What is the Far Far Future of the Universe? | Episode 504 | Closer To Truth

When we speak about the future of the universe, we mean when the sun burns out, when galaxies collide, when everything flies apart and ultimately evaporates. Do the untold billions and trillions of years from now make it irrelevant for us today? No. The far far future of the universe conveys meaning now. Featuring interviews with Martin Rees, Wendy Freedman, Abraham Loeb, Alexander Vilenkin, and Robert Russell.

Season 5, Episode 4 - #CloserToTruth

Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.

Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

#Future #Philosophy

[redriver]

This is one of my absolute favorite episodes. This program makes my brain sore like it's done a work out at the

[spacesciencelab]

Terence McKenna's theory that the universe is actually heading towards a singularity is a rather interesting one. I'd recommend watching his movie ''The Transcendental Object at the end of Time". His theory makes a lot of sense, especially since time is just an illusion and the future is already played out just like a DVD. A transcendence definitely seems likely.

[fortuner]

A guy at a lecture asked the lecturer; "Did you say that the Milky Way and Andromeda will collide in 5 million years or 5 billion years?". The lecturer replied "5 billion years". The guy retorted "Oh thank goodness for that".

[gmotionedc]

This show is the best. Fascinating !!!

[Outspoken.Humanist]

Listen to Sir Martin Rees giving a very clear and concise view of the prevailing knowledge we currently have about the universe and then ask, where does God fit in?
I understand why some people find comfort in religion but what I cannot fathom is why a small number of people pretend that science and religion can comfortably co-exist.

[rudy]

My favorite analog is to say that our universe is one tree in a forest of universes.

[paulramirez]

"Facts fight faith".... like it or not that statement is true.

[Lillianachimp]

Every episode is like my brain is doing Arnold workouts!!!! Shock the muscle!!!

[marshallwright]

Speculation and energy. Marshall Wright

[positiveandhealthy]

I am a magnet of blessings. I attract HEALTH 🙏

[susanmaddison]

Your question was right: If we have billions of years ahead or us, possibly 10 to the 100 years, we will inevitably find ways to reverse entropy and prevent heat death or any ending of the universe. In this limited sense, Barbour is certainly right: organization qua intelligence will overcome entropy - if intelligence can avoid destroying itself. We've only known of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics/entropy <200 years; we have almost infinitely more times 200 years to figure out what's avoidable in entropy, or maybe just plain wrong in the theory as Barbour thinks.

[garywelch]

The future for hope is based on the understanding of unlimited vibatory resonate freqeuncys of universal consciousness .

[gtziavelis]

really dropped the bong by not including Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (CCC) (I'm 3 minutes into the video)

[davidaustin]

I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't discuss how much time we really have. It appears we landed on the scene asap since BB (3rd gen star, no pause in evolution). Something tells me I'm not so special, we're not so special to be at the first 1% of possible intelligent life in the universe, but that we're in the middle. That if there is a goldilocks time for intelligent life, this is it, and maybe another 5 billion years perhaps far less, and that's it.

[rotorblade]

It may be that the future already exists but only up to a point, the same for the past. So for example the universe may be 50b year old for the oldest observer and 50b years before the Big Bang. If we draw the cone of the spacetime block that contains the universe it may actually have started from a small region then went into two directions so the spacetime block expanded as twin cones pointing to each other. Now you can even ask what was before the BigBang but at the beginning in principle you could not because there was no time. If then follows that the antimatter all wend backwards in time expanding into an antimatter universe and observers from there “see”our universe as going backwards in time (as antimatter)
Then even if the far future is low energy radiation spread out into a vast space remember that the present and the past may exist at the same time so the universe expands as a spacetime block in which the edges are inhabitable but the “core” where we are now isn’t
Then another principle I want to propose, based on delayed choice quantum eraser is the past can actually change so if you write down a point x=3 for a lump pattern then you discover later a diffraction pattern you look back and you see x=5 that corresponds to a diffraction but of course since the past has changed you will remember you wrote x=5. So if the past can change this block of spacetime allow life now in its core but there could be moments where the core doesn’t allow life. The problem is this seems to require an extra dimension of time I don’t even know if that is possible without this extra dimension
That’s in case you got bored by current hypotheses 😝

[jamesruscheinski]

Will the dilution of information in universe affect quantum fields?

[bentontramell]

I wonder why this channel doesn't show up on my feed anymore?

[kallianpublico]

Our insight into the nature of reality seems to depend on our theories of causation, which in turn depends on our access to nature: consciousness and self-consciousness(our metaphorical thoughts). If our theories of causation are inept or naieve then our "predictions" will be the same. If causation has more nuance than scientific knowledge currently has access to then our future may be less indifferent to us. It all depends on our theories of causation.
The three intrinsic qualities of God are omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence. Omnipresence seems to involve time and space: when and where. Omniscience seems to involve who and what. Omnipotence seems to involve how and why. If the causation of when and where involves time and space, what does the causation of who, what, how and why involve?

[jamesruscheinski]

As matter in the universe spreads apart, could something take over from outside the universe, like inflation energy?

[susanmaddison]

We already know of ways to geoengineer -- regulate and readjust and stabilize -- the temperature of earth, just not ways yet that are at one and the same time sufficiently safe and sure and economical; and we'll inevitably get to that too with a couple decades more technological progress, possibly much sooner if we get more serious about it. In a longer timeframe, probably a few centuries, we will figure out how to uni-engineer -- regulate and readjust and stabilize -- the evolution of the universe vis-a-vis all the dangers you point out here. That's a near certainty, probabilistically. New dangers to the universe will be discovered with more time; we'll find more ways around them. It's self-destruction before we get to that point, not the laws of physics, that's the main thing that could keep us from achieving eternal universe stabilization, and for that matter universe-improvement and universes-production.