In news:sci.physics, Pentcho Valev <pvalev***yahoo.com> posted on Thu,
25 Sep 2008 07:00:24 -0700 (PDT):

> Hawking:
> In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in
> serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second
> Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the
> argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been
> a beginning."

If the second law of thermodynamics says that disorder always
increases with time, and human beings have only become more beautiful,
not uglier, over the course of time, it suggests that there was a
beginning in which we were in a primordial soup, but a guiding force,
apparently the same harmonizing intelligence described by Einstein,
has worked on human DNA throughout the course of evolution and natural
selection. So there was a beginning. It's just that now, the
universe will exist forever more. Since human thinking and abilities
have only improved over time, it only stands up to reason that we will
continue to improve. If the harmonizing force of nature has kept us
alive for this long, and if the more spiritually-minded people keep
feeling like something big is about to happen, maybe we should give
them a voice to see what they have to say. Maybe some of it will make
sense in these days of global communication, understanding, and
increasing connections between ideas.

> Instead of just parroting Sir Arthur Eddington, Stephen Hawking
> should have read Jos Uffink, officially the greatest expert on
> the foundations of thermodynamics:

And after accusing Hawking of parroting Eddington, you then proceed to
parrot Jos Uffink by posting his work without even trying to phrase it
yourself. You're not only the pot calling the kettle black, you're
the kettle, too!

> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
> Jos Uffink: "The historian of science and mathematician Truesdell made
> a detailed study of the historical development of thermodynamics in
> the period 1822-1854. He characterises the theory, even in its present
> state, as 'a dismal swamp of obscurity' (1980, p. 6) and 'a prime
> example to show that physicists are not exempt from the madness of
> crowds' (ibid. p. 8) ...Clausius' verbal statement of the second law
> makes no sense...All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition; a century
> of philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment; a
> century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from
> the unclean...

I did a little research on thermodynamics and found that that whole
idea started with a poem written by Parmenides of Elea. Here's a
little information from Wiki:

Parmenides of Elea (Greek: , early 5th century BC) was an ancient
Greek philosopher born in Elea, a Greek city on the southern
coast of Italy. He was the founder of the Eleatic school of
philosophy, his only known work is a poem which has survived only
in fragmentary form. In it, Parmenides describes two views of
reality. In the Way of Truth, he explained how reality is one;
change is impossible; and existence is timeless, uniform, and
unchanging. In the Way of Opinion, he explained the world of
appearances, which is false and deceitful. These thoughts
strongly influenced Plato, and through him, the whole of western
philosophy.

Parmenides' timeless, unchanging universe is one Einstein intuited as
a static universe. Evidence forced Einstein to favor what we have
now, and what Parmenides called the world of appearances. We see what
the universe "appears" to be, but not what it really is *now* because
of the limitations of the speed of light. In fact, Parmenides was
right, and so was Einstein. We do live in a universe of appearances.

Now that I've confirmed what science has already known and been
telling everyone...

> Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to follow the
> argument Clausius offers... and seven times has it blanked and
> gravelled me... I cannot explain what I cannot understand....This
> summary leads to the question whether it is fruitful to see
> irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the essence of the second
> law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the unargued
> statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and the
> strained attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe
> that Ehrenfest-Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the
> discussion about the arrow of time as expressed in the second law
> of the thermodynamics is actually a RED HERRING."

He seems to think that the second law of thermodynamics is being used
to draw attention away from some other point of evolution or God.
Since you believe so strongly in his views, what do you think
thermodynamics is being used to hide?

Damaeus