[peppercorn (OP)]

If the law of entropy means the any system is likely to become more disordered over time.
A low entropy system has far fewer permutations of ordering than a high entropy system - Taking this to its conclusion, does the first moment of the universe represent THE lowest state of entropy possible?  - Ie, it's level of overall order could only become less with time, thus it would be unimaginably nuanced and complex.

[yor_on]

Our world is open ended. In it all objects are losing energy, when all 'things' reach their lowest states of energy and no more 'work' can be done, then I expect us to have reached our entropic end-station.

"All spontaneous happenings in the material world (those that continue without outside help, except perhaps for an initial start) are examples of the second law because they involve energy dispersing. Energy that is in the rapidly moving, ceaselessly colliding minute particles of matter (including that which is made more available by chemical reactions such as gasoline with oxygen, that contain higher-energy bonds within them than their possible products) will diffuse, disperse, spread out if there is some way for that to occur without hindrance."

So instead of looking at as a 'ordered/unordered system it might be better to consider the 'energy'. Then I believe that since the Big Bang we've been 'cooling off' and the ultimate blandness are awaiting us at the end of the universe

[Bill S]

THE lowest state of entropy possible?

I assume you mean the lowest state possible for this Universe.  If there is anything beyond, there could, conceivably, be a lower entropy state that our Universe could not achieve.

[peppercorn (OP)]

I assume you mean the lowest state possible for this Universe.

You assume correctly. Do you agree?
Or am I stretching the idea of entropy too far?

[Bill S]

am I stretching the idea of entropy too far?

I think that if the 2nd law of thermodynamics is to be believed, which it seems to be, then entropy increase has to hold good throughout.  There may be a point, at one extreme or the other, at which it breaks down, but I believe we would have to have some pretty strong evidence before we could seriously suggest it.

[Soul Surfer]

The shape is usually described as an even linear expansion of uniform material from a geometric point that is everything moves along a line from the origin outwards at exactly the same speed and with the same relative rate of expansion.  however this may only be a local effect and there my be an underlying shape that we (and no other point in the total universe)  can never see because it most of the structure lies outside our light cone.  This is because inflation hides most of the universe from every point in the universe. 

If asked to guess a shape I would suggest that the most likely is a toroid

[peppercorn (OP)]

If asked to guess a shape I would suggest that the most likely is a toroid

Because?

Also, I'd argue that a 'point' is not a shape as such.

[Soul Surfer]

To explain this fully would take us into "new theories".  I have some postings there that could help if you are really interested.

My feeling is that our universe most probably originated inside of a (reasonably "normal" sized for this universe) black hole and I am working on a good theoretical model and some measurements that may support this.

I agree that a mathematical point is not a shape but it is the best that current theoreticians are prepared to offer and is clearly inadequate.

[peppercorn (OP)]

To explain this fully would take us into "new theories".  I have some postings there that could help if you are really interested.

Fair enough. It's not really an answer to what I was questioning anyway, but I appreciate there may be a link of sorts.

My feeling is that our universe most probably originated inside of a (reasonably "normal" sized for this universe) black hole and I am working on a good theoretical model and some measurements that may support this.

This may explain why we appear to have complex 'initial conditions', however the model only shifts the responsibility to some other unknown.  In this way it appears no better than religion.

I agree that a mathematical point is not a shape but it is the best that current theoreticians are prepared to offer and is clearly inadequate.

I could suggest that it could equally be an unimaginably high energy 'string', but, of couse, I can not prove that either!