The Future of Earth and Beyond!

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Classic story of transhumanism--man fusing with machine and becoming God.

Hmm, on a side note to that, I think I'll stay flesh and blood, thanks

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I recall a story on entropy I read in high school. It was about a new supercomputer we invented. When it was turned on one of the first questioned asked by some worker was how to reverse entropy. It said something like "I will think about that". Over generations and thousands of years, this computer gets upgraded many many times...and every several genetations that question is asked again, and the answer is the same. Eventually the human race becomes one with the computer as the species spreads to all points in the Universe. Entropy continues to as all the stars in the universe burn out...the disembodied human race/computer eventually figure an answer to the original question...it takes time to prepares in the darkness of the heat death of the universe, but when it is finally ready, it says one phrase "Let there be light"

And there was light.

Or you can send your animated creepy stuffed animals to scout for magical girls and use up their emotions as a source of energy until they burn out and become monsters.

[Sides]

Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi

Hmm, on a side note to that, I think I'll stay flesh and blood, thanks

But you are going to miss out on some awesome space cyborg battles, with laser beam and what not.

[JC...]

[Ithekro]

Well considering it is suppose to be the ending of the universe, then it is billions (or more) years into the future. The evolutionary process could do just about whatever it wants to our species, should it survive. Unlike or theoretical ancestors, our decendents could have a viable record of where they came from and possibly still identify themselves as "human" even if they are no longer homo sapiens sapiens.

There is very little that suggests our exact species can survive that long without changing in some way...at least over the course of billions of years, but nothing that suggests that our civilization and "culture" can't survive.

[lordshadowisle]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I recall a story on entropy I read in high school. It was about a new supercomputer we invented. When it was turned on one of the first questioned asked by some worker was how to reverse entropy. It said something like "I will think about that". Over generations and thousands of years, this computer gets upgraded many many times...and every several genetations that question is asked again, and the answer is the same. Eventually the human race becomes one with the computer as the species spreads to all points in the Universe. Entropy continues to as all the stars in the universe burn out...the disembodied human race/computer eventually figure an answer to the original question...it takes time to prepares in the darkness of the heat death of the universe, but when it is finally ready, it says one phrase "Let there be light"

And there was light.

Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question". Had to google the title, but I remember the story quite well, with the retro names (MULTIVAC!)

[erneiz_hyde]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I recall a story on entropy I read in high school. It was about a new supercomputer we invented. When it was turned on one of the first questioned asked by some worker was how to reverse entropy. It said something like "I will think about that". Over generations and thousands of years, this computer gets upgraded many many times...and every several genetations that question is asked again, and the answer is the same. Eventually the human race becomes one with the computer as the species spreads to all points in the Universe. Entropy continues to as all the stars in the universe burn out...the disembodied human race/computer eventually figure an answer to the original question...it takes time to prepares in the darkness of the heat death of the universe, but when it is finally ready, it says one phrase "Let there be light"

And there was light.

"The Last Question"! I heard recently this was one of the most interesting philosophical stories about sci-fi. And thanks to Ascaloth I know where to read this now

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Well considering it is suppose to be the ending of the universe, then it is billions (or more) years into the future. The evolutionary process could do just about whatever it wants to our species, should it survive. Unlike or theoretical ancestors, our decendents could have a viable record of where they came from and possibly still identify themselves as "human" even if they are no longer homo sapiens sapiens.

There is very little that suggests our exact species can survive that long without changing in some way...at least over the course of billions of years, but nothing that suggests that our civilization and "culture" can't survive.

Frankly I don't think we can even speculate what kind of situation the "humanity" will be in once we'll have to deal with the problem of enthropy and I agree with Ithekro that by that time humanity will either have ceased to exist or become something completely different.

That apart I don't really see any viable answer to the problem of enthropy but of course that comes from the limited knowledge we have of the universe, but then again imagining unknown properties and proposing a solution on that base is a shot in the dark. Kinda pointless if you ask me.

Plus even if the universe will end one day I don't think it's a big deal, if the universe will be colonized and host a whole multitude of space faring civilization and all of its mysteries will be unveiled I think that in the end it will "die" with no regrets knowing what a wonderful "life" he has experienced. With a lifespan of several billion of years one can't complain.

And then the sentient beings that lived in it maybe will simply jump into another universe.

[yezhanquan]

Well, humanity has yet to celebrate its 1st 100 million years....

[Jan-Poo]

If by humanity you mean homo sapiens that's not even a quarter of a million.

[yezhanquan]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

If by humanity you mean homo sapiens that's not even a quarter of a million.

Yeah, we have a LONG way to go.

[lordshadowisle]

In 1 million years there probably won't be any homo sapiens left; there's a good chance that we'll have speciated off.

[Jan-Poo]

Actually how can a species speciate without any kind of selection?

Right now humanity isn't really threatened by any environmental factor. Even in the case some catastrophe will happen, humans are more likely to cope with technology which would make genetic differences irrelevant. Even if new genes will appear, as long as the older genes remain there won't be any real evolution.

Of course there's still the hypothesis of a major incurable disease, but that would only cause humanity to "speciate" to be immune to it.

In my opinion if humanity will change at all that will be because of artificial selection if not by direct artificial genetic manipulation.

[lordshadowisle]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Actually how can a species speciate without any kind of selection?

Right now humanity isn't really threatened by any environmental factor. Even in the case some catastrophe will happen, humans are more likely to cope with technology which would make genetic differences irrelevant. Even if new genes will appear, as long as the older genes remain there won't be any real evolution.

Of course there's still the hypothesis of a major incurable disease, but that would only cause humanity to "speciate" to be immune to it.

