Entropy can be reset to initial or previous state

[-1-]

If matter has existed from infinite past, then entropy is such that it can be reset to a previous state.

If this was not true, the world would be approaching much closer to a fully entropic state than what we experience right now. Or else perhaps we'd be in a fully entropic state.

[Karpel Tunnel]

If matter has existed from infinite past, then entropy is such that it can be reset to a previous state.

If this was not true, the world would be approaching much closer to a fully entropic state than what we experience right now. Or else perhaps we'd be in a fully entropic state.

If it has lasted forever, then it already would have run down, yes. It would have finished already, no matter how long it takes to do that.

[obsrvr524]

If matter has existed from infinite past, then entropy is such that it can be reset to a previous state.

If this was not true, the world would be approaching much closer to a fully entropic state than what we experience right now. Or else perhaps we'd be in a fully entropic state.

This subject is on the list of seemingly new ideas that Jame S Saint introduced to the world. The idea that the universe has always existed or has an infinite past isn't new, but James explained why it must be true and also why the universe can never repeat. He explains that space is larger than time.

As the mathematics turns out, even given an infinite eternity of time, the 3D universe could never, ever exactly duplicate itself. Every single instant of time, throughout eternal time, is and will always be unique. The universe has no opportunity to repeat or cycle.

I'm still struggling through the maths, but the logic seems easy enough. Check the logic:

If you have 100 envelops to address but only 50 addresses, you know that you will have to repeat an address.

If you have 100 envelops and more than 100 addresses, you might accidentally repeat an address, but might not.

If you have 100 envelops and an infinite list of addresses, you cannot accidentally repeat an address because the probability becomes zero.

If the universe has more possible states to exist in than the timeline has moments in which to exist, the universe might be able to accidentally repeat itself.

The infinite timeline has an infinity of points in time, but the universe has more than a simple infinity of states in which it can exist. That means that it doesn't have to repeat itself even given an infinite amount of time.

Space apparently has infinitely more states in which to exist than the infinite timeline. Therefore, without intentionally arranging to do so, the universe has zero probability of ever repeating any one state even given an infinite past.


He also went through the maths about why the universe has more than a simple infinity of possible states but if I followed it right, the above is the end result.

Additionally he also explained that the universe is not actually falling into heat death or maximum entropy.

[Karpel Tunnel]

If you have 100 envelops and an infinite list of addresses, you cannot accidentally repeat an address because the probability becomes zero.

I don't think it becomes zero, not if it's me filling out the envelopes, but I think most people might repeat at a million envelopes. Why not? What stops them? It might be the analogy is a poor one, since we are goal driven creatures with so much memory space, and addresses have only so many letters and spaces.

If the universe has more possible states to exist in than the timeline has moments in which to exist, the universe might be able to accidentally repeat itself.

We would have to know this. I think this would have to mean that in some way the universe is infinite. If it has a finite set of particles, say, then over infinite time it could repeat itself. In fact, it would.

[obsrvr524]

If the universe has more possible states to exist in than the timeline has moments in which to exist, the universe might be able to accidentally repeat itself.

We would have to know this. I think this would have to mean that in some way the universe is infinite. If it has a finite set of particles, say, then over infinite time it could repeat itself. In fact, it would.

I think those particles would also have to have only a finite set of locations and a finite set of exact sizes. How many divisions can be applied to a finite line?

The universe doesn't have to be infinite in size for the same logic to apply.

[Karpel Tunnel]

If the universe has more possible states to exist in than the timeline has moments in which to exist, the universe might be able to accidentally repeat itself.

We would have to know this. I think this would have to mean that in some way the universe is infinite. If it has a finite set of particles, say, then over infinite time it could repeat itself. In fact, it would.

I think those particles would also have to have only a finite set of locations and a finite set of exact sizes. How many divisions can be applied to a finite line?

The universe doesn't have to be infinite in size for the same logic to apply.

True, but there would have to be an infinite number of positions or whatever. If space is quantized, I think this would again entail infinite size.

Of course it would be an unbelievably high number of positions, even in the world of unbelievably high numbers, but infinity would crunch those numbers.

[obsrvr524]

If space is quantized, I think this would again entail infinite size.

So for the logic to not work, we have to believe that the universe has a finite size, any straight line must have only a finite number of segments or locations, and also all particles must be of quantized sizes.

Do we have any actual evidence of any of those premises? All of them must be true to defeat the logic.

[Karpel Tunnel]

If space is quantized, I think this would again entail infinite size.

