HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Protocol Labs on Youtube has a great video on this here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

Very much worth spending a half an hour on.

⬐ preisschild

Was a bit disappointed by the "(4K)" in the title and then it only being 1080p

⬐ Maursault

This is a video montage with voice overs, but the salient information is displayed in updating text, which very soon is out of sync with the video montage and voiceovers. There is no need for this to be 30 mins. Better info consumable much more quickly without the neato irrelevant visuals here.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future

⬐ cercatrova

The "neato irrelevant visuals" is why I actually watched this video unlike so many others posted on HN. I'm not going to read through all that text, so this video was, to me, the best way to deliver the information in an interesting and engaging way.

⬐ Maursault

The video doesn't follow the timeline. The video and voice over is still displaying and explaining about white dwarfs after all the stars have burned out, including red dwarves. It looks pretty, but it's incongruous and doesn't fulfill what the title promises in that it doesn't follow its own time lapse.

Here's one[1] that actually makes sense in only 9 mins, albeit without the trendy soundtrack. Here's a Kurzgesagt[2] that gets pretty close to the subject.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qndOMjlThc

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzkD5SeuwzM

⬐ ordu

White dwarfs will be hot for eons. Long after other stars burned out. So if humanity find a way to live through a red giant phase of the sun, then it will have plenty of time to watch how Universe loses its starts while circling the white dwarf sun. Pretty optimistic. The only trouble is how to not become thrown out by a passing star. We need some means to shoot down those.

⬐ Maursault

> White dwarfs will be hot for eons. Long after other stars burned out.

Red dwarfs are other stars that will last much, much much, much longer than white dwarfs, and it is red dwarfs that will be the final star type in the dying Universe.

This is what I am talking about; this was some video editing major's project, and while it looks and sounds pretty, the content is so bad it is teaching falsehoods.

⬐ ordu

"Barrow and Tipler estimate that it would take 10^15 years for a white dwarf to cool to 5 K;[11] however, if weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) exist, it is possible that interactions with these particles will keep some white dwarfs much warmer than this for approximately 10^25 years.[10]: §IIIE"[1]

Red dwarfs, I believe, can live for tens of trillions years, which is 10^13. And some of them will become white dwarfs.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_dwarf

⬐ Maursault

A white dwarf is a dead star. The only light it emits is residual thermal energy. It may take a very long time to cool entirely, but in only millions of years it will effectively be so faint that it is invisible. Though a white dwarf was once a star, it is no longer when it reaches the white dwarf stage, because a star is defined as any massive self-luminous celestial body of gas that shines by radiation derived from its internal energy sources. A white dwarf has no energy source. Any remaining energy that it has is only remanent heat. White dwarfs do not shine; they glow.

A red dwarf, on the other hand, will produce and emit light via hydrogen fusion for 10 trillion years or longer before burning out and becoming a dead star... or white dwarf, only faintly glowing for millions of years due to residual thermal energy.

The last stars in the Universe will be red dwarfs, and even red dwarfs from the early Universe will continue to shine far, far longer, trillions of years longer, after all other stars have died.

⬐ ChaosMarine

When people go to youtube to obtain knowledge, it's idiocracy next.

How this youtube video got onto hacker news is a mystery. Was HN not meant to be more than this?

⬐ 6stringmerc

Whatever you do, avoid the award winning, amazing, and wordless Qatsi trilogy.

Although the third one while enjoying psilocybin in a theater was beyond the usual cinematic experience…or maybe don’t click on links submitted by users with handles like “thunderbong” expecting a TED talk.

⬐ cercatrova

melodysheep is an incredible creator. The highlight of this video is noticing that matter only accounts for 1/3 of the entire runtime of the video (which, being on a logarithmic scale, means that matter itself only exists in the universe for an indescribably short amount of time). As someone who lives in the material world, made of matter, it is mindboggling to me that we could be so shortlived and that in reality, the universe after all matter is gone is still just being born.

⬐ 6stringmerc

I am but a collection of matter channeling energy that I do not understand or comprehend, but feel and know. I suppose it’s the reverberated universe I can call my soul. It’s my connection, which is different than others. Sometimes I think it’s stronger.

Like the horses running from Mt St Helen’s before the eruption, I’ve spent a lot of time trying to open up for different signals. So far so good actually!

I love stuff like this. If you do too, then I highly recommend this incredible youtube video of the end of time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA&ab_channel=melod...

⬐ whiteboardr

While interesting and putting perspectives into place I’m having a really hard time following how there can be a black hole merger area (let alone the black hole era) having the model of redshift engrained in my brain.

Serious question: wouldn’t all mass that had time to gravitate towards and convene into galaxies, stars and black holes been drifting too far apart by then to be even remotely close for their gravities overcome these - then - unimaginable distances?

⬐ LorenPechtel

Any group of galaxies that is gravitationally bound will end up in effect putting the black holes into orbit about each other. The orbits will be across incredible distances and move very slowly, but it will happen. Orbital energy over time gets converted to gravitational waves and thus they spiral inwards. (All orbits actually spiral inwards, it's just the effect is so tiny that in all but extreme cases you won't notice it within the current age of the universe.)

Galaxies which are not gravitationally bound won't encounter each other, so it doesn't end up merging the whole universe into a single black hole.

⬐ crmd

It’s a crime this lovely video didn’t end with a voiceover of sir Roger Penrose explaining conformal cyclic cosmology theory.

⬐ zikduruqe

^^^ This is worth your time to watch.

⬐ nofinator

Thanks. I also love Wikipedia's Timeline of the far future: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future

⬐ amflare

If you like that one, then you'd probably love https://www.futuretimeline.net/. Fair warning, you may lose your afternoon to it.

This? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

I hope that we do not destroy ourselves.

Whether we do or do not, it is sombering to know how much time our universe will spend without life, dark, bleak, and pointless.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

There is an allusion to this in a recent YouTube video on the end of the universe, and the vanishingly small timeframe that life can exist within it as we understand.

