Fate of universe

[Nik271]

Oh yeah, that was a great book, so many memorable quotes. Makes the end of the universe so entertaining. 'where shall we have lunch?' is the Age of sophistication indeed 😀

I think the end was supposed to be a big freeze in the book....

[cloudsweeper]

Never mind The End......what is more unsettling is how space, time, and matter all sprang out of nothing to create this immense, beautiful, bewildering cosmos.

Doug.

[John]

The Universe with end with a Gnab Gib according to the Hitchhikers Guide

[Louis D]

34 minutes ago, johninderby said:

Hmmmmmm..............🤔

This thread made me think of this. 😁

Of course, I'm more partial to the Big Bang Burger Bar at the other end of the universe:

Than I am to Milliways:

[vlaiv]

I hear the universe whisper: "There is no fate but what we make for ourselves"

[ollypenrice]

I'm always surprised by those who think that humanity will endure beyond a few seconds into the future, in the scheme of things. Humanity is a transient little thing that popped into existence a few seconds ago and will pop out of existence in a few seconds to come. Enjoy it while you can. I do. Rendering humanity immortal by fantasizing about inter-generational space travel leaves me bemused. Darwin was the first to see the truth. Extinction is a part of nature. The fact that you fear it is not going to make it go away. What is so terrible about non-existence? Did anybody worry about it before existence came into being? 😁

Olly

[Jamgood]

Just now, ollypenrice said:

What is so terrible about non-existence? Did anybody worry about it before existence came into being? 😁

^^^^This^^^^

Think back to before you were born. It was the most peaceful, tranquil time. When your own personal Universe comes to an end, you'll be right back where you started.

[wuthton]

4 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

I'm always surprised by those who think that humanity will endure beyond a few seconds into the future, in the scheme of things. Humanity is a transient little thing that popped into existence a few seconds ago and will pop out of existence in a few seconds to come. Enjoy it while you can. I do. Rendering humanity immortal by fantasizing about inter-generational space travel leaves me bemused. Darwin was the first to see the truth. Extinction is a part of nature. The fact that you fear it is not going to make it go away. What is so terrible about non-existence? Did anybody worry about it before existence came into being? 😁

Olly

It's the mind boggling clash of theories.... Darwin's evolution where with the passing of time life evolves into something better and improved opposed to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy and constant decay. 

I'm going with Darwin. 

[vlaiv]

4 minutes ago, Jamgood said:

When your own personal Universe comes to an end, you'll be right back where you started.

There is literally zero evidence to support this claim

 

[vlaiv]

Just now, wuthton said:

It's the mind boggling clash of theories.... Darwin's evolution where with the passing of time life evolves into something better and improved opposed to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy and constant decay. 

I'm going with Darwin. 

I don't think that there is a clash.

First - life does not evolve into something better and improved - it evolves into "more suited" to environment.

Fact that locally there is decrease of entropy - does not mean that there isn't overall increase in entropy. It might seem that we are thriving now but look at the mess we made to the planet - overall we did more "harm" than "good".

[JamesF]

17 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

I'm always surprised by those who think that humanity will endure beyond a few seconds into the future

I am often amazed that we've even got this far.

James

[Seelive]

Brings to mind a quote that I've read somewhere... "I'd rather be optimistic and wrong rather than being pessimistic and right".

[vlaiv]

1 minute ago, Seelive said:

Brings to mind a quote that I've read somewhere... "I'd rather be optimistic and wrong rather than being pessimistic and right".

“I'd far rather be happy than right any day."
"And are you?"
"No. That's where it all falls down, of course."
"Pity", said Arthur. "It sounded like rather a good lifestyle otherwise.”

 

[Paul M]

The Human Race is already in its death throes. Our decadence as Earth crumbles is too advanced to reverse.

What replaces us in a few hundred years (at best)? Something that's better than us at living off the toxic, sterile environment we are working so hard to create  We'll barely make a mark in the fossil record.

We will leave a temporary scar on Earth but nature will reclaim the concrete and wastelands very quickly.

And the Universe? It couldn't care less. We're just an abberation. Not even a flash in the pan. Its demise is so not our problem!

 

In other news, it's been cloudy here for a month solid!

[ollypenrice]

12 minutes ago, wuthton said:

It's the mind boggling clash of theories.... Darwin's evolution where with the passing of time life evolves into something better and improved opposed to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy and constant decay. 

I'm going with Darwin. 

