Human extinction

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Well, there's only so many more millions (possibly billions) of years any life can exist, given entropy, and the fact that it appears as though the universe will not contract at some point, but continue indefinitely to grow. It's just a scientific fact, and the vague futurist musings on converting our consciousnesses to energy fields or somesuch would likely only prolong the inevitable, not avoid it.

I'm guessing Scientific facts aren't really all that factual, are they?

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I'm guessing Scientific facts aren't really all that factual, are they?

Wut?

The quote you posted was talking about heat death. We can't calculate all mass in the universe due to some that isn't detectable by current methods. but based on best estimates, the universe will continue to expand indefinitely, rather than contract into another singularity...and eventually Big Bang.

As with most scientific ideas, it is provisional and subject to change, but factual according to the best known data.

Is this a problem?

....

As for dudemon, I'm sorry bud, but you're not sounding too credible right now. You're assuming and pre-supposing a number of unknowable items (some highly unlikely) in order for your proposed transhumanist vision to come to fruition. Lines like "we don't know what the future will bring" are a cop-out, and essentially saying that we don't know, and also admitting that there are obstacles that are seemingly insurmountable, but we will ignore them for the sake of the argument.

It's like in the comic forum when someone says "Reed Richards wins with prep" but can't say how. Without the how, it's just idle speculation, not a legitimate argument.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
As for dudemon, I'm sorry bud, but you're not sounding too credible right now. You're assuming and pre-supposing a number of unknowable items (some highly unlikely) in order for your proposed transhumanist vision to come to fruition. Lines like "we don't know what the future will bring" are a cop-out, and essentially saying that we don't know, and also admitting that there are obstacles that are seemingly insurmountable, but we will ignore them for the sake of the argument.

It's like in the comic forum when someone says "Reed Richards wins with prep" but can't say how. Without the how, it's just idle speculation, not a legitimate argument.

Edit- If you're interested in what I had to say, I'll PM you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit- If you're interested in what I had to say, I'll PM you.

I-i am interested in what you had to say as well.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit- If you're interested in what I had to say, I'll PM you.

Don't see why we can't discuss it here. It's on topic.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Don't see why we can't discuss it here. It's on topic.

It was and it wasn't. I respect your opinions and thoughts, but what I had posted, originally, wasn't very friendly. I'd rather work that out behind the scenes.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Well, there's only so many more millions (possibly billions) of years any life can exist, given entropy, and the fact that it appears as though the universe will not contract at some point, but continue indefinitely to grow. It's just a scientific fact, and the vague futurist musings on converting our consciousnesses to energy fields or somesuch would likely only prolong the inevitable, not avoid it.

I can't remember it all and I'm not articulate enough to put it in to words but to say that all life from this universe will die sooner or later is just some thing we can't know. The universe either expanding and all atoms being pulled apart or the big crunch is pretty much accepted as we can know to a degree but we don't know how / if a very advanced civilization could survive it.

However in that show they gave possible ways for a civilation to survive each of the universes stages leading to its death. The most interesting one being at the end where the universe is practicaly infinite in size and no celestial bodies / matter of any kind left. Which is where the other dimensions or bubbles / pockets in space come in to play. Some how changeing the laws of physics and setting off another big bang starting our universal cycle all over again. I hope you understand what I am trying to say as I would like to hear what you think about this.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It was and it wasn't. I respect your opinions and thoughts, but what I had posted, originally, wasn't very friendly. I'd rather work that out behind the scenes.

Oh. Well, I don't mean any of my posts personally, so I hope you don't take them as such. If I disagree with you, it's because I think there are flaws in the reasoning, but that certainly doesn't extend to you personally. I actually enjoy discussing these things with you since you're familiar with a lot of the terms and ideas in transhumanism. The fact that we're on opposite ends of the discussion for much of the time doesn't lessen that respect, at least not for me.

Originally posted by Magee
This is interesting. I was watching Universe on the History channel and it was about this. How there are stages predicated for the universe's future, black holes dominating, freezing, darkness and stuff. One theory was that a civilization could be so advanced they could move to other dimensions / universes even creating them in a way I can't quite remember but some thing to do with bubbles in space and recreating big bangs.