So for the logic to not work, we have to believe that the universe has a finite size, any straight line must have only a finite number of segments or locations, and also all particles must be of quantized sizes.

Do we have any actual evidence of any of those premises? All of them must be true to defeat the logic.

Actually you first criterion related to finite size is what I was arguing needs to be the case. So that is off the table in relation to my posts. I don't think we have evidence that the universe is finite. Recently cosmology I have read seems quite heartily open to the possibility it is infinite. I am not saying consensus is that that it is infinite, not at all. Just that it is not ruled out.

The second two qualities I think are the same. It seemed that way for a while, but it was more like a model than something with empirical evidence. The jury is out on whether it is quantized or continuous. I don't assume either.

[obsrvr524]

I'm no expert, but I don't think that there is anything that says that any of it is actually quantized. Without some kind of evidence, I see no reason to terminate an infinite progression or division. And that means that even with an infinite timeline, there would never be a "reset to an initial or previous state".

James' maths go even further into what he calls "absolute zero" chance of repetition - "infinitely less than zero chance" (whatever that means).

But slightly related to this is that apparently there is 100% chance ("absolute certainty") that there is an identical you somewhere out there in the infinite expanse.

So apparently there is never a chance that the entire universe repeats, but a certainty that you always will.

Didn't someone say that Hell is endless repetition?

[Silhouette]

This all assumes entropy is not infinite as well as time.

[Karpel Tunnel]

This all assumes entropy is not infinite as well as time.

There would either have to a source of new energy or differentials, say in temperature. There is a basement where no work can be done and nothing will do anything.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I'm no expert, but I don't think that there is anything that says that any of it is actually quantized.

They don't know, which is why I said 'if.'

But slightly related to this is that apparently there is 100% chance ("absolute certainty") that there is an identical you somewhere out there in the infinite expanse.

Now you're saying it is infinite. If it is infinite then it doesn't matter if it is quantized or not. And, yeah some people think there must be other exact and then also similar yous out there, if the universe is infinite, not even getting into a multiverse.

[obsrvr524]

Well until someone comes up with a believable answer to that question, "What's on the other side of that boundary to everything", I'm going to have to go with an infinite universe. "Nothing" is not an answer.

Same issue with, "What was there before time began?"

[barbarianhorde]

If matter has existed from infinite past, then entropy is such that it can be reset to a previous state.

If this was not true, the world would be approaching much closer to a fully entropic state than what we experience right now. Or else perhaps we'd be in a fully entropic state.

"We"?
How would "we" exist in a fully entropic state?
Maybe you understand your error. In that case, I advise you to discipline yourself and try to write properly.

Well until someone comes up with a believable answer to that question, "What's on the other side of that boundary to everything", I'm going to have to go with an infinite universe. "Nothing" is not an answer.

Same issue with, "What was there before time began?"

Yeah, the concept "before" is an attribute of the concept "time". "Before time" is yet another phrase indicating that language doesn't automatically translate into logic.

[Silhouette]

This all assumes entropy is not infinite as well as time.

There would either have to a source of new energy or differentials, say in temperature. There is a basement where no work can be done and nothing will do anything.

Why?

My comment makes sense, as the direction of time is thought of as increasing entropy: Time increases = Entropy increases.

So why does the OP assume time is infinite, but not entropy?
The OP is only a problem because it takes time as infinite and not entropy - "therefore over infinite time we ought to have reached maximum entropy infinitely long ago"... unless they were both finite, or both infinite - as the 2nd law of thermodynamics suggests, they track one another, and one may as well simply be the other. So they should both be assumed to be either infinite or finite, ridding the OP of its issue.

It's interesting to think that there is a point at which "no work can be done and nothing will do anything" - suggesting maximum entropy and therefore maximum time: a final limit on both that is "the end of the universe". So in that case, if they are infinite, that infinity stretches out behind that "end" unlimitedly (i.e. there is no beginning of the universe).
For both to be infinite, either there is a beginning and no end (no maximum entropy), there is an end but no beginning (no minimum entropy) - or neither beginning nor end, in which case entropy/time is increasing similarly to a "Shepherd Tone" - seemingly never ending or suggesting any beginning. Either that or it's all finite with a beginning and end. Or multiverse etc. But whatever the case, the OP problem is invalid.

Well until someone comes up with a believable answer to that question, "What's on the other side of that boundary to everything", I'm going to have to go with an infinite universe. "Nothing" is not an answer.

