>>11341685> I have a question concerning the logical legitimacy I do not think you ask a question of logical legitimacy, but of empirical legitimacy. Logic does not concern itself with anything but its own form and is wholly abstracted from any "empirical reality".
>time is infiniteWith our current conceptual understanding of what "infinite" means, this is not the case. Consider this: is time were infinite, i.e., it has no starting point nor an end point, we could not have arrived at this point in time. For, according to our current understanding of the concept of "time" (i.e., time as linear as opposed to circular), it would *literally* take an infinite amount of time to get to this point. Therefore, either our understanding of "infinity" and "time" are incorrect, or time is not "infinite".
>but doesn’t entropy disprove thisWhether the Recurrence Theorem is true depends on whether the universe, i.e., "all there is", is a closed system. If so, then it is *certain* for the same *events* to occur an infinite number of times, for the state of thermal equilibrium out of which "our" constant conjunction of events arrived has probability 1. If the system is open, the same state of thermal equilibrium will never occur again (it will "escape" an otherwise closed system, if you will) and has never occured prior to this string of events.
