Discussion: the goal of human existence should be avoiding the heat death of the universe

Submitted by Mickeymousse1 t3_11stqn6 in Futurology

Let's cut to the chase, nothing Is given, conscience isn't a given, life isn't a given, planets, stars and the universe isn't a given. The universe we live In may be either the only one, or the only one which generated conscience of itself by itself.

With this In perspective, does anyone else agree that humankind needs to bear the burden of not killing Itself long enough so that in the far far future we learn enough about the universe so that we can eventually avoid It's heat death?

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Doktor_Wunderbar t1_jcffbhw wrote

Fortunately, in the short term, this goal is inseparable from the goal of survival. It will be a very, very long time before we have the knowledge to even think about preventing heat death, so we've got to stay alive long enough for that knowledge to accumulate. And convincing people to survive is going to be an easier sell - although recent years have taught us that some people will resist even that.

12

Mickeymousse1 OP t1_jcfftvi wrote

That also right. My point is exactly that. We need to survive for the simple reason os preventing life from disappearing. It's a human responsibility

−1

strvgglecity t1_jcg1vhd wrote

That's nonsense lol. It's stating that the purpose of life is to live, which is like saying the purpose of consuming water is to obtain liquid. It's different words saying the exact same thing, a fully circular statement.

To prove the point, what would then be the purpose of life after the universe does die/disappear?

5

Mickeymousse1 OP t1_jcg3uza wrote

First there wouldn't be any life

And second the same

Biologically the purpose of life is to spread genes

Metaphysically there is no clear and cut reasoning, but that also helps make this point. The reason for life is making life the best it can be and to perpetuate It, that is a philosophical point and so Is my thesis

2

strvgglecity t1_jcg6mno wrote

The role of life is to spread genes. There is no purpose. It is a random occurrence.

2

Mickeymousse1 OP t1_jcgh4aj wrote

Yes It is, does that make it any less amazing?

Not It doesn't, it makes it balls sucking amazing

Hope you can see it some day

Just because we are not doing the best we can with it right now does not mean we can't change It.

−3

strvgglecity t1_jcgmvz7 wrote

Dude nobody is arguing we can't do better. I am telling you flat out for a fact there is no value in thinking of events billions of years in the future, and especially not to base decisions today on what might happen someday in the far future. It's utter nonsense.

2

Mickeymousse1 OP t1_jch3h8f wrote

It's the other way around.

I'm justifying being a good person and doing good because It might eventually lead to avoiding the heat death of the universe

3

strvgglecity t1_jchglm7 wrote

Lol ok. You do you. It's like saying you wear shoes today because 10 billion years from now someone on the other side of the universe will be hungry.

1

Mickeymousse1 OP t1_jchlftg wrote

It's as arbitrary as any religion but more logical.

It that Is exactly my point, it's a philosophy not an exact ultimate reason

2

Chemical_Ad_5520 t1_jchc5my wrote

Just because billions of years is a long time compared to our lifespans doesn't mean these possibilities are irrelevant. You could argue that there's no objective meaning about it, but the same is true about all the decisions you make which affect the present too. Most people don't think very deeply about where humanity, life, intelligence, and the universe are headed, but some people do feel that these long-term outcomes have subjective meaning to them, the same way your choice to eat, work, and enjoy Reddit have some sort of subjective meaning for you.

I care about the fate of humanity, life, intelligence, and the universe, but some people just aren't interested in that. It doesn't make one set of interests right or wrong, it's just a matter of what people are trying to leave behind.

Many people would say that billions of years is too much time for what we do now to have a lasting effect, but we're actually living in a very dynamic and impactful time, which very reasonably could have bearing over the nature of the death of the universe. Entropic forces in the universe seem to be opposed in some ways by the organizing forces of life and intelligence. It's possible that the continued technological advancement of our society makes the difference between the universe eventually destroying itself or finding a sustainable equilibrium. So much is at stake right now, and people who look far into the future as part of their process to try to help control humanity's progress towards positive outcomes are the ones who are best equipped to keep technology and society from going off the rails. Certain technological, political, and social developments in this century could determine the fate of the universe.

−1

strvgglecity t1_jchfeju wrote

The hubris here is astounding. The universe is unaffected.

1

Chemical_Ad_5520 t1_jchv9ql wrote

I'm just explaining that the distant future can be affected by current events, and that some people do place value on those future outcomes. You're the one claiming that this is absolutely untrue and impossible. That sounds like a better example of hubris than my analysis is.

I get that your message is that you'd prefer to focus on nearer-term outcomes, and that's valid, but that doesn't mean it's pointless to talk about how distant futures could be affected by near-term developments.

Most of what you're doing here is just expressing your emotions, hyperbolically claiming absolutes and adding nothing to an actual analysis of this topic. I'm being literal and a little more specific about the content of this topic, which I think is a better contribution than what you've made here.

