Charles wrote:
On Feb 26, 2:05 pm, Jason Resch <> 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.

If it were in an improbable state in the future, the future would be 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

Schulmann has written a nice little book about this considering both a classical and quantum universe.

/Time's Arrows and Quantum Measurement/. L. S. Schulman. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997


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

Reply via email to