Guys, I had a really terrible thought, and I’m wondering if anyone can clear it up for me.
Let’s just take it as fact that the universe 100% WILL experience an entropic heat death.
Does this mean that the more that we contribute to society, the bigger that we grow our society, then that just means all the more pain and death when the universe ends? So there is no moral value for building society since it all will be equally counteracted with the death of society?
Other urls found in this thread:
no
because you cant reverse entropy in the universe during a specific time interval, so all the structure we add corresponds to more destruction and chaos in the universe around us than would otherwise have been required to occur.
So the pain and death will be the same, but it will just be centralized a bit more around our development.
Also, "moral value" should only apply during your lifespan or the lifespan of your society. Do you really think humans will last til heat death?
>because you cant reverse entropy in the universe during a specific time interval
Nobody said you could.
>so all the structure we add corresponds to more destruction and chaos
Yeah, the sun gets more chaotic, there is efficiency loss in all our machines, but that is all a victimless crime. I hope you are not honestly saying that an increase in entropy in non-living systems creates "pain and death", that's retarded.
>So the pain and death will be the same
The same as what?
>but it will just be centralized a bit more around our development
Rather than what?
Uncounted number will live and die before the heat death. Very likely they'll ALL die before the universe does.
Let's put a number on it, say, 1e20. That would be enough to an Asimovian Galactic Empire; a hundred billion populated worlds.
And YOU can prevent all that multitude from dying simply by blowing up the Earth before the "infestation" spreads.
If "never living" better than "living and then dying"?
Would it have been better if life never evolved -- or if intelligence never developed? Animals live in the present. They don't fear death because they can't imagine "not being".
I'm not saying that it is BAD to contribute to society, I'm just saying that it's not *good*.
Contribute to society you get +4 morals, and then -4 morals when society ends. You are doing something good, but necessarily that good action will lead to an equal and opposite bad action.
Do nothing and you get 0 morals, which is the same result.
Living then dying is worse than never being born. Anti natalism is correct
edgy
From what I've read, the heat death of the universe is directly linked to global warming. In fact, global warming is basically the very early stages of this heat death.
The inevitable heat death of the universe is scientific fact. There's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact.
Jokes on you kid, none of you are real, only I am. If I die, the universe dies with me.
Le epic troll XD so funnay
The real kicker is that development is an entropic process and therefore results in the heat death sooner than would otherwise be the case.
Living is bad, but it gives us the chance to end the karmic cycle. We exist for the goal of not existing.
life is worth death, thats why we all pay for life in death
Your arguement is self defeating.
If there was no development, then there would be nothing there to die. And at that point there would be no reason to try to prevent the universe from heat death.
Using our free energy to build society is the entire point of having free energy. We don’t need to save it for anything, any free energy used for life is energy well spent.
In a sense.
I mean the "development" part. Not the "global warming" snarkiness.
But I doubt Mankind's activities, throughout time & space, will advance The End by so much as a single second.
Its not "free" energy.
It is diverted away from sustainable ecosystems, to unsustainable consumption.
replied to wrong post
Just because everything will end doesn’t mean everything has no meaning. If you need to have a moral reason to continue society (you don’t) than you can just think that society creates more pleasure while we are here. Its a choice between suffering untill we die, or partying untill we die.
What exactly do you people have against equilibrium?
Why are you people so fixated on growth instead of obtaining some kind of an equilibrium? Equilibrium has been the normal state for eons - it's growth that is the anomaly. It's growth that is not sustainable over the long term; the most basic science backs this up.
Just because somethig is “natural” doesnt mean its good. Also you can’t apply the laws of thermodynamics to society.
It didnt say it was good. I said it was sustainable.
And you can bloody damn well apply the laws of thermodynamics to ANYTHING. Quite easily in fact.
>Also you can’t apply the laws of thermodynamics to society.
Right there you slipped badly. You displayed your total lack of understanding of science.
>scientism
Look pal.
You can literally quantify all human activity in Joules (kg m s^-2).
You could figure out how the base elements and how scattering them to the winds to never be used again can reduce civilization power (J/s).
Economics is art.
So, you can get off this board whenever it suits you.
>then that just means all the more pain and death when the universe ends
There's likely to be the exact same amount of pain and death when the 100% universe entropic heat death occurs. 0 pain and 0 death. We will be long dead.
I mean we and everything else will be frighteningly long dead or lifeless by then.
This is more of a poorly worded philosophy question than anything related to science.
More people means more suffering. Continuing the human race means prolonging that suffering. Whether that suffering is worth it or not is up to individual opinion. Personally I'm in the "not worth it" camp, but short of possessing a doomsday device my opinion is worth squat to anyone but me and perhaps my own descendants who I'm depriving of existence by not breeding.
So the universe is gonna heat up and all life, if there still is any around at this point, will be vaporized? tf..
It's called a "heat death" but it's more that everything spreads out, gets cold, and decays into background radiation, gradually over many many trillions of years.
That's deep, man. I never heard of this until now, fascinating..
>Let’s just take it as fact that the universe 100% WILL experience an entropic heat death.
It still might be possible, with a Type 3 civilization or higher, that we could find a way to either colonize other universes or create new universes.
>Does this mean that the more that we contribute to society, the bigger that we grow our society, then that just means all the more pain and death when the universe ends? So there is no moral value for building society since it all will be equally counteracted with the death of society?
You need to realize that suffering is little more than a chemical reaction in your brain. Such an advanced society would probably have sufficiently advanced AI and nanotechnology that they could eliminate suffering altogether, and while the amount of death would be massive, it would probably be painless.
Sounds about right, it would be cool to see earth then, providing a meteor doesn't collide.
Google quantum immortality. If the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, there is a possibility that in any timeline where you die, your consciousness continues in a timeline where you didn't die, so you subjectively experience living forever.
death is life
These contributions will only bring the heat death slightly closer. It will still happen in the end though, no pun intended. So the amount of suffering won't increase. It may decrease; fewer people are born and can suffer.
Google starlifting. With an advanced enough civilization, over the scale of billions of years, it might be possible to artificially gradually remove mass from stars, turning stars into red dwarfs and drastically increasing their lifespan.
>You need to realize that suffering is little more than a chemical reaction in your brain. Such an advanced society would probably have sufficiently advanced AI and nanotechnology that they could eliminate suffering altogether, and while the amount of death would be massive, it would probably be painless.
You brainlets really need to think about what you're saying before you post.
Let's say the robots experience no pain at all. Given that, we can then say that either:
1) Robots still experience *pleasure*. And therefore, situations in which the robots experience less pleasure have less ethical value than situation where the robots experience more pleasure. And therefore, the collapse of the robot society would prevent pleasure and have a negative moral value.
2) The robots experience no pleasure. In that case, there is literally no difference between the robots and a completely dead universe. And thus, it wouldn't be a society at all. Meaning that the real society has already died, and the collapse of society obviously has a negative moral value.
basic logic
>Why are you people so fixated on growth instead of obtaining some kind of an equilibrium?
Pleasure is the only thing valuable in this universe.
There is no higher aspiration, there is nothing better, there is no meaning that is more meaningful than pleasure.
Therefore we need to create as much pleasure as possible. There is no such thing as achievement outside of pleasure. Creating the most pleasure possible is the greatest achievement than anyone can ever produce.
>i've literally never heard of gibbs free energy and I'm a retard
Thanks for clearing that up for us.