1

strvgglecity t1_jcjbmwu wrote

I am saying that talking about a billion years from now is not only useless for planning purposes, but actually meaningless as an exercise, because a trillion things will happen that you could never have conceived of. If some remnant of humanity exists in some form that far in the future, who's to say it still exists in 3 dimensions? Or experiences time? Or cannot travel to other universes? Yes, I'm confident that saying you want to save the universe from a death that may not occur for a trillion years is the pinnacle of hubris.

0

Chemical_Ad_5520 t1_jckgs4o wrote

What we do with technology in this century can determine whether life gets off this planet and survives the death of the solar system. If earth life can colonize space, then the organizing forces of life and intelligence may persist until entropy is defeated.

For people who are interested in preserving life in the universe for extremely long periods of time, these topics are interesting to think about because of how many future events hinge on the present - the fate of the only life we know depends so much on what we do today, it's awesome in a literal way.

I'm not saying that we can definitely accomplish anything particular, I'm saying that a lot is possible if life and intelligence continue to exist, possibly including extending the lifespan of the universe. Thus some people feel it's important to do what it takes to preserve life.

I'd be happy to debate this in more depth if you'd be willing to provide an argument grounded in evidence and logic. You just keep saying "it's too much time for anything to make a difference." Based on what? Give me a real argument to respond to.

0

strvgglecity t1_jckw3u7 wrote

Not a single word of this has meaning. I am telling you flat out it is impossible to predict that far in the future. All the things you dream of could be the exact reasons for our extinction.

0

Chemical_Ad_5520 t1_jcra7g7 wrote

Since you're not giving me any substantial reasoning to argue against, I'll just elaborate about my position. I'm not claiming any absolutes, but I do think that what we do now can affect the probabilities of one or another long term outcomes.

I basically feel like a dead universe is less interesting than one with life in it, because a dead universe is going to decay and destroy itself relatively predictively, but a universe with intelligent life existing for long periods of time is more dynamic and might do some pretty interesting things. There's no apparent objective meaning about the two possibilities, it's just my opinion that the dynamic nature of intelligent life is more interesting.

In light of this, I prefer that human life survives and figures out how to colonize space without destroying itself, because that would increase the potential longevity of earth life in the universe, which is the only life we have reasonable evidence of. If we can achieve space colonization - a near-term goal compared to our timeline of the lifespan of the universe - then the probability of earth life/intelligence organizing the universe such that the nature of its demise is affected goes from zero to potentially non-zero. You don't know that there is definitely no way for this to happen, except that it's obvious that life or intelligence can't change the universe if it doesn't exist. Thus if we colonize space, we are creating the possibility of outliving the solar system, which allows for some potentiality to affect the universe at extremely long time scales.

On the topic of determining what the best moves to prevent our extinction in this century are, I'd say that being very careful and wary of ethics in the development of AGI, nanorobotics, and genetic engineering are probably most important. Mitigation of ecological damage feels like it'd be next, then probably climate change, then probably we need cheaper desalination to curb conflict as we get past the middle of the century, and hopefully the risk of all-out nuclear war doesn't get too high. It would be nice to have a backup human colony in case something goes really wrong on earth during this dangerous period of technological development, but not at significant expense to these priorities. But on that note, society is nowhere close to optimally addressing humanity's risks and desires. Whether or not you think space colonization is worth any of our resources or not seems secondary to the ridiculous waste and inefficiency of the economy in general, which begs the question "how would you actually want to try to change things?"

It's already hard to see how we can even get future technologies developed with equity in mind, I really can't see how someone could expect it's possible to get all powerful people to forever abstain from creating incredibly powerful technologies, short of killing everyone, which defeats the purpose. So we have to deal with these risks and challenges, and we don't seem to have the option of doing it in an optimal fashion, so it's best to focus on what can actually be done to improve the future. Contributing to certain social movements or technological developments is the bulk of people's options for how to make impactful contributions. Working to make the development of technologies safe and their implementation ethical, and mitigating risks to communities and civilization at large are good ways to try to contribute in my opinion. If space colonization is something you can find a way to contribute to, I see that as being positive.

0

FredR23 t1_jcgwnq9 wrote

that's the function of life, purpose is self-imposed

2

Vlad__the__Inhaler t1_jcffbw9 wrote

I disagree with your "nothing is given" statement, as the heat death of the universe IS a given. You cant avoid it.

5

Surur t1_jcfg3av wrote

Well, it could also rebound and end in another contraction via the Big Crunch.

2

Chemical_Ad_5520 t1_jchcxxc wrote

There are a variety of theories about how entropic forces may decay and destroy the universe, but consider that life and intelligence are able to organize parts of the universe in ways that resist entropy. That's evidence of a possibility to organize the universe such that it finds a sustainable equilibrium. Heat death is not absolutely guaranteed.

2

Mickeymousse1 OP t1_jcffpe9 wrote

Yes, that is a given. I mean that life isn't a given and now that we got the opportunity we need to at least that this change to know with certainty If it's possible to prevent the heat death of the universe, and we need to survive long enough to gather that much knowledge

1

94746382926 t1_jcjdj3k wrote

The laws of thermodynamics were discovered in 1850. So only about 170 years ago. It's very possible we will find flaws or loopholes in this between now and the predicted heat death of the universe. We have an almost unfathomable amount of time to discover new laws that may exist.

