From: Billy Brown (bbrown@conemsco.com)
Date: Mon Dec 28 1998 - 07:00:09 MST
Anders Sandberg wrote:
> On the other hand, you also have a lower temperature and more space
> which can be used to put the ever lower energy to better uses - the
> signal / noise ratio gets better, and previously too disordered energy
> can be used. The important thing here is which factors increase the
> fastest; this seems to be dependent on the actual development history
> of the universe and can be tricky to calculate a priori.
In the short term, yes. In the long term ( >10^50 years) no - when the
average distance between adjacent particles is measured in light years, the
idea of building anything complex enough to be alive looks pretty dubious.
> Even if that is true it doesn't change the problem of indefinite
> survival. As far as I know nobody is suggesting steady state theories
> at least, and without them you get a Dyson or Tipler choice, so to
> say.
My point is simply that it isn't productive to speculate on the terminal
evolution of the universe based on a theory that is almost certainly
incorrect. It is possible that some moderate adjustment of the big
bang/inflation model will make it fit reality, but it is just as likely that
the entire concept will have to be thrown out. If that happens, who knows
what the new parameters will be? Meanwhile, why generate angst over purely
hypothetical events that might happen billions of years in the future?
Billy Brown, MCSE+I
bbrown@conemsco.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:06 MST