Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

The eventual heat death of the Universe (if it comes) will be no danger to anything because there'll be nothing left for it to be a danger to. Just a uniform ocean of lukewarm photons. It's the ultimate triumph of blandness, once all the brief candles have gone out. The magnolia coloured emulsion paint of the Cosmos.

Not necessarily. Remember the Haldane quote.

Somewhere in the universe, a species will transcend biology and conquer interstellar space. From there, progressing ever more rapidly, they could continue to answer every challenge the universe threw at them, eventually becoming entities that could thrive and progress even through the quadrillions of years of the black hole era of the universe, and beyond.

How likely does in seem that in a billion years the descendants of the first microbes would be sending sophisticated machines into space to explore the surfaces of other worlds? A billion years is deep time and much can happen over such a period. Now consider the anticipated trillion years of the Stelliferous Era of the universe. It's easy to underestimate just how much can happen in deep time for the same reason we cannot quite wrap our heads around exponentials. We are rather linear-minded beings with lifespans that are mere slivers of time.

[Steve3007]

Not necessarily. Remember the Haldane quote.

Which one? The one about the Universe being queerer than we suppose? Or the one about God's inordinate fondness for The Beatles? I guess they're all good.

I could counter with the Eddington quote!

The law that entropy always increases—the Second Law of Thermodynamics—holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation—well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

Somewhere in the universe, a species will transcend biology and conquer interstellar space. From there, progressing ever more rapidly, they could continue to answer every challenge the universe threw at them, eventually becoming entities that could thrive and progress even through the quadrillions of years of the black hole era of the universe, and beyond.

I suppose anything's possible, but if something that we could possibly define as a species, or any other kind of ordered structure, survived into the "heat death" then presumably, by definition, it wouldn't really (yet) be the heat death, because the heat death is the supposed period, gazzillions of years in the future, when the second law has finally triumphed and all differences, all gradients, and therefore all structure, have gone.

[creation]

Not necessarily. Remember the Haldane quote.

Which one? The one about the Universe being queerer than we suppose? Or the one about God's inordinate fondness for The Beatles? I guess they're all good.

I could counter with the Eddington quote!

The law that entropy always increases—the Second Law of Thermodynamics—holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation—well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

This is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of a human being that while holding a very strong BELIEF in some 'thing' then they are not at all OPEN thus NOR capable of seeing and understanding any thing contrary to what they believe is absolutely true. They are, therefore in effect, absolutely and totally STUPID.

Somewhere in the universe, a species will transcend biology and conquer interstellar space. From there, progressing ever more rapidly, they could continue to answer every challenge the universe threw at them, eventually becoming entities that could thrive and progress even through the quadrillions of years of the black hole era of the universe, and beyond.

I suppose anything's possible, but if something that we could possibly define as a species, or any other kind of ordered structure, survived into the "heat death" then presumably, by definition, it wouldn't really (yet) be the heat death, because the heat death is the supposed period, gazzillions of years in the future, when the second law has finally triumphed and all differences, all gradients, and therefore all structure, have gone.

Believing that thee one and only Universe could even end just shows how distorted one's views become, because of their already held assumptions and beliefs. Thee Universe sits in perfect equilibrium, always. The two; 'space' AND 'matter', 'have to' always co-exist. There cannot be any other way. The energy, itself, of the Universe may never itself be created nor destroyed but this is because energy itself remains relatively the same, forever. The clue that energy, thus thee Universe is forever and always is that energy is NEVER created NOR destroyed. Assuming and/or believing that ALL will end in some supposed "heat death" is just based on the assumption and/or belief that all began, in and with some supposed "big bang", and that the second law of thermodynamics is in relation the Universe, Itself, which obviously it is NOT.

Although energy is always being created and destroyed or lost, the total quantity of energy, itself, always remains the same. Although energy when transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted, more and more of it is just being created at the exact same time. Therefore, why energy, itself, remains relatively the same, forever and always. The way energy, itself, cannot be created/begin nor cannot be destroyed/ended is more evidence of how and why the Universe remains forever and always as well.

If one person can give no hope for a theory, which is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, and if they believe that there is nothing for that theory but to collapse in deepest humiliation, then so be it. Some people provide the biggest and most accurate evidence how while they are believing some thing to be true, then it is them who is obviously NOT open to any thing contrary, which in all honesty could be what thee actual Truth of things IS.