Maybe this is a comfort.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

⬐ mmustapic

"With the death of the last star, the age of starlight comes to an end"

I found this video pretty mind-blowing in presenting the scale of the universe, especially through time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

Here's another fun one - a time lapse of the universe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

Basically suggesting that if our universe was a human life, we'd still be in the hospital right after birth. So much time left to go.

⬐ hoten

I recall feeling a lot of existential dread when reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future ... and this video just dug all that up again :)

Everything from 3 blue 1 brown: https://www.youtube.com/c/3blue1brown

Visualization of Quantum Physics (Quantum Mechanics): https://youtu.be/p7bzE1E5PMY

history of the entire world, i guess: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuCn8ux2gbs

TIMELAPSE OF THE FUTURE: A Journey to the End of Time (4K): https://youtu.be/uD4izuDMUQA

Humanity was born way ahead of its time. The reason is grabby aliens. and Grabby aliens: when we'll meet them, how big they are, and other predictions

https://youtu.be/l3whaviTqqg

https://youtu.be/LceY7nhi6j4

Everyday Astronaut videos (he has 90 min documentary on Soviet rocket engine): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6uKrU_WqJ1R2HMTY3LIx5Q

Cool Worlds - a lot of 25-35 min very nice astronomy explanations: https://www.youtube.com/c/CoolWorldsLab

'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

I enjoyed this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

This will outlast us, beyond comprehension.

Proton decay, and the death of everything that we can know, is just the beginning.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

"Timelapse of the Future: A Journey to the End of Time" is also quite mindblowing and impressive.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

There's a video on that. The end of the universe: https://youtu.be/uD4izuDMUQA

This is so weird to think that for most of its life the universe will be empty and cold. Like what's even the point of all this, of life, of us, if in the end nothing matters, everything decays into nothingness.

⬐ lemonberry

"Nothing matters"

This is true in the biggest sense of the word. But it's also false. We all have things that matter to us and the various communities that we belong to. In some ways, to me anyway, it's very liberating: life as a blank canvas to imbue it with the meaning we want on.

That won't resonate with everyone or even most people, but it's motivating for me.

⬐ malfist

Check out the philosophy of "Thrownness": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrownness

It's a branch, kinda of absurdist. Nothing matters, nothing ever has, but that's liberating, just enjoy and make the most of what comes.

⬐ krylon

Albert Camus wrote a beautiful (IMHO, at least) book about it, The Myth of Sisyphus. His point, as I understand it, is that nothing matters in the sense that the universe is vast and empty does not care what happens to you or me. But that also means we get to choose what matters to us.

Life has no meaning, but it has meaning to us, and we can, in a way, choose what we want it to mean. I agree, I find this perspective very liberating and positive, but I can see how some people might find it bleak.

⬐ NateEag

In this framework, Stalin and Kim Jong-Il created their own meaning and no one has a basis for saying what they chose is worse than anyone else's choice.

To many of us, that is horribly demoralizing.

⬐ wwweston

Sure they do -- I can pick any basis I want for saying their ideas are worse.

I can make that basis arbitrary (because I don't like their names), or I can ground it in appeals to things that people value widely. One can get lost in the idea that things are meaningless on a purely narrative/mental basis, but you're embedded in a biological matrix that will very likely re-orient you on the idea that some things matter if you pay attention to it. If nothing else, everyone acts as if suffering matters and acts to reduce it personally and in their close circles, so that's a pretty solid baseline to engage. There are questions about what it means to reduce suffering and perhaps even people like Stalin thought they were reducing it, but once you've agreed that reducing suffering is meaningful then you have a standard and can talk in terms of observed results and dynamics around it.

⬐ NateEag

Sure, but if someone doesn't grant that they want to reduce suffering for others, you have no legitimate way to argue to them that they should. You get to pick your meaning and they get to pick theirs.

It's "do what you want", at the end of the day.

⬐ NoGravitas

That's what it's always been. Even if there were a moral framework that's provably true, people could still choose to act against it (assuming some kind of free will, even if it's compatibilist). What do you do when someone hears all your arguments and says "so what"? The same thing you have to do in a universe where meaning/morality is not intrinsic: convince those you can, and force those you can't, if it's important to you.

⬐ rovolo

In each of your responses, you're saying there needs to be a shared base of ethics.

> you have no legitimate way to argue to them that they should

> There's no shared basis I can legitimately use to argue with them

> you could not legitimately argue to them that their choices are wrong, philosophically speaking

But you're not answering these questions: Which values are included in that shared basis? Where do those values come from? How do we know that those values are correct?

The idea that values are arbitrary isn't saying you can't criticize other people's values. It's acknowledging that you don't have some authoritative source of ethics. How do you try to convince people that something is worthwhile or wrong? Do you appeal to this authority of ethics, or are you making some other argument?

⬐ NateEag

Sure, you can criticize other people's values.

They don't have to listen, though. Maybe their values even dictate that they shouldn't.

You're right that I'm not answering a lot of questions about my own perspective. I wasn't trying to explain my views.

I was trying to explain why many humans are not at all comforted by this "choose your own values" system.

In my case, it produces nihilistic horror, and this is one of the reasons.

I'm not saying a shared basis for ethics must exist.

I'm saying that if one doesn't, there's no basis for arguing that someone else's ethics are wrong.

All you can legitimately say is "I don't like that."

It comes down to "ethics" by mob rule and democracy.

⬐ rovolo

Thanks for replying even after a few days. It took me some time to think through your responses as well, so I hope you forgive my own delay.

> I was trying to explain why many humans are not at all comforted by this "choose your own values" system.

> there's nothing to be said beyond "I hate that," as far as I can see.

> I'm saying that if one doesn't, there's no basis for arguing that someone else's ethics are wrong.

This makes sense. You aren't saying that people won't condemn Stalin's and Kim's action. You're not saying that you or others couldn't be wrong about condemning those two. You're saying: how can anyone judge anyone else if there isn't some objective source of morality?

