In Opposition to the Cosmological Theory of Entropy

Suppose for a brief period of time that we can suspend within our own thinking that a single occurrence of the universe over hundreds of thousands of billions of years is an inevitability. As I understand it, the entropic theory of the universe’s eventual “heat death” owes to some particular astronomical observations, and from these various observations deductions have been made which lead to the decisive conclusion of this eventuality.

But suppose this commonly accepted theory alluded to above is, as I’ve already suggested it could be, erroneous. And what could be the case is merely this, as Steven Hawking suggested in his work, A Brief History of Time, that at precisely the most advanced stage of the universe’s expansion, a now uniform gravitation begins to pull all this motionless, inert matter toward its nearest neighbor. Then, after an equally long period of time as required for the universe’s expansion, a contraction would engender an immense black hole from which would spring forth yet another universe via another Big Bang.

Given the law of gravitation, of which we know so little, this seems plausible enough to me; but certainly no more plausible than the notion that all matter in motion will ultimately cease to move.

We can be objective about the reasoning applied to the various data discovered by the astronomers. That is quite true. But this phenomenon, of which we know so little, cannot be directly seen and understood objectively. The simple defense of my basis for this claim is that the phenomena in question, that is to say the evolution of the universe, obviously can never be traced through direct human experience. Only by using complex mathematical calculations can the astronomers and physicists justify their conclusions.

This is precisely what I am trying to get at. Without fully understanding the physics involved, i.e. the mechanics of the universe as understood by the physicists themselves, a lay person such as myself has no other recourse than to accept the commonly-held theory as the best explanation of what is to come.

My objection to this theory is, I confess, rooted in a prejudice colored by my indifference toward the major religions of the present day which I regard as the vestiges of myth. As a secularist, these ideas born out of the various religious faiths appear like a kind of mania to me. The justification for so much human activity as well as folly is the sentiment, Because I believe this is so. And many people all across the world regard Faith as a fulcrum for Reason.

So, I must laugh.