Same issue with, "What was there before time began?"

I think the issue you're encountering here is in the intuitive "everyday" conception of space and time, rather than thinking in terms of relativity where spacetime can curve. If you think about the curvature of spacetime reaching a maximum, that resembles a boundary without being one. And what curves spacetime to a maximum? Gravity, which is at a maximum when mass is at a maximum - say at a singularity where all the mass of the universe is compacted into a point like theorised by the big bang? This is also consistent with time dilation and length contraction being at a maximum closest to the speed of light, which is the kind of speed everything is travelling at with the electromagnetic force maximally overpowering the gravitational force in the closest of quarters, such as in a singularity. Shortest distances with length contraction? Check. Longest durations with time dilation? Also check. So time eases in from a maximum point, maximally slowly - simulating a start to time, without being a beginning. Not really infinite because otherwise it would never start, and not really finite because there is no "line" that presents your problem of "what's on the other side"?

So basically I think your question has already been answered by relativity.

[obsrvr524]

I don't think the scale for entropy goes to infinity.

Well until someone comes up with a believable answer to that question, "What's on the other side of that boundary to everything", I'm going to have to go with an infinite universe. "Nothing" is not an answer.

Same issue with, "What was there before time began?"

I think the issue you're encountering here is in the intuitive "everyday" conception of space and time, rather than thinking in terms of relativity where spacetime can curve. If you think about the curvature of spacetime reaching a maximum, that resembles a boundary without being one. And what curves spacetime to a maximum? Gravity, which is at a maximum when mass is at a maximum - say at a singularity where all the mass of the universe is compacted into a point like theorised by the big bang? This is also consistent with time dilation and length contraction being at a maximum closest to the speed of light, which is the kind of speed everything is travelling at with the electromagnetic force maximally overpowering the gravitational force in the closest of quarters, such as in a singularity. Shortest distances with length contraction? Check. Longest durations with time dilation? Also check. So time eases in from a maximum point, maximally slowly - simulating a start to time, without being a beginning. Not really infinite because otherwise it would never start, and not really finite because there is no "line" that presents your problem of "what's on the other side"?

So basically I think your question has already been answered by relativity.

I drank that koolaid long ago too. And it wasn't easy bursting my little bubble of belief in it.

I started observing James before he came here and watched him debate relativity with Carleas for a very long time. He had made a convincing argument long before that which destroyed my faith in the big bang theory. I think that was on a Catholic site as well as others. So when it came to his objections to relativity, I was willing to listen carefully.

What James eventually revealed to those who followed along was that relativity is just a shortcut maths method for making the necessary calculations involved in things that move extremely fast or are in an extreme gravity situation. If you pretend in your mind that space bends and time distorts, you can calculate what is going to actually happen easier than trying to work through all of the more complicated details of what is actually going on (which he also eventually explained at this site). But the space bending method doesn't always work because it is really only a metaphorical representation of the reality and thus has limits.

When it comes to the entire universe, relativity doesn't seem to actually mean anything. The universe represents an extreme dispersion of mass and gravity, not at all dense. And then "moving relative to what?" The whole relativity bubble pops into nothing but a pocket calculator for nuclear physicists working with extremely tiny things that move extremely fast relative to other things. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with actual physical reality.

I think of people having what I cal "bubbles of belief". With that thought I can better understand and predict people's behavior. It is easier than neuroscience. But that doesn't mean that people literally have little bubbles in their brains. It is just a metaphor or analogy for predicting some kinds of behavior.

So I am still quite confident that

Creation is on ongoing, eternal process that never began and can never end.

[MagsJ]

ISo I am still quite confident that

Creation is on ongoing, eternal process that never began and can never end.

That's the only part I can't get my head around.. the always.

How would that even be testable? My belief system does not allow me to simply accept that as fact, but as theory. The easy option would be to accept it as fact, so that we don't have to think about the 'how' anymore, so that our minds stop searching for the 'how' and finds peace with itself, in such a fundamental question as existence itself.

[Silhouette]

I don't think the scale for entropy goes to infinity.

Then you don't think the scale for time goes to infinity either.

So the opening assumption of "infinite past" does not hold. Problem solved.

But the space bending method doesn't always work because it is really only a metaphorical representation of the reality and thus has limits.

All modelling of reality is a metaphor because functionally, "signifiers" are never "signifieds"... I'm perfectly willing to accept better metaphors if you have any. I debated James myself at length on various topics and didn't find any from him, so if you have one of his that I missed or didn't engage with - it doesn't matter who made it - I eagerly await you sharing.

