and if we assume for this exercise that time is actually an illusion, it implies that increase toward maximum entropy is also an illusion. And this could be a little hint that time is a concept that we're "stuck with" at present because of our particular STS situation - either as a control mechanism useful to external STS forces, or a natural artifact of our own particular STS state, or both.

Click to expand...

Time, at least as we ordinarily conceive of it, may be an "illusion" only in so far as it's based on our perceptions and sensations but that doesn't mean that the perception does not point to something real that stands behind it from which the perception/sense perception becomes possible in the first place. When we perceive something then we are only aware of the surfaces of things but a surface is two dimensional and does not really exist in and of itself apart from the 3 dimensional solid object that it is but a reflection of. So the "illusion," imo, is mistaking the two dimensional surface image for the three dimensional reality that it is but a reflection of.

I really wouldn't include the "increase toward maximum entropy" as an illusion in the same way we perceive time as an illusion since it's more based on the exercise of cognition and discernment (scientific study) rather then just perceptions. In this way the study of entropy in relation to time is based more on conceptualization/intuition that more accurately represents the nature of the real world as determined by Laws.

Also, if there is a direction that points to "increase toward maximum entropy" where disorder enters the present moment from without then why can't there be a dimension where order can enter present moment from within?

I think Ouspensky, if I'm interpreting him correctly, spoke of there being three outer dimensions that makes up the three dimensional 'solid' of space (that we experience externally) and three inner dimensions of Time, also making a three dimensional solid that we experience internally. So,imo, for our consciousness to be in the real world it must be cognizant and aware and within all dimensions at the same time, that is, in the region where they all intersect and come together. Otherwise we can get lost in the inner or outer reality exclusively.

If our consciousness were only focused on the moment to moment 'line of time', then our consciousness would lose continuity and we would forget what happened the previous moment. Another dimension brings the moments of time into a continues line that makes up a larger plane (called Eternity). However, if our consciousness focused only on the region of eternity excluding the line of actualization of time then we would be caught in a dream/trance state where nothing actual happens and all that exists is a plane of potentiality and possibilities. So our consciousness must be in that region where all dimensions come together.

The third dimension of time would allow for the freedom of the other two dimensions of 'inner time' to rotate making it all a 3 dimensional solid just like three dimensions of space (the outer reflecting the inner). The third dimension of 'solid' Time would allow for cycling/repetition allowing for the spiraling upward or downward into a higher space and, I think, this allows for the possibility of even changing of the past. Ouspensky states in The New Model Of The Universe "The idea of the complete fixity of the past is as unsatisfying to me as that of the complete determination of the future."

Pierre said:

HowToBe said:

So if the direction of time and the increase of entropy are the same, and if we assume for this exercise that time is actually an illusion, it implies that increase toward maximum entropy is also an illusion.

Click to expand...

If I correctly remember Schiller also mentions that this inexorable drift towards more entropy only applies to inanimate things. Indeed, the living system falsifies this 'law' since it keeps evolving towards more complexity and more order. This may not apply to living forms taken individually since their fate is death but it seems a valid point when applied to the living system as a whole.

Click to expand...

Yeah entropy is kind of a statistical thing for the whole universe anyways; it doesn't have to be exact especially in different places. The biggest source of entropy by far in models I've seen are black holes. The biggest non-black hole source is the background radiation. Everything else would really have almost zero effect on the total entropy. Any local use of time/entropy violating processes if we knew how would not even be a problem for the universe as a whole I would think.

I think I broke the video link when moving it over. The link 3D Student gave starts earlier so includes context, the specific section I meant to highlight is this: https://youtu.be/w2iTCm0xpDc?t=610

3D Student said:

The guy in that video doesn't mention consciousness. Doesn't denser energy mean more information?

Click to expand...

Yeah, he may be a strict materialist. Also, I think I've heard that the term entropy is used with two definitions depending on the discipline involved. When used in reference to cryptography and computing - information rather than energy - it may be used differently. Given that information and energy are so intertwined, the two definitions may be easily confused.

kenlee said:

HowToBe said:

So if the direction of time and the increase of entropy are the same, and if we assume for this exercise that time is actually an illusion, it implies that increase toward maximum entropy is also an illusion. And this could be a little hint that time is a concept that we're "stuck with" at present because of our particular STS situation - either as a control mechanism useful to external STS forces, or a natural artifact of our own particular STS state, or both.