1

thedoctorstatic t1_jcfk2ob wrote

If humanity(or an evolution of it) survives the expansion of the sun, then the contraction and death. I would be a little surprised.

That's in 4 billion years or so.

Heat death is trillions of years away. If any ancestor of modern humans exists at that time, I'm sure they'll think of something.

Assuming heat death is the destiny of the universe. I think until dark matter and energy are better understood, the assumption the universe will continue expanding infinitely should be taken with a grain of salt

4

SomeTimeBeforeNever t1_jcg01sk wrote

by then, our experience of consciousness won't require a body to experience itself.

1

rixtil41 t1_jcgmens wrote

It will require energy. Which is the second law of thermodynamics, which says that in oder to think, you must use energy and not completely free. Memory would also be an issue as you can't have an unlimited amount of memory.

2

Zli_kukumar t1_jcfimxp wrote

heath death of the universe is at least of our concerns, there will be a lot more events to survive before that

3

fieryflamingfire t1_jcfjbcz wrote

I'd say we have a distribution of things to care about, and we should put "avoid heat death of the universe" on the list just as a fun reminder. But (in line with u/Doktor_Wunderbar's sentiments) we shouldn't sink any actually effort into solving it (maybe in 100,000 years).

3

Mickeymousse1 OP t1_jcfpluo wrote

Yes, i 100% agree to this. It's more of a universal motivator to fix all of our other problems in my perspective

1

strvgglecity t1_jcg2e0f wrote

We have immediate threats to human extinction right now, literally today. The heat death of the universe is either billions or trillions of years in the future, and no species or planet or star or even photon has ever existed that long.

2

Mickeymousse1 OP t1_jcg449p wrote

You missed the point.

if we don't fix our problems now we won't be able of changing the inevitable (or even knowing if it can be changed/ is inevitable) because we will be extinct

0

strvgglecity t1_jcg6gmn wrote

Your reasoning is completely devoid of logic. We solve problems today so we are alive tomorrow, or 10 years from now. Not 10 trillion years from now lolol. Why would anyone ever care about such a thing?

2

fieryflamingfire t1_jcgd0t2 wrote

It's not unreasonable (or "illogical") to ask whether this type of long-term awareness would be valuable.

You ask, "Why would anyone ever care about such a thing?", here's two reasons:

  1. If it serves as a cultural motivator / unified goal (like the OP is suggesting), then it's valuable even if you don't give a shit about what happens 10 trillion years from now
  2. Many of us already feel a built-in sense of obligation to future generations of humans. Why not just extrapolate that as far as it can go? (as long as it doesn't disrupt our ability to focus on present problems, and as long as we appropriately weight the needs of humans today)
4

Mickeymousse1 OP t1_jcghi6k wrote

Now this guy gets the point☝️☝️☝️

It's exactly that, extrapolating the obligation to future generations to it's maximum potencial

1

strvgglecity t1_jcgliar wrote

This is hilarious nonsense. I don't think either of you understand what billions or trillions truly mean. Based on how evolution and life works as we know it, there is zero chance we would still be the same species in billions of years. We won't even be humans. We might all be conscious robots in 100 or 200 years. There is no reason to ever consider how present actions will affect the far future. It has no value and is not productive in any way. It's like making a plan in case the gravitational constant changes, or the speed of light stops being constant.

1

fieryflamingfire t1_jch85vj wrote

No reason ever? Beyond being an engaging philosophical topic, it can have the benefits that have already been mentioned.

You point out that there life will be very different that far into the future, which I'd agree with. But our passage of time might be very different as well.

Again, not saying we dump all our grant money (or any) studying this question. But I also don't think it's useless to think about.

1

StarChild413 t1_jchuze7 wrote

> We have immediate threats to human extinction right now, literally today.

We aren't a monolithic species

> and no species or planet or star or even photon has ever existed that long.

By that logic why not just say blow it all up because the universe in its current form hasn't always existed since there was one

0

strvgglecity t1_jcjbpgz wrote

Lol blow it up? This post is asking about using resources to plan to prevent a hypothetical event billions or trillions of years in the future hahahaha. Sorry I just can't take this seriously anymore.

2

RTNoftheMackell t1_jcfg24h wrote

This is very close to what is called Omega Point Theology

2

Nurture_Wizard t1_jcfi920 wrote

Its a great goal to have, even if its to the best of our collective knowledge we can *at best* delay the inevitable heat death. But we can stave it off *by a lot* for example by putting out stars (by tearing it apart and turning it into a gas cloud, preserving its energy)

2

Rogermcfarley t1_jcfjtkh wrote

Humans will likely cease to exist as the biological entities that we are now. If we get AGI/ASI then humans will have to biologically interface with machines. I can't imagine humans with their biological frailties surviving billions and billions of years it seems unlikely.