I can't remember it all and I'm not articulate enough to put it in to words but to say that all life from this universe will die sooner or later is just some thing we can't know. The universe either expanding and all atoms being pulled apart or the big crunch is pretty much accepted as we can know to a degree but we don't know how / if a very advanced civilization could survive it.

However in that show they gave possible ways for a civilation to survive each of the universes stages leading to its death. The most interesting one being at the end where the universe is practicaly infinite in size and no celestial bodies / matter of any kind left. Which is where the other dimensions or bubbles / pockets in space come in to play. Some how changeing the laws of physics and setting off another big bang starting our universal cycle all over again. I hope you understand what I am trying to say as I would like to hear what you think about this.

No, that's all fairly correct. But the point being that anything beyond "either Big Crunch or expanding infinitely" is just speculation (with the later seeming more likely). From possible other dimensions (more the realm of string theory than universal fate), to the ways in which we might survive such a future. All are interesting ideas, but remain in the realm of untested, speculative theories. Not likely possibilities, at least at this point in time and with our current knowledge.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Oh. Well, I don't mean any of my posts personally, so I hope you don't take them as such. If I disagree with you, it's because I think there are flaws in the reasoning, but that certainly doesn't extend to you personally. I actually enjoy discussing these things with you since you're familiar with a lot of the terms and ideas in transhumanism. The fact that we're on opposite ends of the discussion for much of the time doesn't lessen that respect, at least not for me.

Oh.. uh well... 😮

Boy am I embarrassed. I feel bad now. I'm certainly glad that I edited my post out, then.

Basically, I said that I think that keeping an open mind about things that could happen is, imo, a "safer" more logical point of view to have. Since we can't be sure that heat death will occur because it is not provable at this moment, nor do we know enough about both quantum and astrophysics to be sure heat death will/can actually occur, I assume the best position is to assume it might happen and then speculate why it wouldn't happen. I think I've covered all possible perspectives: It will happen, it won't happen because of natural forces, it won't happen because humans or the progeny of humans will circumvent it. We can certainly plot, on a graph, maximized universal entropy, but we only have a infinitesimal glimpse at the time line of our universe and a "young" understanding of higher physics. In the last 50 years, hasn't the fate of the universe been changed in the astrophysics community more than once? (With some sticking to the same theories, some theories being disproven, other proved, etc.)

Also in my reply, you mentioned justification. Here's what I originally posted but deleted:

"Here's your justification. Future humans or AI builds a machine that is able to interact with the strong force on a very minute level but has a very large influence. This machine's precision, partly due to a computer able to calculate trillions upon trillions of things a nanosecond due to the perfection of quantum computing technologies, can use its power over the strong force to re-assimilate quarks back into protons, thereby, recycling decayed protons. Of course, the machine is upkept with picobots: a much much smaller version of nanobots. These picobots were created by overcoming or harnessing the casimir force through some yet to be discovered breakthrough. The system is a positive net change in new protons because the system creates more energy (in the form of matter) than it destroys."

Still some major gaps need to be filled. This, of course, assumes heat death is inevitable: that is possibly an erroneous premise, but for all intents and purposes, it seems inevitable enough. We can both agree there.

In my reply, I alluded to zero-point energy, instantaneous travel of matter, and harnessing exotic matter and energy for unforeseen uses. I mentioned some other things as well.

In conclusion, I guess I could leave you with semi-open ended thought: our scientific knowledge is growing geometrically, not linearly.

All very interesting. I think you and I just differ on the level of trust we place in such things becoming reality. We don't even know if "interacting with the strong force" is possible. And if it is, there's the matter of developing the technology for it. You rightly pointed out that there are several very large gaps that need to be filled before such musings become viable. Assuming that they will be filled eventually is dangerously close to begging the question. And for every scientific gap that is filled, countless remain unsolved. So we can point to past successes, but we must also point to the decidedly larger amount of theoretical technology that hasn't come to fruition and may never do so.

