Thread: Mankind is fated to end

Call me an optimist, but I like to think that the future will be like The Culture in the series of novels by Iain M. Banks.

If we were to become half machine, we would no longer be human. Simply put, if humanity were to evolve into something new without leaving the original species in tact, humanity would no longer exist. We'd be a new species. And if you could live forever right now, would that kill your excitement for life, or would you jump off a cliff first thing to see how it would feel? I don't believe immortality would destroy the passion to live. Quite to the contrary, I believe it would open up a multitude of new possibilities.

You say we would have no jobs if the world were automated. Do you know what jobs are for? They are for keeping us alive. If machines do our work for us, that only leaves us with loads of extra free time. Are you going to cry about not getting to do your 8 hour shift at Starbucks? And who says science would die? Who says there is a finite amount of information in existence to be discovered?

It is likely that many of our current values would change, sure. But in the long run, would there not be other values to take their places? Other, new goals that we'd like to achieve? There's no end to moving forward my friend.

Originally Posted by NeoSioType

Warning: A lot of Questions

I've thinking a lot lately about the future and how man will exist in it. What if we find a way to live forever? What if our world become's fool proof from natural disaters? What if everything in our would becomes automated by machines?

We will have no jobs. We will have to stop reproduction. No more science. We will live forever probably as part machine with all the knowledge we'll ever learn. Nothing will ever be new. We will live the same day's over and over...

I suppose we could simulate our own happiness, but would it be the same? What would we do besides just existing?

Populate a new world perhaps? But why would we need to? Couldn't we effectively do the same thing with Virtual reality, without endless journeys across space?

Death is the driving force that propels humanity. We live because of death.

All this brings up some intersting questions. Does it not make sense that a post-technical civilization would seek to make another universe perhaps? And then destroy themselves?

Ha... I would pity that universe, not having a god and all. oh...

Stop thinking about the future. Now is all you "have"; Now is forever.

Now Is one with You; you live forever, but you may not have realized this yet.

Just one thing: Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Originally Posted by Xei

Just one thing: Second Law of Thermodynamics.

And?

Originally Posted by drewmandan

And?

Your Bacon & eggs will cool down if you don't eat them, basically. Don't know what it has to do with it either.

Anyhow, on-topic: So, the whole, 'what to do if we can't die'. Wasn't there some guy in star trek that had the same problem (some kind of immortal super being-guy)? Anyhow. Most people can greatly enjoy a good movie over and over again every few months. People's lacking memory plus the huge amount of variety in the world equals quite some ages of fun. Some people even climb the mount Everest more then one time (I think so at least). So, people will always find something to do.

Why however, do that? Why populate other planets. Good question. Same thing can be said about exploring space right now, since the chance it will pay off in a relavant way (to world peace, solving hunger issues, ensuring freedom for people) is very very slim. Well. It's fun. Life wouldn't have any less or more of a purpose if you were to be immoral. Being immoral, or something like it, wouldn't be very much more removed from our biological roots, then us today, looking TV 5 hours a day and caring deeply about some weird green papers with old dead guys on them.

Your Bacon & eggs will cool down if you don't eat them, basically. Don't know what it has to do with it either.

Because it means that life existing forever is impossible, clearly.

I wasn't trying to be elusive.

Originally Posted by Xei

Because it means that life existing forever is impossible, clearly.

I wasn't trying to be elusive.

The only possible statement you could make is that life can't exist forever in this universe, but that assumes that the universe is closed and wormholes to other universes aren't discovered/invented. Given that this universe has at least a hundred billion years before a combination of localized heat death and an ever-shrinking horizon becomes a real problem, I think there is a significant chance of that happening.

you make it sound like if death magically disappeared life would magically be the same over and over again, dull and boring without change

sorry, but thats just a load of crap

if there is one constant we can count on, its change

we don't need death to drive us, we have change. that change gives us the knowledge of a 'future'. and we can always look forward to meet that future

Originally Posted by Xei

Just one thing: Second Law of Thermodynamics.

... which only applies to closed systems. The Earth is hardly a closed system, receiving constant energy from the sun. Technological progress also may enable humans to extract energy from other sources.

lawl, another physics amateur...

The universe is a closed system. One day the sun will die, and so will every other sun in this universe.

Eventually there will be just a soup of uniform energy left with no ability to do any work at all, which is called the 'heat death' of the universe.

With our current knowledge of science (well, perhaps not yours), this is unavoidable.

Originally Posted by Xei

lawl, another physics amateur...

The universe is a closed system. One day the sun will die, and so will every other sun in this universe.

Eventually there will be just a soup of uniform energy left with no ability to do any work at all, which is called the 'heat death' of the universe.