I'm uncertain of the purpose of survival as an end goal. It seems to have no other purpose than to exist and keep replicating/surviving into the future.

I would like to know if matter as we know it can be created out of nothing, although nothing has never been witnessed by Humans there's always something. Logically everything that exists if traced back must have come from absolute nothing. We haven't proved absolute nothing exists though. Of course something coming into existence would appear to be a time based event. So if time doesn't exist then there is no beginning or ending as they are events as a function of time.

Anyway I find the thought of everything existing from absolute nothing extremely puzzling much more so than wondering about existential crisis of the human condition.

I'm not sure how Humans could evade the heat death of the Universe, if that's the actual reality facing us, regardless it's a bold assumption to assume humanity will exist significantly into the future whereby we exist long enough to be there at the end.

1

SomeTimeBeforeNever t1_jcfotda wrote

Humans are an iteration on the cosmic evolutionary scale and whatever comes next is perfectly natural and nothing to be feared as we are one with all things, the physical separation we experience is an illusion.

I like this theory of the origins of life on earth https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2019.2045 The Hot Spring Hypothesis for an Origin of Life

3

fieryflamingfire t1_jcgfd6q wrote

>it's a bold assumption to assume humanity will exist significantly into the future whereby we exist long enough to be there at the end

Even if it's a low probability that humans exist that long (which I don't believe it is), planning for it seems rational because:

  1. If the wager is correct, you've successful prepared yourself (or future humans) for a better experience of the future. That's a good thing
  2. If wager is wrong, you wasted a little bit of time that could have been spent maximizing your present utility, which seems like a small, marginal reward that I'm happy forfeiting.
2

Rogermcfarley t1_jcggclw wrote

There's almost zero chance humanity will exist the time frame is around 1.7×10 to the power of 106 years. It took 13.8 billion years of cosmic history for the first human beings to arise, and we did so relatively recently: just 300,000 years ago. 99.998% of the time that passed since the Big Bang had no human beings at all; our entire species has only existed for the most recent 0.002% of the Universe.

Evaluating those figures says to me it's extremely unlikely this should be of concern. I will never know how long humanity exists but it's likely to have come and gone in a negligible amount of time compared to the timeframe for the heat death of the universe to be realised. In fact for the amount of time Humans have existed there could be a hypothetical reincarnation of humanity billions of times in that timeframe. The task for humanity to exist this long is overwhelmingly against it ever happening. In fact humanity it's almost definite we'll make no dent in that timeframe and will have ceased to exist trillions of years before the Universe ends.

1

fieryflamingfire t1_jchac3w wrote

Unless we transition to a state where our passage (and perception) of time is much faster

1

Rogermcfarley t1_jchaori wrote

Why would that be advantageous?

1

fieryflamingfire t1_jchbohm wrote

I was thinking that'd be a symptom of some other change, not the point

1

Rogermcfarley t1_jchc96g wrote

That would be applicable to the whole of humanity?

1

fieryflamingfire t1_jckc1jy wrote

Sure. Our perceptions and mental states are probably going to be subject to tons of technological "tuning". Who knows what that's going to look like

This is all spitballing / conjecture obviously

1

Rogermcfarley t1_jckcz8p wrote

1.7x10 to the power of 106 is an unimaginably vast amount of time. Currently we live on a rock in space so we'd need faster than light travel to get anywhere meaningful which of course would alter time relative to the initial position. I can't predict what will be possible. However as a species we have existed for a negligible amount of time. I honestly can't imagine humanity existing even a million years from now. Anyway It's not something any of us living today will find out. It's possible Humans will wipe themselves out before then, hypothetically speaking we might create ASI which could decide to wipe us out or we may interface with machines and eventually lose our biological state.

1

fieryflamingfire t1_jcksrhz wrote

That's one possibility. Another possibility is: we don't wipe ourselves out, we build ASI and sustain full control over it, and we lose our biological state on purpose rather than on accident.

And even if this is something none of us will ever experience, thinking about it still seems like a fun / useful exercise

1

SomeTimeBeforeNever t1_jcfoaro wrote

Consciousness is everything and exists independently of the human species. it's inextricable from all things in the universe because it's the underlying energetic force that animates everything..... even if there were "nothing" there'd still be quantum wave functions of subatomic particle probability and that would produce life again.

Life is just one of infinite dances of consciousness experiencing itself. It doesn't need humans to do that.

1

Mickeymousse1 OP t1_jcfpzog wrote

That is an extraordinary claim which therefore requires extraordinary evidence

1

SomeTimeBeforeNever t1_jcfr5mo wrote

The evidence has existed for a long time, google the “double slit” physics experiment that proves consciousness is inextricable from physical reality.

Nothing can physically exist without the presence of an observer, and in the absence of an observer physical reality collapses into its quantum wave function.

