5 ms·

But still - it unveils the "present" to just as well be an illusion of human categorical thinking, an abstract concept, not more. It is super useful to have non

But still - it unveils the "present" to just as well be an illusion of human categorical thinking, an abstract concept, not more. It is super useful to have none the less, just interesting to know its fragility.

somenameforme 3y ago
Should we ultimately be able to develop relativistic rockets, and it seems there is no inherent reason why we shouldn't, then everything is just going to be so unbelievably weird. Traveling on a rocket to friendly distant planet, except the planet you land on may be millions of years in the future from when it was first settled. Or imagine living on said planets and occasionally seeing relics thousands, millions, or even further back in history approaching for landing. Time, life, death, technology, and everything will be just so unimaginably alien. It will be basically impossible to have a normal linear view of time when it's violated constantly, even though your body itself will yet still almost certainly be insistent on linear time - and steadily marching towards its expiration date. Even evolution itself will be weird. Humans over millions of years will probably scarcely resemble ourselves today, yet you'll regularly have 'old' species humans regularly reintegrating with 'new' ones? Such a bizarre reality we live in, unless perhaps somehow the views we have today end up being as quaint as those of times past.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Such a species won’t be Homo sapiens anymore so this likely won’t be weird to them.
- theideaofcoffee 3y ago
  Maybe it will be a quaint, and ultimately solved, problem in that time but if the present is any indication, I can’t imagine how old and new might interact. We already have enough problems with conflicts arising between people born in either side of an imaginary line. How will that work with humans born in different eons?
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  > Should we ultimately be able to develop relativistic rockets Aren't all rockets relativistic? In the sense that "there's no inherent reason", I take it to mean "near to c", for some value of "near". that is, it's a "relative" term.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    Contrary to what many people think, the speed of light isn't like a speed limit. Imagine you're on a ship with near infinite fuel. And there's a button that each time you press will generate enough thrust to gain 1km/s of velocity. It's not like the 300,001st time you press that button (with the speed of light being around 300k km/s), it just won't work anymore somehow, nor will it require any more thrust than the 50th press required. No you'll keep accelerating, to no limit. What relativity does is change things in a way relative to who's observing. From your perspective distances would begin to physically contract, time everywhere else would begin to accelerate, and things would probably start looking a bit odd. But you could keep hitting that button to your heart's content, and continue going faster and faster. By contrast for a relatively at rest observer, looking at you, they would see your relativistic mass start to approach infinity as you approached the speed of light. And so they would see you slowing down (as accelerating an infinite mass object would be impossible), and the movement of time for you (relative to them) would begin to slow dramatically, hence why time for them (relative to you) seems to accelerate dramatically. The calculations for relativistic rockets are quite remarkable [1], because it's an exponential system. For instance, here are some times it'd take you to travel to various points in a typical relativistic rocket that continues to accelerate at 1g (you go half way to a target at 1g, and then half way in reverse): - Proxima Centauri - 4.3 light years away - 3.6 "real" years of travel - Vega - 27 light years away - 6.6 "real" years of travel - Center of our galaxy - 30,000 light years away - 20 "real" years of travel - Andromeda Galaxy - 2,000,000 light years away - 28 "real" years of travel With a relativistic rocket, if you wanted to see what the end of the universe looked like in a single human lifetime, you could. It's really really weird. So basically a relativistic rocket is more about creating a rocket that can just keep accelerating for years at a time, rather than reaching any specific speed. They're certainly similar in effect, but framing it in terms of years of acceleration makes it a pretty well defined problem. [1] - https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/Rocket/rocket.html https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/Rocket/...
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  >It will be basically impossible to have a normal linear view of time when it's violated constantly, even though your body itself will yet still almost certainly be insistent on linear time - and steadily marching towards its expiration date. Why do you think humans will stage undergo the aging process at that time? With that level of technology, the idea that humans won't have cured the disease we call "aging" seems absurd. >Even evolution itself will be weird. Humans over millions of years will probably scarcely resemble ourselves today, yet you'll regularly have 'old' species humans regularly reintegrating with 'new' ones? Humans haven't been evolving due to natural selection for thousands of years. Any changes in humans in the future will be due to genetic engineering.
  - somenameforme 3y ago
    Every single thing in this universe dies, even stars. Every single thing we're made of dies, and breaks down. I see no reason to think aging and death will ever stop, for anything. And to reject natural selection, especially at a time like now, is something I find even more odd. Natural selection basically comes down to the truism that traits which are productive for fertility tend to become more dominant in the following generations. Natural selection doesn't require you to be out in the wild fighting against the elements, it's no different than what's happening socially at an extreme level today. Certain groups have certain characteristics driving them to have large families. Others lack those characteristics. Whatever these characteristics may be, they're going to be far more dominant in the generations that follow ours. It's evolution.
    - shiroiuma 3y ago
      >I see no reason to think aging and death will ever stop, for anything There are multiple species in the wild right now that disprove this. Biology doesn't require aging. >And to reject natural selection, especially at a time like now, is something I find even more odd. You seem to not understand exactly what natural selection is and its role in adapting an organism to its environment.
      - somenameforme 3y ago

