Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

TimeLine of the Distant Future

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 2:31:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This chart is awesome... It's so dismal for the vast majority of it, but seems to have a happy ending...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
AKA
Rob1billion
Rob1_Billion
Caramel
Lasagna
FREEDO
Posts: 21,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 3:04:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I find nothing more humbling than thinking about stars and time.

We are so insignificant. And that makes me feel good.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 3:32:10 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2012 3:19:44 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I clicked on a link on that page.

It's a short page. But it's a mindfuck.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I read about that a couple years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com...

Basically, our high level of organization in such a high entropy environment means its more likely that we are actually floating brains in space (or some such low-demand consciousness) than our current incarnations. I'd assume expected evolutionary paths would actually make such an existence less likely (read as less subject to entropic interference) but I haven't read anything in that regard.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,862
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 3:41:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2012 3:32:10 AM, Maikuru wrote:
At 12/18/2012 3:19:44 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I clicked on a link on that page.

It's a short page. But it's a mindfuck.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I read about that a couple years ago.

http://www.nytimes.com...

Basically, our high level of organization in such a high entropy environment means its more likely that we are actually floating brains in space (or some such low-demand consciousness) than our current incarnations. I'd assume expected evolutionary paths would actually make such an existence less likely (read as less subject to entropic interference) but I haven't read anything in that regard.

We only think of our brains in the form of how we know them, biologically. If it's true that you are Boltzmann brain, you would have no idea what a real brain is physically like.

This does raise a paradox though. Out of all the possible imaginary worlds we could create, it is unlikely that it happens to be one that entails the same observable data that would result in bringing about a Boltzmann brain in the first place. Although it would be inevitable that some would.
slo1
Posts: 5,200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 11:06:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
That is a neat chart. One thing for certain is that there is plenty time to enjoy ones self before the Great Decay. Of course that assumes we all survive 12/21/2012. :)
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 4:43:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
According to Michio, if one could travel a googolplex yards, one will come across a random arrangement of matter equal in complexity to our own.

I'm not certain a googolplex exists in this universe... perhaps if you counted every possible arrangement of every particle (multiplied through every instant of time), that would be the highest number attainable. I mean, at numbers that unimaginably high, even using planck units as opposed to parsecs doesn't make much of a difference in terms of units. There's only about a hundred orders of magnitude (that I'm aware of) that really mean anything to us right now.
AKA
Rob1billion
Rob1_Billion
Caramel
Lasagna
sadolite
Posts: 10,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2012 7:19:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
We were supposed to be living on the moon in 1999. It, like all other future predictions, are not worth the paper they are written on.
Beware of the people who are in your circle but are not in your corner.

And with the stroke of a pen people 18 to 21 who own a gun became criminals and public enemy #1 having committed no crime and having said nothing. Just like the Jews in Germany during WW2. Must be a weird feeling.

When I hear people crying and whining about their first world problems I think about the universe with everything in it and people in wheelchairs and all of their problems go away.
Ramshutu
Posts: 5,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2012 8:28:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2012 7:19:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
We were supposed to be living on the moon in 1999. It, like all other future predictions, are not worth the paper they are written on.

The technological predictions, I would agree, it is very difficult to predict technological and sociogical changes.

The scientific ones, however, I have more faith in. We can predict a number of things in the universe based on it's current state. Not necessarily accurately, as can be seen by the timeline having upper and lower limits for given events.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2012 11:23:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Predicting the future of mankind versus predicting when a rock will pass another rock in space... two different things.
AKA
Rob1billion
Rob1_Billion
Caramel
Lasagna
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2012 3:28:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm particularly interested in the table at the bottom, the Technology and Culture one.

Damn. 10,000 years from now is when likely humanity will go extinct? Reading about the Doomsday argument...95% chance, apparently. Hmm.
It's not about reciprocation, it's just all about me,
a sycophantic, prophetic, Socratic junkie wannabe.

- The 1975, "The Sound"
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 3,202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 3:54:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/18/2012 4:43:01 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
According to Michio, if one could travel a googolplex yards, one will come across a random arrangement of matter equal in complexity to our own.

I'm not certain a googolplex exists in this universe... perhaps if you counted every possible arrangement of every particle (multiplied through every instant of time), that would be the highest number attainable. I mean, at numbers that unimaginably high, even using planck units as opposed to parsecs doesn't make much of a difference in terms of units. There's only about a hundred orders of magnitude (that I'm aware of) that really mean anything to us right now.

In our universe, the number of plank's volumes is 10^183, far less than the googolplex.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac