Jump to content


Photo

The Buffett Rule

Tax avoidence

  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#41 tastywheat

tastywheat

    Primarch

  • Atomican
  • 1,842 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 02:40 AM

Do we know the size of the universe or what approximately 96% of it contains? No.

 

We don't, but based on current evidence and projections, the universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium.  It follows that unless you're a believer in free energy/perpetual motion, in approximately 10103 years there will be no energy left to harvest more matter.



#42 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,510 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 02:57 AM

Do we know the size of the universe or what approximately 96% of it contains? No.

 
We don't, but based on current evidence and projections, the universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium.  It follows that unless you're a believer in free energy/perpetual motion, in approximately 10103 years there will be no energy left to harvest more matter.


So based on current potshots in the dark... and an uncertain understanding of matter we've never seen, just theorised about, we can conclude that all the energy in the universe will run out in 10103 years?

At best, that's countably infinite.
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#43 tastywheat

tastywheat

    Primarch

  • Atomican
  • 1,842 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 04:05 AM

So based on current potshots in the dark... and an uncertain understanding of matter we've never seen, just theorised about, we can conclude that all the energy in the universe will run out in 10103 years?


At best, that's countably infinite.

 

 

A countable infinity by definition can't be equal to 10103.

 

The argument I think you should be making is that we could experience economic growth for 10103 years, regardless of whether we're able to harvest an infinite amount of matter.  After 10103 however, we're very much fucked, which places an absolute hard limit on potential economic growth. 

 

Practically, however, our economic growth is going to be limited for the foreseeable future by us being constrained to our solar system.  We've just discovered that matter with negative mass can exist, which means the Alcubierre drive might actually be feasible, but we've got a long way to go before becoming a space faring civilisation, and we're well on our way to triggering a Great Filter event.


Edited by tastywheat, 07 May 2017 - 04:07 AM.


#44 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,510 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 10:01 AM

It doesn't equal 10103. That's the problem.
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#45 TheManFromPOST

TheManFromPOST

    Not to be trifled with

  • Hero
  • 8,500 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 12:22 PM

I guess we are all fucked in 10 (103) + 1 years then



#46 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,510 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 01:08 PM

I'm curious as to what number 10103 is.

Do we have a name for it or do we just call it a countably infinite number?

Because with a typical 95CI our estimate could be a few hundred trillion years wrong.
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#47 tastywheat

tastywheat

    Primarch

  • Atomican
  • 1,842 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 04:44 PM

Infinity is literally defined as a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number.  If you can define it with a real number, by definition it can't be infinity (countable or uncountable), since you could simply add 1 to that number to make it bigger.  Some infinities are greater than others, but they're all bigger than 10103.

 

10103=10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (a one with 103 zeros after it)

 

The precision of the estimate is built into the number if you understand scientific notation.  It's only got one significant figure, meaning it could be out by up to 50%.  We have very strong evidence that we're not in thermodynamic equilibrium, but we rely on estimates for the exact figure because we're limited to data from the observable universe.



#48 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,510 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 06:24 PM

Infinity is literally defined as a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number.  [/size]If you can define it with a real number, by definition it can't be infinity (countable or uncountable), since you could simply add 1 to that number to make it bigger.  Some infinities are greater than others, but they're all bigger than 10103.


Still wrong.

Infinity IS NOT a number. It's a concept that is intuitively grasped (except for, possibly, by you).

10103=10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (a one with 103 zeros after it)


Yes - it's apparently 1000 googols.
 

The precision of the estimate is built into the number if you understand scientific notation.  It's only got one significant figure, meaning it could be out by up to 50%.  We have very strong evidence that we're not in thermodynamic equilibrium, but we rely on estimates for the exact figure because we're limited to data from the observable universe.


Except for one SLIGHT problem.

The data underpinning that theorem is theoretical itself.
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#49 tastywheat

tastywheat

    Primarch

  • Atomican
  • 1,842 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 06:56 PM

See, this is the sort of post that makes this place a shitty place for discussion.  Instead of talking about negative mass, Alcubierre drives, and the potential impact this will have on economic growth, you focus ad hominems and semantics.  