0

Mickeymousse1 OP t1_jcfxxg2 wrote

I know the double slit experiment. The results would be the same if there was no observer at the end of the machine that measured the electrons. It's not the conscience that changed the result but the act of measuring the activity of the electrons

3

SomeTimeBeforeNever t1_jcfzl2x wrote

I don't agree. The experiment proved photons produce a scatter plot when there's no observer, aka a wave pattern, and when there is an observer, the photon strikes the same point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyP80vLos60 this video has commentary by Dr. James Gates, one of the most brilliant physicists who's ever lived because he discovered computer code created by Claude Shannon that's used in today's internet browsers in his string theory equations.

1

Mickeymousse1 OP t1_jcg39xi wrote

There is no discussion.

Humans are seeing what the machines capture

The act of capturing the electrons data changed their behavior.

If it was the intent of the conscience that was changing the electrons behavior staring really hard at it and fully believing it would change anything would produce different results, which it doesn't

1

SomeTimeBeforeNever t1_jcg6u03 wrote

I don't think you understand.

When there is a human observer, the machine records the photons hitting the same point over and over again.

When there is no human observer, the machine records the photons hitting multiple points and they ultimately form a scatter plot, which is a visualization of the quantum wave function of probability.

The experiment shows that reality is simultaneously tangible and probabilistic and consciousness is inextricable from physical reality. When you remove conscious observation from physical reality, physical reality collapses into a quantum wave function of probability.

You're right, there is no discussion. you either understand the physics, or you don't.

1

Mickeymousse1 OP t1_jcgft26 wrote

the duality only shows up when the individual photon passing through the slit is measured

When there is no measurement on the individual photons it behaves as a wave and when there is it behaves as an individual particle.

Nothing to do with conscience

1

SomeTimeBeforeNever t1_jcgm57i wrote

Conscious observer is the differentiating variable. Everything else is the same. The photon is always measured, it’s never not measured. The experiment is the photon being shot in the same way at the same place with and without a conscious observer.

When there is no conscious observer it behaves differently and produces a scatter plot in the measurements. When there is a conscious observer, it strikes the same place over and over.

You should read more about the experiment it’s very interesting. If you don’t understand the experiment there’s really nothing left to discuss here.

1

grundar t1_jcgti4j wrote

> The photon is always measured, it’s never not measured.

That is not accurate:
> "In the famous double-slit experiment, single particles, such as photons, pass one at a time through a screen containing two slits. If either path is monitored, a photon seemingly passes through one slit or the other, and no interference will be seen. Conversely, if neither is checked, a photon will appear to have passed through both slits simultaneously before interfering with itself, acting like a wave."

The classical double-slit experiment -- as well as the beam-splitter and atomic variants discussed in the article -- have additional measurement in one condition vs. the other:
> "Truscott’s team found that when the second laser pulse was not applied, the probability of the atom being detected in each of the momentum states was 0.5, regardless of the phase lag between the two. However, application of the second pulse produced a distinct sine-wave interference pattern."

i.e., there is a human observer in both cases, but there is more manipulation of the photon in one case than the other case. As a result, the difference is the different manipulation, not the presence of an observer.

1

SomeTimeBeforeNever t1_jcgzjnn wrote

I'm not sure how to respond to this because it doesn't disprove the findings of the double slit experiment.

From the article:

"Indeed, the results of both Truscott and Aspect’s experiments shows that a particle’s wave or particle nature is most likely undefined until a measurement is made. The other less likely option would be that of backward causation – that the particle somehow has information from the future – but this involves sending a message faster than light, which is forbidden by the rules of relativity."

The presence of an observer is necessary to experience the world. If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound?

No it doesn't. Sound is the result of the disturbance of a medium, usually air, oscillating between 40 and 40,000 hz striking our eardrum, which sends a signal to our brain that produces the sensation of sound. If the puffs of air were oscillating below 40 and above 40,000, we'd hear nothing. There's nothing intrinsically different between 40 hz and 20 hz, but only 40 hz produces sound.

Same thing with light. Photons between 4 and 7 nanometers striking our optic nerve send a signal to the brain to produce the image. Photos below 4 and above 7 wouldn't produce an image.

Our universe is fine tuned for life and our consciousness is inextricable from it because it's part of it. We aren't separate from anything, we're part of a dynamic cosmic process.

1

Mickeymousse1 OP t1_jch3635 wrote

The conditions change when the photon is being individually measured, that's why ONLY when they are being individually measured ( not through conscientious observation) the results change. There's no time travel involved

1

grundar t1_jchv7zx wrote

> I'm not sure how to respond to this because it doesn't disprove the findings of the double slit experiment.

It's an article explaining those experiments; of course it doesn't "disprove" them. The point is that it shows your understanding of them is flawed.

In particular, it clarifies that the difference is the measurement, not the observer. Note what you originally said:
> Conscious observer is the differentiating variable. Everything else is the same. The photon is always measured, it’s never not measured.

And note what you just quoted:
> "Indeed, the results of both Truscott and Aspect’s experiments shows that a particle’s wave or particle nature is most likely undefined until a measurement is made."

