Well I suppose in the case of immortality we were imagining different things, I don’t deny eventually the heat death of the universe will happen. I more was implying the possibility or biological or technological immortality, I believe those may be possible but short of some amazing technology or un explored law of physics, the heat death of the universe is inevitable.
My guess is that the universe is a bubble and at some point it will pop and there will be a new Big Bang or big bangs, but that is just that purely a guess.
My definition of immortality includes the word "forever." At some point, matter will be so disorganized that the transfer of energy is no longer possible. Therein lies the reason why we won't have immortality.
That is, using all the evidence we have available. I don't put much stock in stuff like, "Maybe in the future..."
If you want to test this out, make a cup of coffee and put it on your desk. The energy will trend towards disorder - which means energy from your coffee will transfer to the area around the coffee - such as your hand if you're holding the cup.
The opposite is true with a cold beverage. Heat from the room, or your hand, will transfer into the lower energy state and make the drink warmer. So goes the nature of the universe.
Energy is finite. Energy isn't created or destroyed - it just gets transferred. We don't 'generate' energy, we transfer it, get some we can use, and do work with it - causing more disorder.
Eventually, there's no way to transfer energy 'cause matter is too far apart.
Entropy is the final boss of the universe. Frankly, the end is going to be cold, lonely, and long. I don't wanna live through that. I imagine it'd have to suck ass.
I should be a motherfucking middle-school science teacher!
Based on my experience you should be a mother fucking high school science teacher, and my school was the highest scoring charter in the state last year, I think that has something to do with why it will be closed but I digress. I agree with your analogy for the most part, quantum mechanics allows for some things thermodynamics doesn’t. Not that I’m arguing heat death won’t happen it surely will. There’s no way around it if the universe continues to expand so does everything else.
I think we could be not biologically immortal I guess more biologically able to not die from aging or natural causes such a disease. You love making me be precise with my language don’t you. Which I appreciate it wouldn’t be fun any other way. That being said odds are there is more than a single universe theoretical physics strongly suggests it anyway so what’s to say we couldn’t leave this universe for a younger one? It’s possible. It’s even within the realm of classical physics for it to be possible. There is nothing in classical physics that says a single universe is the only possible one and worm holes and black holes came from classical physics. Those things are both purely mathematical theory at this point as we have no data to suggest either is the case but classical physics break down in a singularity and as far as I’m aware there isn’t anything in quantum physics that explains them either. Now I’m just rambling again. So I’ll stop but I do enjoy thinking about such things.
Oh, boy...
Hmm...
There's nothing in classical physics that says I don't have an undetectable dragon in my garage.
Without evidence, there's no reason to believe.
Which leads me to this...
The multiverse hypothesis (it doesn't rise to the level of theory) is unscientific. Science demands a little something called "falsifiability." As we're limited to observing what is in our universe, we aren't able to disprove (that is to falsify) that multiverses exist. Thus, it's not science.
Just like you can't disprove that I have an undetectable dragon in my garage. My claiming that I do is not, in fact, scientific.
(For the record, I don't actually believe I have an undetectable dragon in my garage. It's just a handy analogy.)
So, I don't believe there's more than one universe. There's absolutely zero substantive evidence that suggests such. There's conjecture and hypothesis - and not even really good hypotheses, 'cause they lack falsifiability.
If there's no way to disprove it, it's not science. Science has no opinion on the matter of a deity, for example. I can't prove God doesn't exist. As such, I don't really hold an opinion except to say there's no substantive evidence for such. There's conjecture.
Einstein's predictions were science because, had the star not appeared with the light lensed around our Sun, he'd have been proven wrong. He made predictions. If those predictions didn't come true, it was false.
How are you going to falsify a universe beyond what we can observe?
(post is archived)