I like it, often peruse it. He's a kind of 'independent scholar' type but he's incredibly industrious, there's a vast amount of resources and articles there. If you drill down he's gone to the trouble of producing 'student' and 'educator' versions of a lot of his articles, plus he has a ton of reference material squirreled away in the footnotes. I don't agree with everything about his editorial stance but he's generally pretty fair and balanced. As far as independent philosophy sites go, it's a good one IMO.

On this forum I have come across quotations from classic works that are sourced from that site; unless there is reason to doubt their reliability, I see no problem with that.

On these recommendations, I actually started to peruse the site more than glancingly, and found to my satisfaction that he attempts an answer to the question that was the initial fixation of my existential anxiety last year (the seemingly inevitable eventual end of everything in the heat death of the universe).

However, I'm failing to find any kind of actual account for how the principle of creation he discusses could in principle be used to survive the expected death of the universe.

There are obvious sci-fi ways to prolong life past the "natural" death of things (ignoring the comparatively trivial problem of prolonging the biological lifespan of humans): Dyson spheres powering star-lifting prolonging the life of all the stars and enabling their movement, which in turn can enable the construction of the galactic equivalents of Dyson sphere around supermassiveblack holes, harvesting their Hawking radiation for a ridiculously long time even after the stars have all long burned out.

But that still eventually, in a ridiculously distant future, looks like the universe eventually has to run out of usable energy.

In the midst of my dread last year I found hope in realizing that the accelerating expansion of the universe means the universe is not actually a closed system, that new energy is being created all the time, and so that gives hope for a possible unending energy source, if some way of harnessing dark energy were possible. But every hypothetical idea for that I could come up with got shot down by people even more knowledgeable in physics than I am.

Bob Doyle, the man behind this Information Philosopher site, is supposedly a professional astrophysicist, so he should know more than those people who were shooting my hopes down last year. But I don't see any alternative account on his site for what a future free from heat death is supposed to look like.

Does anymore more familiar with his work than me have any pointers to where he addresses anything like that?

that's the problem with physicalism - 'all compound things are subject to decay'.

I don’t want this thread to become an argument about physicalism, but no, physicalism doesn’t entail that things necessarily have to decay. That depends entirely on what the laws of physics are, and both I and apparently this Information Philosopher think the ones we currently think obtain permit physical things in principle to go on forever, with it just being a technical matter to accomplish that, the likes of which life and intelligence inherently strive toward.

He describes his ontology in somewhat confused terms, calling it “a dualism” because it’s both “a materialism” and “an idealism”, but it sounds plainly like a physicalism phenomenon to me, and he does explicitly say that there is nothing supernatural about it.

That depends entirely on what the laws of physics are, and both I and apparently this Information Philosopher think the ones we currently think obtain permit physical things in principle to go on forever, with it just being a technical matter to accomplish that, the likes of which life and intelligence inherently strive toward. — Pfhorrest

I think you're looking for immortality in all the wrong places. Whatever is born will perish - that's a law deeper than physics.

Well I guess this isn’t the thread for you then cause that’s the topic.

The topic was originally about The Information Philosopher, and I endorsed his website. Then you introduced the further topic of ‘existential anguish about heat death of the universe’.

Here’s my observation - you’re actually undergoing an existential crisis. Hence the dread. But your so-called rational mind doesn’t want to admit it into consciousness, instead you want maintain your commitment to scientific realism. Take it or leave it.

I was having an existential crisis last year. I got over it back then.

Now I read a bit of this Information Philosopher and saw that he had a similar thought to one that helped me get over it. (Namely, heat death isn't inevitable because of the expansion of the universe). I wondered if anyone knew where elaboration upon that thought of his could be found on his site.

This isn't about existential crises or physicalism or anything like that in general. I just wanted to know about this particular philosopher, and then find more of his thoughts on a particular topic. If you don't want to talk about that, then this isn't the thread for it.

Thanks. Informative.

Not a cosmology expert by any means, but as far as I know, expansion of the universe is every bit part of the heat death scenario (how could it not be?) Whether energy is being created in the course of the expansion depends on how you do the calculation (there isn't a unique procedure for this in GR). But energy is not everything; for interesting stuff to happen you need entropy gradient.

Right, and this Information Philosopher seems to argue that entropy gradients can go on forever because thanks to expansion the maximum possible entropy is increasing faster than the increase of actual entropy, so figuratively speaking things can keep “falling” forever (where that falling, the winding-down of entropy gradients, is what powers interesting stuff), without ever “hitting bottom” (heat death).