When it comes to the entire universe, relativity doesn't seem to actually mean anything. The universe represents an extreme dispersion of mass and gravity, not at all dense. And then "moving relative to what?" The whole relativity bubble pops into nothing but a pocket calculator for nuclear physicists working with extremely tiny things that move extremely fast relative to other things. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with actual physical reality.

The logic is backwards here: "Moving relative to what?" is the exact foundation of relativity, it does the opposite of popping its bubble...

I think of people having what I cal "bubbles of belief". With that thought I can better understand and predict people's behavior. It is easier than neuroscience. But that doesn't mean that people literally have little bubbles in their brains. It is just a metaphor or analogy for predicting some kinds of behavior.

I think intelligence is indicated by the number of bubbles that one is able to accurately entertain in good faith, and wisdom the ability to traverse them, bring them together and rearrange them depending on the situation. Genius would be the ability to create new bubbles that haven't been created yet - commonly confused with ignorance of bubbles that already exist. Perhaps this conception as a whole would be defined by yourself as a bubble of its own, but that would be tautologous. But this is off topic.

Creation is on ongoing, eternal process that never began and can never end.

I have nothing against that, depending on how "creation" is defined.
Either way, this would appear to be consistent with the metaphor of the Shepard Tone that I mentioned in my last post: that there is no minimum or maximum time/entropy.
I'm not primarily arguing in favour of, or against a min/max for time/entropy, I'm just saying that by definition, the distinction between time as infinite and entropy as finite is invalid. Thus the opening dilemma is resolved due to its inconsistent assumptions.
If I were to take a position, as I hinted in my last post, it could be summed up by a graph of a hyperbola: letting one asymptote serve as the y-axis that denotes spacetime curvature, and the other asymptote perpendicular to it and serving as the x-axis that denotes entropy - in a similar but not necessarily identical form to f(x) = 1/x. That is to say that entropy is inversely proportional to spacetime curvature. The hyperbola itself is infinite in length, tending towards each axis but never reaching either, and as such never reaches the bounds of "finite beginning and end" - making the conception of things like entropy either being finite or infinite invalid.

But if you wish to take the topic further, it might be more useful to more regularly restate/quote the content of these arguments of JSS and explaining them, than more regularly referencing the fact that they exist. You're doing some of both, but the balance is the opposite to what it could be. Just a suggestion.

[Gloominary]

I can imagine absolute anentropy, and simplicity: a cosmos where all that exists is a single, solitary, immobile, indivisible particle.

However, I can't imagine absolute entropy and complexity.

As entropic and complex as a cosmos is, it could always be infinitely more entropic and complex.

Wait...perhaps nothingness is more anentropic and simple than a single, solitary something?

But could a single, solitary something or nothingness give rise to entropy and complexity, if it wasn't already entropic and complex in some way to begin with?

Maybe it began absolutely anentropic and simple, but with the potential to become entropic and complex?

[Karpel Tunnel]

It's interesting to think that there is a point at which "no work can be done and nothing will do anything" - suggesting maximum entropy and therefore maximum time: a final limit on both that is "the end of the universe". So in that case, if they are infinite, that infinity stretches out behind that "end" unlimitedly (i.e. there is no beginning of the universe).

If energy is being added to the system, ok, it could go on infinitely. The this adding energy to the system is negentropic. Since entropy is happening everywhere, an infinitely large universe doesn't allow for infinite time, unless there was infinite energy at every point, which there isn't, or it would hurt a lot. That's why I am saying there is either an end point or reinvigoration. Or ongoing invigoration.

[Silhouette]

But could a single, solitary something or nothingness give rise to entropy and complexity, if it wasn't already entropic and complex in some way to begin with?

Maybe it began absolutely anentropic and simple, but with the potential to become entropic and complex?

As suggested by my hyperbola model in my previous post, the maximal spacetime curvature of the singularity approaches "absolute anentropy and simplicity" without ever having been it - so this poses no problem with consequently giving rise to relatively more entropy and complexity.

If energy is being added to the system, ok, it could go on infinitely. The this adding energy to the system is negentropic. Since entropy is happening everywhere, an infinitely large universe doesn't allow for infinite time, unless there was infinite energy at every point, which there isn't, or it would hurt a lot. That's why I am saying there is either an end point or reinvigoration. Or ongoing invigoration.

Energy is a constant.