With our current knowledge of science (well, perhaps not yours), this is unavoidable.

Seriously, did you completely ignore my post? Go read it. Now.

SERIOUSLY???

Yes, I read it, thanks so much.

Did you read mine? Notice how I said 'supported by our current knowledge of science'. Sorry, but multiverses aren't currently supported by existing mainstream physical theory, yet alone a way of tunneling into them. And inventing them??

No offence but please gain some credibility before trying to talk authoritatively. To be honest your whole post came across as some very vague wishful thinking.

Originally Posted by Xei

SERIOUSLY???

Yes, I read it, thanks so much.

Did you read mine? Notice how I said 'supported by our current knowledge of science'. Sorry, but multiverses aren't currently supported by existing mainstream physical theory, yet alone a way of tunneling into them. And inventing them??

No offence but please gain some credibility before trying to talk authoritatively. To be honest your whole post came across as some very vague wishful thinking.

So you think that in the next 100 billion years of viable existence, no one will ever invent a wormhole?

...not if they're impossible or parallel universes don't exist. Jeez. What kind of an argument is that?

Nobody's never going to invent a third type of charged particle or create energy from nothing or make a North pole repel a South pole or fall up because of gravity, either, no matter how long we hang around for, because it's against the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by Xei

...not if they're impossible or parallel universes don't exist. Jeez. What kind of an argument is that?

Nobody's never going to invent a third type of charged particle or create energy from nothing or make a North pole repel a South pole or fall up because of gravity, either, no matter how long we hang around for, because it's against the laws of physics.

I was just going by general relativity, which says that under the right conditions, black holes can become traversable worm holes.

No, that's only in the same universe. They act as a shortcut from one location in a universe to a different location in the same universe. They are kind of supported mathematically by the framework of general relativity but it is not known if they could be created in practice.

Multiverse theory has arisen out of interpretations of quantum mechanics and hence is at the moment completely separate from general relativity.

I think when I grow up I want to be a cyborg ninja

Originally Posted by Xei

No, that's only in the same universe. They act as a shortcut from one location in a universe to a different location in the same universe. They are kind of supported mathematically by the framework of general relativity but it is not known if they could be created in practice.

Multiverse theory has arisen out of interpretations of quantum mechanics and hence is at the moment completely separate from general relativity.

Multiverse theory is also supported in some form by string and M theories.

Besides, same universe doesn't mean same observable universe. You must know that wormholes are capable of providing faster-than-light travel, and that implies travel to other regions in our own universe. Now, those other regions will be just as old and drained as our own, but there may be 'hot spots', or regions of higher than normal matter-energy density outside the current observable universe that we could use to extend our existence to a few trillion years instead of a mere hundred billion.

And I just thought of something else. I read about it a while ago:
http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Global/Omega/dyson.txt

According to Dyson, in an ever-expanding universe, it can be mathematically shown that an intelligent being can have an infinite number of thoughts, with each thought taking longer than the last.

This thread was originally about bullshit amateur philosophy. Why has it turned into a discussion about astronomy? Shame on you guys.

Originally Posted by Xei

Because it means that life existing forever is impossible, clearly.

I wasn't trying to be elusive.

I know, I was just trying to be funny.

You're right about the whole "our sun and all others will go out, ect". The way the universe is expanding, within a few billion years, we will not be able to see any stars -since they all drifted away too far-, if we are around to see anything at all, since our sun would have already been depleted by then. Speaking ultra-long-term, immorality is impossible.

Originally Posted by Neruo

I know, I was just trying to be funny.

You're right about the whole "our sun and all others will go out, ect". The way the universe is expanding, within a few billion years, we will not be able to see any stars -since they all drifted away too far-, if we are around to see anything at all, since our sun would have already been depleted by then. Speaking ultra-long-term, immorality is impossible.

Actually, if Big Rip theory is correct, it would be trillions of years before we can't even see any stars. In case that makes a difference. Otherwise, expansion will sort of slow down and we'll just be stuck in the Milky Way-Andromeda supergalaxy forever.

I know, I was just trying to be funny.

Oh okay, sorry. Poe's law and whatnot.

Drewmandan... no... no galaxy will last forever, because of the T2 law... eventually the energy will all be spread out evenly, with no suns or planets or anything.

Originally Posted by Xei

Drewmandan... no... no galaxy will last forever, because of the T2 law... eventually the energy will all be spread out evenly, with no suns or planets or anything.

That's not what I meant. Obviously stars run out of fuel and eventually even protons decay. I was obviously referring the Big Rip specifically, which says that spacetime itself will be pulled apart long, long, long before the universe runs out of free energy.