Click to expand...

Time, at least as we ordinarily conceive of it, may be an "illusion" only in so far as it's based on our perceptions and sensations but that doesn't mean that the perception does not point to something real that stands behind it from which the perception/sense perception becomes possible in the first place. When we perceive something then we are only aware of the surfaces of things but a surface is two dimensional and does not really exist in and of itself apart from the 3 dimensional solid object that it is but a reflection of. So the "illusion," imo, is mistaking the two dimensional surface image for the three dimensional reality that it is but a reflection of.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. Certainly that's a type of mistake we are very prone to - mistaking perception/interpretation for reality. Along the lines of what Ruth said , one question is: What kind of illusion is it? The "real part" of an illusion could more or less make up any percentage of it, I presume? In other words, some lies are 99% truth, whereas others may be 1% truth. And there are different methods of creating a lie, one might insert information, remove it, or rearrange it, to create something believable. And no doubt there are techniques and strategies that can be followed.

kenlee said:

I really wouldn't include the "increase toward maximum entropy" as an illusion in the same way we perceive time as an illusion since it's more based on the exercise of cognition and discernment (scientific study) rather then just perceptions. In this way the study of entropy in relation to time is based more on conceptualization/intuition that more accurately represents the nature of the real world as determined by Laws.

Click to expand...

I agree. What I meant is more like: the illusion of the "heat death of the universe" (equilibrium/maximal entropy) as the only and ultimate end of things may be tied tightly to the illusion of time.

Time being an illusion basically means that "time" resides in our minds, right? Or more accurately, that the structures that translate the universe we interact with into an experience of time are part of our minds. Information that could potentially be read in a different way is being read in the "time" format, which is somehow inaccurate to the reality of things. Thus my interest in the Fourier method of converting time-format information into frequency/phase-format information.

A thought that sprung from these ideas is that concepts about reality may actually be similar to or the same as frequency-format information. I can recognize a car. This means that somehow my mind can recognize in multidemensional data a spike of "car-ness" despite the cars being different shapes and occupying different locations in time and space. So distance and time have both been replaced by frequency. I hope my line of thought is understandable here.

kenlee said:

Also, if there is a direction that points to "increase toward maximum entropy" where disorder enters the present moment from without then why can't there be a dimension where order can enter present moment from within?

Click to expand...

As an intuitive statement I think I understand. I suppose from a systems perspective the "within" would be considered external to the present moment in a sense. Higher density?

kenlee said:

The third dimension of 'solid' Time would allow for cycling/repetition allowing for the spiraling upward or downward into a higher space and, I think, this allows for the possibility of even changing of the past. Ouspensky states in The New Model Of The Universe "The idea of the complete fixity of the past is as unsatisfying to me as that of the complete determination of the future."

Click to expand...

The past as changeable is a very interesting concept. My line of thought is that the parts of our past that represent what we know are already crystallized, but to the degree that there is quantum entanglement of the present and the past (hasn't that been scientifically demonstrated?), the past is as undecided as the future. There is also the way that new knowledge can completely "transform" the past, such as when trauma is healed and past "tragedies" are redefined and become a source of strength.

Bluelamp said:

Pierre said:

HowToBe said:

So if the direction of time and the increase of entropy are the same, and if we assume for this exercise that time is actually an illusion, it implies that increase toward maximum entropy is also an illusion.

Click to expand...

If I correctly remember Schiller also mentions that this inexorable drift towards more entropy only applies to inanimate things. Indeed, the living system falsifies this 'law' since it keeps evolving towards more complexity and more order. This may not apply to living forms taken individually since their fate is death but it seems a valid point when applied to the living system as a whole.

Click to expand...

