The dowvotes signal a trend against misanthropy, which is the only logical conclusion.
Let me test this theory:
We are a virus. An STD that is always lethal and should be eradicated for the planet’s good.
But also let me quote Dostoyevsky to end my point positively:
“I have seen the truth; I have seen and I know that people can be beautiful and happy. … I will not and cannot believe that evil is the normal condition of mankind.”
The dowvotes signal a trend against misanthropy, which is the only logical conclusion.
Thx, those are surpassingly comforting words, will use them as headcanon in such irl situations.
CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world
on 12 Jan 13:54
collapse
Not all humans are bad and destructive, nor is the collective human race universally destructive. We have saved species from extinction and made great strides to protect ecosystems. Don’t damn the lot of us for the crimes of the worst of us.
If our universe is in a false vacuum state rather than a true vacuum state, then the decay from the less stable false vacuum to the more stable true vacuum (called false vacuum decay) could have dramatic consequences.[5][6] The effects could range from complete cessation of existing fundamental forces, elementary particles and structures comprising them, to subtle change in some cosmological parameters, mostly depending on the potential difference between true and false vacuum. Some false vacuum decay scenarios are compatible with the survival of structures like galaxies, stars,[7][8] and even biological life,[9] while others involve the full destruction of baryonic matter[10] or even immediate gravitational collapse of the universe.[11] In this more extreme case, the likelihood of a “bubble” forming is very low (i.e. false vacuum decay may be impossible).[12] "
yup. though if the laws of physics change then that also means the laws of physics holding your atoms together are gonna be blended up into a soup at the very least
That seems wildly improbable. What are you going to push off of to get you to speeds faster than light? There could be gimmicky ways like expanding / contracting space, but thats not moving faster than light, thats space changing faster than light. Changing cosmic topology to allow stable wormholes could possibly do something similar, but that could just as easily mean that you and all other matter exist in the exact same location. That would be… not fun
There’s a principle, I can’t remember the name of it, but basically it goes that the universe exists in such a way as to support life, because if it didn’t, there would be no one around to discuss the ways in which the universe might have formed. Which is to say, while it’s all good to contemplate a different set of physical laws in which we could not exist, we cannot use the condition of our existing as proof that the universe must allow us to exist. Any universe in which an observer exists is necessarily a universe in which an observercould exist. We will only ever get to observe that which allows our existence.
It’s mainly used, to my knowledge, to attempt to dissuade the religious of ideas of a creator deity.
But I think here it has another application. If false vacuum decay happens, and all of everything just goes poof, that’s not interesting. There will be no observer, no one to mark it, no one to study it. On top of that, no one to even know there was once someone. Who knows, maybe it’s happened hundreds of trillions of times, maybe infinite times, maybe once, maybe never. Either way, we, and anyone else out there, will have no way of knowing, or remembering, or anything else. So it’s not interesting. There’s nothing of value to be learned, because there’s no way to use the knowledge to do anything.
But contemplating the ways in which it could happen and we could survive? Suddenly a new set of physical laws govern us? Different, but just similar enough that we don’t explode, implode, or just dissipate into component atoms (if atoms still exist!)? That’s interesting! That’s worth contemplation and thought! At the very least it’s worth a damn fine dime store paperback sci Fi novel!
Let’s do something interesting here! What’s your wish list for a change in our physical laws that still allows our existence? I went utopian, ftl space flight, nothing else changes. But maybe it’s some mad max universe now? Maybe it changes our physical structure enough that we’re all cronenberg monsters limping our way through the universe in tiny, slapped together vessels that we put together as we saw what was approaching on the horizon of the observable universe, and in the new laws planets can’t form? Searching, seeking, viciously lonely abominations, wandering a void unlike anything we’ve ever experienced?
Maybe the only change is that idiots stop voting and wealth disparity disappears somewhere. Be adventurous! Be the change you hope the decay will bring!
