Well, I can't say I completely understand your premises, but it seems to me that your idea of entropy is a bit, um, confused. Entropy is the tendency of order to decrease in closed systems. It is the principle which predicts decay. So when you take action and apply order, you are actually fighting entropy, although physics strongly suggests that this is a losing battle. I don't really see that entropy needs any "help"...systems devolve due to universal inefficiencies. In any event, when you take action such as planting a flower, you are reducing entropy because diverse elements (water, CO2, soil minerals, and photons) are brought together in a more complex configuration. That said, I would like to congratulate you on the thinking you have done, and inventing your own philosophical system...I'm sure it will evolve as you consider these issues. I think that you have apprehended something significant about the Universe, but that language and largeness of the concept is twisting you around a bit. Keep thinking....
These are the questions most atheists are in denial over. They wont touch it because it will cause them to give even a slight chance for a creator or some intelligent force to exist and this will fly right into the face of all they believe in. Ok guys my leaves came back down and they didnt turn into a turtle, so much for random chance.
First, To Pingpong123 And Aletheides: this Is not An Atheist Vs. Theist Debate. You Clearly Do Not Understand That. The Point Of This Thread Is Isfinism. If You Want To Argue About Your Religion, go Elsewhere!
Sorry about that. Anyway, to get back on topic: Well, I was under the impression that doing anything increases entropy, so long as it is at less than 100% efficiency. And in terms of useage of energy alone, doesn't the 15 Petawatts humanity uses increase energy by 15 petajoules (?right measure?) per second? Well, it doesn't need 'help' as such, but it can be accelerated by humanity, right? Well thanks. Maybe a better understanding of entropy will help me here.
Just because we don't yet know how matter came into existence, it doesn't automatically mean god created matter. It is just that we don't know yet!
I thought about it, and looked into entropy some more. Entropy can be stated as turning useable energy into less useful forms, such as kinetic to heat, position to heat etc.. So, for example, fusion in the sun increases entropy, because the potential energy in the atom has become kinetic energy, which becomes heat. So humanities job is to increase entropy, and the rate it is released at, by instigating the release of energy- burning or fusing the hydrogen on gas giants, causing supernovas, etc. Our job is also to harness this energy, so that we can cause the release of more energy.
I read your PDF file and I have some comments. I too have also pondered if consolidation of humanity would be good. I have also considered the fact that absolute power corrupts absolutely. What would one world government bring for the world, mostly good or mostly bad? I've also thought about cultures vanishing over time, and most of the people around the world being, well the same. Would certainly make travel pretty bland War is the ultimate waste, it's something that is really keeping humanity from where it ought to be going. But reading that almost reminded me of Scientology. Basic principles that people naturally do, mentioned in overly complex ways. For example: Dynamic one is the urge of towards survival as an individual. Dynamic two is the urge towards survival through procreation; it includes both the sex act and the raising and care of children. Dynamic three is the urge towards survival for the group..... etc etc well the best answer atheists have is Big Bang theory, a theory originally created by Georges Lemaitre who was a Roman Catholic priest. The theory itself is injected with a lot of religious ideas, such as the beginning of time. It's impossible to know the facts - simply because before existence nothing existed. What kind of evidence can you come up with in a time when nothing existed?
Time is relative. Where exactly are you deriving that entropy is a goal decreed by nature? Anyway entropy is a by product of existence. Energy and matter are interchangeable and neither are ever created or destroyed they merely change form. What you consider to be a more valuable type of energy, as in a higher wavelength, is pretty subjective. Who is to say heat is inferior to light? And why? Science comes no where near even asking about God. Sciences deals with what is observable within the universe, God is a bit beyond the scope of such investigations and a bit irrelevant. Whether existence is bound for an entropic end, seems to me to depend on the idea of a universe with no bounds, otherwise the simplest forms created by entropy (some weak force? some basic particle? no one knows yet for sure) would be pulled back together and form a singularity which would create a big bang.... and poof you have an evergrowing in complexity universe all over again.
I thought about it some more, and Isfinism went the way of all my other ethoses. There is, as many people have said, no reason why accelerating entropy is a worthwhile goal. That brings us back to nihilism. While it is possible that it is true, I'm not willing to give into it yet, as society has programmed me to find it distasteful, and with nihilism, you might as well jump off a building, because live or die, happy or not, it doesn't matter. Basically, the question is "What, if anything, has value unto itself?" which can also be stated as: "What is good, and why?" The related question being "Why should one do what is good?" I think I have an answer to that one, though. My definition of 'good' is 'increasing value'. Value is, by defintion, a valuable thing, worth increasing. Edit: All of these assume the absence of a god.