Yeah entropy is kind of a statistical thing for the whole universe anyways; it doesn't have to be exact especially in different places. The biggest source of entropy by far in models I've seen are black holes. The biggest non-black hole source is the background radiation. Everything else would really have almost zero effect on the total entropy. Any local use of time/entropy violating processes if we knew how would not even be a problem for the universe as a whole I would think.

Click to expand...

This seems like saying that life, relative to the rest of the observable universe, is subject to the Law of Exception?

The one problem I have with "time is an illusion" is this: If time is indeed an illusion, then space is an illusion as well, or rather motion in space is. And I don't really see how Fourier transformation removes the aspect of time, it merely transforms it into something else, that still is tied to time (phase as far as I can see is still time-based?).

But maybe as the Cs suggested we don't have the full picture to appreciate that time is an illusion, it certainly is a very compelling one here on the BBM. Try to tell your boss that time is an illusion, and "reality" will rear it's ugly head pretty quickly.

:P

In a nutshell - I don't get it!

nicklebleu said:

The one problem I have with "time is an illusion" is this: If time is indeed an illusion, then space is an illusion as well, or rather motion in space is. And I don't really see how Fourier transformation removes the aspect of time, it merely transforms it into something else, that still is tied to time (phase as far as I can see is still time-based?).

But maybe as the Cs suggested we don't have the full picture to appreciate that time is an illusion, it certainly is a very compelling one here on the BBM. Try to tell your boss that time is an illusion, and "reality" will rear it's ugly head pretty quickly.

:P

In a nutshell - I don't get it!

Click to expand...

Yeah ideas like spacetime is an illusion or matter is just thoughts is possibly the idea of relating our not fundamental third density to the fundamental seventh density where all could be information and a full universe information state could literally be a thought. Being in third density, it is a really good idea to pay attention to the symmetry broken not fundamental 3rd density reality rather than the underlying fundamental unbroken symmetry 7th density information space.

Full disclosure, I watched the video in full yesterday and remember feeling just a wee bit miffed. Overall I think the conclusion he makes is tenuous because it is all predicated on his first notion that entropy only ever increases. Linear thinking to the max! IMO it only takes a few examples to see that there are cycles involved; even if we limited said examples to 3D existence.

The main thing that jumps to mind here is that we do not live in a closed system so the one-way direction of his increasing entropy examples doesn't apply.

When the sun radiates its energy it is probably considered an example of increasing entropy. That's fine let's work with that. This same energy is captured and used by other living beings to create more order within themselves. Is that not an example of decreasing entropy? A plant that aggregates nutrients from the soil to bolster its ordered growth pattern is a decrease in entropy. In order to do that it uses the energy from the sun. That's a cycle +entropy ---> -entropy.

The example where he turns the engine with his hand was interesting as well. Of course he points to that as an overall increase in entropy; completely skipping the fact the he is consciously deciding to turn the engine in the first place. That too, I think, is an example of decreasing entropy even though the cause is less concrete.

This brings me to my next question. How would he reconcile a quantum wave collapse brought on by conscious observation? Wouldn't the collapsing of the wave be an example of decreasing entropy? Consciousness affecting matter throws a huge monkey wrench in the heat death theory.

HowToBe said:

So if the direction of time and the increase of entropy are the same, and if we assume for this exercise that time is actually an illusion, it implies that increase toward maximum entropy is also an illusion.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree that maximum entropy is an illusion. I would also add that most likely entropy goes both ways and doesn't have a "direction" per se. So what about time? IIRC "time" or international standard for the "second" is tracked by an atom that changes state periodically at relatively constant intervals. Here's the rub though, the constant interval can be altered by outside emanations. The process can speed up or slow down based on radiation output from the Sun.

With that being said we could pretend that the intervals are constant. So one can pretty much think of that atom vibrating back and forth in a cycle. In a very real sense the atom that is vibrating is an example of cycles even though we use its vibrations to count linearly in one direction. Why is that? At a larger scale our calendars go in one direction when in actuality they are suppose to represent the earth rotating on its axis (a cycle) along with its cyclic path around the Sun. There is no such thing as a one way trip when everywhere you turn we find cycles.