A system going on infinitely just has energy being spread out infinitely across spacetime as entropy increases. No need to worry about infinite energy - though as the hyperbola I referred to tends towards zero entropy as represented by the y-axis of spacetime curvature, the total constant amount of energy condensed to a singularity would indeed "hurt a lot" - yes. Would not recommend loitering at such a point in spacetime.

[obsrvr524]

I think you misunderstood what I meant. And now made me go have to look it up.

I meant that the measuring scale itself doesn't go to infinity.

Generally, information entropy is the average amount of information conveyed by an event, when considering all possible outcomes.

In the information theory world, entropy is an average of possible outcomes. An average cannot be infinite unless all possible events convey infinite information. I'm not sure what that means, but it seems to imply an irrational situation.

In thermodynamics:

DS = q/T (1)

where S represents entropy, DS represents the change in entropy, q represents heat transfer, and T is the temperature. Using this equation it is possible to measure entropy changes using a calorimeter. The units of entropy are J/K.

In the thermodynamics world, to get infinite entropy would require that at absolute zero temperature, heat energy is still being transferred. That is an irrational situation considering that zero temperature also means zero heat.


The idea of heat death comes from the idea that there is only a finite amount of energy expanding into an infinite space. I don't accept the finite energy premise and I'm certain that science has no such evidence. But all of this seems like nonsense anyway.

While stars are dying out, black holes are growing. Apparently (again by a James theory) the black holes eventually collide and create new stars. The process never ends. And there is no expanding other than from the exploding black holes littered throughout the infinite expanse.

That is the only theory I have heard that answers all of the questions so until I hear a simpler or more evident one, that is the one I'm settled with. I see no reason to doubt it and nothing more evident to challenge it. So I'll leave it at that.

[Silhouette]

In the thermodynamics world, to get infinite entropy would require that at absolute zero temperature, heat energy is still being transferred. That is an irrational situation considering that zero temperature also means zero heat.

I think there's a general misunderstanding or at least misuse of the term "infinity" going on here.

"To get infinite entropy" makes it sound like infinite entropy is a boundary that can be gotten to - you see the contradiction in reaching a finite bound of infinity (no bounds).
You tend towards infinity, you don't get there.

You can't define dealing with infinities, because definition (as you can see it derives from the exact same root of "finitude") contradicts infinities.

Also, have you wondered why heat energy and temperature have different units? As in your quote, heat energy has the units of joules and temperature has the units of kelvin. Yet as you rightly point out, lower temperatures coincide with lower heat energy. But does that mean they are the same thing?

Heat flows from hotter temperatures to lower temperatures. An analogy with grammar, which I think works out, is to consider the temperatures as the "nouns" and energy as the "verbs". Energy is flowing, temperature is the state of things that energy flows from and to. To equate or conflate them might be akin to saying "being" is "becoming", to use an important philosophical distinction as analogy.
The equation ΔS = ∫₀ δQ/T means that change in entropy is less when the temperature states involved are all high (and more when they are low), and change in entropy is higher when there's a lot of heat energy flowing between these states (and lower when there's not much heat energy flowing). Note too that it's change in entropy, not absolute entropy. This is just what happens when you observe things, it's not irrational.

Yes, stars are dying out and black holes are growing and eventually colliding, but this does not mean that these huge amounts of energy in increasingly isolated parts of the universe amount to entropy decreasing overall, or energy being reintroduced into the system as a whole (or eliminated from it).

You sound like you're set on siding with things James has said more than you're open to "simpler or more evident" answers to your questions, which isn't the ideal mindset for learning more about the concepts that you're dismissing as irrational before you settle on theories about them. So if you want to leave it at that, I can't stop you.

[obsrvr524]

In the thermodynamics world, to get infinite entropy would require that at absolute zero temperature, heat energy is still being transferred. That is an irrational situation considering that zero temperature also means zero heat.

I think there's a general misunderstanding or at least misuse of the term "infinity" going on here.

"To get infinite entropy" makes it sound like infinite entropy is a boundary that can be gotten to - you see the contradiction in reaching a finite bound of infinity (no bounds).
You tend towards infinity, you don't get there.

You can't define dealing with infinities, because definition (as you can see it derives from the exact same root of "finitude") contradicts infinities.

Also, have you wondered why heat energy and temperature have different units? As in your quote, heat energy has the units of joules and temperature has the units of kelvin. Yet as you rightly point out, lower temperatures coincide with lower heat energy. But does that mean they are the same thing?

