Your memories are almost certainly false

[RexAllen]

Consider:

Entropy is a measure of the disorder of a system. The higher the entropy, the higher the disorder.

If a deck of cards is ordered by suit and then within each suit by ascending rank, then that’s a low entropy state. This is because out of the 8.06 * 10 to the 67th (52!) possible unique arrangements of the cards in a standard 52 card deck, there’s only 24 that fit that particular description.

A “random looking” arrangement of the deck is a high entropy state, because there are trillions of unique arrangements of a standard 52 card deck that will fit the description of looking “randomly shuffled”.

Same with the egg. There are (relatively) few ways to arrange the molecules of an egg that will result in it looking unbroken, compared to the huge number of ways that will result in it looking broken. SO, unbroken egg…low entropy. Broken egg…high entropy.

AND the same with the universe…there are (again, relatively) few ways to arrange the atoms of the universe in a way that makes it resemble what we see with people and trees and planets and stars and galaxies, compared with the gargantuan number of ways to arrange things so that it resembles a generic looking cloud of dust.

OKAY. Now.

Of the relatively few ways that the elementary particles of the universe can be arranged so as to resemble what we see around us today, only a tiny fraction of those particle arrangements will have values for momentum and position that are consistent with them having arrived at that state 13.7 billion years after something like the Big Bang.

The vast majority of the particle arrangements that macroscopically resemble the world around us will *instead* have particles in states (e.g., with positions and velocities) that are consistent with the particles having previously been in something more like a giant dust cloud.

By which I mean: If we take their current positions and velocities, and work backwards to see where they came from, and go back far enough in time, eventually we will not arrive at the Big Bang. Instead we will arrive at a state resembling a giant dust cloud (probably a very thin, spread-out dust cloud).

SO, bottom line:

Out of all the possible configurations that the universe could be in, ones that have people, and planets, and stars, and galaxies are extremely rare.

Further, even if we then only consider those extremely rare possible configurations that have people, and planets, and stars, and galaxies – the ones with particles in states (e.g., with positions and velocities) that are consistent with having arrived at this configuration 13.7 billion years after something like the Big Bang are STILL rare.

We don’t know the exact state of our universe’s particles, but in statistical mechanics the Principle of Indifference requires us to consider all possible microscopic states that are consistent with our current macroscopic state equally likely.

So given all of the above, and our current knowledge of the laws of physics, the most likely explanation is that all of your current memories are false and that yesterday the universe was in a HIGHER state of entropy, not a lower state (as would be required by any variation of the Big Bang theory).

Physical systems with low states of entropy are very rare, by definition. So it’s very improbable (but not impossible) that the unlikely low entropy state of the universe of today is the result of having evolved from an EVEN MORE UNLIKELY lower entropy universe that existed yesterday.

Instead, statistically it’s overwhelmingly more probable that the unlikely low entropy state of the universe today is the result of a random fluctuation from a HIGHER entropy universe that existed yesterday.

And thus your memories of a lower entropy yesterday are most likely due to this random fluctuation, not due to yesterday actually having had a lower entropy than today.

[Feck]

You little mathematics and less physics to prove that your memories are false.

[RuleBritannia]

If a deck of cards is ordered by suit and then within each suit by ascending rank, then that’s a low entropy state. This is because out of the 8.06 * 10 to the 67th (52!) possible unique arrangements of the cards in a standard 52 card deck, there’s only 24 that fit that particular description.

Except the numbers on the cards are arbitrary, they're drawn on there so we, as humans, can distinguish between the 52 identical cards. If we used different shapes to distinguish between the cards instead of numbers, then their would no logical order for the cards to be in, there would be no "low entropy states".

A “random looking” arrangement of the deck is a high entropy state, because there are trillions of unique arrangements of a standard 52 card deck that will fit the description of looking “randomly shuffled”.

But that's the key "random looking", in reality the arrangements are always random. Only because we have an understanding of numbers do the cards appear to have a pattern, if we replace the numbers with shapes there would never be that illusionary pattern.