HowToBe said:

I don't know how many are familiar these terms, but for those who understand the following terms, I have further been wondering if this means that a Fourier transform or something like it might actually be a more accurate representation of reality. In a Fourier transform you take a set of data, like a sound file which has time on the X axis and magnitude on the Y axis when you graph the waveform - 2 variables. The Fourier transform does its wizardry and produces a new set of data that is described by 3 variables - magnitude, frequency, and phase. A Reverse Fourier Transform is capable of turning that data back to its original form, so no information is lost. Keep in mind that I'm not technically knowledgeable in mathematics so I may have things off.

Click to expand...

Let's say you record the electrical signals from a chemical compound for 5 minutes. After those 5 minutes you are left with a really long sinusoidal wave. In some parts of this squiggly line the crests are closer together signifying a point in "time" where the frequency is higher. Conversly, there could be other sections of this singular wave where the crests are farther apart and are indicative of longer wavelengths. You could sit there and count how many times this sine wave compresses or elongates to determine which chemical compound it belongs to but this would take a lot of time :P

If this line is placed on a graph, the y axis typically shows the magnitude while the x axis would indicate a certain point within that 5 minute window. This is usually referred to as having your data plotted in the "time domain" or whatever is on the x-axis. It's impractical to try and infer anything from a graph like that because it is in the useless time domain. In many areas of chemistry you care more about chemical identification rather than how long something has existed in your sample plate. With the data in this format the only thing you could really say is that the sample existed for 5 minutes and had some variation in frequency.

However, if that same data is plotted in the frequency domain (by way of fourier transform) you pretty much have a fingerprint of what you're characterizing. After going through the fourier transform the x-axis corresponds to the different frequencies that were given off from the sample while the y axis indicates the magnitude. This is really hard to explain but viewing something from this perspective is much easier and is analogous to a birds eye view. At an instant (not 5 minutes like before) you can know of all the different frequencies along with their magnitudes and proportions. It's very apparent from the outset and similar to the differences you would notice when looking at two different people and being able to immediately determine that they are in fact two different people. Does that make it more objective? I think so. You are seemingly looking at the whole (data + context) all at once.

Notice in the latter example you could also view the magnitudes of different frequencies being equivalent to the probabilites that they will exist in the first example.

nicklebleu said:

The one problem I have with "time is an illusion" is this: If time is indeed an illusion, then space is an illusion as well, or rather motion in space is. And I don't really see how Fourier transformation removes the aspect of time, it merely transforms it into something else, that still is tied to time (phase as far as I can see is still time-based?).

But maybe as the Cs suggested we don't have the full picture to appreciate that time is an illusion, it certainly is a very compelling one here on the BBM. Try to tell your boss that time is an illusion, and "reality" will rear it's ugly head pretty quickly.

:P

In a nutshell - I don't get it!

Click to expand...

Maybe we can't "get it" until we're ready collectively, and that might take significant changes in our Being. To my knowledge they haven't said that this is something we need to work out right now, but clearly they considered it important that we be aware of the idea. I think the biggest clue the C's may have given is within these statements:

Laura said:

Q: (L) And some of the manifestations of a Realm Border Crossing are that some people graduate or transition to 4th density, that their awareness changes, everything changes, the playing field is leveled. So, what happened in Germany was a 'practice run' but what is going to happen is that the 'playing field' is going to be leveled, so it will not be exactly the same scenario, is this a correct assessment?

A: Maybe. Alright, my dear, you want the facts, so we will give them to you, and hopefully you will comprehend. If not now, then when necessary maybe... Fact number one: All there is is lessons. Fact two: this is one big school. Fact three: Timing as you perceive it, is never, NEVER definite. Fact four: What is to happen, as you state it, is a ways off, and will not occur until you have reached that point on the learning cycle, and you are not close yet. Now ponder before more facts are given!!

Q: (L) Okay, this being one infinite school, and we all seem to be wandering around in the darkness...

A: Fact five: The learning cycle is variable, and progress along it is determined by events and circumstances as they unfold.

Click to expand...