So the differentiating variable is the details of the measurement, either when/where it's measured (before/after passing through the slits) or how often it's measured (second beam splitter). There is no difference in the presence of the conscious observer; contrary to what you were saying, the article clarifies that that is not the differentiating variable.

> The presence of an observer is necessary to experience the world. If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound? > > No it doesn't. Sound is the result of the disturbance of a medium, usually air, oscillating between 40 and 40,000 hz striking our eardrum, which sends a signal to our brain that produces the sensation of sound.

You're essentially begging the question here by using a definition of "sound" that is not valid for physics:
> "In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave, through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid. In human physiology and psychology, sound is the reception of such waves and their perception by the brain."

It only seems like an observer is necessary for "sound" because you're using the wrong definition of the word; you're trying to reason about physics using a definition meant for human psychology. It's no more valid than trying to reason about calculus using the wrong definition of the word "integral".

1

SomeTimeBeforeNever t1_jckamjw wrote

No, the sound example shows how the universe is fined tuned for life.

Sound isnt sound until puffs of air meet our eardrum. It’s a pretty straight forward concept: Prior to meeting an ear drum, sound is rapid little puffs of air and when those little puffs of air meet an ear drum, then we have what is known as sound.

What’s the difference between 40 and 30 hz? Nothing except one produces an experience of sound inside of our minds and other does not. If there is no ear, there is no sound, only puffs of air.

The observer effect is a well documented phenomenon https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/observer-effect-quantum-mechanics.html

Whether I understand the nuances of the experiment is irrelevant to understanding the concept, so my bad, I didn’t mean to caught up in a discussion on that but I have yet to see anything that debunk the observer effect.

1

grundar t1_jckoe1f wrote

> > It only seems like an observer is necessary for "sound" because you're using the wrong definition of the word; you're trying to reason about physics using a definition meant for human psychology. It's no more valid than trying to reason about calculus using the wrong definition of the word "integral".
>
> Sound isnt sound until puffs of air meet our eardrum.

That is incorrect if you're trying to do physics.

I get that you like the idea of the presence of a mind being necessary for something to be "sound", but that is literally wrong in a physics context. It's not even a matter of opinion, that's just not how the word "sound" is defined for use in physics.

> The observer effect is a well documented phenomenon

From that link:
> "The observer in this experiment was not human. Instead, they used a tiny electron detector that could spot the presence of passing electrons. The quantum “observer’s” capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it. Apart from “observing,” or detecting the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current."

i.e., the key is not "an observer" in the "conscious agent" sense, but rather detection or measurement in the "physically interacts with the system" sense. That article says exactly the same thing that I've been saying all along, which is that the difference is measurement, not a conscious observer.

Again, you're getting hung up on definitions of words that are not correct for a physics context. "Observer" does not imply that there is someone doing the observing; it just means measurement is occurring.

1

SomeTimeBeforeNever t1_jcktg4b wrote

"In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave, through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid."

Sound is the RESULT of vibrations that propagate as an acoustic wave through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid, or solid making contact with your eardrum between 40 and 40,000 hz. Again, if the frequencies are below or above that range, there is no sound.

How can there be sound if no one can hear it? That's paradoxical and defies logic. Using a general term to describe both vibrations that can and can't be experienced by a human ear is imprecise. You can call puffs of air that can't be heard by a human ear "sound" all day long, it's wrong. There is obviously no sound because you can't describe what you can't hear. You can't describe the intervals, the notes, the tones, the timber, etc.

I'm not arguing the narrow and imprecise physics definition of sound. It's not a debate.

1

dja_ra t1_jcgxvg0 wrote

as I understand it, the universe ceases to exist, in fact all reality stops, at the moment of your death. No brain, no awareness, nothing. So, why then, am I concerned about the future. I won’t know that live, heck, I won’t even know that I lived. Also, we are having trouble getting people to do anything about global warming, which is a much more fixable problem than the heat-death of the universe.

1

Turbulent-Pea-8826 t1_jcj8n3w wrote

I would say humans extending life/ becoming immortal is first. Then finding a way to live in another solar system second.

If we aren’t around for the end of the universe then what does it matter?

1

Postnificent t1_jcu7zxo wrote

Avoid what? The entire universe is a result of, never mind, not here to upset anyone. It will be sucked through all the black holes and spewed out again, that’s how it works.

This thread is so very human

1

rogert2 t1_jd0kpfw wrote

I have had this same thought, and I think it would make a good premise for a fictional world. In my imagination, I call it "the Phoenix Project."

The problem, of course, is that humanity is not going to survive long enough for this goal to be relevant. The climate crisis will likely exterminate the majority of aerobic life by 2100. If anybody survives, it will be a handful of billionaires and dictators, and those dummies are frankly not capable of perpetuating a functional species.

All humans and all human descendants will be dead before 2200.