somenameforme 3y ago

Should we ultimately be able to develop relativistic rockets, and it seems there is no inherent reason why we shouldn't, then everything is just going to be so unbelievably weird. Traveling on a rocket to friendly distant planet, except the planet you land on may be millions of years in the future from when it was first settled. Or imagine living on said planets and occasionally seeing relics thousands, millions, or even further back in history approaching for landing. Time, life, death, technology, and everything will be just so unimaginably alien. It will be basically impossible to have a normal linear view of time when it's violated constantly, even though your body itself will yet still almost certainly be insistent on linear time - and steadily marching towards its expiration date. Even evolution itself will be weird. Humans over millions of years will probably scarcely resemble ourselves today, yet you'll regularly have 'old' species humans regularly reintegrating with 'new' ones? Such a bizarre reality we live in, unless perhaps somehow the views we have today end up being as quaint as those of times past.

edgyquant 3y ago
Such a species won’t be Homo sapiens anymore so this likely won’t be weird to them.
theideaofcoffee 3y ago
Maybe it will be a quaint, and ultimately solved, problem in that time but if the present is any indication, I can’t imagine how old and new might interact. We already have enough problems with conflicts arising between people born in either side of an imaginary line. How will that work with humans born in different eons?
denton-scratch 3y ago
> Should we ultimately be able to develop relativistic rockets Aren't all rockets relativistic? In the sense that "there's no inherent reason", I take it to mean "near to c", for some value of "near". that is, it's a "relative" term.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  Contrary to what many people think, the speed of light isn't like a speed limit. Imagine you're on a ship with near infinite fuel. And there's a button that each time you press will generate enough thrust to gain 1km/s of velocity. It's not like the 300,001st time you press that button (with the speed of light being around 300k km/s), it just won't work anymore somehow, nor will it require any more thrust than the 50th press required. No you'll keep accelerating, to no limit. What relativity does is change things in a way relative to who's observing. From your perspective distances would begin to physically contract, time everywhere else would begin to accelerate, and things would probably start looking a bit odd. But you could keep hitting that button to your heart's content, and continue going faster and faster. By contrast for a relatively at rest observer, looking at you, they would see your relativistic mass start to approach infinity as you approached the speed of light. And so they would see you slowing down (as accelerating an infinite mass object would be impossible), and the movement of time for you (relative to them) would begin to slow dramatically, hence why time for them (relative to you) seems to accelerate dramatically. The calculations for relativistic rockets are quite remarkable [1], because it's an exponential system. For instance, here are some times it'd take you to travel to various points in a typical relativistic rocket that continues to accelerate at 1g (you go half way to a target at 1g, and then half way in reverse): - Proxima Centauri - 4.3 light years away - 3.6 "real" years of travel - Vega - 27 light years away - 6.6 "real" years of travel - Center of our galaxy - 30,000 light years away - 20 "real" years of travel - Andromeda Galaxy - 2,000,000 light years away - 28 "real" years of travel With a relativistic rocket, if you wanted to see what the end of the universe looked like in a single human lifetime, you could. It's really really weird. So basically a relativistic rocket is more about creating a rocket that can just keep accelerating for years at a time, rather than reaching any specific speed. They're certainly similar in effect, but framing it in terms of years of acceleration makes it a pretty well defined problem. [1] - https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/Rocket/rocket.html https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/Rocket/...
shiroiuma 3y ago
>It will be basically impossible to have a normal linear view of time when it's violated constantly, even though your body itself will yet still almost certainly be insistent on linear time - and steadily marching towards its expiration date. Why do you think humans will stage undergo the aging process at that time? With that level of technology, the idea that humans won't have cured the disease we call "aging" seems absurd. >Even evolution itself will be weird. Humans over millions of years will probably scarcely resemble ourselves today, yet you'll regularly have 'old' species humans regularly reintegrating with 'new' ones? Humans haven't been evolving due to natural selection for thousands of years. Any changes in humans in the future will be due to genetic engineering.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  Every single thing in this universe dies, even stars. Every single thing we're made of dies, and breaks down. I see no reason to think aging and death will ever stop, for anything. And to reject natural selection, especially at a time like now, is something I find even more odd. Natural selection basically comes down to the truism that traits which are productive for fertility tend to become more dominant in the following generations. Natural selection doesn't require you to be out in the wild fighting against the elements, it's no different than what's happening socially at an extreme level today. Certain groups have certain characteristics driving them to have large families. Others lack those characteristics. Whatever these characteristics may be, they're going to be far more dominant in the generations that follow ours. It's evolution.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    >I see no reason to think aging and death will ever stop, for anything There are multiple species in the wild right now that disprove this. Biology doesn't require aging. >And to reject natural selection, especially at a time like now, is something I find even more odd. You seem to not understand exactly what natural selection is and its role in adapting an organism to its environment.
    - somenameforme 3y ago