I get your point about the asymptote, but I should have clarified: I was synthesizing two rules, "entropy always increases" and "matter cannot be created or destroyed"
Beyond that, metaphysically, how does something increase without having an origin? "Everything just always was" seems to conveniently handwave away a very important line of inquiry. This line of inquiry might be uncomfortably close to religious thought, but that shouldn't be a reason to terminate it.
As time goes on, we are able to explain more and more things scientifically, and yet, arbitrarily, we are supposed to be satisfied with "energy and matter were just always there, any other explanation is arbitrarily religious" without a sense of irony. That belief is held onto with religious conviction, sometimes used to dismiss alternate ideas with religious fervor, and backed with a religious rather than scientific standard of evidence.
Here's a premise for a (maybe horrible) book idea: God manipulates the minds of top scientists so that they do not definitively prove his existence, which would ruin the point of his simulation. Each time they get close, he finds an idiosyncratic way to make them forget about it or dismiss the idea. The people who discover God's tricks get brownie points in the afterlife. The people who discover God's tricks but try to publicize them, hence ruining the illusion, get...taken care of. Perhaps you can say the entropy of their body would increase.
Or it wasn't and came into existence with a 'big bang'. So how did it come into existence? There's no scientific or religious answer for it. You'll still be skirting the question with the old 'who made the gods' problem. I know what you're getting at and trying to conflate science with religion. Spoilers here: Scientists don't know these answers and just because we don't know doesn't mean the thousands of denominations of thousands of gods of thousands of religions of thousands of years has a true answer either.
>we are supposed to be satisfied
No one said you should be satisfied by it. That's what's good about science, you're expected to not be satisfied and to survey and question, it's not infallible nor claim omniscience.
>God manipulates the minds of top scientists so that they do not definitively prove his existence, which would ruin the point of his simulation. Each time they get close, he finds an idiosyncratic way to make them forget about it or dismiss the idea.
And of course it's the gods, or all created thereof, who are behind helping or hurting belief in gods. Ask a god believer and it's always god's plan.
Beyond that, metaphysically, how does something increase without having an origin? "Everything just always was" seems to conveniently handwave away a very important line of inquiry. This line of inquiry might be uncomfortably close to religious thought, but that shouldn't be a reason to terminate it.
As time goes on, we are able to explain more and more things scientifically, and yet, arbitrarily, we are supposed to be satisfied with "energy and matter were just always there, any other explanation is arbitrarily religious" without a sense of irony. That belief is held onto with religious conviction, sometimes used to dismiss alternate ideas with religious fervor, and backed with a religious rather than scientific standard of evidence.
Here's a premise for a (maybe horrible) book idea: God manipulates the minds of top scientists so that they do not definitively prove his existence, which would ruin the point of his simulation. Each time they get close, he finds an idiosyncratic way to make them forget about it or dismiss the idea. The people who discover God's tricks get brownie points in the afterlife. The people who discover God's tricks but try to publicize them, hence ruining the illusion, get...taken care of. Perhaps you can say the entropy of their body would increase.