There’s a principle, I can’t remember the name of it, but basically it goes that the universe exists in such a way as to support life, because if it didn’t, there would be no one around to discuss the ways in which the universe might have formed.
The Anthropic Principle. It’s a mind-bender, especially because it’s fundamentally unfalsifiable.
Scubus@sh.itjust.works
on 09 Jan 04:07
nextcollapse
You are correct.Notably, I don’t believe it’s unfalsifiable, its just fundamentally true. You cant observe yourself in any reality where you are incapable of onserving yourself.
By applying both that and the many worlds hypothesis, the idea of quantum immortality comes up, and thats a real mind bender. Its also a way to verifiably prove many worlds accurate(afaik the only way)
Basically (very basically), anything that can happen, does. Its simply that each possible action happens in a seperate time stream, and each new possible action results in said time streams splitting into two realities; one where the action happened, and one where it did not.
But by the anthropic principle, you will only ever find yourself in a reality where you can observe yourself.
Hence, if you set up an expirement such that if a single atom decays in a chunk of uranium you die, the odds are stacked almost infinitely in favor of you dying, and one of two things will happen.
In the case many worlds is true, despite all the odds, there will be a universe in which you survive, and due to the self observation principle, that will always be the one you find yourself in. You obviously cant observe yourself in any reality where you died.
In the case that many worlds is false, you simply die. You still cant observe yourself in that reality, so for you reality simply stops.
This means that if it is physically possible for you to survive something, from your perspective(assuming many eorkds is true) you will always survive. That is the idea behind quantum immortality.
The downside is that others are still able to observe you dying. So in the vast majority of realities, they observe you die and label the expiriment inconclusive. In the reality in which you live, it could just be a massive statistical fluke. I suppose you could run the expiriment again, but youd suffer the same issues as the first time, where in almost every case, they witness you die and deem it inconclusive. After having repeated this twice and yet you still find yourself in the reality where you survived, id say thats basically proof that many worlds is accurate, but only that reality out of the uncountably high number of realities stemming from this expiriment would have evidence. In all the others you just die.
To reiterate though, assuming many worlds is accurate, the expiriment carries no risk to you. Due to the anthropic principle, you will always find yourself in the reality in which you survive.
Edit: This wikipedia article doesnt mention the anthropic principle, but it very vaguely gestures towards the idea on an individual scale rather than a cosmological. I think that is where my confusion came from, I have only heard of the “anthropic principle” in terms of cosmology, whereas im pretty sure ive heard of the “self observation bias” or something similar as basically the application of the anthropic principle to an indiviual. I started this rabbit hole here years ago.
ilinamorato@lemmy.world
on 09 Jan 15:03
nextcollapse
I don’t believe it’s unfalsifiable, its just fundamentally true. You cant observe yourself in any reality where you are incapable of onserving yourself.
As you note, it’s the only logically-consistent framework through which to view the world we live in. But are there other ways in which the universe could’ve formed that we might be able to falsify it?
Imagine two universes, A and B. They’re entirely disconnected and independent from one another; no matter or energy can flow in either direction, except that through some exotic process, a small window exists in universe A through which universe B can be observed without affecting it in any way (Heisenbergs HATE this!). Universe A is just as our own is, including our existence, with the single exception of this window. In universe B, however, the laws of physics do not permit carbon atoms to form in stars, so no sentient life has ever formed.
In those universes, then, the Anthropic Principle would be falsified; as the residents of Universe A could observe a universe in which they could not have arisen.
Or consider a Boltzmann Brain (or a simulated universe). Were we to discover that our existence was of either nature, that too would falsify the Anthropic Principle, as we are not actually observing a universe.
Anyway. It’s not falsifiable in our reality, as far as we can tell. But we can imagine ways in which it could be falsifiable.
