🚀 go-pugleaf

kunzmilan wrote:
> On 17 �n, 16:31, Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6...@zen.co.uk> wrote:
>> I couldn't resist commenting on the title of this thread.
>>
>> Entropy as the supreme law of nature? It may be the "supreme law" of
>> this universe, but I see no evidence that it is the supreme law of
>> nature (by "nature" I mean the way all things are, including God as below).
>>
>> How did this universe get here? Well, we don't know, but there
>> is undoubtedly a lot of negentropy about. Let's say "God" created the
>> universe, where "God" can be a thinking entity or a blind process as you
>> please.
>>
>> Two possibilities arise: the negentropy was created by God de novo, or
>> it was moved from a store of negentropy God has control of.
>>
>> If the negentropy was created de novo, then there is some process (God)
>> which can create negentropy, and the law of entropy is not the supreme
>> law of nature.
>>
>> If the negentropy was moved from a store of negentropy, where did the
>> store of negentropy come from? Without descending into infinite
>> recursion ("it came from another store, and it's turtles all the way
>> down forever"), which I dislike, perhaps the store "just is", or even
>> "just was".
>>
>> Then we ask, is the store of negentropy infinite in extent? If so the
>> law of entropy is void for nature (as defined above). If not then the
>> law of entropy may be the supreme law of nature - but I don't know of
>> any evidence that that is the case.
>>
>> The answer may be ineffable of course, or even not exist (though they
>> may be the same thing as far as we are concerned).
>>
>> -- Peter Fairbrother
> 
>> Negentropy is not a concept of thermodynamics. 

Okay, replace "negentropy" by "low entropy".

-- Peter Fairbrother