I dunno though, this seems very juvenile. Are you really saying that there's no way for people to condemn killing if there isn't some objective morality? How would you even be confident that killing is objectively wrong? I'd rather acknowledge that I can change my morals based on good arguments and reasoning. Saying that morals are objective or subjective doesn't really matter to individuals if we can't know for certain what the objective moral guidelines are. We should always consider whether our ethical guidelines are actually good or if they're doing harm.

> It comes down to "ethics" by mob rule and democracy

You don't have to agree with the majority with your own ethical beliefs. Sometimes being in the minority is a signal that your own reasoning is faulty and you should listen to others, and sometimes it's because other people aren't thinking ethically.

⬐ NateEag

No worries about slow replies. Obviously I'm not greased lightning myself. I appreciate your civil, thoughtful responses.

> Are you really saying that there's no way for people to condemn killing if there isn't some objective morality? How would you even be confident that killing is objectively wrong?

People can absolutely condemn killing for any reason they like.

When I'm reasoning from the framework of materialist humanism, I don't see any reason killing is objectively wrong. I see no basis for any objective moral statements at all from this perspective.

If there is no transcendence, nothing outside of our heads that actually defines what good is, then I see no basis for saying anything is "right" or "wrong".

Put another way, "right" and "wrong" become synonyms for "liked" and "disliked".

> Saying that morals are objective or subjective doesn't really matter to individuals if we can't know for certain what the objective moral guidelines are.

I think I disagree.

Certainty is something it's very hard for a human mind to have legitimately.

You can still sometimes piece things together enough to have confidence, though.

If we agree that there is such a thing as objectively right and wrong behavior, we can engage in discussion, research, thinking, and debate which may bring us closer to a shared understanding of what that good might be.

If morals are subjective, then you can still have that debate, but there's no basis for it nor a real reason to have it. It boils down to arguing about what the people involved like, as far as I can see, which doesn't really make sense to me.

This could just be my perspective preventing me from understanding what you're getting at.

⬐ rovolo

I think you're making the following claims:

1) What's the point of discussing ethical matters if they're not objective?

2) We can objectively discover what's morally "good".

3) We lose legitimacy making ethical judgments if moral values aren't objective.

(1) There is a lot of value and objectivity in ethical discussions even if there are no objective moral values.

Why would there be no reason to discuss ethics if moral values are subjective? You can discuss all of the factors influencing an ethical judgement with people who don't share your ethical values. You can also change your judgement of an action without changing your ethical values because your understanding of the situation can change.

You are asking whether killing is objectively wrong. This is an incomplete question. What does it even mean to "kill" someone? Stalin's political executions directly killed people, but can we also blame him for the deaths from malnourishment? What if the killing is accidental? When you say that killing is wrong, you have to first define what you even mean. Discussion will help you decide what the ethical value even is.

Secondly, would killing being objectively wrong mean that every action involving killing is wrong? Is it wrong for soldiers to fight in wars? Is it wrong to kill someone in self-defense? What if you only thought it was in self-defense? Every situation is technically unique and *relative* to the situation. Discussion will help you decide which ethical values are involved in each situation.

You can have an objectively wrong ethical judgement of actions even if values are subjective. You can be objectively wrong about the consequences of different actions. You can be objectively wrong in applying your values.

(2) Whether there are objective moral values depends on what you define as a moral value.

Everything I discussed in (1) concerns objective reasons we can base ethical judgements on. Note that everything I discussed were possible contributing factors in our ethical judgment. These are objective outcomes of our actions, and we can legitimately base our ethical judgment on any of these outcomes. These are all statements about what "is" true. When we are making a value judgment though, we are asking what "should" happen.

To make this clearer, let's assume that we can objectively decide which outcomes we "should" aim for. We can objectively say that it's bad when people die, and we can objectively say that it's bad to steal from others. What happens when these values come into conflict? What if someone is going to die if they don't steal food from a shop? You have to compare different ethical values against each other when you decide what "should" happen. Each ethical decision depends on how things are ethically values _relative_ to other ethical values. I can't think of any _absolute_ ethical values because there can always be a more important ethical value.

This is why I don't think we can objectively ethically value things. I don't know of an objective way to compare ethical values. I don't know of an objective way to say you "should" prefer one value over another. You can objectively say this action will result in these outcomes which seem good or bad, but those are also ethical value which also need to be compared to each other. This definition of a moral good, as something you "should" do, makes it incompatible with objectivity to me. We can objectively discover what "is" objectively true about the world because we can observe things which "are". I don't know how to observe what "should" happen, so I have to conclude that values come from us individuals and are thus subjective.

I should note that there are some actions which I think are very obviously bad. We can objectively list all of the bad parts which contribute to the entire action have it be obvious to most people that the action was morally wrong. I'm saying that "obviously bad" is different from "objectively bad", even though they are very close in practice.

(3) You're right that we lose the type of legitimacy which you're arguing for. However, I think that you're making the alternative to objective ethics worse than I think they are.

To start with, where are we using objective ethics? We use ethics to decide how we should behave and how others should behave. What you're saying is that you can tell other people how to behave because there is some objective source of morals backing you up. I can believe there are objectively outcomes of actions which seem bad. But, I don't know what outside of our heads can be telling us what we "should" and "shouldn't" do. Without some external source, it seems like our morals must be internal.

So why do we need to be objectively correct to ethically judge others? I feel okay saying that it seems bad to kill a lot of people unnecessarily and we should try to prevent people from killing others. I don't feel the need to say that killing people is objectively wrong, I feel okay saying it is obviously wrong and we should work together to prevent it. I think that it keeps us humble to realize that we are ultimately the ones deciding the morality of our actions.

⬐ Ar-Curunir

You allocating a particular meaning to your life's actions does not mean that other's allocate that same meaning; you're making an unjustified logical leap.

⬐ NateEag

I'm not trying to say others have to accept anyone's chosen meaning.

I'm saying you could not legitimately argue to them that their choices are wrong, philosophically speaking.