Same with the egg. There are (relatively) few ways to arrange the molecules of an egg that will result in it looking unbroken, compared to the huge number of ways that will result in it looking broken. SO, unbroken egg…low entropy. Broken egg…high entropy.

AND the same with the universe…there are (again, relatively) few ways to arrange the atoms of the universe in a way that makes it resemble what we see with people and trees and planets and stars and galaxies, compared with the gargantuan number of ways to arrange things so that it resembles a generic looking cloud of dust.

Agreed.

Of the relatively few ways that the elementary particles of the universe can be arranged so as to resemble what we see around us today, only a tiny fraction of those particle arrangements will have values for momentum and position that are consistent with them having arrived at that state 13.7 billion years after something like the Big Bang.

The vast majority of the particle arrangements that macroscopically resemble the world around us will *instead* have particles in states (e.g., with positions and velocities) that are consistent with the particles having previously been in something more like a giant dust cloud.

By which I mean: If we take their current positions and velocities, and work backwards to see where they came from, and go back far enough in time, eventually we will not arrive at the Big Bang. Instead we will arrive at a state resembling a giant dust cloud (probably a very thin, spread-out dust cloud).

Okay.

Out of all the possible configurations that the universe could be in, ones that have people, and planets, and stars, and galaxies are extremely rare.

That's not true, as far as we know there is only one universe, and that universe is one that contains people, planets, stars and galaxies. Since we don't know of any universes that don't contain those things, the current score is 1-0 to our universe.

Further, even if we then only consider those extremely rare possible configurations that have people, and planets, and stars, and galaxies – the ones with particles in states (e.g., with positions and velocities) that are consistent with having arrived at this configuration 13.7 billion years after something like the Big Bang are STILL rare.

Once again, I don't know how you can consider it "rare" when 100% of all known universes have those things, that seems to me the exact opposite of rare.

We don’t know the exact state of our universe’s particles, but in statistical mechanics the Principle of Indifference requires us to consider all possible microscopic states that are consistent with our current macroscopic state equally likely.

So given all of the above, and our current knowledge of the laws of physics, the most likely explanation is that all of your current memories are false and that yesterday the universe was in a HIGHER state of entropy, not a lower state (as would be required by any variation of the Big Bang theory).

Except most of the above is either wrong or made up.

Instead, statistically it’s overwhelmingly more probable that the unlikely low entropy state of the universe today is the result of a random fluctuation from a HIGHER entropy universe that existed yesterday.

And thus your memories of a lower entropy yesterday are most likely due to this random fluctuation, not due to yesterday actually having had a lower entropy than today.

No.

[Tigger]

You're picking and chosing your entropy systems. The universe's total entropy increases, but your descent into the microscopic makes no allowance of a local decrease in entropy due to, say, hens making decently shaped eggs as an indirect result of the increasing entropy of a certain nearby star.

[RexAllen]

Two related wikipedia articles of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3 ... ce_theorem

Also check out the references on the first article...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Rex,

You have confused entropy with randomness and understood neither, I am afraid.

the most likely explanation is that all of your current memories are false and that yesterday the universe was in a HIGHER state of entropy, not a lower state

First rule of science debate: Anything that contradicts the second law of thermodynamics is wrong!
Second rule of science debate: Did I say wrong? I meant WRONG!

[RexAllen]

Rex,

You have confused entropy with randomness and understood neither, I am afraid.

the most likely explanation is that all of your current memories are false and that yesterday the universe was in a HIGHER state of entropy, not a lower state

First rule of science debate: Anything that contradicts the second law of thermodynamics is wrong!

Nothing in the original post contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Read the wikipedia links and associated references.

This idea isn't original to me. The fact that you aren't already familiar with it is a pretty good indication of how seriously people should take your opinions. Which is to say, not very seriously at all.

Go. Educate yourself. Then return. Or not.

[RuleBritannia]

Two related wikipedia articles of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3 ... ce_theorem

Also check out the references on the first article...

Nothing in the original post contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Read the wikipedia links and associated references.

This idea isn't original to me. The fact that you aren't already familiar with it is a pretty good indication of how seriously people should take your opinions. Which is to say, not very seriously at all.