 

 

I'm curious as to what number 10103 is.

Do we have a name for it or do we just call it a countably infinite number?

Because with a typical 95CI our estimate could be a few hundred trillion years wrong.

 

Countable infinities are treated as numbers for the purposes of arithmetic in Physics, though they're not considered to be a Real number.  Since you asked whether 10103 was a countable infinity, I mistakenly assumed you were interested in an answer.


Edited by tastywheat, 07 May 2017 - 06:59 PM.


#50 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,510 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 07:13 PM

See, this is the sort of post that makes this place a shitty place for discussion.  Instead of talking about negative mass, Alcubierre drives, and the potential impact this will have on economic growth, you focus ad hominems and semantics.  
 
 

I'm curious as to what number 10103 is.

Do we have a name for it or do we just call it a countably infinite number?

Because with a typical 95CI our estimate could be a few hundred trillion years wrong.

 
Countable infinities are treated as numbers for the purposes of arithmetic in Physics, though they're not considered to be a Real number.  Since you asked whether 10103 was a countable infinity, I mistakenly assumed you were interested in an answer.


I mistakenly think you know what you're talking about. I'm almost always disappointed.

Let me ask you a very simple question.

Where did you get this 10^103 number and have you accounted that within the next 10^103 - 1 years we might have slightly more technology to generate energy to harvest more matter in a universe vastly greater than we estimate now?
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#51 tastywheat

tastywheat

    Primarch

  • Atomican
  • 1,842 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 08:11 PM

I mistakenly think you know what you're talking about. I'm almost always disappointed.


Let me ask you a very simple question.

Where did you get this 10^103 number and have you accounted that within the next 10^103 - 1 years we might have slightly more technology to generate energy to harvest more matter in a universe vastly greater than we estimate now?

 

 

Again, 1 significant figure means the precision is ±50%.  There is effectively zero chance that it'd be accurate to 1 year.  We might not know the exact time frame, but there's nothing we're able to measure that contradicts the idea of declining entropy.   

 

Heat death implies that all matter in the universe loses all of its kinetic energy, which ends all natural processes.  The end of electromagnetism.  No more light, heat, or moving electrons/photons to power computers.  No activation energy to form new chemical bonds.  The end of biology.  Every radioactive isotope depleted into stable forms.  A dark universe frozen in time.

 

You can redirect energy, but you can't create or destroy it, so as stated previously, you'd need to believe in perpetual motion/free energy to believe that we'd be able to find a technical solution.

 

The concept was first laid out in a 1967 Astrophysics paper by Zoline entitled The Heat Death of the Universe.  Page calculated it to be 10100 years in 1976 based implications of Hawking radiation.  Terasawa and Sato were the first to calculate a timeframe based on empirical observations in the 1985 paper Nucleosynthesis in the Low-Entropy and Lepton-Degenerate Universe, which refined the figure to 10103 years.  

 

Obviously it's on the fringe of new knowledge, and could well turn out to be wrong, but it's peer reviewed science - not just conjecture.  It's the most likely outcome current science is able to describe.



#52 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,510 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 09:07 PM

And nothing at all you've written, especially in the paragraphs 2 and 3, makes you question your empirical statement of what we can and can't do?

Maybe you ought to read the more simple summary: https://en.wikipedia...of_the_universe

There is
a. not enough data sampled from the known universe to really make any kind of claim about accuracy.
b. there are ways we think we know around it, which I'm sure we an sort out in at least the next 10102 years.
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#53 tastywheat

tastywheat

    Primarch

  • Atomican
  • 1,842 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 11:11 PM

We're talking past each other.

 

Objectively, all of our observations suggest that entropy in the observable universe is increasing.  From the Wikipedia article you linked:

 

Max Planck wrote that the phrase 'entropy of the universe' has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition.