You can say "tons of us hate this", but that doesn't get you much of a leg to stand on, really.

They still get to choose what they want their meaning to be, and if it's in violent conflict with yours, there's nothing further to be done but avoid each other and fight when the situation and your respective values make it unavoidable.

⬐ eludwig

>>no one has a basis for saying what they chose is worse than anyone else's choice.

Of course they do! If your parents were killed by Stalin you probably have an opinion one way or the other. That is exactly what this thread is talking about.

⬐ NateEag

Okay, you're right - I can use any basis I want.

There's no shared basis I can legitimately use to argue with them, though, if they don't happen to share my chosen values.

⬐ salt-thrower

That is true. You can't debate everyone on an even playing field, because not everyone has the same baseline views of morality and reason.

More and more, I have come to think that debates are better for convincing undecided bystanders than convincing the other person you're debating with. At least for arguments or debates held online or in a public space.

One-on-one you might be able to show someone a new value system if they're willing to sit down and talk about it, though.

⬐ krylon

Either you are twisting my words, or I phrased what I said very badly. Let me rephrase what I said, hopefully more clearly:

First, from the perspective of "the universe", the very concept of meaning is meaningless (sorry, no pun intended). From THAT perspective, Stalin or Pol Pot or Hitler or Djenghis Khan killing millions of people is no more or less meaningful or morally good or bad than the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs.

But you and I are not "the universe". Nor is any other human being. To us, it DOES matter, a lot, what choices Stalin, Djenghis Khan or Napoleon make. As well as the choices you and I make, every minute of every day.

From a cosmological perspective, life is quite likely nothing more than a chemical curiosity. From our perspective, it is pretty much everything. The sun doesn't care if you are happy or sad or angry or scared. It cannot care (at least as far as we know). I can. So can anyone else who is reading this.

Ethics, I am trying to say, does not exist outside ourselves the way gravity or time does. But to us, it is just as real, maybe even more real, than any force of nature. This is what makes us human.

⬐ NateEag

Thank you for trying to clarify your thoughts. I understand that you think ethics exist inside human minds and not anywhere else.

I still don't see why Stalin, Pol Pot, and company don't get to decide that they value mass murder to achieve their personal goals, in absentia transcendence.

I find their choices appalling, but it seems they did not.

It's the meaning they chose to make in their life.

If that's their code of ethics, and those ethics exist solely inside our heads, then there's nothing to be said beyond "I hate that," as far as I can see.

⬐ eloff

Even on shorter timescales we all die and cease to matter. That doesn't mean life is without meaning. Life is amazing, and terribly short. I wish I could live 1000 more lives, and live them all differently. There's so much I will never do.

⬐ vidarh

> Even on shorter timescales we all die and cease to matter.

If you really want to drive this home, genealogy very quickly shows you how entire families ends up reduced to at most a few lines in archives. The proportion of people who ends up leaving anything of note beyond birth, marriage and death record is minuscule. Even an obituary in a paper is rare at scale.

Even most of those who left something behind are all mostly forgotten. E.g. most old novels are rarely if ever read (most new novels are rarely read). The proportion of even the people who are famous today who will be remembered 100 years from now is tiny - if you go back and read old newspapers, the number of people who were famous in their day you'd recognise the names of are a tiny little fraction.

One can choose to be depressed about that, are accept that measuring our lives based on whether we'll be remembered is pointless.

⬐ eloff

Yes, focusing on your legacy and being remembered is pointless. It's also not going to bring you any joy specifically because you won't be around to appreciate it.

I think live a good life, treat others well, try to leave things a little better off than you found them, and enjoy the short time you have. We waste time on so many things that don't matter and don't bring us joy - as if we had infinite time, but we don't.

⬐ falcrist

I agree with you.

“I mean, they say you die twice. One time when you stop breathing and a second time, a bit later on, when somebody says your name for the last time.” — Banksy

That idea has been around a lot longer than Banksy, but I disagree. Just because you're not directly recorded in great detail, doesn't mean you didn't have some influence on the world around you. We all contribute in some small way, and our influence spreads out like ripples in a pond.

I like how John Donne said it:

"No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as any manner of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

⬐ webkike

Super Mario bros is pretty fun

⬐ xamde

CATS ARE NICE (Death in Discworld)

⬐ lemonberry

I imagined this as a modern buddhist story:

The student approaches their master lamenting the meaninglessness of everything.

The master, "Super Mario bros is pretty fun".

Enlightenment ensues.

⬐ handrous

Life before enlightenment: Chop wood, carry water.

Life after enlightenment: Chop wood, carry water.

⬐ jsolson

Without going into details that would spoil things, the TV series "The Good Place" touches on this idea, although it's Madden rather than Mario.

⬐ itronitron

And then two schools of Buddhism diverged, one favoring Super Mario Bros and the other Super Mario Bros 2

⬐ rbanffy

I hate both, but Super Mario 64 is great.

⬐ breuleux

I'd argue that life is its own point. If you organize your metaphysics in such a way that nothing matters unless it leads to a future that matters, then nothing can possibly matter, because by definition value is always postponed to "the future". But you can never get there, because once you do, it becomes "the present".

Basically, you can't say that the value of every moment depends entirely on the value of future moments, that just prevents the actualization of any value. The present has to count for something.

⬐ TylerLives

We mostly find meaning in moving towards a goal. Once we attain it, it no longer brings us happiness. Having no goals or thinking that some future reward will change our lives doesn't seem to lead to good outcomes. It's strange, but "becoming" itself is meaningful.

⬐ breuleux

Surely some goals can bring happiness when they are achieved? I have made some things that I like, and I am happy when I recall that I made them myself. Or if your goal is to cure cancer, and you succeed, wouldn't that bring you happiness? Sure, you can set other goals for yourself, but that doesn't erase the satisfaction.

Either way, my point was that if your goal is to leave a permanent, meaningful mark on the universe, first, that's borderline delusional, second, the actualization of the goal is basically infinitely far in the future. Personally I'd rather pursue goals that can be achieved within my lifetime and aren't some crazy improper integral over the lifetime of the universe...

