On Feb 26, 2:05 pm, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Isn't the AOT explained in terms of probability? E.g. There are far  
> more combinations for a system to be disordered rather than ordered,  
> as such the universe overall will tend to fall into these more likely  
> configurations.  You are right things on earth are very different but  
> we benefit from the sun's creation of far more combinations in the  
> distribution of photons and neutrinos vs the number of ways hydrogen  
> atoms might be arranged in the core.  So our perspective is fairly  
> atypical.

That isn't an explanation for the AOT, it's a consequence of it. An
explanation for the AOT would require showing *why* the universe is in
an improbable state in the past. Once you've explained that, the fact
that it then evolves into more probable states is to be expected. As
you say, a universe could have a future constraint on its entropy, and
everything would evolve towards less likely states - but if conscious
beings existed in that universe, they would view whichever time
direction had the low entropy constraint as the past...A universe,
like the one envisaged by Thomas Gold, with such a constraint at both
"temporal extremities", would be a very weird place to live (unless it
existed for a long enough time to come to thermal equilibrium in the


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to