Big Bang was not a miracle or statistically unlikely if the condition for an observer to judge if it was or not is to be living and conscious, which we by default have to assume is the case. This may be survivorship bias but that's the epistemologic reality we have to deal with.
If we define consciousness as a process involving electricity and neurons, and unicellular organisms as involving atoms in the first place, heat death means the universe is so cold, no molecular excitation is taking place. Can life happen without molecular excitation? So I believe heat death means life ending even on foreign celestial bodies such as exoplanets in the observable universe. Now, whether there isn't some unknown factor like dark energy or something, I don't know, that would make the heat-death universe collapse on itself and regenerate like in the Big Bang, I can't tell. Big Rip, proposes ChatGPT as hypothesis.
"You’re spot on with the idea that the heat death of the universe would mean the end of life as we know it, at least in the forms we currently understand. Life, as we define it today, fundamentally relies on molecular excitation—chemical reactions driven by energy exchanges, mostly in the form of heat, electricity, and light. During heat death, the universe reaches a state of maximum entropy, where temperatures are uniformly close to absolute zero, and there’s no gradient to drive the flow of energy. Without this energy flow, molecular interactions essentially come to a standstill, halting any processes that could support life, including the brain's neural electricity or even the much simpler mechanisms in unicellular organisms.
In such a scenario, the laws of thermodynamics as we know them indeed imply that life—both in the familiar forms on Earth and even on hypothetical exoplanets—would be impossible. Life’s dependency on molecular motion, however minimal, is critical; it underpins everything from metabolism to reproduction and is necessary to create the structured complexity associated with living systems. Without energy input and molecular excitation, the structural complexity required for life cannot arise or sustain itself.
The role of unknown forces or factors, like dark energy, is an open question. Right now, dark energy is thought to contribute to the acceleration of the universe's expansion, which could theoretically lead to scenarios beyond heat death, like the "Big Rip." But other hypotheses, like cyclic models of the universe (where it may undergo periodic "rebirths"), propose that some mechanism could counteract entropy on a cosmological scale. If such a reversal were possible, it could theoretically create conditions that reset energy gradients and allow molecular excitation—and potentially life—to emerge anew in some future universe.
These ideas remain speculative, but they highlight a deeper philosophical question: whether the universe inherently tends toward conditions that give rise to complexity and life or if life is simply an ephemeral byproduct of certain rare conditions. If dark energy, or some other factor, turns out to periodically regenerate or rebalance entropy, then life might not just be a fluke but a recurring possibility in an endless cosmic cycle."
When I say crystalline, I mean that compared to unicellular organisms, we are more complex, sums of many organisms. And in chemical elements too, I believe we expanded as we evolved. And I believe evolution has led unicellular organisms to adopt crystalline components as well in other species. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
I don't really care about retrocausality... In narratives it can be very interesting to have nonlinearity, but I believe in determinism from past to future. I recently thought about parallel timelines, though, and... If a same being has different lives, I believe there would still be a convergence of timelines after initial divergence when that being dies.
As for the Big Bang, what do you make of heat death of entropy theory?
I believe that the stardust that brought us close together, or the nucleiosynthesis process, was done fairly close by in a process of unity of all of our beings, us, the entire biomass, every crystalline and organic being, perhaps even the oxygen we breathe, the nitrogen and the carbon dioxide of the air was from there. And the laws of physics created the Earth and its atmosphere, like we see other exoplanets far, far away in the observable universe. And then the prebiotic soup, where life came to exist, first the plants, then us in different biological eras, progressively becoming more crystalline and complex (as in: we have gold in the body, iron in the blood...). I won't do an entire lesson but I believe that we can explain life on Earth with sciences and pluridisciplinarity in a deterministic model. So the space between us is... very hard to identify. We could say it's the place we're in, but it's in perpetual stochastic quantum physics reformation. If it's relationship, what if our thoughts are always shifting due to subconscious interactions within our cultures and ourselves, and as humans we have some function in the brain allocated to random thought generation? Sometimes being ADHD and autistic really feels like it. I believe not that humans are so different beings, and while I suck as a human being, believing that determinism means there is no such thing as truly guilty people, I have hopes for humanity and the entire ecosystem. I can see a path forward across all of our divides, in an international governance between people that have crossed systemic oppressions of class, gender, race, age and all. And one where the division between humans and other species is also crossed, where we respect the environment. I am an idealist in debate only, though. Perhaps humans aren't ready. Perhaps we need to favor material improvements of people undermining social divides to reach the international humanity we were destined to be. Perhaps it's teleology and wrong. I believe in teleology regardless as a determinist and a philanthropic person (usually that word is reserved for rich (white, male, heterosexual) folks, but wealth really doesn't matter that much to me? beyond survival).
"I CELEBRATE myself,
And what I assume you shall assume,
For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you."
It's very akin to panpsychism with some projection I feel, if we assume we're all from the same stardust and ecological cycle. Very "Communion" minded, is it not?
All Comments (468) Comments
In such a scenario, the laws of thermodynamics as we know them indeed imply that life—both in the familiar forms on Earth and even on hypothetical exoplanets—would be impossible. Life’s dependency on molecular motion, however minimal, is critical; it underpins everything from metabolism to reproduction and is necessary to create the structured complexity associated with living systems. Without energy input and molecular excitation, the structural complexity required for life cannot arise or sustain itself.
The role of unknown forces or factors, like dark energy, is an open question. Right now, dark energy is thought to contribute to the acceleration of the universe's expansion, which could theoretically lead to scenarios beyond heat death, like the "Big Rip." But other hypotheses, like cyclic models of the universe (where it may undergo periodic "rebirths"), propose that some mechanism could counteract entropy on a cosmological scale. If such a reversal were possible, it could theoretically create conditions that reset energy gradients and allow molecular excitation—and potentially life—to emerge anew in some future universe.
These ideas remain speculative, but they highlight a deeper philosophical question: whether the universe inherently tends toward conditions that give rise to complexity and life or if life is simply an ephemeral byproduct of certain rare conditions. If dark energy, or some other factor, turns out to periodically regenerate or rebalance entropy, then life might not just be a fluke but a recurring possibility in an endless cosmic cycle."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
I don't really care about retrocausality... In narratives it can be very interesting to have nonlinearity, but I believe in determinism from past to future. I recently thought about parallel timelines, though, and... If a same being has different lives, I believe there would still be a convergence of timelines after initial divergence when that being dies.
As for the Big Bang, what do you make of heat death of entropy theory?
And what I assume you shall assume,
For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you."
It's very akin to panpsychism with some projection I feel, if we assume we're all from the same stardust and ecological cycle. Very "Communion" minded, is it not?
I see you with that electro/techno beat.
Feels like I'm playing an arcade or video game level lol.
That poison electro/dubstep beat got me hitting the yoinky sploinky.
Keep up the good work man.
Oops my bad.
Time to look at it again for further check up.
Don't mind me. Just a struggler wandering by.
Your cat signature in the forum page got me intrigued, so I clicked on it.
And now we're here 0_0
Do you mind sending the link to your soundcloud?