Some of the claims for the theory dealt with in my last post were fairly astonishing and we should rightfully be skeptical of them. However, I would like to point out that the idea that entropy could be connected to the evolution of universe and the accumulation of information and complexity is not new with that theory. David Layzer, a Harvard cosmologist, in the 1960’s and 1970’s made the argument that there could be an increasing gap between the maximum possible entropy and the actual entropy of the universe. This gap could provide an explanation for the growth of order or information at the same time entropy is increasing.
Broad Speculations 
Is not the Max. Poss. Entropy what we would get if there were no attractive forces in the universe, just expanding space with all of the “pieces” (mass/energy/whatever) getting farther and farther away?
How is this a credible baseline for comparison with the actual universe? It reminds me of the joke told by a comedian whose name I don’t remember (Gallagher?) “Look how much friskier the Alpo dog is than this dead dog over here.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
There is a detailed argument in a Scientific American article.
Click to access Arrow_of_Time.pdf
I think it is maximum possible at a given point in time that eventually ends in heat death sometime billions of years in the future.
LikeLike
I think my understanding about heat death is wrong. It had been a while since I read the article. I would suggest reading the article or the link in the main body which is a condensed version of article.
LikeLike
Sounds like George Carlin
LikeLike
Interesting quote at the end of the linked paper.
“If the theories I have presented here are correct, however, not even the ultimate computer-the universe itselfever contains enough information to completely specify its own future states. The present moment always contains an element of genuine novelty and the future is never wholly predictable. Because biological processes also generate information and because consciousness enables us to experience those processes directly, the intuitive perception of the world as unfolding in time captures one of the most deep-seated properties of the universe”.
LikeLike
I like that quote James. Sounds an awful lot like consciousness itself might be at the core of the universe, a force of power that is responsible for generating novel systems that constantly adapt and evolve, with each incremental adaptation having a greater capacity to express that power in unique and novel ways. That’s good, really good……
Peace
LikeLiked by 1 person
Or consciousness is a refinement of a larger process that evolves from it and mirrors it. That is closer to what I believe.
LikeLike
Consciousness is one of those words in our current culture that is not well defined. I like to draw the correlations of consciousness to a material, physical universe and limit its use to the phenomena of that material realm. If one can intellectually segregate consciousness from meaning mind, ideation or psyche, one is able to get more mileage out of the term and it will loose its supernatural affiliation and/or its ambiguity.
Materialism and idealism as a whole are still held hostage by the loose usage of the term consciousness, so drilling down to a meaning that is useful and will accommodate both ideologies would be helpful.
Peace
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not quite sure if it’s the same thing, but the mathematics of Shannon information are very similar (if not identical) to the mathematics of entropy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s my understanding also.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have never been accused of having a scientific mind. I do not necessarily use science to understand or explain my world. I do see, however, the lag in what IS and where we are actually coming from as human beings and the disconnect between where we are today and where we could be if we acknowledged our true self. The true SELF-being the human design accepting responsibility for the chaos in the physical world today and bringing the collective consciousness into alignment with the creative intelligence. I believe Peace on earth is not only possible but part of the creative design for all of humanity. As in the design of anything, natural or mechanical, all the parts must work together to achieve a goal.
I have a more spiritual view of what could be if humans were willing to accept the more right brain idea that we are all spiritual beings whether we accept it, believe in it, or ignore it.
If the human design were to take into account a more inclusive idea of humanity as being more altruistic instead of “every man for himself” and instead “we are all in this together”, the world would change immediately.
My right brain is more active (intuitive, spacial, creative) than my left (logical, physical) brain so my view is naturally more feminine.
I realize I am way out of my league even responding to this post, but sometimes you have to just speak your own mind without concern for how your message will be received.
LikeLiked by 1 person