⬐ TylerLives

> Or if your goal is to cure cancer, and you succeed, wouldn't that bring you happiness?

You would, for a time, and then you would get used to it. People in the past used to struggle to find food. Today almost everyone in the first world countries can eat as much as they'd like, but do we wake up happy and grateful because we have food? I do agree that not all of our happiness comes from moving towards goals in the future, but a lot of it does.

> Personally I'd rather pursue goals that can be achieved within my lifetime and aren't some crazy improper integral over the lifetime of the universe...

Me too, but I don't think that you have to choose. Even if you have some less realistic goals, it's still better to focus on the immediate problems.

⬐ fumar

This topic always brings to mind Asimov’s short story, The Last Question. The story spans the life of the knowable universe. https://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

⬐ coldcode

Such a great story, no one writes like this any more sadly.

⬐ Retric

Amusingly we actually have an answer to that question. It’s possible to extract energy from expanding space time. Though if it keeps accelerating eventually even chemical bonds break down as electro magnetism isn’t enough.

⬐ ud_0

> Like what's even the point of all this, of life, of us, if in the end nothing matters, everything decays into nothingness.

I don't understand this reasoning. If the universe had a different end state, or if it collapsed in on itself only to erupt again, would that make any difference to the meaning of your life or that of our civilization? Probably not, because things still end.

It seems to me that you'd arrive at this conclusion of meaninglessness in any case. The thing is, while the universe may not care, there are many things we as humans do care about. They have meaning because we give them meaning. Isn't that liberating?

⬐ goatlover

> They have meaning because we give them meaning. Isn't that liberating?

Liberating from what? There being some objective or higher meaning to it all? Would that be oppressive?

While I agree that we give things meaning, it's all rather arbitrary and empty to think about it that way.

⬐ ud_0

> Would that be oppressive?

To be ascribed one authoritative meaning and purpose from outside is probably the definition of totalitarian oppression, yes. You may argue that it's oppression in a delightful state of bliss, or that you much prefer a life on rails. That's hard to argue against, because it's a matter of personal preference. But if you would prefer there to be an external authority who imbues meaning, what in turn then gives meaning to that authority?

> While I agree that we give things meaning, it's all rather arbitrary and empty to think about it that way.

Again, only if you feel it's empty. Then: yes, it is. To me it doesn't feel that way, so to me it isn't. It feels vast and full of possibilities. And also sad that we're such primitive creatures with such short and hard lives. I'd rather I was born in a few hundred years to better take advantage of the opportunities of existence.

⬐ ryandvm

The Last Question (by Isaac Asimov) is my favorite take on this topic by far.

https://www.physics.princeton.edu/ph115/LQ.pdf

⬐ falcrist

The idea of having some ultimate meaning is (as far as we can tell) an invention of the human mind.

Whether life has meaning, whether it needs to have meaning, or even whether the meaning of life is predicated on influencing the universe is up to you to determine.

If you asked 10 philosophers and religious leaders about the meaning of life, you'd probably get 100 different answers ranging from "seeking knowledge", "enjoying life", "serving [god or supernatural force]", "making others happy", to "there is no meaning".

⬐ mod

I would hope to hear ten answers of "I don't know."

⬐ falcrist

I fear you'd be disappointed. The religious leaders in particular are likely to be very gnostic about this topic.

⬐ bntyhntr

(Simplification, I'm happy and "well-adjusted" whatever that means): I've accepted the fact that my body has an urge to survive and it's not worth (and why would I want to) trying to weigh that against the grand nothingness that my life will amount to. I don't think there's a point to it all but if my body's gonna make me live then I'm gonna live it up. But it is kinda weird.

⬐ kibwen

Is there an axiom of your personal philosophy that causes you to conclude that something must persist for infinite time in order to possess meaning?

⬐ stackbutterflow

I can try. If the result of doing something vs doing nothing is indistinguishable after a certain time, does it matter that it ever happened?

⬐ kibwen

That's a good question, and I'm certainly not trying to suggest that there exists a right answer.

My thoughts are that the formulation assumes the perspective of an observer outside of the system, treating the system as a sort of black box, waiting for the system to produce some sort of signal. And because our current understanding of heat death means that the "signal" will always be something indistinguishably meaningless, the outside observer (who cannot inspect the inner workings of the system) is free assume that, from their perspective, nothing of meaning occurred inside the system.

But even if we assume the above to be true, this is still compatible with an alternative interpretation: from the perspective of an observer inside the system, we may distinguish differences in the system and may find meaning in those differences. Although that's "may find meaning", not "will find meaning"; determining the meaning of one's existence is intensely personal. However, given the above axiom, I don't believe it precludes finding meaning.

⬐ cortesoft

Why wouldn’t it? I feel like things matter MORE when they don’t last forever. If something lasts forever, then each moment isn’t important, because you will have infinite more moments of the same thing. Only when something is limited does it have specialness.

⬐ rbanffy

It depends on your perspective. If you experience time as a spacelike dimension, you can look at this part of spacetime and be amazed at the rich tapestries we, the weirdos who perceive time as timelike, weave with our lives.

⬐ sjaak

Turn it around. If the result of doing something vs doing nothing /is/ distinguishable at some point in time, does the choice matter? Yes, it does at some point. Granted: it doesn’t matter at /most other points/ in time, sure. But it’s something.

⬐ unyttigfjelltol

I've been enjoying the kurzgesagt collection of videos[1] which discusses the same phenomena, and how we literally can never travel to large swaths of the universe.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uzkD5SeuwzM

⬐ majormajor

If this is all we get, if there's no point of life outside of life, it's all the more important to treat it preciously. If someone ends your life or abuses you, you don't get a second round.

⬐ kubanczyk

Chances are it is a simulated universe, so no need to be so grim. (No sarcasm.)