You mentioned being open-minded, and I feel like that term is used differently by many different people. For my own part, being open-minded does not mean seeing everything as a possibility. It means listening to all ideas and judging them on their merits (or lack thereof). If they do not hold up to experimental evidence, they are lacking, and can be treated as interesting ideas but nothing else. If they test out, they are viable theories, and if confirmed repeatedly, can be treated as fact. This is subject to change based on future findings, but assumes nothing and works with what we do know, not what may be possible (because, as stated earlier, it is as likely that such things will never come about).

I look forward to people like you and Kurzweil proving me wrong, and I encourage transhuman studies. But to proclaim any of it as likely or even a scientific possibility is to get ahead of ourselves, and becomes over-zealous rather than working within an empirical scientific framework. There has already been considerable progress on the personal, human level. But that does not ensure future success with far more complex technologies. It should certainly encourage study and research, though nothing but optimistic curiosity rather than speculative predictions.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The only way to conquer heat death is with Maxwell's Demon. There's no other way to convert entropy to order on a grand scale without actually creating more entropy.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
We don't even know if "interacting with the strong force" is possible.

I agree. It is very much possible that we will NEVER be able to harness the strong force. To me, that seems less likely than anything we've discussed, however, it would be naive of me to think with a 100% surety that we will "never be able to harness the strong force".

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You rightly pointed out that there are several very large gaps that need to be filled before such musings become viable. Assuming that they will be filled eventually is dangerously close to begging the question.

I don't hold it as an absolute truth, not even close to it. Only a possible future. We are philosophizing on potential futures of humanity.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
And for every scientific gap that is filled, countless remain unsolved.

I believe it was Evil Dead I told this too: with discovery comes more questions. I'm hard pressed to try to justify one single discovery that didn't bring more questions with it.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
So we can point to past successes, but we must also point to the decidedly larger amount of theoretical technology that hasn't come to fruition and may never do so.

I don't know which point of mine this addresses, however, I don't disagree.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
For my own part, being open-minded does not mean seeing everything as a possibility. It means listening to all ideas and judging them on their merits (or lack thereof).

We agree here.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
If they do not hold up to experimental evidence, they are lacking, and can be treated as interesting ideas but nothing else. If they test out, they are viable theories, and if confirmed repeatedly, can be treated as fact. This is subject to change based on future findings, but assumes nothing and works with what we do know, not what may be possible (because, as stated earlier, it is as likely that such things will never come about).

I agree.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I look forward to people like you and Kurzweil proving me wrong, and I encourage transhuman studies.

I am not a proponent of things like the singularity and the like. I only submit them as potentials of the future. Interesting prospects. Something to speculate about.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
But to proclaim any of it as likely or even a scientific possibility is to get ahead of ourselves, and becomes over-zealous rather than working within an empirical scientific framework.

Strong AI? Almost a guarantee for our future.

A sentient AI? Dubious and proven to be impossible thus far.

Heat Death? Based on current findings, a 100% for the future.

Is it possible that something could happen to prevent heat death? Sure.

Is it possible that heat death will never happen because our assesment of the universe was wrong to begin with? Sure.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
But that does not ensure future success with far more complex technologies. It should certainly encourage study and research, though nothing but optimistic curiosity rather than speculative predictions.

...

but...

This is the philsophy section. Aren't we philosiphizing about potential futures of humanity? This is all about speculation. Do you agree that even heat death is still a speculation?

I don't remain abosulute in my convictions of things like this because I can't be sure. Can I be sure that the universe will become a massive ocean of death? Nope. Not at all. Maybe it's because I don't want to be wrong so I don't choose to pick any one speculation as my team.

Lord help us if Kurzweil is on the money with some of his further off predictions...we certainly have empirical evidence for things he's already predicted that came to fruition.

Originally posted by Magee
I was watching Universe on the History channel...

...and it was about this. How there are stages predicated for the universe's future, black holes dominating, freezing, darkness and stuff. One theory was that a civilization could be so advanced they could move to other dimensions / universes...

Originally posted by Mindship
Ring by Stephen Baxter

Heat death isn't speculation because it's based upon detailed calculations. That those calculations might someday be replaced with new findings doesn't mean it can't be held as a provisional truth for the time being. Evidence can be replaced, but it's far more tenable to believe in something with evidence supporting it, even incomplete evidence, than something else that has little, if any, empirical evidence backing it.