If timing as we see it is never definite, then that would mean that we cannot create or find a truly objective clock with which to define our "time", if my logic is right.

trendsetter37 said:

Full disclosure, I watched the video in full yesterday and remember feeling just a wee bit miffed. Overall I think the conclusion he makes is tenuous because it is all predicated on his first notion that entropy only ever increases. Linear thinking to the max! IMO it only takes a few examples to see that there are cycles involved; even if we limited said examples to 3D existence.

The main thing that jumps to mind here is that we do not live in a closed system so the one-way direction of his increasing entropy examples doesn't apply.

When the sun radiates its energy it is probably considered an example of increasing entropy. That's fine let's work with that. This same energy is captured and used by other living beings to create more order within themselves. Is that not an example of decreasing entropy? A plant that aggregates nutrients from the soil to bolster its ordered growth pattern is a decrease in entropy. In order to do that it uses the energy from the sun. That's a cycle +entropy ---> -entropy.

The example where he turns the engine with his hand was interesting as well. Of course he points to that as an overall increase in entropy; completely skipping the fact the he is consciously deciding to turn the engine in the first place. That too, I think, is an example of decreasing entropy even though the cause is less concrete.

This brings me to my next question. How would he reconcile a quantum wave collapse brought on by conscious observation? Wouldn't the collapsing of the wave be an example of decreasing entropy? Consciousness affecting matter throws a huge monkey wrench in the heat death theory.

Click to expand...

As I recall the idea is that locally a system (typically life) can reduce in entropy only if it is being powered by something that is increasing entropy on the scale of the larger environment, and it can only do so inefficiently, and until the power source runs out or becomes unavailable. The closed system model, like you said.

Somehow I'm having a difficult time figuring out how to reply to what you wrote even though I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, and I'm not exactly sure why. It may be a problem on my end, I've just been grinding at it here. What definition of entropy are you using?

I wouldn't call the sun example a cycle as stated, because the loop hasn't been closed. What happens if/when the sun runs out or becomes unavailable as a source of energy? It could also be pointed out that the amount of energy captured by the living system on earth is tiny compared to the rest of the sun's output. Like what Bluelamp said earlier. The decrease in entropy caused by life that we can prove to exist at present is tiny in relation to our sun, let alone the universe, and thus it's hard to demonstrate it violates anything that way. So one could argue that the life system and the stirling engine are merely "slowing down" a fraction of the energy released - and thus a fraction of the entropy increase - by their power sources and accomplishing some work in the process. It is hard to argue with materialism based only on observation. Here's a Wiki quote that's related:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life#Objections said:

Since entropy is defined for equilibrium systems,[21] objections to the extension of the second law and entropy to biological systems, especially as it pertains to its use to support or discredit the theory of evolution, have been stated.[22] Live systems and indeed much of the systems and processes in the universe operate far from equilibrium, whereas the second law succinctly states that isolated systems evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium — the state of maximum entropy.

On the other hand, (1) live systems cannot persist in isolation and (2) the second principle of thermodynamics does not require that free energy be transformed into entropy along the shortest path: live organisms absorb energy from sun-light or from energy-rich chemical compounds and finally return part of such energy to the environment as entropy (heat and low free-energy compounds such as water and CO2).

Click to expand...

As for consciousness, I'm not sure. Someone more familiar with quantum theory might comment.

There is a lot we don't know. I tend to think the best criticism of ideas like determinism and materialism is that they make assumptions about things that are actually unknown, even if they seem reliable, and most importantly, they don't like to admit that they are assumptions. The ability to habitually rely on certain concepts successfully can create the illusion that they are a "law". Another good criticism I call the "philosophical dead end": Any philosophy that makes life and the universe meaningless is meaningless to treat as true. That was the antidote I came up with when I was younger, because I couldn't really let myself ignore the question of "okay, nihilism and materialism intuitively seem obviously false to me, but what if they aren't?" It's a nice little Swiss-army-knife for popping lots of nihilistic bubbles.

trendsetter37 said:

I tend to agree that maximum entropy is an illusion. I would also add that most likely entropy goes both ways and doesn't have a "direction" per se. So what about time? IIRC "time" or international standard for the "second" is tracked by an atom that changes state periodically at relatively constant intervals. Here's the rub though, the constant interval can be altered by outside emanations. The process can speed up or slow down based on radiation output from the Sun.