Go. Educate yourself. Then return. Or not.

The fist link is a hypothesis, not fact. The second link does contradict the second law of thermodynamics, as it actually says in the link. Double fail.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Rex,

You have confused entropy with randomness and understood neither, I am afraid.

the most likely explanation is that all of your current memories are false and that yesterday the universe was in a HIGHER state of entropy, not a lower state

First rule of science debate: Anything that contradicts the second law of thermodynamics is wrong!

Nothing in the original post contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Read the wikipedia links and associated references.

This idea isn't original to me. The fact that you aren't already familiar with it is a pretty good indication of how seriously people should take your opinions. Which is to say, not very seriously at all.

Go. Educate yourself. Then return. Or not.

If the universe was in a higher state of entropy yesterday than it is today, then entropy decreased in between. Kindly explain how that is not a contravention of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

I seek always to educate myself. Please let me know when I am clever enough to basque in the warm glow of your faulty logic.

[RexAllen]

Rex,

You have confused entropy with randomness and understood neither, I am afraid.

the most likely explanation is that all of your current memories are false and that yesterday the universe was in a HIGHER state of entropy, not a lower state

First rule of science debate: Anything that contradicts the second law of thermodynamics is wrong!

Nothing in the original post contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Read the wikipedia links and associated references.

This idea isn't original to me. The fact that you aren't already familiar with it is a pretty good indication of how seriously people should take your opinions. Which is to say, not very seriously at all.

Go. Educate yourself. Then return. Or not.

If the universe was in a higher state of entropy yesterday than it is today, then entropy decreased in between. Kindly explain how that is not a contravention of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

I seek always to educate myself. Please let me know when I am clever enough to basque in the warm glow of your faulty logic.

Give me a break, brother. Apparently your efforts to educate yourself do not extend to reading the wikipedia links that I have so thoughtfully provided.

It's not a violation of the second law of thermodynamics because, while statistical fluctuations will occasionally result in a decrease in the entropy of a closed system, these statistical fluctuations can't be used to do useful work.

See: Feynman's brownian ratchet.

Read it. Read it. Read it. And the other links. All will become clear.

[RuleBritannia]

Rex,

You have confused entropy with randomness and understood neither, I am afraid.

the most likely explanation is that all of your current memories are false and that yesterday the universe was in a HIGHER state of entropy, not a lower state

First rule of science debate: Anything that contradicts the second law of thermodynamics is wrong!

Nothing in the original post contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Read the wikipedia links and associated references.

This idea isn't original to me. The fact that you aren't already familiar with it is a pretty good indication of how seriously people should take your opinions. Which is to say, not very seriously at all.

Go. Educate yourself. Then return. Or not.

If the universe was in a higher state of entropy yesterday than it is today, then entropy decreased in between. Kindly explain how that is not a contravention of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

I seek always to educate myself. Please let me know when I am clever enough to basque in the warm glow of your faulty logic.

Give me a break, brother. Apparently your efforts to educate yourself do not extend to reading the wikipedia links that I have so thoughtfully provided.

It's not a violation of the second law of thermodynamics because, while statistical fluctuations will occasionally result in a decrease in the entropy of a closed system, these statistical fluctuations can't be used to do useful work.

See: Feynman's brownian ratchet.

Read it. Read it. Read it. And the other links. All will become clear.

LOL maybe you should read it:

"The simple machine, consisting of a paddlewheel and a ratchet, appears to be an example of a Maxwell's demon, able to extract useful work from random fluctuations in a system at thermal equilibrium in violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Detailed analysis by Feynman and others showed why it cannot actually do this."