 

That was written in 1897, before quantum physics, radio telescopes, relativity, or the Hubble telescope were things.  There are other quotes in the 'Controversies' section that argue about semantics, mostly regarding how entropy is defined and measured, but nearly all modern physicists agree that time is asymmetrical, and the arrow of time dictates that future states will have higher entropy.  

 

A popular theory doesn't imply that it's right, but it does imply that it's something you should probably seriously consider given that Physicists spend their entire professional careers working on these sorts of phenomena.

 

There is no technological solution to this.  If the laws of thermodynamics hold true, it follows that there is an upper bound for economic growth.  The logic is clear if you use common or mathematical definitions for infinite, and have a decent understanding of the second law of thermodynamics.


Edited by tastywheat, 07 May 2017 - 11:23 PM.


#54 @~thehung

@~thehung

    Guru

  • Hero
  • 8,614 posts

Posted 07 May 2017 - 11:29 PM

There is
a. not enough data sampled from the known universe to really make any kind of claim about accuracy.
b. there are ways we think we know around it, which I'm sure we an sort out in at least the next 10102 years.

 

yeah, i suppose we could play that game.  

i mean, according to the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics, theres a chance that many very unlikely things are possible.  there may even be a version of you somewhere that isnt a giant douche canoe.  

it is only by assuming a deus ex machina rationale for rejecting a lot of reasonable certainties that "infinite money" can be thought of as a possibility.  otherwise, in the every day world, its a useless abstraction with no interface to reality.    
 


no pung intended

#55 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,510 posts

Posted 08 May 2017 - 12:46 AM


There is
a. not enough data sampled from the known universe to really make any kind of claim about accuracy.
b. there are ways we think we know around it, which I'm sure we an sort out in at least the next 10102 years.

 
yeah, i suppose we could play that game.  

i mean, according to the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics, theres a chance that many very unlikely things are possible.  there may even be a version of you somewhere that isnt a giant douche canoe.  

it is only by assuming a deus ex machina rationale for rejecting a lot of reasonable certainties that "infinite money" can be thought of as a possibility.  otherwise, in the every day world, its a useless abstraction with no interface to reality.    
 

And in the muktiverse theory there might be a version of you that isn't pompous nor has a stick shoved so far up your Cline's butt that it's hard to talk.

But just like almost every scientist will accept a larger than equal likelihood that there is complex life elsewhere, without there being a shred of proof of this fact, does your pompous ass admit to the possibility that our knowledge about the unknown fraction of the infinite universe that we think we can see, and still don't understand - might not be complete enough to say that in 1000 googol years the universe will be energy-free?

On the subject of the pompous clone with a pole up it's ass... I'd reckon there's a fairly even chance there isn't one without it.

We're talking past each other.
 
Objectively, all of our observations suggest that entropy in the observable universe is increasing.  From the Wikipedia article you linked:
 

Max Planck wrote that the phrase 'entropy of the universe' has no meaning because it admits of no accurate definition.

 

That was written in 1897, before quantum physics, radio telescopes, relativity, or the Hubble telescope were things.  There are other quotes in the 'Controversies' section that argue about semantics, mostly regarding how entropy is defined and measured, but nearly all modern physicists agree that time is asymmetrical, and the arrow of time dictates that future states will have higher entropy.  
 
A popular theory doesn't imply that it's right, but it does imply that it's something you should probably seriously consider given that Physicists spend their entire professional careers working on these sorts of phenomena.
 
There is no technological solution to this.  If the laws of thermodynamics hold true, it follows that there is an upper bound for economic growth.  The logic is clear if you use common or mathematical definitions for infinite, and have a decent understanding of the second law of thermodynamics.

The laws of thermodynamics don't need to hold true for 1000 googols.

We've already apparently broken the second law ona microscopic local scale: http://www.scienceal...-thermodynamics

Please remember that 500 years ago, scientific laws that held true are laughed at now.

There is nothing quite as ridiculous as someone saying that what holds true today, dictates the terms in which we live in 1000 googols, if we make it that far. Hell, I'd be surprised if humans maintained corporeal form in a few hundred years.
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users