Our entire perspective on existence is based on where we popped up on the cosmological timeline. If we'd come along earlier, we may not have been able to perceive the expansion of the universe, and the apparent disconnect between the hard limit of the speed of light, and the size of the universe. If we'd come along later, we may have figured that we were completely alone in a static sphere, with no observable matter…
Timeline of the far future
31–40 of 97 posts
Re: Timeline of the far future
#32"10^{10^{26}} is 1 followed by 10^26 (100 septillion) zeroes. Although listed in years for convenience, the numbers beyond this point are so vast that they would be the same in whichever conventional units one could list them in, be they nanoseconds or star lifespans." All you people who've been saving your OMGs for something a bit more ridiculous than an inane celebrity reaction, now could be the time to use one...
If you want to go for big numbers, check out the Ackermann function. It quickly makes 10^10^26 hard to distinguish from nothing =)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_number#Examples_of_number...
There are numbers and notation schemes there that make Ackermann look pretty insignificant. I'm particularly fond of Conway Chained Arrow Notation for ridiculously large numbers.
Re: Timeline of the far future
#33Even more "mind shivering" than this one was a linked article about Boltzman brains ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain ) which I had never heard of before.
What's more likely: nearly infinite sentient universes complete with false memories of human experiences emerging from entropic chaos, or that we don't quite understand the nature of entropy? The Boltzmann theory is one of those thought experiments that should draw into question it's assumptions out of the pure absurdity of its logical conclusions rather than be taken seriously itself.
Error in Boltzman brains theory is that he assumes that universe with brains randomly fluctuated into existance into its current form , and concludes that this form is more complex than just brain and therefore brains without environments are more common (maybe iPhones or Bible are even more common then), and assumes that brain can exist without environment.
also second law of thermodynamics states that resulting entropy would never be decreased. and doesnt tells us about entrophy dynamics in intermediate steps.
Re: Timeline of the far future
#34This is not a list of future events. It's Roland Emmerich's list of ideas for his next project.
Re: Timeline of the far future
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this just a simple matter of probability? Given an event, however unprobable it is, it can happen given infinite time? From a purely mathematical standpoint, this is correct.
If your assumption is infinite time and complete entropy, yes it's correct. It's also why some level of common sense (e.g. Occam's razor) should be applied before such silliness is seriously proposed. I don't think Boltzmann assumes infinite time and entropy, just enough for the completely random emergence of sentient life that thinks (perhaps falsely) that it lives in a universe populated by similar beings who creat…
Implying that the Bible is "absurd" does not help the discussion and makes believers feel unwelcome. Please be nice.
(I'm an atheist.)
Re: Timeline of the far future
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Graham's number anyone?
Meh. Take however many symbols it takes you to describe your large number. Call the symbol count N. Then my counterpoint is the Nth busy beaver number. That's a big number.
You might as well say 'One plus the biggest whole number nameable with 1,000 characters of English text', if that sort of thing is allowed.
Re: Timeline of the far future
#37Our entire perspective on existence is based on where we popped up on the cosmological timeline. If we'd come along earlier, we may not have been able to perceive the expansion of the universe, and the apparent disconnect between the hard limit of the speed of light, and the size of the universe. If we'd come along later, we may have figured that we were completely alone in a static sphere, with no observable matter…
What's really spooky is thinking about the things which we would have been able to observe if we had been around much earlier. Perhaps seeming constants have changed over the history of the universe, or other universes which drifted away from us along now-imperceptible dimensions. (I'm guessing you saw the same Brian Greene TED talk I did.)
Lawrence Krauss's longer talk in Toronto†[1] has a better explanation of the "privileged time" idea (and doesn't invoke string theory except to poke a bit of fun at it).
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdvWrI_oQjY
† Krauss has given more-or-less the same talk elsewhere, but the version recorded by TVO (the Ontario provincial public broadcaster) is probably the best recording. [Edit: I misremembered the location of the talk. Most of the physics talks on Big Ideas are from the Perimeter Institute; Krauss's wasn't.]
Re: Timeline of the far future
#38Clearly everybody missed this little gem which will no doubt be removed:
"7 May 2012 at 16:45 - Andy Murdoch creates a post on twitter referencing this page. Universe invites celebration by all."
Re: Timeline of the far future
#39I wonder what this list would have looked like if put together 10, 20, 50, 100 or a 1000 years ago. I also wonder what people a 1000 years from now would think of this one.
Probably something like "Based on the antiquity models of Physics, the ancients thought the following" and then the school children will all have a good laugh.
Re: Timeline of the far future
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meh. Take however many symbols it takes you to describe your large number. Call the symbol count N. Then my counterpoint is the Nth busy beaver number. That's a big number.
You might as well say 'One plus the biggest whole number nameable with 1,000 characters of English text', if that sort of thing is allowed.
Are you alluding to Scott Aaronson's essay on Who Can Name the Bigger Number? [1]