By applying both that and the many worlds hypothesis, the idea of quantum immortality comes up, and thats a real mind bender. Its also a way to verifiably prove many worlds accurate(afaik the only way)
MWI only somewhat makes sense (it still doesn’t make much sense) if you assume the “branches” cannot communicate with each other after decoherence occurs. “Quantum immortality” mysticism assumes somehow your cognitive functions can hop between decoherent branches where you are still alive if they cease in a particular branch. It is self-contradictory. There is nothing in the mathematical model that would predict this and there is no mechanism to explain how it could occur.
Imagine creating a clone which is clearly not the same entity as you because it is standing in a different location and, due to occupying different frames of reference, your paths would diverge after the initial cloning, with the clone forming different memories and such. “Quantum immortality” would be as absurd as saying that if you then suddenly died, your cognitive processes would hop to your clone, you would “take over their body” so to speak.
Why would that occur? What possible mechanism would cause it? Doesn’t make any sense to me. It seems more reasonable to presume that if you die, you just die. Your clone lives on, but you don’t. In the grand multiverse maybe there is a clone of you that is still alive, but that universe is not the one you occupy, in this one your story ends.
It also has a problem similar to reincarnation mysticism. If MWI is correct (it’s not), then there would be an infinite number of other decoherent branches containing other “yous.” Which “you” would your consciousness hop into when you die, assuming this even does occur (it doesn’t)? It makes zero sense.
To reiterate though, assuming many worlds is accurate, the expiriment carries no risk to you. Due to the anthropic principle, you will always find yourself in the reality in which you survive.
You see the issue right here, you say the reality in which you survive, except there would be an infinite number of them. There would be no the reality, there would be a reality, just one of an infinitude of them. Yet, how is the particular one you find yourself in decided?
MWI is even worse than the clone analogy I gave, because it would be like saying there are an infinite number of clones of you, and when you die your cognitive processes hop from your own brain to one of theirs. Not only is there no mechanism to cause this, but even if we presume it is true, which one of your infinite number of clones would your cognitive processes take control of?
I’m going to file this under the category of philosophy similar to “what if we’re living in a simulation?” and “parallel universe” theory. As far as I’m aware we have no evidence that there’s even such thing as a false vacuum, so this is all just speculation based on some theories.
If our particular bubble of the universe has remained unmolested for 13.8 billion years, it is safe to assume it will continue to be for the next 1000 years.
BellaDonna@mujico.org
on 08 Jan 15:51
nextcollapse
Until we build a particle accelerator that does something novel that even the rest of the universe never managed to do
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
on 08 Jan 22:18
nextcollapse
Also it’s not like assuming it will collapse in the next decade will make any difference other than having a harder time enjoying the time before then.
markinov@lemmygrad.ml
on 09 Jan 00:11
nextcollapse
i don’t know quantum mechanics or much about particles. I watched a video on False vacuum decay, and it says if higgs change state it might change the laws of physics
So can’t it be that the universe had change of states of other particles maybe in past (billions year before life) that changed the laws of physics and so on.
TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works
on 09 Jan 13:36
collapse
that’s what the vacuum aliens WANT you to think
OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
on 08 Jan 08:33
nextcollapse
didnt need the wikipedia page. soon as I read a couple pop sci articles on this I was like “welp this shit sounds dangerous it was nice to know you all”
I’m about as worried about this as I am about galaxy eating monsters. Not at all, really.
I’m more bothered by our apparently non-existent ability to detect and divert asteroids. More than that, I’m terrified of our habit of using global cataclysm as a strategic threat. But at the same time I feel like a species that acts like this probably should end themselves like that. Russian civilians consent to nuclear apocalypse.
So yeah, not very bothered by idea of false vacuum.
Pulptastic@midwest.social
on 08 Jan 13:31
nextcollapse
Metastable equilibria.
Feathercrown@lemmy.world
on 08 Jan 16:22
nextcollapse
Luckily, this is the epitome of that Epicurus quote:
Why should I fear death? If I am, then death is not. If Death is, then I am not. Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not?
lightnsfw@reddthat.com
on 08 Jan 16:36
nextcollapse
It’s not the death I’m worried about. I just don’t want to suffer leading up to it or put my family through some long drawn out ordeal watching me die.