Again, I do not do "theories". I just look at what IS actually True, Right, and/or Correct, which obviously cannot be refuted, let alone logically or reasonably disputed. Obviously, what thee actually Truth IS will always trump over any and all theories and personal beliefs.

Just learning HOW to LOOK AT and SEE what thee actual Truth of things IS is all it takes to just not have nor form absolutely any theories nor beliefs.

[Sy Borg]

Not necessarily. Remember the Haldane quote.

Which one? The one about the Universe being queerer than we suppose? Or the one about God's inordinate fondness for The Beatles? I guess they're all good.

I could counter with the Eddington quote! :D

The law that entropy always increases—the Second Law of Thermodynamics—holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations—then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation—well these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

Somewhere in the universe, a species will transcend biology and conquer interstellar space. From there, progressing ever more rapidly, they could continue to answer every challenge the universe threw at them, eventually becoming entities that could thrive and progress even through the quadrillions of years of the black hole era of the universe, and beyond.

I suppose anything's possible, but if something that we could possibly define as a species, or any other kind of ordered structure, survived into the "heat death" then presumably, by definition, it wouldn't really (yet) be the heat death, because the heat death is the supposed period, gazzillions of years in the future, when the second law has finally triumphed and all differences, all gradients, and therefore all structure, have gone.

Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose… I suspect that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of, or can be dreamed of, in any philosophy.
- JBS Haldane

It's pretty clear that, to you, the Great Filter hypothesis is the only realistic one. The Great Filter is the very most conservative prediction, based on the behaviour observed in a sample size of one. Safe is not always correct. Not so long, sensible people thought that the idea of black holes was absurd.

Imagine a line of evolution, capable of spreading out to different star systems. It only has to happen once - in all of the universe over deep, deep time. What could destroy such entities? What challenge could they not meet? Galactic collision? They would simply calculate what would happen and where they need to be at a given time to avoid being exposed to too much of the Second Law, so to speak.

If post-humans exist in a billion years, they will be as different from us as we are from bacteria. That is just one measly billion years. Now let's go to two billion. Then three. Continue to a trillion, at the end of the Stelliferous Era. Consider how different those entities (or conglomerate entity) would be to us. Impossible, yes? For all we know, they/it/whatever might learn to thrive on dark energy, being forced to find a way after conquering all other obstacles along the way.

[Steve3007]

It's pretty clear that, to you, the Great Filter hypothesis is the only realistic one....

Not necessarily. Obviously this is highly speculative stuff - about as speculative as anything gets - so I don't really know. But, like you, I'm interested in playing with the ideas for the intellectual fun of it.

What I was saying in that last post wasn't really directly relevant to the Great Filter hypothesis. Even if there is no filter and the Universe is teeming with life, and even if, as you've said, some of that life, over billions of years, could develop to levels that we can't possibly imagine (any more than the "transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water" (HG Wells) can imagine us), even then, it seems to me that if the fate of the Universe were to be the "heat death" then, by definition, it would not contain any life, any structure, any gradients, any differences or any change.

And I would have thought that life, and/or whatever self-sustaining complex systems emerge from the technologies developed by that life, cannot exist without those things. Once the last brown dwarf has fallen into the last black hole, and that last black hole has "evaporated" and everything is in the same, uniform state such that there are no significant gradients to create changes and movements (and, therefore, arguably, no sense in which the idea of the passage of time itself is meaningful) then I don't see how living things exist. And, conversely, if that state doesn't obtain everywhere, and, as you've suggested, some unimaginable post-life entity has managed to carve out a little low entropy niche for itself, that just means that the fabled "heat death", by definition, hasn't yet been reached. But if the 2nd law really is universal, then even that low entropy niche must eventually blend with the background.

Imagine a line of evolution, capable of spreading out to different star systems. It only has to happen once - in all of the universe over deep, deep time. What could destroy such entities? What challenge could they not meet? Galactic collision? They would simply calculate what would happen and where they need to be at a given time to avoid being exposed to too much of the Second Law, so to speak.

Yes, I see your point there. But, as I said, I think that, since the laws of physics are descriptive not prescriptive, if a super intelligent species can avoid the "heat death" in a way that demonstrates that the total entropy in a closed physical system (e.g. the Universe) doesn't, after all, actually have to always stay the same or increase, that just means that the second law isn't, after all, universal. But if it is, then they can't do that. Eventually, if it really is universal, all gradients must even out. If it isn't, they don't have to.

