I'm not gonna die because people can get it together. — Witchhaven87
I just want to hear people's take on telomeres. Instead of creating the coronavirus why aren't we creating a solution to stop our DNA from dissolving. — Witchhaven87
I'm 29 years old. I'm not gonna die because people can get it together. — Witchhaven87
You think the wright brothers listened to people when they told them they couldn't fly? — Witchhaven87
It's highly and most likely we will yes but you're not god so don't act like you know for certain that it is predetermined I'm gonna die as well as you. — Witchhaven87
Altered Carbon is on Netflix, though I did not really like the plot. — Echarmion
That's also the reason we better continue to cure "regular" diseases because otherwise longevity research will just be a waste as nobody can enjoy its full potential otherwise. — Benkei
Flying was possible, and birds already showed that to be the case, while living forever is not, and there is nothing immortal. — Marchesk
And of course Earth isn't immune to the sun expanding to a red giant, or someone dropping a big rock on it. — Marchesk
At the every extreme end of what's possible, entropy and the heat death of the universe will make sure of it. — Marchesk
Tardigrades, immortal jellyfish, flatforms, possibly lobsters and turtles... — Pfhorrest
Someone dropping a big rock on the earth is far more survivable than living on another planet, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of doubt that the latter will eventually (if not soon) be possible. — Pfhorrest
And the Earth can be moved, and the sun can be changed. You're looking at things through the primitive lens of a Type 0 civilization. — Pfhorrest
Heat death of the universe is not guaranteed if it is not a closed system, which dark energy suggests it is not. — Pfhorrest
Suicide is the persistent illusion of choosing to "die at the right time", that is, when, for whatever reasons or passions, one cannot go on. (Beckett) But it's only an illusion; all we have and have always had - but not all we will ever have, is it? To live until one wears oneself out is, for me, the minimum - I strive for more than that minimum, well into middle age I'm nowhere near done feasting on the marrow of things - everything - or reveling in the ordinary "immensity of the particular" (G. Steiner) or delights of the "negligible and insignificant" (J. Miller) - no, to quote my favorite android: "I want more life, fucker."Many die too late and some die too early. Still the doctrine sounds strange: ‘Die at the right time.’… Die at the right time: thus Zarathustra teaches.
[ ... ]
I commend to you my sort of death ... voluntary death that comes to me because I wish it. And when shall I wish it? – He who has a goal and an heir wants death at the time most favorable to his goal and his heir. And out of reverence for his goal and his heir he will hang up no more withered wreaths in the sanctuary of life. — ‘Of Voluntary Death’, Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883)
:chin:I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. I don't want to live on in the hearts of my countrymen; I want to live on in my apartment. — Woody Allen
Pretty sure it is. At the very least, everything will expand until there's nothing left to harness. — Marchesk
The second law may be iron clad — Pfhorrest
When you think about it the “second law” doesn’t dictate how things move deep down, it isn’t an additional force that attracts or repels things, it is a statistical observation that works on average. — leo
nstead of creating the coronavirus why aren't we creating a solution to stop our DNA from dissolving. — Witchhaven87
What I mean by "iron clad" though is precisely that that doesn't depend on any actual physical force, it's just a purely mathematical thing. Any universe with any physical laws would still obey the same mathematics, and so still be bound to that purely mathematical statistical tendency. — Pfhorrest
The tendency for (closed systems in) our universe to evolve toward states of greater entropy isn't an effect of any of our specific physical laws, though. In a purely mathematical model of all of the possible instantaneous states of the universe, completely agnostic to the physical laws governing transitions from one state to another, states where energy is spread out more evenly are more common, and states where it is more concentrated are less common. Think of, for example, ways that air molecules could be arranged in a box: there's only relatively few arrangements that have them all clumped in the same corner, but a whole lot of arrangements that have them spread out pretty evenly across the whole volume of the box.
It's not that there are more high-entropy states than low-entropy ones because the physical laws make high-entropy ones more likely; the high-entropy ones are more likely because there's just more of them that are possible (and that is actually what defines them as high-entropy), so even if there was no law-like behavior at all, and the whole system just evolved randomly, you would just expect it to evolve into a higher-entropy state at random. — Pfhorrest
There are more states where energy is spread out pretty evenly, the issue is that without knowing in the first place how likely each state is (which depends on the physical laws), then you don’t know that it is more likely to end up in the high-entropy ones even if there are many more of them. If you have a universe where because of its specific physical laws the low-entropy states are much more likely even if they are less numerous, then that universe doesn’t evolve towards higher entropy. — leo
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.