Graphics from his own site:





I can’t find any elaboration of what that would actually look like when it comes to the ways that far future civilization could be powered after the stars burn out etc., though. That’s what I’m hoping someone more familiar with his work can point me to.

he attempts an answer to the question that was the initial fixation of my existential anxiety last year (the seemingly inevitable eventual end of everything in the heat death of the universe). — Pfhorrest

Why are you worrying about an event (the Big Sigh) that won't occur for billions of years. Even if you were alive to witness The End, it would be so gradual --- like increasing the heat so slowly that a frog in a pot won't notice until it's too late --- that you wouldn't feel a thing. The End is Not Near. :joke:

FWIW, I have a somewhat more optimistic attitude toward the death of the living organism we call the Universe. The space-time cosmos is indeed finite, but the Creator is infinite. So, I view this world, and my minor role in it, as a cosmic experiment, that will only be meaningful to the Experimenter. Like mice in a maze, ours is not to reason "why?", but to do and die. :cool:

Cosmic Evolution Graph : click to enlarge image
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

Rationalism vs Fatalism : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page67.html

Why are you worrying — Gnomon

I’m not anymore (except about much more mundane things like my job and financial future thanks to the current global crises), but last year when I was having constant panic attacks over nothing and my mind was searching for something to pin the feelings on, the reason the end of the universe seemed so bad despite being so far away was that it seemed to make everything pointless. I had always contented myself to leave some kind of informational legacy in lieu of the children I’ll probably never have, to make some kind of small difference to the world that would continue on without me. But if even all of that would eventually be lost too, within even leaving any kind of legacy of its own behind, it seemed to undermine any meaning, to make everything ultimately futile, everything making absolutely zero difference in the end.

As I said I’m over that now, but that was my thought process at the time.

the reason the end of the universe seemed so bad despite being so far away was that it seemed to make everything pointless. — Pfhorrest

Most people in Western Civilization have been told that the point of terrestrial life is to qualify for a ticket to eternal life in heaven. When Atheists realized that heaven was a fictional future, they went through an existential crisis. So they decided to place their hopes on Secular, Material, and Pleasurable pursuits. For some, the point of life was Fame, or Wealth, or Love. But all of those are fleeting. Yet by taking one day at a time, you can create your own personal meaning. Eventually, the Existentialists learned to focus, not on a point, but on the process of living. And that's my approach to dealing with pointlessness.

Or you could meditate on Time. The only time you will ever possess is Now. The Past is a memory, and the Future is imaginary. The Heat Death of the universe is not real, it's a scientific myth. Now is the minute moment between past & future. That "point" in time is all you will ever know. So, make the best of it. :joke:

PS___Sorry for the platitudes. I was just waxing philosophical for a moment. But I'm over it now.

focus, not on a point, but on the process of living. And that's my approach to dealing with pointlessness. — Gnomon

Yeah, that’s why I’m over it now.

But I’m still interested in what this Information Philosopher has to say about it, if anyone can find that.

I can’t find any elaboration of what that would actually look like when it comes to the ways that far future civilization could be powered after the stars burn out etc., though. That’s what I’m hoping someone more familiar with his work can point me to. — Pfhorrest

Well, space constantly creates pair of particles and antiparticles that immediately annihilate each other, correct? Those are essentially fluctuations of the waveform. Is it possible that this symmetry occaisonally breaks down, leading to particles and hence useable energy?

That is an interesting thought. That process is what drives Hawking radiation, as one virtual particle passes the even horizon and the other becomes real. I wonder if the cosmic event horizon causes by the expanding universe could produce some similar effect?

If that is the case, it would seem to imply some sort of "vacuum energy" indeed exists and can be used.
From the information philosopher's website, I kinda get the impression that the universe (according to his cosmology, anyways) exchanges useable energy for information. I.e. the energy in a system is used to create a small amount of information, which causes a proportionally larger amount of waste-heat, which is unuseable energy. The expansion of space deals with the problem of waste heat, but I couldn't find anything about generating new energy.

This is a good observation by my standards for what it's worth. If entropy is a function of space available and if space is destined to expand indefinitely then, sure, entropy isn't going to hit a limit at any point in the evolution of this universe.

Given that work, the basis of all phenomena in my opinion, occurs when a low entropy system transitions into a high entropy system, it follows that work can always be done if current cosmology is on the money.

However, clearly, our existence is only possible within a certain range of entropy values, values that exist as we speak. Perhaps, the higher entropy values of the distant future will not be able to sustain life as we know it. Could other forms of life come into being, life-forms that can operate at very high entropy levels as would be the case in a trillions years in the future?

