4 ms·
>The heat death of universe is true based on current state of our understanding. Nothing says that it won't change in next million years - that's a monumentally
by cc-d 7y ago
>The heat death of universe is true based on current state of our understanding. Nothing says that it won't change in next million years - that's a monumentally long time in exponential rate of human progress.
>We've been wrong about a lot of things in the past and if people had made up their mind about the meaning of life before Kepler, we would have thought that we are the center of the solar system. Therefore, we are the most important thing in the Universe.
If you were making the argument that the universal rate of expansion isn't necessarily static, I'd perhaps agree with you (there is evidence this functioned differently in the early universe). The 2nd law of thermodynamics on the other hand, which is what will lead to universal heat death, is extremely unlikely to be variable.
Without the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the universe would be so radically different that it would be effectively an entirely new universe at that point.
- kubanczyk 7y agoWe are very probably within a simulation (cf Nick Bostrom), so we might eventually find some interesting hacks. Even to 2nd law of thermodynamics.
- spectramax 7y agoYea, I agree with you except for the fact that in just last 100 years we have tremendous changes in the way we understand the universe. In last 400 years, even more so. Think about the timeline in terms of a million years from now. I cannot fathom to speak for the truth of what we know today, despite of evidence which may be proven otherwise in the future. That's how science works. Obviously, I have no proof, but I hope you can acknowledge the magnitude of the time difference and our rate of progress.