Fridgeratr@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 08 Jan 16:52
collapse
Well good news, false vacuum decay would kill everyone on Earth instantly with no warning
When I was younger one day I was thinking about death and I suddenly truly understood the concept of nothing after death. When you die, the entire universe might as well go with you. Once you spend enough time with that realization, you’ll also realize it’s pointless to fear it. Or at least, I did. Hopefully it’ll work for you too.
threaded - newest
I’m not worried about this specific apocalypse, if only because there is literally nothing that can be done to prevent it nor stop it if it starts.
I’m far more worried about more localized, preventable, human-caused apocalypse like climate or nuclear war.
I would be very glad if it was something only destructive to humans, and not the planet(s ecosystems).
The dowvotes signal a trend against misanthropy, which is the only logical conclusion.
Let me test this theory: We are a virus. An STD that is always lethal and should be eradicated for the planet’s good.
But also let me quote Dostoyevsky to end my point positively:
“I have seen the truth; I have seen and I know that people can be beautiful and happy. … I will not and cannot believe that evil is the normal condition of mankind.”
Thx, those are surpassingly comforting words, will use them as headcanon in such irl situations.
Not all humans are bad and destructive, nor is the collective human race universally destructive. We have saved species from extinction and made great strides to protect ecosystems. Don’t damn the lot of us for the crimes of the worst of us.
Exactly. Same energy as worrying about Earth being hit by a gamma ray burst - 🤷♂️
Also, we won’t see it coming and won’t feel it happen. As far as deaths go, it’s about as easy as it gets.
on the bonus side takes Trump, Elon, Nigel and Tate with it.
I mean, sure, but everything will cease to exist in a fraction of a second. Singling anyone or anything out seems kind of irrelevant.
Yea but still…
I believe that it is possible that false vacuum decay has already begun, but so far away that it might not ever reach us.
Gamma Ray Burst
Sleep tight
I’d much prefer death by a solar system wide tsunami of highly energetic particles then the slow, agonizing death march we’re currently doing.
I was gonna say it might be worse if you're on the opposite side of the planet that gets hit but I'll give you that one.
Never trust a gamma ray burst
Subatomically dispersed at the speed of light is probably the best way to go. And no one would be left to mourn you.
Beam be everywhere, Scotty!
♫♪♫ And we will all go together when we go ♫♪♫
Climate change.
Every day, when I see or hear someone driving a gas vehicle. So like, all the time.
Uh yeah, I sure hope it doesn’t
Wikipedia:
"threat
If our universe is in a false vacuum state rather than a true vacuum state, then the decay from the less stable false vacuum to the more stable true vacuum (called false vacuum decay) could have dramatic consequences.[5][6] The effects could range from complete cessation of existing fundamental forces, elementary particles and structures comprising them, to subtle change in some cosmological parameters, mostly depending on the potential difference between true and false vacuum. Some false vacuum decay scenarios are compatible with the survival of structures like galaxies, stars,[7][8] and even biological life,[9] while others involve the full destruction of baryonic matter[10] or even immediate gravitational collapse of the universe.[11] In this more extreme case, the likelihood of a “bubble” forming is very low (i.e. false vacuum decay may be impossible).[12] "
Also, of course there’s a Kurzesagt
Does this mean the laws of physics could just… Change?
Hoping for the scenario that means FTL travel is possible and nothing else changes lol
Irl physics patch is crazy
yup. though if the laws of physics change then that also means the laws of physics holding your atoms together are gonna be blended up into a soup at the very least
Unless they change into a set of physical laws in which magic is real, and the turtle of enormous girth holds us all together in his mind!
