[JAK]

Originally Posted by michellemfry Thanks JAk. I was hoping someone would know, and to know that entropy and evolution have been in print is a comfort. I worry about my mind and the paths I take it on. We may have known entropy before time. Interesting.

You may find my website, www.theoryofmind, useful as well. It goes into greater depth on how all of the above relates to the mind and emotions. Other researchers in this area include Dr. Gregg Henriques at James Madison University and Dr. Stuart Kauffman at the University of New Mexico (http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/).

The central principle of these theoretical strategies is "efficiency". In general, all resources are limted in availability to some degree. As a result, organisms must manage and budget their usage. In a single human, this translates down to the parasypathetic nervous system (the "relax, feel good, digest food, & sleep" system) being sacrificed during "fight or flight" to maximize resource availability to the sympathetic nervous system (the "get stressed for danger" system). The control point is the hypothalamus atop the brainstem (see "Perceptual Control Systems" by William T. Powers - (http://www.perceptualcontroltheory.org/). When the optimum state held within the hypothalamus is disturbed, the hypothalamus raises an alarm which enacts behavior to counter the disturbance and return the organism back into a balanced state (homeostasis). (These concepts - "fight or flight", disturbance to the system, and "homeostasis" - were used by Walter Cannon in the 1920s and 1930s.)

The more efficiently and effectively that an organism maintains homeostasis, the more likely that it will survive.

In real life, you can see these everywhere - keeping your car from driving off the highway, keeping your spending within the limits of your bank account, keeping the house warm in winter and cool in summer, not stumbling while climbing the stairs, pouring milk from a glass into the cereal bowl and not on the table, etc. All of these have ranges for success. Anything outside of the range of success is failure. But the borders around success may not be crisp, so the border around success may also be a range. Ranges of success are the basis for remaining balanced (homeostasis). When we diverge into the "uh-oh" range, the brain diverts more resources to manage the situation at the sacrifice of the parasympathetic nervous system (like digestion) - hence, a sinking feeling or sick feeling in the guts occurs when something goes very wrong.

This whole approach is a marriage of physics, psychology, and economics (and more). And there are a few of us (far too few) dabbling in this area.

[David Maes]

I thought about what you both were saying and thanks a lot for the help (also I thank Guille who's still thinking incredibly deeply on these matters and will help also...)

The reason I contact you is because I thought about something.

You know the problems I stated... All laws of mechanics are reversible.
And the second law of thermodynamics which describes a closed system and is a statistical consequence of those laws of mechanics. But when we reverse the second law then entropy seems to increase in the past as well.

But I thought about something, maybe it could be a solution for those problems; I don't know, but I'll send it anyway.

I think the main problem is that Newtonian laws for example are more a description of a system which interact with other systems (this of course gives disturbances in relation to the discription of only one system (chaos)); and all these systems are a part of a larger OPEN system. (I even think the universe might not be really closed as well (and being a part of a multiverse)).

The second law is a discription of a theoretically completely CLOSED system (but I think a 100% closed system does not really exist; also I don't really believe a 100% open system exists.)

So I think the second law of thermodynamics is only one part of the truth.
Indeed, in a closed system the entropy, or better the uniformity will remain equal or will increase.
In an open system the entropy, or better the chaos will remain the same or will decrease.

Also important is that micro- and macroworld are connected to eachother.

Expansion might be more an expansion of timespace.

I think relativity is some kind of dopplereffect.

Photons might be eternal open systems, and time might be built from constant uniformities which are moving according to the laws of relativity.

[subversion]

The Law of Laws, which states that no law may be specifically formulated to tell you precisely what is impossible, implies that the laws of thermodynamics are all absolutely false. The TOE also proves this.

For example, the idea that matter cannot be created is clearly a false idea according to the big bang theory. Secondly, the idea that entropy always increases is only an assumption and has not been tested throughout the whole of time. As somebody pointed out the math works out either way, so it is theoretically possible for the arrow of time to reverse thus reversing the law that entropy always increases. Thirdly, it may be stated that time or the universe itself is like a perpetual motion device. Thus the law of thermodynamics which says perpetual motion doesn't exist is obviously a false law. Time itself is perpetual motion, by direct definition.

In conclusion, all the laws of thermodynamics are false and I know so because I have already discovered the TOE and the TOE will be shown to prove this. I repeat, I have completed the quest. Furthermore, if one simply accepts the Law of Laws, which is the ultimate law I discovered, one knows automatically that the laws of thermodynamics must be false. What other laws can we prove false by simply accepting the Law of Laws?

[David Maes]

Originally Posted by subversion The Law of Laws, which states that no law may be specifically formulated to tell you precisely what is impossible, implies that the laws of thermodynamics are all absolutely false. What other laws can we prove false by simply accepting the Law of Laws?

The Law of Laws (which is also a law), tells me precisely that it's impossible that the Law of Laws is impossible, which is going against the Law of Laws. Because if the Law of Laws is right; then it's impossible that the Law of Laws is wrong. If the Law of Laws cannot be wrong, then it's impossible that the Law of Laws is impossible, which is going against the Law of Laws which specifically formulates that it's precisely impossible that the Law of Laws is impossible.

So, when you accept the Law of Laws, then you also have to accept the possibility that the Law of Laws is not possible.

The Law of Laws also tells me precisely that it's impossible that the laws of thermodynamics are right, which is going against the Law of Laws also.

(But I have to admit, I like your Law of Laws, because it's a bit following my intuition.)