Why it doesn't work
"Although at first sight the Brownian ratchet seems to extract useful work from Brownian motion, Feynman demonstrated that if the entire device is at the same temperature, the ratchet will not rotate continuously in one direction but will move randomly back and forth, and therefore will not produce any useful work. A simple way to visualize how the machine might fail is to remember that a ratchet and pawl small enough to move in response to individual molecular collisions also would be small enough to undergo Brownian motion as well. The pawl therefore will intermittently fail, allowing the ratchet to slip backward. Feynman demonstrated that if the temperature T2 of the ratchet and pawl is the same as the temperature T1 of the paddle, then the failure rate must equal the rate at which the ratchet ratchets forward, so that no net motion results over long enough periods or in an ensemble averaged sense.[2]

If, on the other hand, T2 is smaller than T1, the ratchet can indeed move forward, and produce useful work. In this case, though, the energy is extracted from the temperature gradient between the two thermal reservoirs, and some waste heat is exhausted into the lower temperature reservoir by the pawl. In other words, the device functions as a miniature heat engine, in compliance with the second law of thermodynamics. Conversely, if T2 is greater than T1, the device will rotate in the opposite direction, again functioning as a heat engine.

The Feynman ratchet model led to the similar concept of Brownian motors, nanomachines which can extract useful work not from thermal noise but from chemical potentials and other microscopic nonequilibrium sources, in compliance with the laws of thermodynamics. Diodes are an electrical analog of the ratchet and pawl, and for the same reason cannot produce useful work by rectifying thermal fluctuations in a circuit at uniform temperature."

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Rex,

You have confused entropy with randomness and understood neither, I am afraid.

the most likely explanation is that all of your current memories are false and that yesterday the universe was in a HIGHER state of entropy, not a lower state

First rule of science debate: Anything that contradicts the second law of thermodynamics is wrong!

Nothing in the original post contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Read the wikipedia links and associated references.

This idea isn't original to me. The fact that you aren't already familiar with it is a pretty good indication of how seriously people should take your opinions. Which is to say, not very seriously at all.

Go. Educate yourself. Then return. Or not.

If the universe was in a higher state of entropy yesterday than it is today, then entropy decreased in between. Kindly explain how that is not a contravention of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

I seek always to educate myself. Please let me know when I am clever enough to basque in the warm glow of your faulty logic.

Give me a break, brother. Apparently your efforts to educate yourself do not extend to reading the wikipedia links that I have so thoughtfully provided.

It's not a violation of the second law of thermodynamics because, while statistical fluctuations will occasionally result in a decrease in the entropy of a closed system, these statistical fluctuations can't be used to do useful work.

See: Feynman's brownian ratchet.

Read it. Read it. Read it. And the other links. All will become clear.

Rule Britannia already addressed those links perfectly adequately. I saw no need to repeat his post.

But I will, if you like.

The Boltzmann Brain is a hypothetical construct (very much like the Turing machines you used in your last 'proof'.)

The Poincaré Recurrence Theorem applies only to volume-preserving systems. The universe certainly does not fall under this category so it does not apply in this case.

[Twiglet]

You're picking and chosing your entropy systems. The universe's total entropy increases, but your descent into the microscopic makes no allowance of a local decrease in entropy due to, say, hens making decently shaped eggs as an indirect result of the increasing entropy of a certain nearby star.

Spot on.... living systems maintain a low state of entropy by increasing the disorder around themselves, which is a great excuse for being a messy bugger.

[Feck]

You're picking and chosing your entropy systems. The universe's total entropy increases, but your descent into the microscopic makes no allowance of a local decrease in entropy due to, say, hens making decently shaped eggs as an indirect result of the increasing entropy of a certain nearby star.

Spot on.... living systems maintain a low state of entropy by increasing the disorder around themselves, which is a great excuse for being a messy bugger.

Thanks for that one

[RexAllen]

It's not a violation of the second law of thermodynamics because, while statistical fluctuations will occasionally result in a decrease in the entropy of a closed system, these statistical fluctuations can't be used to do useful work.

LOL maybe you should read it:

Exactly. The brownian ratchet demonstrates why situation described in the original post doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. The OP scenario is just a very large statistical fluctuation, like those that randomly jostle the brownian ratchet, but much more rare due to it's larger deviation from equilibrium.

Take the brownian ratchet scenario and scale it up. That gives you the Boltzmann Brain scenario...with no violation of the second law.

Read the links. Again. Carefully this time.

"It is impossible for any device that operates on a cycle to receive heat from a single reservoir and produce a *net* amount of work."