Obviously the 2nd Law, and Eddington's famous words about it, aren't gospel. It's an inductively derived law of Nature like anything else, and his words are entertainingly colourful hyperbole in amusingly anachronistic language¹. Like all the laws of Nature, the laws of thermodynamics are descriptive, not prescriptive. So they survive for as long as they remain useful descriptions of the general character of what is actually observed. But some laws appear to be more solid than others. i.e. some of them form such a deep foundation for such a large variety of different observed behaviours of our Universe, that, though, by their nature, they're never certain, they seem to be as close as anything can be. I think that's the point about the 2nd law that Eddington was trying to convey, in suggesting that it, in some sense, trumps other laws, like Maxwell's Equations.

---

¹Speaking of amusingly anachronistic language, one of my favourite quotes is from Ernest Rutherford, to his assistant, called Frederick Soddy, when it was discovered that radioactivity could change the number of protons in a nucleus, and therefore change one chemical element to another (the dream of the alchemists of turning "base metals" into gold):

By Zeus, Soddy, they'd have us out as alchemists!

One of my favourite exclamations of alarm.

[Steve3007]

Like all the laws of Nature, the laws of thermodynamics are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Which gives rise to one of my favourite old Simpsons jokes:

[Sy Borg]

What I was saying in that last post wasn't really directly relevant to the Great Filter hypothesis. Even if there is no filter and the Universe is teeming with life, and even if, as you've said, some of that life, over billions of years, could develop to levels that we can't possibly imagine (any more than the "transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water" (HG Wells) can imagine us), even then, it seems to me that if the fate of the Universe were to be the "heat death" then, by definition, it would not contain any life, any structure, any gradients, any differences or any change.

And I would have thought that life, and/or whatever self-sustaining complex systems emerge from the technologies developed by that life, cannot exist without those things. Once the last brown dwarf has fallen into the last black hole, and that last black hole has "evaporated" and everything is in the same, uniform state such that there are no significant gradients to create changes and movements (and, therefore, arguably, no sense in which the idea of the passage of time itself is meaningful) then I don't see how living things exist. And, conversely, if that state doesn't obtain everywhere, and, as you've suggested, some unimaginable post-life entity has managed to carve out a little low entropy niche for itself, that just means that the fabled "heat death", by definition, hasn't yet been reached. But if the 2nd law really is universal, then even that low entropy niche must eventually blend with the background.


... as I said, I think that, since the laws of physics are descriptive not prescriptive, if a super intelligent species can avoid the "heat death" in a way that demonstrates that the total entropy in a closed physical system (e.g. the Universe) doesn't, after all, actually have to always stay the same or increase, that just means that the second law isn't, after all, universal. But if it is, then they can't do that. Eventually, if it really is universal, all gradients must even out. If it isn't, they don't have to.

Obviously the 2nd Law, and Eddington's famous words about it, aren't gospel. It's an inductively derived law of Nature like anything else, and his words are entertainingly colourful hyperbole in amusingly anachronistic language¹. Like all the laws of Nature, the laws of thermodynamics are descriptive, not prescriptive. So they survive for as long as they remain useful descriptions of the general character of what is actually observed. But some laws appear to be more solid than others. i.e. some of them form such a deep foundation for such a large variety of different observed behaviours of our Universe, that, though, by their nature, they're never certain, they seem to be as close as anything can be. I think that's the point about the 2nd law that Eddington was trying to convey, in suggesting that it, in some sense, trumps other laws, like Maxwell's Equations.

---

¹Speaking of amusingly anachronistic language, one of my favourite quotes is from Ernest Rutherford, to his assistant, called Frederick Soddy, when it was discovered that radioactivity could change the number of protons in a nucleus, and therefore change one chemical element to another (the dream of the alchemists of turning "base metals" into gold):

By Zeus, Soddy, they'd have us out as alchemists!

One of my favourite exclamations of alarm.

Or philosophers, perish the thought! ;)

I'm glad I was wrong about your views on the Great Filter, as I see it as being more of a cautionary tale than a feasible hypothesis. Not every single intelligent invasive species that emerges in all of space and time is going to repeat our mistakes to the same extent, and other planets may be more habitable than Earth, with its vast terrestrial and marine deserts.

