[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;367455]xilman's discussion on the consequences of the second law of thermodynamics in a spatially finite system.[/QUOTE]

The monograph does say the Universe is not only finite but
also non-expanding and never-have-expanded, i.e. of
fixed fin[I]ite radius in all directions [/I]from any spatial point.
This is supported there by an argument based on the
nature of space vs the nature of substance (matter).

This, as well as the infinite past (the temporal regress) must be
accepted as true before any explanation of entropy is made.
The monograph (version 3 in cosmo3.txt) doesn't present in
perfect axiomatic order, so it may not have been apparent,
but this logical order is necessary explanatorily and will be
improved in a version 4 if I ever do one.

Entropy might never decrease in a closed system (a closed
sub-portion of the Universe), and I say "might" because
of the vagaries of the probabilistic nature of quantum theory,
but the Universe as a whole is neither open topologically
nor closed topologically, so defining the entropy of the
whole Universe "might" allow for its entropy to be constantly
increasing without ever changing (see earlier post).

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;366155]
...
I could give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you express your ideas poorly, or I could withhold it and say that you don't have sensible ideas here.[/QUOTE]

Is the first line (the Universe contains all that is) not sensible?
Is the idea that the Universe has always existed and always will
exist sensible or not? The first is true by definition. The second
is "proved" by an argument. Saying my ideas are not "sensible"
doesn't make that true.

The ideas presented in the monograph are perfectly sensible,
and their presentation is, I would say, decent. Perhaps it's
their newness that's causing this degree of challenge, but it's
not the ideas nor my expression of them that's at fault.

[QUOTE=davar55;367529]The [Universe has always existed and always will]
is "proved" by an argument.[/QUOTE]Nope. Proof means showing some incontrovertible evidence. You might just as well be "proving" by argument that 'god has always existed and always will'.

The weaker "beyond reasonable doubt" also requires strong evidence in support of the claim else it is all just words on a computer screen bereft of substance.

[QUOTE=retina;367530]Nope. Proof means showing some incontrovertible evidence. You might just as well be "proving" by argument that 'god has always existed and always will'.

The weaker "beyond reasonable doubt" also requires strong evidence in support of the claim else it is all just words on a computer screen bereft of substance.[/QUOTE]

You must not have read the proof in the monograph.

And theology has nothing to do with cosmology.
You can't prove the existence of god because none exists.
You cam prove its non-existence (see that other thread).

[QUOTE=davar55;367531]You cam[sup][sic][/sup] prove [god's] non-existence (see that other thread).[/QUOTE]:poop:

Sorry I couldn't break it to you gentler.

There's also no Santa, no devil, and no unicorns.

[QUOTE=davar55;367534]There's also ... no unicorns.[/QUOTE]I saw one in the Harry Potter movie so it MUST BE TRUE! You lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. :cry:

:crank:

God Only SEEMS Nonexistent!
 

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnjfxCp92pc[/url]

[QUOTE=retina;367535]I saw one in the Harry Potter movie so it MUST BE TRUE! You lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. :cry:
[/QUOTE]

When in the face of overwhelming evidence for a conclusion
and no evidence against, logic dictates the "for" conclusion.
And then by the fact of its truth (no god, no unicorns, etc.)
one can then seek to construct a valid proof.

If you're serious about the unicorns, you should be able to prove
both their existence (which you might claim) as well as their
non-existence (see that other thread). Then a similar proof
shows both for a god as well.

Hence no god, no Santa, no devil, no unicorns, no nonsense.

[QUOTE=davar55;367537]When in the face of overwhelming evidence for a conclusion and no evidence against, logic dictates the "for" conclusion.[/QUOTE]You have only reached the "beyond reasonable doubt" level here. Proof requires a much stronger basis.

[QUOTE=davar55;367527]... but the Universe as a whole is neither open topologically nor closed topologically.[/QUOTE]Ok, so your model also violates the law of the excluded middle.

Curious.