Heat flows from hotter temperatures to lower temperatures. An analogy with grammar, which I think works out, is to consider the temperatures as the "nouns" and energy as the "verbs". Energy is flowing, temperature is the state of things that energy flows from and to. To equate or conflate them might be akin to saying "being" is "becoming", to use an important philosophical distinction as analogy.
The equation ΔS = ∫₀ δQ/T means that change in entropy is less when the temperature states involved are all high (and more when they are low), and change in entropy is higher when there's a lot of heat energy flowing between these states (and lower when there's not much heat energy flowing). Note too that it's change in entropy, not absolute entropy. This is just what happens when you observe things, it's not irrational.

I have to disagree with your interpretations of the maths. I didn't even look to see if James said anything about the universe's entropy. And if he did, I'll eventually run across it. The equations don't allow for a value of infinity is what I was saying. I didn't mean to start an argument over it.

I don't think this issue is relevant to the thread because the size of the space is infinite and doesn't change. The amount of energy in space is infinite and doesn't change. The timeline is infinite and doesn't change. The total complexity doesn't change. And the resultant entropy value for the entire universe doesn't change. Changes in entropy, like changes in energy, can only happen locally. The average throughout the universe never changes because for every rise there is an equal fall.

So back on the subject of the thread, due to space being infinitely larger than time, the universe can never repeat. And even more, since the entropy value is constant anyway, whether it repeats is irrelevant.

I don't believe that the universe's total entropy is ever changing.

[Silhouette]

The equations don't allow for a value of infinity is what I was saying. I didn't mean to start an argument over it.

Sure, no equations allow for a value of infinity by definition. They can only allow for tending towards infinity. It's not anything to start an argument over in the first place, it's just a fact. So no need to worry about that. And it's not merely an interpretation of the maths that I'm explaining.

I don't think this issue is relevant to the thread because the size of the space is infinite and doesn't change. The amount of energy in space is infinite and doesn't change. The timeline is infinite and doesn't change. The total complexity doesn't change. And the resultant entropy value for the entire universe doesn't change. Changes in entropy, like changes in energy, can only happen locally. The average throughout the universe never changes because for every rise there is an equal fall.

So back on the subject of the thread, due to space being infinitely larger than time, the universe can never repeat. And even more, since the entropy value is constant anyway, whether it repeats is irrelevant.

I don't believe that the universe's total entropy is ever changing.

The timeline does change when time dilates around particularly large bodies of mass where gravity is very large, and in conditions of very high speeds (as observed by experimentation in both cases) - both of which happened around the theorised singularity referred to as the big bang. Complexity increases as entropy increases as time increases, because more and more states become possible with more equal chances - this is what entropy means according to the information theory that you brought up before. And clearly this is the case since there's very few states that a singularity can be in (hence the name deriving from the same root as "single"), and all the different states that can occur as it breaks down into the complex universe we see today. So the evidence is that entropy is increasing - it does change, and universally too in the way I just described. Not just locally.

It seems as though your objection, to what observation tells us, is that you think there's a balance between the ever increasing entropy and some decrease in entropy, which I assume is what you mean to communicate by the black hole example that you brought up in a previous post. Why are you assuming that the starting entropy, before a large enough star collapses into a black hole, is the same as the entropy after black holes form new stars? The mass is all the same, the energy of the systems involved is constant, but none of this means the entropy of the local system or that of the entire universe's entropy is the same.

Assuming this example is the main reason for your objection, I'm guessing you're taking the type of creation event being similar to some previous creation event as equivalent to it, when it is not. New stars are neither a reset button nor a fall in entropy to balance any previous rising. Everything is more dispersed as spacetime uncurves due to gravity decreasing in line with the inverse square law as everything moves away from everything else, and pockets of mass and gravity that result in black holes and new stars are likewise more dispersed. As the equation for change in entropy suggests, even with huge clusters of mass and energy reaching temperatures as high or higher than those in the past, the transfer of energy between them and the ever lower temperatures of evermore dispersed matter and energy around it only increases entropy faster. So with less and less collisions forming new stars as time goes on, dispersing energy more and more as things move apart, each new star has higher entropy than what it replaced, and there's less and less of them as time goes on. The logic matches the observations.

But like you said, you don't believe that this is true. Would you admit though that you're not an expert on the concepts about which you have already made up your mind? The only irrational situation here seems to be that you've made up your mind already. Both science and philosophy are not about trying to prove yourself right at any cost, but knowing as much as possible about how you could be wrong, and adapting accordingly.