Hypothetically I have a machine that when turned on, will create

>>8741873
thermodynamics had to change multiple times. So yes, all of the yes.

>>8741873
> that results in tremendous amount of disorder (=entropy).

Wrong.

>The entropy in the universe can only rise or remain zero. Could I destroy this machine and its blueprints?

Of course, why would you not be able to? You don't have information propagating backwards in time.

>Could I turn this machine on?

Sure could.

>>8741873
The whole point of the second law is that there can't be a machine generally decreases the entropy of the entire system. You can create a machine that creates local order, but at the price of increasing the overall entropy of the system (just like a freezer that can decrease the entropy of water by turning into ice, but at the cost of warming up it's surroundings).

File: ib6nhua10xjy.jpg (12KB, 236x246px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 236x246px

That depends OP. Is the machine you're talking about, your post itself???

>>8742285
Rising entropy, or rising disorder are exactly the same thing if you don't take time into account. Back to physics class boy.

Please try to understand the question before answered. If hypothetically such machine would exist, I don't think it would be physically possible to press the button. Humans can't make any actions that decrease the entropy of universe.

Similar logic is what if there were machine that took a glass of water and turned it into a glass of gold (increasing energy content of the universe) while needing zero energy input. Would human be able to press the button to operate this machine?

>>8742311
Your argument is invalid. I have the machine right here in my hypothetical room.

>>8744141
By supposing the existence of a universal-entropy-decrease machine, you are supposing thermodynamics are wrong. Can you brainlets even into axioms?

>>8744164
In your opinion, is this thought experiment wrong

>Imagine if gravity didn't exist.
>What would be the first thing that kills me and how fast?
>Could humans survive if they knew that gravity would be turned 'off' in 365 days from now?

Thought experiments generally work with taking something that is accepted and turning it into unfamiliar in very strange context. Of course with current laws there is no way we COULD construct such a machine. But in our thought experience such a machine already exists.

I think we would feel enormous force if we were trying to press the button. The force would come from the 'future' or the general existence of such 'entropy never decreases' law, wherever that is.

>>8744170
But you are trying to reason within thermodynamics, when you have already postulated that thermodynamics are wrong. So you might as well say whatever.

>>8744141
Where I come from, an increase of disorder does not imply an increase of entropy and this has nothing to do with time. Entropy is a measure for the amount of microstates which the system could be in to realise its macrostate (which in turn is identical to a specific energy level and related to its order, if you will). Some processes are driven entropically and increase order. That is probably the second thing you will be told when learning about entropy because everyone tries to shove this into this intuitive image that ordering is always more difficult than to keep the current state of order. Which, again, is strictly speaking incorrect, it just happens that many processes and easy examples used to explain entropy follow that notion.

>>8744174
Wrong. I say that I have this machine. And I say taht thermodynamics is 100% correct. Don't ask me how I got that machine, that's brainlet question. You should teach your brain to accept premises in thought experiments.

>>8744186
>suppose the following
>1: a is true
>2: a is false
>is a true or false
Your mother should have murdered you in the womb after Jamal bailed

>>8744201
>exaggerating bias

>>8744205
No part of it is exaggerating. Thermodynamics suppose in no uncertain terms that entropy of a closed system cannot be decreased. This is a fundamental assumption. So drown yourself in semen, faggot

>>8744218
>you are A
>I'm not A
Great debate.

>>8744222
You aren't debating. I tried.