Also, laws are always 'black and white'; reality might be not; so I think it might be that no law at all is absolutely right (that's what I believe; I believe in subjectivity.)
I believe absolute objectivity does not exist; just like absolute subjectivity does not exist. Everything is relative.
I believe absolute truth does not exist, just like absolute lies don't exist.
Truth might be a relative subjective objective thing.

Absolute time might not exist, only relative time.
Absolute subjective time might not exist; absolute objective time might not exist.
So time could be a relative subjective objective thing.

(Of course this is only a part of my intuition; and this could be completely wrong also; so I don't follow it anymore here.)

Relativity doesn't seem to be a law of laws.

[mkirkpatrick]

Time is Life getting aquainted with her charge,and guideing it through its
long journey of evolution.?

kind regards michael.

[David Maes]

It is my belief that everything is possible. The only question is... how do you do it? Because not everything is probable.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by David Maes It is my belief that everything is possible. The only question is... how do you do it? Because not everything is probable.

Everything is a possiblity of existence. Why? Because it is some-thing. Therefore, it can exist, not-exist, or not-not-exist... But it is part of reality: the set of all existences and non-exisences. But it isnot probably at all, has 0 to exist, can still be: that it can't exist in existence because it has no relation to it, it just is not part of it. But it does exist for mental existence. And also it exists in reality. Just like "infinity".

David, thanks for the help on the laws of thermodinamis.

Originally Posted by David Maes But our mathematics also says that the probability of having not a lower but a higher entropy in the past is as big. So physicists don't refuse this.

I see. I think this can be explained by a theory with two universes.

Originally Posted by David Maes But what I do think, is that these are very important questions about 'time'.

True, I agree.

Originally Posted by David Maes Would you have a solution???

Maybe in the future. I hope I manage to find one. What I know is that I want to do that when I'm older.

Originally Posted by David Maes Even the laws of relativity are reversible! All laws of mechanics are reversible.

Hummm...... The actual existence of formulas and equations impply that they must be reversible. Only word laws might not ber eversible, such as entropy. I don't know... All these ideas of systems (closed-open, periodic-unperiodic...) of chaos theory and quantum theory are not that easy....

Originally Posted by David Maes What does it mean?

We are not the onyl ones that ask ourselves this question.

Originally Posted by David Maes I wish Good luck to you.

About luck, yesterday I went to see Woody Allen's (who, by the way, is very famous and positivelly viewed here in Europe, but the opp. in USA) new film "Match Point" which is his best film ever (and I've seen many of his: maybe "manhattan" is nearly as good). It's based about the theme of luck. We all refuse to the idea of a probabilistic universe, because we think ther emust be somethIng more to it... But the answer is simply NO. The universe is uncertainty, is relativistic, is probabilistic, is random and chaotic.

Originally Posted by David Maes What does uncertainty mean??

That we can't know exactly the position and momentum of a particle. Why does it mean how it means what it means? Is a very different and much more complex question.

Originally Posted by David Maes What does the idea of Gödel mean??

There is not a perfect logic. Also, all this uncertainty and actually all 20th century physics derives from Husserl's Phenomenological principles of scientific methods and observations.

[David Maes]

Originally Posted by <<>> We all refuse to the idea of a probabilistic universe, because we think ther emust be somethIng more to it... But the answer is simply NO. The universe is uncertainty, is relativistic, is probabilistic, is random and chaotic.

Thanks for the help.

I don't know if I'm right; but what you're stating here also follows my intuitive thoughts on nature (I mean, that's what I believe also).

Originally Posted by <<>> Everything is a possiblity of existence. Why? Because it is some-thing. Therefore, it can exist, not-exist, or not-not-exist... But it is part of reality: the set of all existences and non-exisences. But it isnot probably at all, has 0 to exist, can still be: that it can't exist in existence because it has no relation to it, it just is not part of it. But it does exist for mental existence. And also it exists in reality. Just like "infinity".

This is great thinking!

I still just question something...

Can there be anything which actually has 0% probability to exist? (I mean if you perceive it, starting from 'the whole picture').

Because I believe a statistical hypothesis is only right, until a new one rejects it.

Probability is a state of mind, not of things?

Mathematics doesn't seem to be an object, which you can grasp, or touch...
Still we know it exists; but not as an object, but as a common idea.

What about time? Time doesn't seem to be an object; maybe it's like mathematics; it might be just a common idea (which is useful for us)?

[subversion]

Nothing is the thing which has %0 probability for existence.

ps. I will respond to your questions about the Law of Laws later today David

pps. I am starting a secret society of people who know and study the theory of everything. WHen you join the society, you get to learn everything we already know about the TOE and you get to help us derive more meaning from it. I would love for all of you to join!

[David Maes]

Originally Posted by David Maes Because I believe a statistical hypothesis is only right, until a new one rejects it.

Oh, and the second law of thermodynamics (of Boltzmann) is just a statistical law; and it's the only law in physics which indicates the direction of time... (and Boltzmann couldn't prove it).

Whoops, I didn't think about that one...

Originally Posted by subversion Nothing is the thing which has %0 probability for existence. ps. I will respond to your questions about the Law of Laws later today David pps. I am starting a secret society of people who know and study the theory of everything. WHen you join the society, you get to learn everything we already know about the TOE and you get to help us derive more meaning from it. I would love for all of you to join!

Thanks for the help. It believe you're right about the second law of thermodynamics being not right.