With that being said we could pretend that the intervals are constant. So one can pretty much think of that atom vibrating back and forth in a cycle. In a very real sense the atom that is vibrating is an example of cycles even though we use its vibrations to count linearly in one direction. Why is that? At a larger scale our calendars go in one direction when in actuality they are suppose to represent the earth rotating on its axis (a cycle) along with its cyclic path around the Sun. There is no such thing as a one way trip when everywhere you turn we find cycles.

Click to expand...

But also why not? A practical alternative isn't very forthcoming. We know we experience days, and each day is different, and we can add one to our count every time we see in the present that we are in a different day. Part of the issue is that since the sequence of integers is infinite, and counting works so reliably in our tiny window of experience, it's easy to act like you could do this forever, but all sorts of things could throw off the "timing". But the existence of days or other observable cycles and their countability isn't necessarily wrong, or too wrong to work with for now. Maybe there just really is no rule that absolutely defines the relationship between all of those cycles (or relationships are on a case-by-case basis).

Even perceptions from our various senses have varying distances to travel through nerves to reach the brain, and must then be organized into some semblance of a "present moment".

And actually, I don't think I can necessarily say that the "maximal entropy state" itself is an illusion. What if, due to being STS, that is exactly where we are headed if nothing changes? Darker yet, what if that is exactly the fate of "our universe" from our perspective if we remain the food of 4D STS? The illusion could be that one possible future is dominating our view of all possible futures.

trendsetter37 said:

However, if that same data is plotted in the frequency domain (by way of fourier transform) you pretty much have a fingerprint of what you're characterizing. After going through the fourier transform the x-axis corresponds to the different frequencies that were given off from the sample while the y axis indicates the magnitude. This is really hard to explain but viewing something from this perspective is much easier and is analogous to a birds eye view. At an instant (not 5 minutes like before) you can know of all the different frequencies along with their magnitudes and proportions. It's very apparent from the outset and similar to the differences you would notice when looking at two different people and being able to immediately determine that they are in fact two different people. Does that make it more objective? I think so. You are seemingly looking at the whole (data + context) all at once.

Notice in the latter example you could also view the magnitudes of different frequencies being equivalent to the probabilites that they will exist in the first example.

Click to expand...

One thing that comes to mind is that spectroscopy and spectrometry involve directly observing frequency-domain information in the "real world".

Just a heads up HowToBe I see your post and will be able to respond tomorrow.

No problems with that, of course. :)

HowToBe said:

Somehow I'm having a difficult time figuring out how to reply to what you wrote even though I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, and I'm not exactly sure why. It may be a problem on my end, I've just been grinding at it here. What definition of entropy are you using?

Click to expand...

Mostly one of order versus disorder or even dense information vs sparse information. I'm not really using any formal definition of entropy here. So maybe my examples weren't exactly spot on. If that is the case my apologies. I woke up the morning after writing all of that and thought what I wrote was a bit scrambled.

HowToBe said:

I wouldn't call the sun example a cycle as stated, because the loop hasn't been closed. What happens if/when the sun runs out or becomes unavailable as a source of energy?

Click to expand...

Is there really such a thing as a closed system when discussing the solar system? And I don't know.

It could also be pointed out that the amount of energy captured by the living system on earth is tiny compared to the rest of the sun's output. Like what Bluelamp said earlier. The decrease in entropy caused by life that we can prove to exist at present is tiny in relation to our sun, let alone the universe, and thus it's hard to demonstrate it violates anything that way. So one could argue that the life system and the stirling engine are merely "slowing down" a fraction of the energy released - and thus a fraction of the entropy increase - by their power sources and accomplishing some work in the process. It is hard to argue with materialism based only on observation.

Click to expand...

Wait what were we supposing was violated? My point above was that entropy was not a one way street; ergo, heat death would not be an automatic destiny. Just to be clear here, I am not saying that reverse entropy is the only reason that makes his claim implausible just that he makes a wrong assumption early on. I definitely couldn't write a treatise on any of this but I do think it is "easier" to explain if unseen factors are taken into account.