Other than that dudemon, I think we're probably more in agreement than initially realized. I'm just careful to include the skeptical, rationalist point of view along with such ideas, lest we get ahead of ourselves. But I'm glad you brought them up as ideas to explore.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Heat death isn't speculation because it's based upon detailed calculations.

But it's still a theory. Calculations are made all the time for theoretical physics and theoretical ideas that are later debunked and discarded for newer models. It is an unprovable future.

It's not the same as a particle at a fixed velocity, in a vacuum, on a linear path to a indestructible and immovable barrier. (with no fluidic resistances encountered or outside force influences, and we assume that path integral formulation has no part...lol.) Instead, heat death is one definition of a nebulous and changing entity that could have multiple futures. Picture the car's predicted future as a solid line with only one path in it's future. Picture the "cloud" as having many paths with some paths more clearer than others but with no definitive solid line like the car's. It has to remain as a "cloud" because it's possible that we were wrong about entropy, even with all of this data. Right now, it certainly looks by pretty much all accounts that entropy is inevitable, so that path will be more opaque than the others in our "cloud" model for the Universe's futures.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
That those calculations might someday be replaced with new findings doesn't mean it can't be held as a provisional truth for the time being. Evidence can be replaced, but it's far more tenable to believe in something with evidence supporting it, even incomplete evidence, than something else that has little, if any, empirical evidence backing it.

I don't think we're speaking about the same things. I'm not talking about believing with some sort of surety that heat death will be circumvented or not happen: I speaking about not taking heat death as 100% fact because we can't be sure. There is a minor difference between those perspectives even though some may interpret them as the two sides to one coin.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
No, that's all fairly correct. But the point being that anything beyond "either Big Crunch or expanding infinitely" is just speculation (with the later seeming more likely). From possible other dimensions (more the realm of string theory than universal fate), to the ways in which we might survive such a future. All are interesting ideas, but remain in the realm of untested, speculative theories. Not likely possibilities, at least at this point in time and with our current knowledge.

Originally posted by Mindship
A worthy heir to "Cosmos"...

I like the sound of that book but "Space" sounds more interesting, do you know if I would have to read "Time" first or can you read them in no particular order?

Originally posted by dadudemon
But it's still a theory. Calculations are made all the time for theoretical physics and theoretical ideas that are later debunked and discarded for newer models. It is an unprovable future.

It's not the same as a particle at a fixed velocity, in a vacuum, on a linear path to a indestructible and immovable barrier. (with no fluidic resistances encountered or outside force influences, and we assume that path integral formulation has no part...lol.) Instead, heat death is one definition of a nebulous and changing entity that could have multiple futures. Picture the car's predicted future as a solid line with only one path in it's future. Picture the "cloud" as having many paths with some paths more clearer than others but with no definitive solid line like the car's. It has to remain as a "cloud" because it's possible that we were wrong about entropy, even with all of this data. Right now, it certainly looks by pretty much all accounts that entropy is inevitable, so that path will be more opaque than the others in our "cloud" model for the Universe's futures.

I don't think we're speaking about the same things. I'm not talking about believing with some sort of surety that heat death will be circumvented or not happen: I speaking about not taking heat death as 100% fact because we can't be sure. There is a minor difference between those perspectives even though some may interpret them as the two sides to one coin.

"But it's still a theory."
That phrase belies a bit of a misunderstanding of the term "theory" in a scientific context. That the earth revolves around the sun is a theory. That gravity exists and attracts objects to one another is a theory. I could list others, but you get the point.

You're presuming further evidence that has yet to surface, then using this assumption to say that heat death and transhuman ideals are on the same level of believability. They aren't. One has evidence to support it. The other doesn't. Saying that we don't know everything, and that something could change (any theory could change, technically), doesn't undermine what we already know. It means we keep searching, but that we can hold these things as truths until determined otherwise....but not a moment sooner.

Besides, we can calculate the approximate mass of the universe to a startling degree, even taking into account the unseen forces (dark energy, anti-matter, it's called various names and theorized about endlessly, etc.) which we cannot detect, but we can detect their existence and mass by their influence on other celestial bodies.