Yeah, I don't know. Simple metrics like these don't say all that much. Here's an example: consider a finite volume of gas within a larger volume of the same gas. Let's say the gas is not at thermodynamic equilibrium, so that its entropy is less than the maximum entropy. Now expand the boundary of the smaller volume. Both the current entropy and the maximum entropy inside the boundary will have grown proportionally. Naturally, this purely formal move has not produced any new dynamics. Don't take me wrong, I am not saying that this example reflects the situation in an expanding universe - I am just saying that gross numbers for entropy and energy (calculated how?) aren't enough to conclude anything.

Anyway, here is a classic review paper; it is better than two decades old, but AFAIK it is mostly up to date with what we know in its outlines: A dying universe: the long-term fate and evolution of astrophysical objects (FC Adams, G Laughlin - Reviews of Modern Physics, 1997). It goes into various possibilities for the long-term evolution of the universe, from something like the classical heat death to spontaneous tunneling into a true vacuum state that can annihilate and radically transform the universe in an instant. Scenarios of continuous, indefinite entropy production are also considered. However, such scenarios don't imply the continued existence of the world as we know it; the future in that case may hold nothing more life-affirming than a continual production and evaporation of black holes or clumps of cold dark matter.

The expansion of space deals with the problem of waste heat, but I couldn't find anything about generating new energy. — Echarmion

If the energy of space itself (vacuum energy) is positive, then expansion produces more energy, in the sense that a volume that expands with the universe (comoving volume) will encompass more and more space, and thus possess more and more energy over time.

If the energy of space itself (vacuum energy) is positive, then expansion produces more energy, in the sense that a volume that expands with the universe (comoving volume) will encompass more and more space, and thus possess more and more energy over time. — SophistiCat

That's an if though, right? And it'd also have to be useable in some way.

There are variables we don't understand which make this discussion pointless. Understand that. We are so tiny we're invisible, pretending to understand the bigger picture. Get a grip.

Vacuum energy has to be positive, according to the quantum field theory, and its presence is supposed to explain the experimentally observed Casimir effect. However, it may be counterbalanced by the negative potential energy of gravity.

informational legacy — Pfhorrest

Most people leave very little record of their existence in the overall narrative (history) of the world, except for the genetic information of their offspring. Only a few heroes and villains are long remembered for their contributions-to or subtractions-from the teleological "purpose" of the world. But even those memorable legacies will have faded into oblivion, long before the Heat Death of the universe.

I assume that you are hoping to leave behind some of your personal ideas (memes) in lieu of children (genes) to make your mark on the world --- perhaps to add some bit of personal insight to the lore of philosophical literature. That's an honorable goal, and a common aspiration among those who seek abstract Wisdom instead of the usual food, shelter, and sex. Self-actualization is at the top of Maslow's hierarchy of human needs. All I can suggest is, "sow your meme-seed, and hope for the best". :smile:


The Meanings of Life : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page65.html

Abraham Lincoln : The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here. Gettysburg Address

The play's the thing :
There would have been a time for such a word.
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Macbeth by Shakespeare


Childless Philosophers : Plato, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were childless. And so were Kant, Hume, Hobbes, Locke, Kierkegaard and Spinoza. In fact, of the 20 most important philosophers of all time, as listed on the influential philosophy blog Leiter Reports, 13 of them never had children — or 15, if you wish to include Descartes (who, though not married, had a daughter whom he saw little during her five-year-long life), and Rousseau (who took Aristotle’s decree to the word and disowned all of his five children by sending them off, soon after their birth, to a foundling home).
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/opinion/philosophy-fatherhood.html

I couldn't find anything about generating new energy. — Echarmion

It’s not so much a matter of needing new energy, but of being able to keep using the same energy instead of it becoming useless waste heat. “Useless waste heat” becomes usable again if some new cold sink is found to dump it i to, doing work in the process.

In any case, current cosmology does suggest that most of the energy in the universe is dark energy inherent to space itself and that that is always increasing, but it’s unclear (so far as I’ve discussed it) how one would go about making use of that. The closest illustration I can think of is that if you take uniform white noise and blow it up to a huge scale, there will then be large gradients in the picture, which is exactly what you need to get useful work done. But how exactly that translates to the physical is still unclear to me.

I assume that you are hoping to leave behind some of your personal ideas (memes) in lieu of children (genes) to make your mark on the world --- perhaps to add some bit of personal insight to the lore of philosophical literature. That's an honorable goal, and a common aspiration among those who seek abstract Wisdom instead of the usual food, shelter, and sex. Self-actualization is at the top of Maslow's hierarchy of human needs. All I can suggest is, "sow your meme-seed, and hope for the best". :smile: — Gnomon

Yep, and also whatever other impact I have on other people’s lives, who then go on to have impact on others, and so on.