HowToBe said:

There is a lot we don't know. I tend to think the best criticism of ideas like determinism and materialism is that they make assumptions about things that are actually unknown, even if they seem reliable, and most importantly, they don't like to admit that they are assumptions. The ability to habitually rely on certain concepts successfully can create the illusion that they are a "law". Another good criticism I call the "philosophical dead end": Any philosophy that makes life and the universe meaningless is meaningless to treat as true. That was the antidote I came up with when I was younger, because I couldn't really let myself ignore the question of "okay, nihilism and materialism intuitively seem obviously false to me, but what if they aren't?" It's a nice little Swiss-army-knife for popping lots of nihilistic bubbles.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

trendsetter37 said:

HowToBe said:

I wouldn't call the sun example a cycle as stated, because the loop hasn't been closed. What happens if/when the sun runs out or becomes unavailable as a source of energy?

Click to expand...

Is there really such a thing as a closed system when discussing the solar system? And I don't know.

Click to expand...

Not a closed system, but if we can't define all of the cycle, it ends up looking like a linear phenomena. To postulate that it is a cycle but only describe part of it doesn't really work as an argument. It's possible I misunderstood your example. How does it describe a cycle?

trendsetter37 said:

It could also be pointed out that the amount of energy captured by the living system on earth is tiny compared to the rest of the sun's output. Like what Bluelamp said earlier. The decrease in entropy caused by life that we can prove to exist at present is tiny in relation to our sun, let alone the universe, and thus it's hard to demonstrate it violates anything that way. So one could argue that the life system and the stirling engine are merely "slowing down" a fraction of the energy released - and thus a fraction of the entropy increase - by their power sources and accomplishing some work in the process. It is hard to argue with materialism based only on observation.

Click to expand...

Wait what were we supposing was violated? My point above was that entropy was not a one way street; ergo, heat death would not be an automatic destiny. Just to be clear here, I am not saying that reverse entropy is the only reason that makes his claim implausible just that he makes a wrong assumption early on. I definitely couldn't write a treatise on any of this but I do think it is "easier" to explain if unseen factors are taken into account.

Click to expand...

Whoops! I should have mentioned it explicitly at some point. I was referring to the 2nd "Law" of Thermodynamics. The discussion here is basically around that. The 2nd Law and Time.

Jumping back to the topic of "there's a lot we don't know", I found this video recently, which presents the idea of deliberately studying and defining the edges of what we know (which he calls "lygometry", literally something like "shadow measuring"):

https://youtu.be/nwRJLa0igmQ
At present science and methods of reasoning do seem to only deal with unknowns in an ad hoc way. But if what we don't know isn't deliberately defined and remembered and reviewed, the feeling of knowing things that we don't can creep up on us, especially when the majority is in agreement on what the best working model is.

Ruth said:

Well I don't know about that, but all I've got from the website above is 404 'Not found' tends to indicate that "time" tends to be 'off the menu' as far as human thinking is concerned, which is curious in and of it's self. But alas, I don't know for sure. Is this some sort of an error? Also, I'm not sure what thermodynamics has to do with time. Perhaps the video will tell us?

Click to expand...

404 is the error code websites give when you use a URL (webpage address) that does not match to an existing page on that site. My link was broken - my fault for not checking it before posting. The fact that I made that mistake is interesting, though. Maybe there's something to it.

I wouldn't say time is "off the menu" of topics, though. Tonight I discovered the following C's quote while reading in The Wave (Book 2, Chapter 10, page 67). I couldn't find the session in the forum transcripts section, so I'm typing this.

Session 19 December 1998 said:

Q: (L) Well, when you have a pulse, you have a wave, and if you have a wave, that implies time.

A: Therein lies the crux of your 3rd-density illusion. Why assume that any given aspect of the pulse is not occurring simultaneously with any other? And if any are, all are. Until you once and for all break free from the illusion of time, you will not advance.

Click to expand...

So the plot thickens as usual. They are saying "until..." though. It doesn't necessarily mean that questioning time directly is the way to accomplish this.