...not so sure about this.  In some interpretations there is a move towards 'improvement' but in others there is just adaptation. Is there a hierarchy of value in evolution? It's very likely that the last species to go extinct will be those which are the least evolved, such as microbes in rocks. Humans invent notions like 'higher' species because they have created a hierarchy which places them at the top. But imagine coming to Earth as a alien and comparing insect society with human society. In which would you see the greatest harmony, the most productive co-operation? Which would you see as the more likely to avoid destroying itself?

I'm inclined to see top predators and increasing entropy as remarkably similar...

Olly

[wuthton]

20 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

I don't think that there is a clash.

First - life does not evolve into something better and improved - it evolves into "more suited" to environment.

Fact that locally there is decrease of entropy - does not mean that there isn't overall increase in entropy. It might seem that we are thriving now but look at the mess we made to the planet - overall we did more "harm" than "good".

I'm going to politely disagree. Natural selection by it's very nature means that the next generation will be faster, more intelligent and disease resistant with better senses of sight, smell and taste. The direct opposite of the second law. 

[Paul M]

6 minutes ago, wuthton said:

the next generation will be faster, more intelligent and disease resistant with better senses of sight, smell and taste.

Hmmm.

I've read a few articles over the years that human inteligence is diminishing. There is no fitness benefit as individuals. Fitness in the evolutionary meaning.

We are ever changing but mostly due to excellent nutrition and healthcare etc.

Evolution is paused for us. Technology got in the way.

[JeremyS]

12 minutes ago, wuthton said:

I'm going to politely disagree. Natural selection by it's very nature means that the next generation will be faster, more intelligent and disease resistant with better senses of sight, smell and taste. The direct opposite of the second law. 

That’s not actually what natural evolution specifies, as others have pointed out.

There is also much misunderstanding about what the 2nd law means in terms of living systems . Although addressing a very different premise from yours, Matt, this article on evolution and the 2nd law is enlightening: https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0195-3

[vlaiv]

13 minutes ago, wuthton said:

I'm going to politely disagree. Natural selection by it's very nature means that the next generation will be faster, more intelligent and disease resistant with better senses of sight, smell and taste. The direct opposite of the second law. 

Not necessarily. I'll give you couple examples here:

1. Sloths - they are certainly not as fast as their ancestors. Here next generation is simply not faster in every case

2. Disease - can you name any disease that attacks single cell organisms like amoebae?

3. Sight is known to be lost in several species for example

Theory of evolution just simply states that there is fitness function and that next generations will "score higher" on that fitness function. Fitness function must include better surviving odds - or rather fitness function implies higher survival probability under given environment for long enough to pass genes down the line. Evolution really does not care what happens to any individual once they procreated (this is why we get cancer with much higher probability as we get older past our prime reproductive age).

[Knighty2112]

20 hours ago, Atlas629 said:

A few years ago I learned the fate of the universe, and my exact place in it - hit me pretty hard. Anyone else share similar experiences?

And by the looks of it the booze hit you pretty hard too ‘eh? 😉

[Paul M]

5 minutes ago, Knighty2112 said:

And by the looks of it the booze hit you pretty hard too ‘eh? 😉

Interestingly, alouthough this topic has awakened us from our rain sodden slumber, the OP still has a post count of exactly 1. Can't have been that worried about the Universe! 🤣

[saac]

5 minutes ago, Paul M said:

Interestingly, alouthough this topic has awakened us from our rain sodden slumber, the OP still has a post count of exactly 1. Can't have been that worried about the Universe! 🤣

Maybe his ended - I do hope not !

Jim

[Alien 13]

Is there any universe if there are no observers, time would certainly have no meaning..

Alan

[saac]

27 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

Is there any universe if there are no observers, time would certainly have no meaning..

Alan

"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once" - Albert Einstein  

 

Jim

[vlaiv]

15 minutes ago, saac said:

"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once" - Albert Einstein  

 

Jim

That is actually very profound statement.

When we think of the time, we think of it as passing at exact intervals - always "flowing" at the same pace. But that is of course not true. Even without relativity, we can only say that things happen concurrently - like two physical processes happening at the same time - clock hand moving one second (smallest measurable interval) and something else happening. Almost like in steps. But do steps "last" the same amount of "time" or is only assumption that we can make - events happen in sequence - they are ordered - we only know what is before and after and that divides events to past and future with respect to certain event.

But then steps in relativity and we find out that order of events is not guaranteed. One observer can measure event A to happen before event B and another observer can measure opposite - event B happening before event A. So even our sequence is no longer valid assumption - only thing that is left is fact that everything did not happen at once