No pint in steering now
No pint in steering now
Yes, just duck and cover. Everyone who ducks and covers will liver. Others will die. Survival of the duckest.
anyone who confuses Seger with Keith must be trolling. You had me going until then.
Eating a Big Crunch will probably kill most people, but I think most advanced civilizations should have a few mutants able to survive the challenge.
Great post.
However I think we need to make better use of the term "universe."
Whether our observable "universe" is actually the sum total of everything, or we live in a multiverse of many such universes, we still find ourselves, by pure logical default, in the one and only Universe (capital U).
The multiverse theory makes a similar leap as relativity in that, much like Einstein discovered time to be an actual physical dimension like space, so the multiverse (or "many-world's") hypothesis posits that possibility is also a physical space. So when we ask the question: "could things have been otherwise?" The answer is yes, but it is somewhere else that they are otherwise. Some other place very much like ours. But our earth, our galaxy, our observable universe only ever could have been what it is.
And since we find ourselves, no matter where we are, within existence as a whole (ie, the Universe-with-a-capital-U), it means that you and I and everything we experience is of absolute necessity in the grandest sense. By the most brute, primordial Truth, it could not have been that there was never a Nick Symmonds, a Ventolin^3, a you or me, or freaking chestnuts for that matter. Since they exist, and since every other possible place where they might exist or not is still inside of existence as a whole, they are as inseparable and necessary to the Universe as mathematics.
We exist "inside" the only thing the there ever is or was or could be, the one thing that happens. I find that fact that there is this grand "happening" that is in permanent, fundamental triumph over non-existence to be the most fascinating notion imaginable. It transcends fears of the Big Crunch and universal extinction because it shows them to be manifestly irrelevant to the big picture of the pure mystery and wonder if being itself.
EPO is my middle name wrote:
Species that haven’t achieved that maturity could not be allowed to infect the rest of the universe, but fortunately that has never required my intervention. The knowledge always does the trick.
Who does this guy think he is?
TruthwithacapitalT wrote:
Great post.
However I think we need to make better use of the term "universe."
Whether our observable "universe" is actually the sum total of everything, or we live in a multiverse of many such universes, we still find ourselves, by pure logical default, in the one and only Universe (capital U).
The multiverse theory makes a similar leap as relativity in that, much like Einstein discovered time to be an actual physical dimension like space, so the multiverse (or "many-world's") hypothesis posits that possibility is also a physical space. So when we ask the question: "could things have been otherwise?" The answer is yes, but it is somewhere else that they are otherwise. Some other place very much like ours. But our earth, our galaxy, our observable universe only ever could have been what it is.
And since we find ourselves, no matter where we are, within existence as a whole (ie, the Universe-with-a-capital-U), it means that you and I and everything we experience is of absolute necessity in the grandest sense. By the most brute, primordial Truth, it could not have been that there was never a Nick Symmonds, a Ventolin^3, a you or me, or freaking chestnuts for that matter. Since they exist, and since every other possible place where they might exist or not is still inside of existence as a whole, they are as inseparable and necessary to the Universe as mathematics.
We exist "inside" the only thing the there ever is or was or could be, the one thing that happens. I find that fact that there is this grand "happening" that is in permanent, fundamental triumph over non-existence to be the most fascinating notion imaginable. It transcends fears of the Big Crunch and universal extinction because it shows them to be manifestly irrelevant to the big picture of the pure mystery and wonder if being itself.
Also a very good post. Just bear in mind, in your discussion of the multiverse hypothesis, that it is just a hypothesis at the moment. It is one among many possible interpretations of QM, and none of these hypotheses is generally accepted to be "correct" beyond reasonable doubt yet. There are other interpretations, like the Copenhagen interpretation, or Rovelli's relational QM (check it out - very clever), in which nothing is of absolute necessity, and what interpretation is superior is still a matter of open debate among the brightest minds in physics. So the multiverse hypothesis is very cool, but it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Your distinction about universes is a great point.
Bird on a throw pillow wrote:
EPO is my middle name wrote:Species that haven’t achieved that maturity could not be allowed to infect the rest of the universe, but fortunately that has never required my intervention. The knowledge always does the trick.
Who does this guy think he is?
I just threw that in there as a joke to see if anyone would pay attention and actually read my post.
rover wrote:
much like Einstein discovered time to be an actual physical dimension like space
No one has made any such "discovery." No one has discovered "space" either. Other than being abstract concepts derived from certain measurements, they're nothing - nobody has seriously investigated just what, if anything, is actually there corresponding to them.
Physics has exhaustively studied the stuff in the known universe, but it knows next to nothing about the not-stuff that is far more prevalent.