In my opinion if humanity will change at all that will be because of artificial selection if not by direct artificial genetic manipulation.

Selection is always in effect, though the forces may be less obvious. Civilization itself is a force; consider that certain genetic traits may be useful to a caveman but not to a modern person. For example, sickle-cell disease was a useful adaption in primitive times, but as medical science advanced it became a liability. I'll argue that physical traits like strength and hardiness will be selected out.

I definitely agree though that genetic manipulation is more likely to be a cause of speciation.

[erneiz_hyde]

What nature did to genes in millions of years could eventually be done by man in a matter of months. Suddenly the Imperium of Man from Warhammer 40K seems a likely future (and what a shitty future that would be ).

Btw, I don't think even with genetic engineering mankind will cease to be "mankind". We can even kiss our evolution good-bye because we would've already possessed the ability to weed unwanted changes in genes. I think no matter how much functionality we add in our genes, we won't deliberately stray too far from our current shape.

[lordshadowisle]

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

Btw, I don't think even with genetic engineering mankind will cease to be "mankind". We can even kiss our evolution good-bye because we would've already possessed the ability to weed unwanted changes in genes. I think no matter how much functionality we add in our genes, we won't deliberately stray too far from our current shape.

There are those that will worship the pure human genetic strain, and those that despise the limitations of the human form (those radial transhuman maniacs) You're most likely right if you talking about mainstream humanity, but in underground cults or isolated offworlds and the fringe planets, who knows?

[DonQuigleone]

You guys are getting the galactic speed limit of light slightly wrong.

It's not so much that you can't outrun light. It's that light is always travelling at the same speed(relative to you) regardless of what speed you travel at.

So in a standard setting, if I was in Car A and travelling at 50 km an hour forwards, and my friend was in car B and travelling at 25 km an hour forwards, then he would perceive me moving forwards at 25 km. But both people would see the same beam of light moving at 300,000 km/s.

So if say you start at star A, and are moving to star B, and you keep accelerating, until you're travelling, say at 200,000 km a second from star A to Star B, you will still percieve light moving ahead of you at the same old steady 300,000 km/s relative to you.

So for a stationary observer at star A, they see a beam of light going at 300,000 km/s, but you're seeing the same beam of light going at 300,000/s, so the person in the spaceship would think the guy parked at Star A is seeing the light move at 500,000 km/s.

This is the central dillema that was solved by relativity, and basically the person in the space ship's perception of time changes, in this case by a factor of like 5/3, what is 3 seconds to the guy at star A, is actually 5 seconds to the guy in the space ship. Which is why everyone sees the light travelling at the same speed.

Disclaimer: This whole area of Physics is absolutely head wrecking, and I don't have a full understanding, particularly of the math involved (which is also head wrecking). The e=mc^2 thing also is derived from this, as the extra energy that isn't being used to accelerate is generating mass instead. Relativistic physics is not for the faint hearted.

So if there was a distant planet, and it's 2 lightyears away, you could get there faster then 2 years by your own perception, but to everyone left behind on earth, they'd never see you travel faster then light. This is where all the twins paradox stuff comes from.

To actually go faster then light as perceived by where you're departing from you'd need to either be able to "jump", skipping sections of space, or be able to go back in time.

All this basically makes Interstellar space travel impossible with our level of understanding of physics. The only thing I know of that allows faster then light transmission of information is quantum pairing effects. And if you thought relativistic physics was hard, quantum is just...

[yezhanquan]

As far as I can recall, this is the current theory on the light barrier. So far, scientists agree that light always travel at the same speed. So, as Don has mentioned, the time elapsed will differ.

Don't worry: this problem gave Einstein himself a near breakdown until he realised that "time was the joker in the pack".

[Jan-Poo]

That's basically it don, but you also need to consider that according to the theory of relativity anything that reaches relativistic speeds will behave like light and so the limit doesn't just apply to light itself.

Therefore one obeserver will never "see" anything moving at a relative (to himself) speed higher than that of the light. Which means an observer inside a starhip will never see the star or planet he's heading too approaching at speed faster than that of light, which by extension it means he will never perceive the starship he's in to move at a speed faster than light.

But there's a gimmick. Once one approaches relativistic speeds "space" and "time" will contract.

So let's say our astronaut tries to reach alpha centauri and begins accelarating to a relativistic speed, he will start seeing the original distance (about 4 light years) to become shorter and shorter. So a travel of several light years might look like a travel of a few thousands miles supposing he can get the ship that fast and the time needed will also be shorter.

For those who are still on the earth, though, the starship will be perceived as traveling the whole distance for the whole needed time.

In other words for the astronauts it will be a travel of a few months but the earth will have to wait several years before "seeing" him reach the goal.


I'm too lazy to make the right calculations and I don't even remember the right formulae but take it as a pure example (the numbers are wrong, this is just to give you the idea)

earth to alpha centauri: 4 light years
starship speed: 1/4 light speed

from the earth perspective the starship will travel for 16 years before reaching alpha centari

from the astronaut perspective the distance from alpha centari will contract to a single light year which they'll be able to cover in 4 years.

[jamieS]

If I was religious, I would think that God is screwing with me about all of this relativity stuff.
But I'm not religious, so maybe my mind is screwing with itself....

This is the central dillema that was solved by relativity, and basically the person in the space ship's perception of time changes, in this case by a factor of like 5/3, what is 3 seconds to the guy at star A, is actually 5 seconds to the guy in the space ship. Which is why everyone sees the light travelling at the same speed.

Are you sure this is right? I thought that if you were travelling close to the speed of light, the time you experience is shorter than those not travelling as fast.