That seems wildly improbable. What are you going to push off of to get you to speeds faster than light? There could be gimmicky ways like expanding / contracting space, but thats not moving faster than light, thats space changing faster than light. Changing cosmic topology to allow stable wormholes could possibly do something similar, but that could just as easily mean that you and all other matter exist in the exact same location. That would be… not fun
But if the laws of physics were to change, who’s to say what’s possible‽ Star trek future is in the works!
More likely infinite energy just became a thing and you explode 🔥
There’s a principle, I can’t remember the name of it, but basically it goes that the universe exists in such a way as to support life, because if it didn’t, there would be no one around to discuss the ways in which the universe might have formed. Which is to say, while it’s all good to contemplate a different set of physical laws in which we could not exist, we cannot use the condition of our existing as proof that the universe must allow us to exist. Any universe in which an observer exists is necessarily a universe in which an observercould exist. We will only ever get to observe that which allows our existence.
It’s mainly used, to my knowledge, to attempt to dissuade the religious of ideas of a creator deity.
But I think here it has another application. If false vacuum decay happens, and all of everything just goes poof, that’s not interesting. There will be no observer, no one to mark it, no one to study it. On top of that, no one to even know there was once someone. Who knows, maybe it’s happened hundreds of trillions of times, maybe infinite times, maybe once, maybe never. Either way, we, and anyone else out there, will have no way of knowing, or remembering, or anything else. So it’s not interesting. There’s nothing of value to be learned, because there’s no way to use the knowledge to do anything.
But contemplating the ways in which it could happen and we could survive? Suddenly a new set of physical laws govern us? Different, but just similar enough that we don’t explode, implode, or just dissipate into component atoms (if atoms still exist!)? That’s interesting! That’s worth contemplation and thought! At the very least it’s worth a damn fine dime store paperback sci Fi novel!
Let’s do something interesting here! What’s your wish list for a change in our physical laws that still allows our existence? I went utopian, ftl space flight, nothing else changes. But maybe it’s some mad max universe now? Maybe it changes our physical structure enough that we’re all cronenberg monsters limping our way through the universe in tiny, slapped together vessels that we put together as we saw what was approaching on the horizon of the observable universe, and in the new laws planets can’t form? Searching, seeking, viciously lonely abominations, wandering a void unlike anything we’ve ever experienced?
Maybe the only change is that idiots stop voting and wealth disparity disappears somewhere. Be adventurous! Be the change you hope the decay will bring!
The Anthropic Principle. It’s a mind-bender, especially because it’s fundamentally unfalsifiable.
I thought it was the self observation principle?
I’ve never heard of that name for it, though the “observation selection” principle might be what you’re thinking of. They’re synonyms.
Important edit at the bottom
You are correct.Notably, I don’t believe it’s unfalsifiable, its just fundamentally true. You cant observe yourself in any reality where you are incapable of onserving yourself.
By applying both that and the many worlds hypothesis, the idea of quantum immortality comes up, and thats a real mind bender. Its also a way to verifiably prove many worlds accurate(afaik the only way)
Basically (very basically), anything that can happen, does. Its simply that each possible action happens in a seperate time stream, and each new possible action results in said time streams splitting into two realities; one where the action happened, and one where it did not.
But by the anthropic principle, you will only ever find yourself in a reality where you can observe yourself.
Hence, if you set up an expirement such that if a single atom decays in a chunk of uranium you die, the odds are stacked almost infinitely in favor of you dying, and one of two things will happen.
In the case many worlds is true, despite all the odds, there will be a universe in which you survive, and due to the self observation principle, that will always be the one you find yourself in. You obviously cant observe yourself in any reality where you died.
In the case that many worlds is false, you simply die. You still cant observe yourself in that reality, so for you reality simply stops.
This means that if it is physically possible for you to survive something, from your perspective(assuming many eorkds is true) you will always survive. That is the idea behind quantum immortality.