Limey UK Runner wrote:
Worried about the Future wrote:Sorry if I've similiarly ruined anyone else's life by even talking about this,
That's ok. To be honest I think my life peaked when I touched my first pair of boobs and it's pretty much been downhill after that.
Surely the peak can't just be touching the boobs for the first time? It took me quite a few girls before I found one and my peak... and those memories of her will be with me, in my happy place, for the rest of my life...
If there are infinite universes must there exist a universe where there are no other universes?
Good question. Paraphrased: "Can there be a universe that exists around all other universes, but none of the other's exist around it." This is somewhat like the omnipotence paradox(can god create a stone he can't lift, if he can, he's not omnipotent(can do anything), if he can't, he's not omnipotent, making the concept of omnipotence appear impossible) Infinity is perceived at all by contrasting reference to those complex and variable things which it is not. Must these infinite universes still be bound by logic for our purposes? If so, asserting there are infinite universes, except for in one of them, is a logical fallacy, for then there are not infinite universes.
Shall we discuss Godel's incompleteness theorems in relation to this question?
I'll leave it to you guys, but here's a start:
Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,but not provable in the theory.
This applies to everything, even infinity.
Oh yeah, the liar's paradox "This sentence is false" might be good to consider in answering the question.
EPO is my middle name wrote:
Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true,but not provable in the theory.
...Maybe that's why everything is fractals.
Bad Wigins wrote:
rover wrote:much like Einstein discovered time to be an actual physical dimension like space
No one has made any such "discovery." No one has discovered "space" either. Other than being abstract concepts derived from certain measurements, they're nothing - nobody has seriously investigated just what, if anything, is actually there corresponding to them.
Physics has exhaustively studied the stuff in the known universe, but it knows next to nothing about the not-stuff that is far more prevalent.
You again? Just accept you don't understand cosmology, and stop making a clown of yourself.
Don't get caught up with these "can god create a stone he cannot lift", "this sentence is false", "what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" and other such questions. These can all be reduced to "A is not equal to A", i.e. an internally inconsistent statement.
"A is not equal to A" is simply the definition of a paradox and there is no Universe Police stopping us from formally expressing a paradox in language. There is however a Universe Police that prevents one actually occurring.
The OP needs to watch Quentin Tarantino's film "Pulp Fiction" to help him cope with his year-long journey into an existential crisis. It's the journey and not the destination that is important.
If I grow smart enough to create my own universe, does it exist outside this universe or within it? Reason I ask is that if we can advance enough to create a new universe it would be a real kick in the nuts if the thing just got crunched along with our universe in the Big Crunch.
Aside from the OP's Big Crunch fallacy (the evidence we have now points overwhelmingly to the Big Heat Death, not a Big Crunch): the odds are quite high that H. sapiens sapiens will become extinct a long, long time--billions of years--before the Sun's Terminal Expansion Phase(s).
It is almost certain (99+ %) that mankind will never have a meaningful encounter with an extraterrestrial intelligent species; and that mankind will never have a significant population on another planet--not even in our own solar system, much less circling another star.
This is the nature of a speed-of-light speed limit. For us humans, in other words, Earth and Sol are it. Science fiction that suggests any other possibility may be entertaining, but it doesn't speak to a plausible possible future. It's strictly fiction.
What about the Big Bounce? Could the matter involved in our Big Bang have resulted from the collapse of a previous universe? And, if so, was the previous universe identical to the one we current experience?
Are we just repeating the same lives down to every minute detail (including me typing this sentence) that we have already lived an infinite number of times and will continue to live for all enternity?
I'm an astronomy professor at Virginia Tech. The big crunch has pretty much been ruled out of the discussion. We have looked far enough into the universe (also back in time) that we have identified that the universe is indeed expanding at an expanding rate. Basically, galaxies relatively close to us are slowly getting farther away, while galaxies very far away from us are almost going at the speed of light away from us. Eventually, the observable universe will have expanded too far for there to be enough condensed material to make stars, leaving the universe dark and cold.
In regards to your last question, "what is the point?" Personally, an old friend of mine who has recently passed away told me something that might help you out. He was a very deep thinker and always wanted to talk about the meaning of life. Right before he died, he told me his real thoughts on the subject. "Enjoying the passage of time." I'll let you interpret that as you will.
-Best regards
Good post, couple of questions:
Why do galaxies farther away from us move away faster than galaxies close to us?
Also, to rephrase one theme from the OP - do you think any civilization can advance enough to stall or prevent the expansion of the universe - at least on a small regional scale - in order to continue their existence into perpetuity?