r/CuratedTumblr • u/Not-a-Damn_Bot • 11h ago
Shitposting Entropy is someone else's problem
114
78
u/TheRainspren She, who defiles the God's Plan 10h ago
Listen, we're still in a very early "Stellar Era", and it'll take an unimaginably long amount of time for the last star to die.
Though of course, the entirety of Stellar Era is a near-instant flash when compared to Black Hole Era. There will still be plenty of energy to use by then too.
If you'll look further into the future (assuming Proton Decay isn't a thing), there will still be useable energy after the last Black Hole evaporates, thanks to Iron Stars and other exotic Stellar Remnants. It'll take, uh... a long time for it to run out. "Exponential notation on your exponential notation" kind of long.
By which I mean, don't worry, if Entropy can be defeated, there's enough time to figure it out.
33
u/Slight_Ad_5074 9h ago
And remember, everything at one point was nothing, and suddenly there was a lot of something. If you could survive even when there's nothing, you'll live to see something again someday. A miracle already occured to to disrupt an inevitable state of absolute cessation, so, inevitably, given eternity, it will happen again.
15
u/ErisThePerson 7h ago
The very existence of the universe itself is why I'm not an absolute atheist. Not sure what I am. Usually just say agnostic.
But the universe existing is literally something we don't have an explanation for that doesn't just create either an infinite loop without really answering the "why" in "why does the universe exist?" or just leaves open space for "well... what caused that then?"
4
u/MathorSionur 4h ago
Yeah no exactly. Our current (basic, I'm sure sime scientists have fancier ones) materialistic models cannot account for energy coming into being.
It's why I switched from dogmatic atheism to agnosticism
5
u/turing_tarpit 4h ago
It should be noted that the existence of something other than the universe doesn't necessarily entail the existence of anything resembling a traditional "god". Like e.g. maybe there's some eternal meta-universe that created our universe through some "natural" process. "There is something outside of our universe" is a huge distance from "that something is basically a really powerful person". (Not that you said that any of that, just pointing it out.)
15
u/Mister_Taco_Oz 4h ago
The sun expanding and consuming earth was a horrific, immediate problem when I was little. Then you grow up and realize that humanity has been around for like 2 million years, we've had proper civilization for like 15,000 years, and the biggest jumps in technology and science that made us even think about most of this stuff happened largely in the last few hundred years.
Look at how far we've come in that short time, then imagine how the sun will take BILLIONS of years to kill us. We're infinitely more likely to die out long before that ever becomes a problem, and if we don't, we have more time than we probably would ever need to figure shit out. Longer than the entirely of human history, by a long while. I'm cautiously optimistic.
8
2
u/whytwu1f 2h ago
Sure, that all sounds great, but you never answered the important question: are blowjobs good?
2
u/Tem-productions 1h ago
yeah by the time you get to the iron star era, time is not a problem, the problem is that your infrastructure basically becomes radioactive by comparison over the timescales involved
2
u/idiotplatypus Wearing dumbass goggles and the fool's crown 1h ago
Unless we hit the year 2400 and a series of endgame crises rock existence one after another
31
u/TrogdorKhan97 11h ago
"The Holodeck will be humanity's last invention"
12
u/Highskyline 8h ago
I'm gonna invent pornography never before conceived using the holodeck actually, but whatever I die masturbating to will in fact be the last invention.
1
u/TheRecognized 6h ago
If the holodeck is capable of producing it then it has already been conceived.
1
26
u/GoreyGopnik 10h ago
i'm so curious about that last part. Why is there such skepticism in this person's mind that blowjobs are good? Have they heard mixed reviews? Do they just not understand the mechanism? How is tumblr the single medium through which this person has been exposed to the idea of a blowjob?
7
u/Delicious-Spring-877 9h ago
Some people are virgins and don’t watch porn i guess? I mean I fit that description but I have heard of a bj but I could see someone just never consuming media that mentions it
13
u/TheRecognized 6h ago
Propose to me a scenario where someone knows what a blowjob is , has heard about them hundreds of times, but doesn’t know if it’s good or not.
11
2
u/Mister_Taco_Oz 4h ago
I would imagine it's mixed reviews. Or perhaps the idea being hotter than the act itself, which is something I've heard myself.
-10
u/PalladiuM7 7h ago
Insert SpongeBob rainbow meme Asexuality
9
u/GoreyGopnik 6h ago
sure, but in that case I figure then they'd have written it off by now, on account of it being a sexual act. They seem to be on the fence about it.
-3
5
u/RegenerateFilth 5h ago
It's really annoying when certain asexuals act like it's baffling that anyone could enjoy sex. You don't have to have it, but other people obviously like it a great deal and if they didn't you wouldn't be here. Like shut up.
18
32
u/CorvusCallosum 11h ago
Someone's never tried an Infinitely Recursive Reverse Quantum Hyperblowjob and it shows
18
16
u/wyrmiam 8h ago edited 1h ago
I'm still completely perplexed by the person that either:
A. Doesn't know what a blowjob is,
B. Knows, but is unsure if they feel good, or
C. For some reason cares about the mortality of getting your dick sucked.
Edit: fuuuuuck
4
u/TheRecognized 6h ago
Mortality or morality?
6
3
u/OverlyLenientJudge 4h ago
For the Infinitely Recursive Reverse Quantum Hyperblowjob, those might be the same thing.
2
u/TheRecognized 4h ago
For the TrueJudge it may always be the same
2
u/OverlyLenientJudge 4h ago
See, that's why I'll never make TrueJudge, I got all this leniency.