The downside is that others are still able to observe you dying. So in the vast majority of realities, they observe you die and label the expiriment inconclusive. In the reality in which you live, it could just be a massive statistical fluke. I suppose you could run the expiriment again, but youd suffer the same issues as the first time, where in almost every case, they witness you die and deem it inconclusive. After having repeated this twice and yet you still find yourself in the reality where you survived, id say thats basically proof that many worlds is accurate, but only that reality out of the uncountably high number of realities stemming from this expiriment would have evidence. In all the others you just die.
To reiterate though, assuming many worlds is accurate, the expiriment carries no risk to you. Due to the anthropic principle, you will always find yourself in the reality in which you survive.
Edit: This wikipedia article doesnt mention the anthropic principle, but it very vaguely gestures towards the idea on an individual scale rather than a cosmological. I think that is where my confusion came from, I have only heard of the “anthropic principle” in terms of cosmology, whereas im pretty sure ive heard of the “self observation bias” or something similar as basically the application of the anthropic principle to an indiviual. I started this rabbit hole here years ago.
As you note, it’s the only logically-consistent framework through which to view the world we live in. But are there other ways in which the universe could’ve formed that we might be able to falsify it?
Imagine two universes, A and B. They’re entirely disconnected and independent from one another; no matter or energy can flow in either direction, except that through some exotic process, a small window exists in universe A through which universe B can be observed without affecting it in any way (Heisenbergs HATE this!). Universe A is just as our own is, including our existence, with the single exception of this window. In universe B, however, the laws of physics do not permit carbon atoms to form in stars, so no sentient life has ever formed.
In those universes, then, the Anthropic Principle would be falsified; as the residents of Universe A could observe a universe in which they could not have arisen.
Or consider a Boltzmann Brain (or a simulated universe). Were we to discover that our existence was of either nature, that too would falsify the Anthropic Principle, as we are not actually observing a universe.
Anyway. It’s not falsifiable in our reality, as far as we can tell. But we can imagine ways in which it could be falsifiable.
MWI only somewhat makes sense (it still doesn’t make much sense) if you assume the “branches” cannot communicate with each other after decoherence occurs. “Quantum immortality” mysticism assumes somehow your cognitive functions can hop between decoherent branches where you are still alive if they cease in a particular branch. It is self-contradictory. There is nothing in the mathematical model that would predict this and there is no mechanism to explain how it could occur.
Imagine creating a clone which is clearly not the same entity as you because it is standing in a different location and, due to occupying different frames of reference, your paths would diverge after the initial cloning, with the clone forming different memories and such. “Quantum immortality” would be as absurd as saying that if you then suddenly died, your cognitive processes would hop to your clone, you would “take over their body” so to speak.
Why would that occur? What possible mechanism would cause it? Doesn’t make any sense to me. It seems more reasonable to presume that if you die, you just die. Your clone lives on, but you don’t. In the grand multiverse maybe there is a clone of you that is still alive, but that universe is not the one you occupy, in this one your story ends.
It also has a problem similar to reincarnation mysticism. If MWI is correct (it’s not), then there would be an infinite number of other decoherent branches containing other “yous.” Which “you” would your consciousness hop into when you die, assuming this even does occur (it doesn’t)? It makes zero sense.
You see the issue right here, you say the reality in which you survive, except there would be an infinite number of them. There would be no the reality, there would be a reality, just one of an infinitude of them. Yet, how is the particular one you find yourself in decided?
MWI is even worse than the clone analogy I gave, because it would be like saying there are an infinite number of clones of you, and when you die your cognitive processes hop from your own brain to one of theirs. Not only is there no mechanism to cause this, but even if we presume it is true, which one of your infinite number of clones would your cognitive processes take control of?
That’s it! And yep, total mindfuck. But also sort of… Profound, I guess
“We like to destroy the universe at least every couple of months.”
Well, that sucks.
maybe you couldn’t survive it but I’m built different
I’m going to file this under the category of philosophy similar to “what if we’re living in a simulation?” and “parallel universe” theory. As far as I’m aware we have no evidence that there’s even such thing as a false vacuum, so this is all just speculation based on some theories.
