3 ms·
> There is actual evidence that it is possible to remember the past but not the future. (I can't believe I'm actually having to persuade you of that. This is a
by effie 4y ago
> There is actual evidence that it is possible to remember the past but not the future. (I can't believe I'm actually having to persuade you of that. This is a pretty basic fact about reality.)
You certainly don't have to waste time convincing me of that, but it seems you should try to explain why this general asymmetry of concept pairs record-past, record-future is relevant to your original argument. We're at this for days and you did not write any coherent argument where this evidence (which I don't contest) would play obvious role.
When I talk about some statement as an assumption, this does not mean I contest its factual evidence or validity. I am interested in the structure of your argument, and all assumptions need to be illuminated, even if they are based in factual evidence.
> what is "the multiplicity argument"?
It's your original argument: given the system is evolving without external influences, and we know its macrostate and its entropy at some time, then most likely the future macrostates will be such that they do not have lower entropy, but higher or same, and this is so because there is immensely more microstates corresponding to macrostates of higher entropy (macrostates of high multiplicity) than there is microstates corresponding to macrostates with lower entropy (macrostates of low multiplicity).
I don't see how asymmetry of memories or records made plays role in this argument. I can see how they play role in my example with collecting data for 2years. But then my argument stands: the data becomes more irrelevant the farther into the past we retrodict, and for very distant past it can be discarded, and the multiplicity argument wins, and fails to be consistent with 2nd law.
To me, this is due to fact one cannot derive 2nd law in general, as probable behaviour for all processes. There is as many phase space trajectories increasing entropy as there is decreasing it. One has to select those macroprocesses that we consistently observe to have the same result (Jaynes ' states A -> B) and then one can derived 2nd law for those processes, only.
> Whether or not anyone actually bothered to make a record is irrelevant.
It is relevant in that it changes data based on which predictions (or retrodictions) are made. I'm sure in science, different data means possibly different predictions.
Try to formulate your whole argument (which I understand as being based on the multiplicity argument), including how "it is possible to remember the past" makes its application to distant past which nobody remembers invalid, while keeping its application to distant future valid.
- lisper 4y ago> the data becomes more irrelevant the farther into the past we retrodict, and for very distant past it can be discarded No. The universe has kept a record of the very distant past. We can directly observe the past all the way back to the cosmic microwave background, which gets us >99% of the way to the big bang. So yes, I agree with you that it is possible to have a universe where the second law does not apply. It just happens that the universe we live in is not such a universe, not because of any assumptions, but because of what we can directly observe today, and how we can explain those observations in terms of a past that actually existed.
- effie 4y agoSo, we started with your plausible argument why 2nd law holds, then I point out deficiency in it, then we talk past each other, then you say "we can explain those observations in terms of a past that actually existed". In other words, the original argument is not really sufficient, something else is needed. When I push for this to be added and illuminated, you're content with vague remarks on observations of the past. I'm not convinced by your posts at all, there is no convincing argument about illuminating 2nd law (not even in terms of past records) there. Let's agree to disagree.
- lisper 4y agoAs you wish. But I think you simply forgot (or maybe chose to ignore) something I said very early on: "The reason entropy was lower in the past is that the universe started out in a low-entropy state. The reason for that is still a mystery."
- effie 4y ago> "The reason entropy was lower in the past is that the universe started out in a low-entropy state. The reason for that is still a mystery." And my answer to this is the same. Unsubstantiated assumption that universe started out, and that its entropy at this start was low. In addition, it is not at all clear how this assumption helps us to explain that an isolated system could not have higher entropy in the past long before we observed it.