⬐ morpheos137

What would the universe be a simulation of? What is the practical difference between a simulation and the real world.

⬐ jsonne

We don't even begin to understand the limits of our understanding. In a way saying it all means nothing is remarkably arrogant in fact. Uncertainty is a really nice comfort in that way.

⬐ simonh

It's about the journey, not the destination.

⬐ orthecreedence

There's a really cool movie called Aniara that explores this a bit. It's pretty dark, though.

⬐ None

None

⬐ mensetmanusman

The Universe (humans) gained consciousness and asked ‘Who made me?’

⬐ ansible

Thinking about this stuff is what prompted my thinking about things like suicide.

The Universe is so vast. So much space, most of it with only the barest wisp of gas. Most of the solar systems we see in the night sky may not have life (we don't know yet). And yet here we are, a rare event in a vast Universe.

In the end it doesn't matter what you do. What you accomplish or did not accomplish. What awards were won or lost, life goals achieved or not.

Everything you can see (including the stars in the sky), everything you have ever heard about will be less than dust at some point in the far future. No statues will survive, no history books, no songs of glory. The stars will wink out, the galaxies red-shift past the point of visibility as they rush away from us. It will eventually be a vast, empty and quiet expanse, as the last of the black holes slowly evaporate.

But right here, right now, you are alive and able to experience the Universe. Yes, you may be in a shitty situation now, but you are still alive and you still have possibilities to experience something wonderful. It won't last, it never lasts, but that isn't the point. We all have to appreciate what we do have, when we have it.

Some people are in truly shitty situations, and legitimately have no way out, with no possible means to create even a little happiness for themselves. But for everyone else thinking of ending things prematurely, I urge you to consider how rare and precious you are. If you can give even a little kindness to someone else, it will have been worth it, because that's all that really matters, on our journey to infinity.

⬐ entropicdrifter

>In the end it doesn't matter what you do. What you accomplish or did not accomplish. What awards were won or lost, life goals achieved or not.

I tend to turn this type of thinking on its head. Nothing matters, so relax, it's a ride. Take a few gambles, risk whatever you're willing to lose and see what you can pull off! Life can be wild if you're not caught up in the stuffy pretense that we all have some grand purpose or destiny. Honestly, at this point I'm convinced that conventional thinking on this topic is more or less a trap to keep people from exploring and having adventures, so that they're better servants to the elites of our world.

⬐ rbanffy

We live on some of the nicest and most interesting part of all of spacetime. I cherish every moment, even knowing our names and deeds will be long forgotten (at least I hope some of mine are) well before the first proton decays.

⬐ kibwen

Similar experience here. Learning about astronomy was a psychologically traumatizing experience. After a few years of ceaseless low-key existential crises I think I finally ended up better off, with a healthy perspective of my place in the universe and an appreciation for what a miracle it is that we have the chance to observe anything at all. The writings of Carl Sagan helped greatly. But I fear I could have just as easily slipped off the knife's edge into either nihilism on one side or hedonism on the other.

⬐ NikolaeVarius

I dont understand. hedonism and nihilism are good things.

⬐ macrolocal

Well, you might be leaning way too much into your moral intuitions about space and extent in this context. Small things are not unimportant.

⬐ AlexanderTheGr8

Is nihilism or hedonism bad? A lot of people already live their lives for pleasure (hedonism) - people work their entire lives to earn money to either enjoy / vacation / sex / etc. Nihilism is considerably rare but I believe that's because it's opposite to hedonism, in a way.

⬐ Saptarishi

I think good-bad is not a fair comparision to classify hedonism into one of them. There are generic pleasures like money/sex , and subjective pleasures.Both can easily spiral into greed, malice and prejudice, none of which we really want too much of.

⬐ entropicdrifter

>I believe that's because it's opposite to hedonism, in a way.

I don't see how. Nihilism is descriptive whereas hedonism is prescriptive.

Nihilism is an answer to the question of what is or is not, to which is says, "not at all". That's why there are many flavors of nihilism, such as existential nihilism ("there is no meaning at all"), moral nihilism ("there is no morality at all"), or epistemic nihilism ("there is no knowledge at all").

Contrast hedonism, which is an answer to the question of what one ought to do with one's time, or to put another way, it's a min-max strategy where pain is minimized and pleasure is maximized.

I don't see how those two areas of philosophy contradict each other in any way.

⬐ klyrs

I heard this on the radio the other day, which turns this observation on its head:

> I want science to give us a sense of wonder. There is this great line from the film Contact that I think Jodie Foster delivers, along the lines of "the universe is so large and we are so small and therefore insignificant, but also incredibly precious." Most of the matter and energy content in the universe is dark matter and dark energy. And therefore what we can see — stars, us — we are what's abnormal about the universe, and we are therefore incredibly precious. So I think that there's something really majestic about being able to situate ourselves in context of this incredible thing that is the universe.

(apologies, this is probably only a free listen in Canada) https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/mar-27-covid-pandemic-origin...

Without observers, the universe would be completely without meaning. We are the most significant thing out there. We make it interesting, by being interested.

⬐ maskedinvader

what I would like to point out is that even though every galaxy rushes away and we can no longer see them eventually, its an amazing thing we were born at a time when they still here and the cosmic microwave background radiation is still detectible at all and we are able to piece together the beginnings and predict the end of the universe. That thought alone inspires me to look for meaning in our existence. I know its an anthropological line of thinking but its what I personally think is amazing about all this.

⬐ Buttons840

It's bizarre to think that, as far as we know, in all the vastness of time and space, half of the coolest parts are happening right here on earth, life. If newborn gods were given toys to entertain them, the processes of life are probably more interesting than what happens on some barren rock out there in the black. So yeah, we can't see all of time and space but we at least get to see one of the best parts.

I think of the words at the end of Battlestar Galactica, "so much life". As far as we know, there are entire galaxies where the most exciting and interesting thing you could hope to find is a few microbes. Then I look around our planet and can hardly see a square inch that isn't covered in life.