Yeah, if you need existential dread, a gamma-ray burst could end us in an instant too and they’re confirmed to exist and much more likely.
Yeah but then we get to be big and green, or stretchy, or invisible etcetera
Obligatory mention of the novel [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schild's_Ladder](Schild’s Ladder) by Greg Egan.
Such a scenario would be interesting indeed.
His books are always at least a little mind-bending
He is exceptional at writing hard sci-fi that unnerves you.
I’m moderately certain, whichever future timeline we move to, there will be aspects of Egan’s works.
Modern day Jules Verne, recommended to read at least one book of his.
If our particular bubble of the universe has remained unmolested for 13.8 billion years, it is safe to assume it will continue to be for the next 1000 years.
Until we build a particle accelerator that does something novel that even the rest of the universe never managed to do
Also it’s not like assuming it will collapse in the next decade will make any difference other than having a harder time enjoying the time before then.
i don’t know quantum mechanics or much about particles. I watched a video on False vacuum decay, and it says if higgs change state it might change the laws of physics
So can’t it be that the universe had change of states of other particles maybe in past (billions year before life) that changed the laws of physics and so on.
that’s what the vacuum aliens WANT you to think
How you know the Wikipedia article is good
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/cbcff603-59b1-411c-89fe-14c721bbe03c.jpeg">
didnt need the wikipedia page. soon as I read a couple pop sci articles on this I was like “welp this shit sounds dangerous it was nice to know you all”
I’m about as worried about this as I am about galaxy eating monsters. Not at all, really.
I’m more bothered by our apparently non-existent ability to detect and divert asteroids. More than that, I’m terrified of our habit of using global cataclysm as a strategic threat. But at the same time I feel like a species that acts like this probably should end themselves like that. Russian civilians consent to nuclear apocalypse.
So yeah, not very bothered by idea of false vacuum.
Metastable equilibria.
Luckily, this is the epitome of that Epicurus quote:
It’s not the death I’m worried about. I just don’t want to suffer leading up to it or put my family through some long drawn out ordeal watching me die.
Well good news, false vacuum decay would kill everyone on Earth instantly with no warning
Then I’m not worried about it.
Same here. Like, that would obviously suck, but 🤷
I mean sure, it’d suck, but no one would be around to think it sucks, so it’d be fine 😎👆👉👆👉
How to remove all suffering. Utilitarians hate this simple trick!
You know how when you get put under for anaesthesia, and you don’t notice the time you were gone? It’s like a cut in the tape of life.
What if death is like that, and BAM your consciousness re-emerges billions of years in the future the moment you die.
But your consciousness is alone. And in pitch black nothingness. Forever.
Entropy would end up taking your consciousness as well, so I doubt you’d be there, 14.3 billions years later, forever.
We don’t really know what consciousness is, so we can’t really be sure that it is subject to entropy.
We have nothing to indicate anything to the contrary (other than denial)
Also true!
This is what I think happens. You don’t experience death, you just reemerge on the other side, no matter how long it takes.
The chances of your brain being created were infinitely small before you were born, but it still only took 14 billion years for it to happen.
Well, maybe it’s because we mostly fear the WAY towards death, not the end of being a thing that is. Unless we get hit by a moving train…
Death will be, so we will cease to be. Sounds like he
iswas whistling past the graveyard with that quote…And when you do, you no longer have to worry about it. In fact, you can’t.
Not much of a consoling thought to me.
When I was younger one day I was thinking about death and I suddenly truly understood the concept of nothing after death. When you die, the entire universe might as well go with you. Once you spend enough time with that realization, you’ll also realize it’s pointless to fear it. Or at least, I did. Hopefully it’ll work for you too.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/d04e043c-e0ed-4222-ac05-672ab43ec8b2.png">
Prions
welp this parallel universe goes down the drain too
Stop reading my mind!
Sounds like a great reason not to bother worrying about it to me.