Life's current relationship with the second law gives us clues as to how very advanced entities could deal with reducing energy. Naturally they will maintain and increase order in their immediate vicinity by inflicting entropy on its broader environment, when ends up being dissipated heat in space. Before heat death, they would need to be able to harness the energy of black holes.

No doubt they/it would thoroughly prepare for any potential hazards. Harnessing energy from black holes would be necessary (handy for a few quadrillion years or so until they all dissipate) but the ultimate key would be harnessing virtual particles/dark energy. If the final entities can achieve that, then they/it will truly become an eternal deity, or deities.

[creation]

What I was saying in that last post wasn't really directly relevant to the Great Filter hypothesis. Even if there is no filter and the Universe is teeming with life, and even if, as you've said, some of that life, over billions of years, could develop to levels that we can't possibly imagine (any more than the "transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water" (HG Wells) can imagine us), even then, it seems to me that if the fate of the Universe were to be the "heat death" then, by definition, it would not contain any life, any structure, any gradients, any differences or any change.

And I would have thought that life, and/or whatever self-sustaining complex systems emerge from the technologies developed by that life, cannot exist without those things. Once the last brown dwarf has fallen into the last black hole, and that last black hole has "evaporated" and everything is in the same, uniform state such that there are no significant gradients to create changes and movements (and, therefore, arguably, no sense in which the idea of the passage of time itself is meaningful) then I don't see how living things exist. And, conversely, if that state doesn't obtain everywhere, and, as you've suggested, some unimaginable post-life entity has managed to carve out a little low entropy niche for itself, that just means that the fabled "heat death", by definition, hasn't yet been reached. But if the 2nd law really is universal, then even that low entropy niche must eventually blend with the background.


... as I said, I think that, since the laws of physics are descriptive not prescriptive, if a super intelligent species can avoid the "heat death" in a way that demonstrates that the total entropy in a closed physical system (e.g. the Universe) doesn't, after all, actually have to always stay the same or increase, that just means that the second law isn't, after all, universal. But if it is, then they can't do that. Eventually, if it really is universal, all gradients must even out. If it isn't, they don't have to.

Obviously the 2nd Law, and Eddington's famous words about it, aren't gospel. It's an inductively derived law of Nature like anything else, and his words are entertainingly colourful hyperbole in amusingly anachronistic language¹. Like all the laws of Nature, the laws of thermodynamics are descriptive, not prescriptive. So they survive for as long as they remain useful descriptions of the general character of what is actually observed. But some laws appear to be more solid than others. i.e. some of them form such a deep foundation for such a large variety of different observed behaviours of our Universe, that, though, by their nature, they're never certain, they seem to be as close as anything can be. I think that's the point about the 2nd law that Eddington was trying to convey, in suggesting that it, in some sense, trumps other laws, like Maxwell's Equations.

---

¹Speaking of amusingly anachronistic language, one of my favourite quotes is from Ernest Rutherford, to his assistant, called Frederick Soddy, when it was discovered that radioactivity could change the number of protons in a nucleus, and therefore change one chemical element to another (the dream of the alchemists of turning "base metals" into gold):



One of my favourite exclamations of alarm.

Or philosophers, perish the thought!

I'm glad I was wrong about your views on the Great Filter, as I see it as being more of a cautionary tale than a feasible hypothesis. Not every single intelligent invasive species that emerges in all of space and time is going to repeat our mistakes to the same extent, and other planets may be more habitable than Earth, with its vast terrestrial and marine deserts.

Life's current relationship with the second law gives us clues as to how very advanced entities could deal with reducing energy. Naturally they will maintain and increase order in their immediate vicinity by inflicting entropy on its broader environment, when ends up being dissipated heat in space. Before heat death, they would need to be able to harness the energy of black holes.

No doubt they/it would thoroughly prepare for any potential hazards. Harnessing energy from black holes would be necessary (handy for a few quadrillion years or so until they all dissipate) but the ultimate key would be harnessing virtual particles/dark energy. If the final entities can achieve that, then they/it will truly become an eternal deity, or deities.

But I think the point being made, and correct me if I am wrong, is that if the Universe, Itself, finishes or ends, then ANY entity including the final entities living within that Universe will obviously finish and end also.

Obviously an entity cannot keep existing if there is not even an existing place in which to exist. If there is not a Universe anymore, then there could not be any entity as well.