1

Mickeymousse1 OP t1_jcfds0e wrote

In my perspective this goal Is not as important If:

This is not the only universe and there are many others with complex conscientious life

( Or if the universe doesn't come to an end via heat death but rather collapses in on Itself to generate a new universe with either the same, similar or completely different rules, both "ifs" come to the same conclusion)

Or

Self conscious life is completely common and we are not the only ones to do It

0

maskedpaki t1_jcffny7 wrote

this is literally not important at all

​

we have so many current issues and existential risks plus even if we start caring about the heat death 1 billion years from now then we would have wasted 0.000000000000000000000000000.........1% of our time. AI will kill us before 2100 stop worrying about far off stuff we never even reach.

0

fieryflamingfire t1_jcgeg5q wrote

If we start funding all grant money towards escaping heat death, then that's silly.

But if we're just talking about whether it's worth pondering or considering, that could be a motivator towards solving present problems (as the OP has suggested).

1

maskedpaki t1_jcghnzt wrote

How would it motivate anything ?

It just distracts from real issues that we are facing now. Like we REALLY could die before 2050 by AI

Stop wasting time on issues 10^100 years away

1

fieryflamingfire t1_jch6csw wrote

Idk, let's speculate on some reasons:

  1. It makes our current conflicts seem small or unimportant. A sense of "smallness" against the backdrop of the entire species or the entire universe. This seems similar in spirit to comments made by people like Carl Sagan or Neil DeGrasse Tyson when discussing the "largeness" of the universe and Earth's place in it.
  2. It gives us a common goal, which might drive social cohesion, which is a role religion and myth currently fulfill
  3. It makes us reflect on why we care about our own survival in the first place, and what the whole point of our existence is beyond our own survival as individuals

This is all speculation, but it's just as speculative as: this is going to distract us from facing real issues and bring us closer to our demise.

1

strvgglecity t1_jcg1k0a wrote

There is no purpose for anything and nobody is required to do anything. Everything is random chance. Sentient creatures determine their own meaning.

0

Mickeymousse1 OP t1_jcg3esv wrote

And that is beautiful isn't it? That's the whole point, to never let this die

Through random chance we got here and it makes It all the more amazing

1

strvgglecity t1_jcg6x4m wrote

Based on current realities, I'd argue human expansion would be a net negative for life, assuming there is other life in the universe. Our species behaves like a cancer, growing exponentially until there is no more material to be consumed, at which point it must find new resources.

−1

fieryflamingfire t1_jcgdnxj wrote

If there's life on other planets, you don't think they'd be doing the same thing?

If a different species on earth were the ones who got intelligence (let's say, pandas), they would have handled the evolution of civilization differently?

2

strvgglecity t1_jcgm856 wrote

Not if they are intelligent. No intelligent species would construct its own demise on purpose just to achieve a vanishingly small period of extreme opulence and convenience.

−1

fieryflamingfire t1_jch8hpv wrote

Seems like an unfair definition of intelligence.

It could just be that the coordination of 8 billion intelligent agents is a very hard task (which would explain why the "Why can't we all just get along" sentiment doesn't ever change much)

1

strvgglecity t1_jchg8dy wrote

Your definition of intelligence seems to reflect solely on the experience of humans. Dolphins are intelligent. Primates are intelligent. Crows are intelligent.

What exactly do you mean, then, when you say "intelligence"?

1

StarChild413 t1_jchup73 wrote

Your definition that you say humans lack despite being human seems to confuse sapience with wisdom

2

fieryflamingfire t1_jckb6qv wrote

Good question. One definition could be something like: what is the most computationally difficult task your species can solve? (and we can barrow from some metrics from computer science to define task difficulty)

The key here is: I think the problems we see with the world aren't the result of humans being "unintelligent" (possibly similar to u/StarChild413's point about sapience -vs- wisdom).

I think if an alien species visited earth and watched us, their conclusion wouldn't be: "wow, look at these idiots". Rather, I think it would be: "oh, that makes sense that they're doing that, given millions of years of evolution in competitive, resource scarce environments + the computational problem of resource allocation with a species that large".

2

strvgglecity t1_jckwqkz wrote

I'm pretty sure scarcity doesn't cause fascism, racism, sexism, or nuclear bombs. If aliens visit us, this is the reaction I expect: https://youtu.be/7tScAyNaRdQ

0

fieryflamingfire t1_jcl5hfq wrote

interesting. so armed conflict and the technologies that it evolved (like nuclear bombs) have nothing to do with resource scarcity and the evolved drive to acquire surplus and control?

You're aware chimp tribes go to war with eachother, right? If chimps won the evolutionary race, they're civilization would have been one giant enlightened progressive think-tank? They wouldn't have many of the same qualities we do?

"Humans are just animals" is a comment usually made to convey the idea that "we aren't so special", or to keep our species' ego in check. I think the comment also applies to hyper-cynicism about our species.

Funny youtube video though, thanks for sharing

1

strvgglecity t1_jcl6f2y wrote

World war II had nothing to do with scarcity or resources, for which the atomic bomb was proposed, invented and used. Building atomic science is indicative of intelligence. Using that science to commit genocide is not intelligence.

1

fieryflamingfire t1_jclik9j wrote

My claim here is that the practice of warfare makes sense given our evolutionary history, not that every specific war must be related to resource scarcity.

