Reversing entropy is probably impossible right?
>>16133146Naw, it's pretty easy on a small scale. The catch is that you can only reduce entropy in a volume by increasing entropy in the rest of the universe by a larger amount.
>>16133146Just wait...
>>16133146just invert the laws of the universe simple as
Entropy is just a tendency. Shit goes against the tendency all the time.If you meant can the tendency be changed? No.
The universe started out in a low entropy state, right? How did that happen to begin with? Going from nothing (which is the ultimate high entropy) into a very dense state (extreme low entropy). There are underlying mechanisms that result in field excitations producing energy/mass where there was none before.
>>16133146I wish they would stop with the images of the big bang as some explosion, implying all that energy somehow rushing out into an empty void. No. The Universe is everything, including space. There was nothing outside it. There was nothing like an explosion with shit getting flung "out" somewhere. It was simply fucking hot and packed full of energy EVERYWHERE all at the same time. The best simplest graphic example is simply a series of 3 boxes labelled "Very fucking hot", then "Not so hot", then "Holy fuck its sort of cooled down a lot".
>>16133978So the distance between objects did NOT in fact increase as it cooled?
>>16133886If big bang, if not entropy comes from even more entropy
>>16133146Locally its easy, globally... I think it is the last boss of the universe.
>>16133146Only if gravity doesn't switch polarity
>>16133886There never was nothing, everything is just eternally recycled and transformed into something else
>>16134124Nothing is something else, its the smallest possible amount of something.
>>16134135>nothing is something
>>16134180Yes, so much so, it has an exact numerical value that is the default value of everything else.
>>16134182Reality is not made of numbers
>>16134188Quantification is one of the best ways to confirm realness and enable rational measurement.
>>16134196>Quantification is one of the best ways to confirm realnessNo, you dolt, quantities are made up values for specific properties for which quantification is possible, being expressable as a number =/= made of number, might as well say the universe is made of toyota priuses because you can express its volume in them, or that a television is composed of the word television, reality is a purely qualitative system, languages and arithmetic systems are invented
>>16134205Nobody ever said it was made of number, that is your strawman, the claim was that it has a measurable value. If you can put something in a toyota, then you know it is something, just like you can know something is something if you can measure its exact numerical value.
>>16134222>just like you can know something is something if you can measure its exact numerical value.And you can't measure the value of nothing, retard.
>>16134232Of course you can, you put nothing on a scale and it measures 0. Measuring nothing is often an important part of the calibration process because 0 is the additive identity and completely necessary to define other things since a thing can only be itself if its difference between it and itself is nothing.
>>16134245>Of course you can, you put nothing on a scale and it measures 01. you're measuring 0 relative to something else, not nothing2. your instrument is not sensitive enough>>16134245>0 is the additive identity and completely necessary to define other things since a thing can only be itself if its difference between it and itself is nothing.Emphasis on the words "necessary to define", the number 0 is a mathematical abstraction made specifically to numerically distinguish between something and nothing so arithmetic would be easier, it's an abstract quantity with no qualitative property behind it, nothing does not exist in reality, you can't measure nothing, as soon as you make a measurement you measure something, the exact opposite of nothing, just because your scale says 0 doesn't mean there isn't anything there, it means relative to its surrounding environment, and what it is supposed to be measuring, it doesn't detect anything, if you tweak your instruments, make them more sensitive, detect other things, you will come to find that no matter where you measure, no matter how deep you go, no matter how precise you get, there will always be something there, waiting for you to interact with it, because nothing doesn't exist, despite what you wish to believe, reality, completely independent of your delusions that all mathematical quantities have qualitative analogues which they are supposed to represent, does not need "nothing" for something to exist, there are no zero values in reality, because to measure zero would mean you never measured anything at all.
I used to be a alcoholic, unemployed coomer and now I'm nearly finished with my master's degree with a full time 6 figure jobIs this reverse entropy?
