Anders Sandberg wrote:
> On the other hand, you also have a lower temperature and more space
> which can be used to put the ever lower energy to better uses - the
> signal / noise ratio gets better, and previously too disordered energy
> can be used. The important thing here is which factors increase the
> fastest; this seems to be dependent on the actual development history
> of the universe and can be tricky to calculate a priori.
In the short term, yes. In the long term ( >10^50 years) no - when the average distance between adjacent particles is measured in light years, the idea of building anything complex enough to be alive looks pretty dubious.
> Even if that is true it doesn't change the problem of indefinite
> survival. As far as I know nobody is suggesting steady state theories
> at least, and without them you get a Dyson or Tipler choice, so to
My point is simply that it isn't productive to speculate on the terminal evolution of the universe based on a theory that is almost certainly incorrect. It is possible that some moderate adjustment of the big bang/inflation model will make it fit reality, but it is just as likely that the entire concept will have to be thrown out. If that happens, who knows what the new parameters will be? Meanwhile, why generate angst over purely hypothetical events that might happen billions of years in the future?
Billy Brown, MCSE+I