If we couldn't, the anthropic principles of people niggling about a fine-tuned universe (a favorite of theistic arguments) wouldn't have any weight behind them, as we'd be wildly speculating about fine tuning when we couldn't know for sure. So, personally, I see heat death as one of the more solid theories of celestial mechanics. And the fact that other theories exist, but haven't supplants heat death for lack of evidence, is valid support for such a statement.

So, as always, I don't, and never will, treat it is dogmatic truth. But that doesn't mean I can't treat it as truth at all. It is. It's simply provisional, and it could change, but only if the evidence warrants it. No sooner. Because under your interpretation, everything is "just" a theory, and so nothing should ever be treated as fact....which then opens the door to other theories and ideas that lack credibility, but hold the same ground due to such semantic wordplay.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
"But it's still a theory."
That phrase belies a bit of a misunderstanding of the term "theory" in a scientific context. That the earth revolves around the sun is a theory. That gravity exists and attracts objects to one another is a theory. I could list others, but you get the point.

You're presuming further evidence that has yet to surface, then using this assumption to say that heat death and transhuman ideals are on the same level of believability. They aren't. One has evidence to support it. The other doesn't. Saying that we don't know everything, and that something could change (any theory could change, technically), doesn't undermine what we already know. It means we keep searching, but that we can hold these things as truths until determined otherwise....but not a moment sooner.

Besides, we can calculate the approximate mass of the universe to a startling degree, even taking into account the unseen forces (dark energy, anti-matter, it's called various names and theorized about endlessly, etc.) which we cannot detect, but we can detect their existence and mass by their influence on other celestial bodies.

If we couldn't, the anthropic principles of people niggling about a fine-tuned universe (a favorite of theistic arguments) wouldn't have any weight behind them, as we'd be wildly speculating about fine tuning when we couldn't know for sure. So, personally, I see heat death as one of the more solid theories of celestial mechanics. And the fact that other theories exist, but haven't supplants heat death for lack of evidence, is valid support for such a statement.

So, as always, I don't, and never will, treat it is dogmatic truth. But that doesn't mean I can't treat it as truth at all. It is. It's simply provisional, and it could change, but only if the evidence warrants it. No sooner. Because under your interpretation, everything is "just" a theory, and so nothing should ever be treated as fact....which then opens the door to other theories and ideas that lack credibility, but hold the same ground due to such semantic wordplay.

1. Transhumanism is not the only potential future I addressed.

2. You know the context I was implying by calling it a "theory". 😖hifty: It is a less credible/provable theory than other more solid theories.

3. Nothing you said is in contrast to what I said. In fact, your post seems to be leaning towards my perspective. "I don't, and never will, treat it is dogmatic truth." Great! We fully agree. 😄 I'm not even sure we ever disagreed, rather, we had a varying degree of trust in the same theories we both held as truth at some level or another. At first, I thought you disregarded my analogy about the futures, but then, it seemed like you understood what I was saying. I still see heat death as the most solid potential future out of all possibilities discussed and not discussed. Like you said, we can't be as sure for less tried and true theories. (Like macro quantum phenomenon at the macro level..n' stuff. Who knows wtf that is supposed to do.)

But, I don't think the thread starter had heat death in mind when he created this thread, rather, I think he wanted to discuss things like the auto-destruction of humanity, aliens, disease, natural disasters, evolution, or transhumanism.

Originally posted by Magee
I can't tell if your being sarcastic or not but the new Universe series was great especially the last one about the end of the Universe. 😄

I like the sound of that book but "Space" sounds more interesting, do you know if I would have to read "Time" first or can you read them in no particular order?

Originally posted by Mindship
No sarcasm. "Cosmos" was great in its time, and there'll never be another Carl Sagan, but science marches on (as well as special FX). I'm quite impressed with "Universe."

Originally posted by Mindship
Sounds like you're talking about Baxter's "Manifold" series (which is separate from his Xeelee Sequence series, which culminates with "Ring"😉. Read them in any order you like; they're both terrific.