There are problems in trying to predict the evolutionary cause of something, since it's difficult to falsify any evolution claim. But believing that all of our negative characteristics are unique to us, or just some historical accident, is narcissistic and unhelpfully cynical.

1

strvgglecity t1_jcliyfv wrote

Unique? Why is reddit today absolutely chock full of people who make up shit in their own heads that I never said? I never said anything about being unique. I listed facts. An interstellar society would likely see us and say "no fucking way are we stepping in that shit show, we'll check back in 200 or 300 years".

1

fieryflamingfire t1_jclys18 wrote

So you're saying the negative aspects of humans are unique humans? an interstellar society wouldn't have the same negative traits, and would be surprised to see that we would? if that isn't what you're saying let me know, I dont want to put words in your mouth.

And I'm glad we're clarfiying, because my claim here is the exact opposite of yours: the negative aspects of human society are a result of evolutionary pressures, and any large scale society anywhere in the universe would develop similar negative traits assuming they went through a similar evolutionary trajectory.

1

strvgglecity t1_jclzb8w wrote

No evidence to support your hypothesis. It's made up out of thin air. I am saying any entities that achieve interstellar travel must be extremely advanced, far beyond the capabilities of a species that wages global wars on itself.

1

fieryflamingfire t1_jcvd2vz wrote

Lol, of course there isn't any evidence. We're talking about an extremely hypothetical scenario. Both of our positions lack empirical data. The difference is, my claim is descriptive, while yours is loaded with your own personal value judgements.

And my claim isn't that a species visiting earth is going to have the same problems / conflicts that humans do. It's that they wouldn't be surprised. Or, they would have probably gone through a similar development, making the same "mistakes".

1

Chemical_Ad_5520 t1_jci4978 wrote

But, since we're on the topic of how to control for effects over extremely long timelines, what do you think about the fact that earth life will die off in a relatively short period of time unless it can intelligently organize in order to colonize other solar systems? This solar system has a relatively near expiration date as far as the habitability for all life as we know it is concerned. Earth life has probably been around for more time than it has left before the sun kills everything here.

This period of time is so dynamic with regards to extremely long-term outcomes because we're so close technologically to being able to save earth life from this expiration date, but it's a damaging and dangerous time too. We're on the edge of destruction and salvation simultaneously, and the outcome depends on how successful we are at working together as a group to wield technology in favor of our interests (including long term ones).

The point of the above being that earth life is middle aged or elderly at 4 billion years old, considering the life cycle of this solar system. The only chance earth has to make an impact on a more distant future than a few billion more years years is for a species like humans to make space colonization possible. Could another intelligent species have performed this whole process better? Maybe, but a lot of the ills of our society and impact on ecology are integral to how a society must develop technologies like this, it just depends what kind of instincts you have to fight against as a group while doing it.

I feel like saving earth life from a relatively near-term death sentence is better than barring technological advancement because it created an ecological disaster. Lots of natural things cause ecological disasters, but instead of getting nothing out of it, we could be saving the only life we know of in the universe. Since we've already found ourselves in this position, I think the responsible thing to do is to do our best to control and stabilize climate and ecology while we take advantage of a potentially fleeting opportunity to help life get off this planet. It spent 4 billion years cooking up different creatures and destroying them, and now it's produced one that might be strong enough to leave the nest and make something of itself before this incubation chamber dries up. I feel compelled to take advantage of the opportunity.

There's a popular analysis called the Fermi Paradox, which postulates that the likelihood of technologically advanced alien life existing within a given proximity to earth seems higher based on a scientific analysis than we observe in space. We don't see robust evidence of technologically advanced alien life anywhere, and it begs the question "Why do we find ourselves so alone in our observable section of the universe?" The possible answers are:

•Maybe life is really difficult to get the right conditions for in the first place.

•Maybe technologically intelligent life is really difficult for life to evolve into.

•Maybe technologically intelligent life overwhelmingly tends to destroy itself with its own technology before it can use it to save itself and exist for a long time.

•Or maybe there are plenty of other aliens, and we either live in a simulated universe just for us, made by an alien, or the aliens overwhelmingly use technology that doesn't produce recognizable electromagnetic signatures for whatever reason.

The mainstream interpretation is that the evidence feels a little stacked against life being difficult to start in the first place, just because of the vast scope of the observable universe. The same goes for the idea that technologically intelligent life would be too difficult to evolve because of the competitive edge afforded by it, and based on the variety of intelligence we see across the animal kingdom. The third idea feels particularly compelling because this advanced technology does indeed feel dangerous to wield. The fourth possibility doesn't have robust evidence supporting it, but it's a possibility and should be included for the sake of rigor.

Futurists (Futurologists?) talk about what may be the "great filter" which has kept the universe so devoid of technologically advanced alien life, and worry that we may be close to encountering it. Considering how profoundly alone we find ourselves in the universe, I don't feel comfortable being so quick to throw away the one chance we know of to preserve life for the future.

1