[Steve3007]

But I think the point being made, and correct me if I am wrong, is that if the Universe, Itself, finishes or ends, then ANY entity including the final entities living within that Universe will obviously finish and end also.

Obviously an entity cannot keep existing if there is not even an existing place in which to exist. If there is not a Universe anymore, then there could not be any entity as well.

Okay, in the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, and acknowledging succinct, sensible posts that make a simple, valid point, without pages of ranting and riddling, I'm going to reply to this.

Yes. You are essentially correct. In discussing the "heat death" of the Universe, we weren't exactly discussing the end, or disappearance, of the Universe but we were discussing the end of the potential for anything in that Universe to change. As such, you are correct in saying that part of my point was that if any kind of life, or any other kind of structure, still exists, then that stage cannot yet have been reached.

[creation]

But I think the point being made, and correct me if I am wrong, is that if the Universe, Itself, finishes or ends, then ANY entity including the final entities living within that Universe will obviously finish and end also.

Obviously an entity cannot keep existing if there is not even an existing place in which to exist. If there is not a Universe anymore, then there could not be any entity as well.

Okay, in the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, and acknowledging succinct, sensible posts that make a simple, valid point, without pages of ranting and riddling, I'm going to reply to this.

I never find it amusing that posts are "sensible", "simple", and/or "valid" when they are in agreement with the reader. But, when they are not in agreement with the reader, they appear to be "rantings" and/or "riddling".

I write, in perceived "riddles", to highlight and make clear the very point I continually make here, and thus give more weight to, my very simple valid point, which is; If one wants to KNOW and UNDERSTAND thee actual Truth of things, then just 'Ask clarifying questions BEFORE making absolutely any assumptions nor beliefs at all'.

If you find absolutely ANY of my posts "riddling", then just ask any clarification question you like, and then I will clarify the "riddle" for you.

Also, what do you mean by the word 'ranting'?

Are people aware that just some times what appears, on first glance, in another's writings are not always as they first appear?

What appears to be happening from my perspective anyway is a lot of what I say just gets taken for granted as just being nonsense, rubbish, and/or illogical without any actual consideration being taken into account of; What is it that is actually being said here?

Yes. You are essentially correct. In discussing the "heat death" of the Universe, we weren't exactly discussing the end, or disappearance, of the Universe but we were discussing the end of the potential for anything in that Universe to change.
As such, you are correct in saying that part of my point was that if any kind of life, or any other kind of structure, still exists, then that stage cannot yet have been reached.

[Darshan]

Earthellism clarifies the question "Can Heaven or Hell Exist If There is No God". The answer is No. God is located in Heaven and God is not located in Hell. Hell is a place where there is no presence of God. Earthell is the location of Hell and only God's love is here. God is not present in earthell and is only located in Heaven. The saying that War is Hell proves this point and the Nazi Death Squads are proof this place is Hell. The documentation of the execution of women and children both being lined up 10 in a row for 20 soldiers shooting 2 bullets into each woman or child is pure Hell. Earthellism is the loving philosophy to counter the evil, murderous philosophy of Nazism. Earthellism can prevent future genocides by explaining that as a soldier you choose to be a human devil by killing women and children and will send your innocent victims to Heaven to be fully compensated by a loving God. As that human devil soldier you are guaranteed eternity in Hell and die a thousand deaths for each drop of innocent blood you spill and no chance to go to Heaven and never be with God. Hitler is here in Hell dying a thousand deaths for each drop of innocent blood of 6 million people he is responsible for killing.

[Sy Borg]

If the Earth is hell, then what of love, beauty and fascination? Why would hell include these things - and how could it have these things if God is entirely absent? What to make of the "hell" experienced by those living the very most privileged and peaceful of lives?

[Darshan]

Earthellism answers that with the fact all the Wars have been here in beautiful meadows and gardens. Pearl Harbor is one of the most beautiful islands in the world where 3000 Americans were slaughtered in 3 hours. Gettysburg was also beautiful . The Devil is also very beautiful but eats your soul. Lastly the movie Castaway with Tom Hanks proves that a beautiful tropical island can be pure Hell.
This place is a beautiful Hell where some do get lucky but everyone here gets to watch their bodies fail and die in misery.

[Darshan]

God’s love is here only.
God is not here on earthell.

[Sy Borg]

God’s love is here only.
God is not here on earthell.

You make the situation seem akin to Curiosity rover being on Mars, while humans themselves cannot go there.