⬐ elevaet

Your words were stirring. Reminds me of the monologue scene in "Ghost Story" https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6bs2o5

⬐ AlexanderTheGr8

"Nothing matters" - that's a very soothing thought. It's soothing because we all focus of what we haven't / couldn't done. It's human mentality to think of bad things over good things. So if nothing matters, then our bad things don't matter, and so it's soothing.

But I don't think we should base our life on any 1 particular ideology because of the possibility of us being wrong. Imagine someone basing their entire life on 1 particular ideology , and it turns out that they were simply wrong. The sunk-cost fallacy would be unbelievable.

⬐ sosborn

I agree fully, but in general, suicide isn't a conclusion reached by completely logical thought. Sadly, there are usually other factors at play negatively influencing the thought process.

⬐ allendoerfer

It helps to think of time as a dimension. Sure, you, anyone or anything will not last measured on this dimension. But it still has a span. You would not call objects meaningless or less beautiful just because they physically end at some point in space. Why is time so different? It is just the fourth dimension of their shape, giving them a more unique character.

⬐ figassis

The way I think of the universe is: we are the universe discovering itself, gaining consciousness and trying to figure itself out. Our fears are exactly the same as the universe’s. Our curiosity and wonder, also the universe’s. RN, this universe is a child, maybe a baby, and the way it’s expanding, it’s processes and consciousness will simply be on a much different time/space scale, require less energy (cold dark universe) with better understanding of space time, meaning rn it’s already able to appreciate all of time forever and understands that the point is not to go back and change things but to appreciate all presents. So us humans, we will learn at our pace, and if we go extinct, we’ve played our part, maybe another species someplace else will be better suited to carry on our torch or a completely new and different kind of torch.

⬐ dvaun

Interesting—this is the first time I've came across someone with my own viewpoint.

I'm not certain if there's a name for it. I figure it's a form of pantheism.

For me, certainly, it's the only thing which makes sense.

⬐ jaequery

I guess another word for it could be, God.

⬐ figassis

Exactly, this is my view of the whole omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence concept. God is all those bc because God = the universe = us and all of nature, including insects, rocks, water, photons, gravity. Hell, heaven, good, bad, its the judgements we make of our own decisions and the consequences we attribute to them. And this does not make the concept of religion any less powerful or relevant.

⬐ mattmaroon

It’s actually something about a billion people believe. They’re called Buddhists.

You might like the writings of Thich Nhat Hanh, which I probably misspelled.

⬐ dvaun

TIL. I'm not knowledgeable about Buddhism at all, so I'll look into this. Thanks!

⬐ Saptarishi

The Hindus as well I believe. Especially within the "Vedanta" school of thought.

⬐ a_e_k

Babylon 5 had a scene about this idea:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VhD0hbGEDSU

⬐ surfsvammel

This is also how I think about things. I exist here and now. My children exist here and now. We are happy. It ends. Sure. Just like you say, an object also ends (at its borders). But that doesn’t change the fact that this moment will forever be a part of the universe.

⬐ sxv

This helps put into words my feelings toward immortality. A life without end would be as monstrous as a sculpture whose height or width never ends!

⬐ jjoonathan

Yes! We have all made peace with the fact that we will never personally visit other stars or other galaxies, and probably not even Mars or the moon or the sea floor or the colder continents. We have made peace with having finite spatial extent, so we should also make peace with having finite temporal extent. That's just the nature of life!

⬐ goatlover

Because for most of that dimension, there won't be anyone around to consider the spans meaningful or beautiful.

⬐ 0000011111

Psychedelics can help with this.

⬐ sooheon

I love this take. Very Vonnegut.

⬐ dunnevens

I came up with similar thoughts after losing someone I loved. Helped immensely to think of time as a dimension. Even though I'm trapped on a one way course, those previous moments still exist. Even though the person I loved is dead and I'll never talk to her again, those moments of her life will always exist. As far as I know, nothing can ever erase it.

There will always be a place in the universe where she's alive and happy. A place that I'll probably never be able to visit but still is immensely comforting knowing it exists.

I guess that's my version of a secular afterlife. Not entirely comforting as all the moments of suffering still exist too, somewhere. But still, it means there's a permanence to even the most impermanent things.

⬐ herdcall

This (that time is a dimension) is as I understand what most physicists believe today and constitutes the so-called eternalism (or "block universe") philosophy of time. According to this view, past/present/future are our (human) terms to explain what is already laid out and we're simply moving along the time access just like we move along in space (though of course only in direction).

I've become a big believer in this view. A valuable upshot of embracing eternalism is that it makes it much easier not to regret the past or worry about the future, though some believe it encourages risky behavior.

⬐ uh_uh

I don't think most physicists subscribe to the view that things are laid out already. I think most believe that physics is non-deterministic due to QM. Other schools of thoughts like superdeterminism does believe what you're saying but I think this is a minority view (albeit advocated by some very high profile physicists).

What is not clear to me however is whether a block universe view can still be correct even if non-determinism is true.

This dramatic visualization of the timeline for the rest of the universe is well worth a watch to get a feel for what we believe the future of the universe to look like

[TIMELAPSE OF THE FUTURE: A Journey to the End of Time]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

However, when you get to the end (which is perhaps a little depressing!), I'd recommend learning a bit about what we think could come 'after' this period, where the universe has become so isotropic and homogenous no clocks or measuring systems of any kind can be developed so the universe loses any sense of size or energy – it's been proposed that this creates opportunity for a new universe to exist

[What Happens After the Universe Ends?]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC2JOQ7z5L0

These are fields of study right on the edge of what's testable by science so it's more fun to think about than it is to have certainty (although Penrose has, debatably, claimed evidence for echos of previous universes visible in the CMB!).

⬐ marton78

Obligatory link to Isaac Asimov's wonderful short story "The Last Question" which explores this topic:

https://www.physics.princeton.edu/ph115/LQ.pdf

⬐ haxiomic

I have never read this before, thank you :)

⬐ rbanffy

It's one of my all-time favorites.