>>16134271No thats just off topic bragging
>>16133149>expanding universeproblem solved, always new space to dump the shit on
>>161342671. 0 means the difference is nothing.2. You don't even need an instrument, its empirical, you can hold nothing directly by just opening your hand and releasing everything else.>0 is a mathematical abstraction made specifically to numerically distinguish between something and nothingI accept your concession, you do need a specific value to distinguish nothing from other things even though you worded it poorly and should have said between something else and nothing since nothing is the default.> it's an abstract quantity with no qualitative property behind it,Its not just quantitative, we have been discussing other qualities of nothing besides just value, the value only validates the necessity of nothing, because as you said reality isn't made of numbers, its made of things like thing 1, thing 2, the rest of the things, and nothing else.>you make a measurement you measure somethingNo, you don't have to measure something else, just like you don't have to hold something else, you can always just put nothing on the scale or hold nothing in your hand.> your scale says 0 doesn't mean there isn't anything there,No, but the fact that your scale says 0 when there is nothing else there (other than the scale of course) shows that the scale is capable of measuring the value of nothing by sensing only the value of itself.>nothing opposite of something... no zero values in realityNothing is not the exact opposite of something, it is the smallest possible somethingness, and its value is the default smallest possible value of anything and everything because if you are holding nothing, you are holding {0}: 0 apples, 0 oranges, 0 bananas, etc.> there will always be something there Yes because even nothing is something, the smallest possible amount of anything that can be anywhere, if you are touching something directly, it is only because nothing is in between you and the other thing.If there was always something else, it would be impossible to be you.
>>16134287>you can hold nothing directly by just opening your hand and releasing everything else.There's still matter all around you, dumbass
>>16134288Which means it contains me while I hold nothing.
>>16134289No, it means you're an imbecile and should go back to r*ddit instead of shitting up /sci/
>>16134290No, you are the one whose logic has broken down and you have to seethe and cope with the fact that the environment holds us, by definition we don't hold the entire environment whenever we are holding nothing.You literally can't be you without nothing, if there were always something else and no nothing, then you would always be something else other than you too and nothing wouldn't be the thing that separates you from yourself.
>>16134291>nothing wouldn't be the thing that separates you from yourself.It isn't, there are no gaps or boundaries between anything, reality is a continuous flow of energy transfer, destruction, recombination, there is no beginning or end, you're just an asshat who doesn't understand mathematics and what it represents
>>16134294If you aren't you because you are actually something else, then why should you and your posts be taken seriously when the claim is that you are actually saying something else instead of what you are claiming?
>>16134294>there are no gaps or boundaries between anythingSo now you admit nothing is between everything else?
>>16134298Nothing of what? It doesn't exist.
>>16134301So then there are gaps and boundaries rather than nothing between things?
>>16134303Go read a book, retard
>>16134311I have read a lot of them, you just can't seem to make coherent thoughts since you can't even decide if you are you or something else, so you break down into namecalling instead of being able to justify your runaway nonsense.
>>16134277Aww is someone jealous
>>16133146Globally, yes. Locally, no. Look up the fluctuation theorem addendum to the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. Local/transient reductions in entropy can and frequently do happen.
>>16134314You're a retarded nigger who doesn't even know what an abstraction is, have you even finished 3rd grade?
>>16134686Shut the fuck up faggot
>>16133704thanks for the gif anon
>>16134686>t. retard who can only call people names because they can't be logically consistent no matter how abstract or concrete they attempt to make their claims
>>16133978Don't talk so assuredly about things you can't possibly know.
>>16133978>There was nothing outside it.That is exactly what an empty void is which is why they always depict it surrounded by an empty void.>EVERYWHEREEverywhere tends to take up a larger amount of space over time due to expansion.
>>16135531>I can't understand how nothing isn't made out of anythingSorry, don't have that problem
>>16133704Was looking for this
>>16133146Reversing entropy just requires investing energy. Just use all that dark energy in the universe, bro.
>>16135576Of course I understand that nothing isn't made out of other things, nothing is far too pure to be made out of other things, it is the base thing, the thing that connects all dimensions, the thing from which all value explodes, the smallest amount of anything and everything.
>>16135594Wrong, because nothing doesn't exist, all of reality is something, composed of properties, which nothing lacks
>>16135606Nothing is the thing we have been talking about in this thread, it goes by many names and has numerous properties, I just listed several specific ones and even you tried to, even though they are demonstrably false since you immediately contradicted yourself by assigning it the property of nonexistence, then saying it doesn't have properties since again, you can't seem to understand logical consistency.
>>16135607>I don't know what words meanhttps://googlethatforyou.com?q=nonexistent
>>16135623Go. Fly little bird.
>>16135617Nobody needs to know what it means to see that you tried to assign it as the property of something you claim has no properties, so you are obviously wrong.
>>16133146>>>/g/100077492
>>16133149Nope.Consider a closed system at max entropy.Entropy will stay the same (with high probability) or fluctuate down (with low probability) which means the average will be to slightly decrease.
