1) The Second Law is a non-sequitur. It simply isn’t relevant. The loss of a photon due to universal expansion does not violate that principle at all.
The photon had some entropy. If it vanishes with no effect, that entropy is gone.
Citing the First Law against the idea that a bit of mass-energy could be destroyed is simply invalid, because if that substance could be destroyed, we’d have to abandon the Law.
1) The Second Law is a non-sequitur. It simply isn’t relevant. The loss of a photon due to universal expansion does not violate that principle at all.
The photon had some entropy. If it vanishes with no effect, that entropy is gone.
Citing the First Law against the idea that a bit of mass-energy could be destroyed is simply invalid, because if that substance could be destroyed, we’d have to abandon the Law.
More than that, actually.
Let’s drag this back to purpose. What’s your answer to Eliezer’s question at the end?