⬐ sooheon

Another great one dealing with this topic is Exhalation by Ted Chiang. Less cosmic, more provincial, but still beautiful.

https://www.lightspeedmagazine.com/fiction/exhalation/

⬐ telesilla

I just watched this and found the ending quite comforting: at the end, entropy stops increasing and nothing happens, forever. After a long week at work, it's pretty much what I'm up for!

⬐ NoSorryCannot

A trillions of years long work week would leave anyone tired!

⬐ abrookewood

It means nothing to my life, but the thought that it all ends in cold dark silence is very depressing. Hopefully we've got the science on dark energy wrong and a big crunch provides the possibility of re-birth.

According to this, on the order of million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years [1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

But presumably you've also then been living very different variations of the same script, since there have been infinite combinations of matter that were close enough to give rise to you, but different enough to have very different outcomes.

Also, doesn't physics and the Big Bang rule out this eternal recurrence idea? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

⬐ morpheos137

For your first point I disagree. Once a life in a different aeon becomes sufficiently different from yours it is no longer fair to consider it you.

For your second point, I don't think physics rules out the big bang "recurring" because it does not deal with time before time. The big bang theory is not at all in conflict with cyclic conformal cosmology or eternal expansion.

Not sure how this was made. But this looked very impressive to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

⬐ Sophistifunk

It's mostly cut from various disaster movies (a lot from 2012) as far as I can tell.

From my understanding the universe is but a toddler - the longest stretch of its life will be AFTER the last stars have died - this video is somewhat existential dread inducing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

related to this, i love this video:

TIMELAPSE OF THE FUTURE: A Journey to the End of Time (4K)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

⬐ distribot

It's definitely interesting, but I don't get how this kind of thing doesn't make other people feel a kind of intense sadness.

It's like the intersection of the insignifigance and smallness of my own individual existence + the immense scale of time to underscore that fact + the fact that even all the things that are spectacular and powerful also meet the same kinda end as me.

Something about the 58 billion trillion trillion trillion trillion years last black hole thing just bums me out.

⬐ cletus

The visible light era of the Universe is relatively short compared to what comes after. People think of this as a long dark night. To some extent that's true.

Another perspective is that this will be the Golden Age of the Universe [1].

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qam5BkXIEhQ

⬐ rendall

I do understand what you mean. I have a personal philosophy that deals directly with existential dread. I may not explain it well here, but I'll give it a go: In the face of the yawning void both physical and metaphysical, we humans have the preternatural ability to construct meaning where none exists. We are smaller than mites, floating on dust, vulnerable and doomed; and yet, here we are, defying that nothingness; writing, loving, making things against odds so unlikely we have a difficult time comprehending it. We have the nearly divine ability to pick something arbitrarily and declaring "This matters. This is important, because I say it is." and therefore it really is important and meaningful. Until we decide it's not. This ability to construct meaning is extremely powerful, and will serve us as we march into the trillionth eon at the end of time.

When you consider the potential age of the universe [1], we can also argue that the universe is currently in its extreme infancy and we many in fact be one of the very first civilizations to start thinking about other civilizations, and all other "firstborn" civilizations are similarly constrained by technology.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five_Ages_of_the_Universe , more dramatically portrayed in this excellent video: A Journey to the End of Time [2]

[2] https://youtu.be/uD4izuDMUQA?t=196

⬐ hindsightbias

Evidence points to us having missed all the good parties:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.07902

⬐ pfdietz

It has been estimated that 95% of the stars that will ever form have already formed. Far from being in its infancy, from the point of view of locations for new life arising the universe is nearly done.

https://scitechdaily.com/star-formation-in-the-universe-has-...

⬐ soared

But they have existed for a short period of their lifespan, so by definition are early in their lifetimes. The argument isn’t that there will be new stars, but that they will exist for a long time.

⬐ pfdietz

There's good reason to think life is not going to arise on planets around M stars. Our sun is quite bright compared to the typical star, is already gone through about half its time on the main sequence, and as the Sun continues to brighten the Earth will become uninhabitable in about 1 billion more years.

Moreover, life originated early on Earth. This suggests either that more than one extremely rare event is needed to get from life to us, or that the conditions for OoL do not persist for very long (ammonia, for example, is rapidly destroyed by solar radiation.)

> extremely old

Completely OT, but this gives an indication of 'old' in this context: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

> If so, anything we can observe of seemingly another universe is in actuality part of our universe.

Yes, this is how I would interpret the definition of THE UNIVERSE. My personal interpretation of "another universe" would be something like- a multidimensional vacuum populated with matter/energy that currently exists from our inertial frame of reference, and there is nothing linking our own sparsely populated vacuum to this other universe. i.e. if you can observe it, then it's not a different universe. As Penrose states, this is merely an earlier version of the same universe, which existed before the Big Bang.

Here is a different prediction, a timelapse, of the fate of our universe (as told by Brian Cox), which assumes the universe will continue expanding...

https://youtu.be/uD4izuDMUQA?t=10

Neat video on the projected future end of the universe https://youtu.be/uD4izuDMUQA

How close is it to this study?

I haven’t watched them again now to check if it’s one of them you’re searching for, but these two videos have been posted everywhere last year:

[1] https://youtu.be/uD4izuDMUQA

[2] https://youtu.be/SUelbSa-OkA

⬐ radihuq

+1 for that first video

Timelapse of the future: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

I wonder if there is a documentary with visual explanations. It would be amazing to watch and understand.

I recently saw a mind-bending documentary[0] titled "Timelapse of the future", there's a brief mention of Voyager, it shows what happens to the universe in the long run and how it ends.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

There is a great mini documentary made that tries to answer this question https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

And watch this: Timelapse of the future - A Journey to the End of Time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA

⬐ CharlesColeman

> Physicists increasingly suspect that there may be multiple universes beyond our own, each with their own unique laws of physics.

⬐ 7373737373

Yeah, it's a bit too dramatized and speculative at the end.