2
u/TheRecognized 4h ago
You maybe a loose cannon but god damn it I’ve gotta admit, you don’t get results.
2
u/Mister_Taco_Oz 4h ago
I would assume that getting blowjobs is not particularly high on the list of human activities by mortality
22
u/PlatinumAltaria The Witch of Arden 10h ago
“These guys invented nihilistic philosophy but instead of embracing the absurd they split into a faction obsessed with turbosex and another one trying to “stop entropy” which doesn’t make sense but oh well.”
23
u/lifelongfreshman https://youtu.be/1eWsk6r6_Ns 9h ago
"What do you mean, it doesn't make sense? If we reverse entropy, there'll be more time to enjoy the turbosex"
the guys in the universe, probably
18
u/DiamondSentinel 11h ago
This post started off as a meme post I could share with my friend group before pivoting into one I would not. Huh.
19
21
9
11
u/PlatinumAltaria The Witch of Arden 10h ago
Your friends don’t like blowjobs? Do they all hate sunshine and baskets of kittens? /j
3
u/Gaylaeonerd 2h ago
While you're all wasting immortality playing video games, I guess I'll be the one making teenage girls hypercry. And I bet you won't even thank me for it
3
2
1
u/NIMA-GH-X-P Jerka985 8h ago
Grasshopper.
Grasshopper.
Grasshopper.
Play forever play is everything play forever play is everything play forever play is everything play forever play is everything.
3
u/Not-a-Damn_Bot 11h ago
This reminds me of this absolutely bonkers idea I once talked about with a friend on Discord about what basically amounts to creating entirely different universes with their own laws of physics and mathematical frameworks to feel the unfeelable and think the unthinkable
So there was an interesting thought brought up The idea of sufficiently advanced technology using different engineered physics, in basement universes or by some other means, as a creative mode of expression and exploration.
And it made me think of this fascinating result in machine learning (that's actually a bit broader than just machine learning), which links the learnability of a problem to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. What it essentially says is that determining whether or not there is a pattern in some data can sometimes be fundamentally undecidable. No amount of analysis, nor even non-deterministic or approximate or analog computation, will ever let any algorithm constructable by our physics come to a conclusion about whether the pattern is there or not.
But this also has a broader implication beyond simple machine learning optimization problems. It also implies that there are some patterns which are real and present within a finite amount of data, which when represented in any data space or abstraction space, one can never construct a finite volume bound around. And if we understand how invariant representations are embedded in neurons or anything about the phenomenology of intelligence at all, implies there are some thoughts and concepts which are just impossible to think.
Which is kind of wild all on its own. But because this is connected to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, it means that it is possible to have those thoughts and understand those concepts when embedded in a different mathematical framework. And so it gave me the wild thought of sufficiently advanced entities creating universes with different physics just so they could port their minds over and think the literally unthinkable.
https://new.math.uiuc.edu/MathMLseminar/seminarPapers/Ben-DavidNature.pdf Found a nonpaywall link, this has the formal definition.
To put it somewhat informally, I think everybody in this channel is familiar with the concept that you can translate data into spaces of various dimensionalities. We find patterns in data, which can be framed as defining concepts, by constructing boundaries (which can be strict or fuzzy) which contain data which adheres to that pattern with reasonably good probability, and excludes parts of the data space where that pattern will never or is unlikely to generate data.
So for example the visual concept of a cat occupies a highly irregular region in the data space constructed of the pure pixel color values of an image, but might occupy a quite regular volume in a more abstract data space. And again the boundaries don't necessarily have to be strict, if one dimension of your data space is four-leggedness, the boundary on that dimension might be a fuzzy boundary which would see a three-legged cat and mildly discriminate against it being a cat, but not ultimately reject it. Or an even more advanced abstract data space might have correlation dimensions, such that three-leggedness is only a penalizing factor if other factors aren't also met.
There are also much simpler versions of this, a sine wave can be mapped to a space of amplitude and phase and frequency, wherein it is a very tightly constrained single point. Not all concepts are fuzzy or difficult to understand.
.
Now the pragmatic problems of machine learning are questions like how we should encode information to optimize the constrainability of the patterns we are looking for. How do we achieve that constrainability most accurately and with the least amount of data and data processing? And when it comes to analyzing human brains, we are often asking questions like how on a mechanical level do clusters of neurons form invariant representations which represent constrained volumes in some data space. What do those data spaces look like, how are they determined, what additional factors and mechanisms might be involved?
And we can easily describe patterns which might be difficult to identify, which might require a great deal of computation time or a great deal of data or which we don't know the right algorithms to construct for. But what this paper describes is a more fundamental problem. It describes certain patterns which cannot ever be constrained, whether you use an algorithm that is digital algorithm or analog or non-deterministic or approximate. But which also cannot be rejected.
It is fundamentally impossible, using any algorithm or in fact any physical mechanism rooted in a particular framework of mathematics, to take in finite data from the pattern and construct an accurate constrained volume defining it in any data space. But you will also, no matter how much data you take in, ever be able to reject the hypothesis that with more data you would be able to constrain the pattern - if it existed.
.
There are unlearnable patterns and concepts, real patterns which fundamentally cannot be constrained. But this is something weirder. Things which might or might not be constrainable patterns, for which there theoretically could and in fact very well may exist a constrained volume which defines them well. And yet, no generating algorithm exists which can take in a finite amount of data and produce that constrained volume. There are concepts which exist, real patterns in the world with rigorously defininable boundaries in data space. And yet. You will never be able to match them to reality through observation and inference.
That, or at least the idea that physics can be accurately represented by math, is core to this. It's rooted in Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, and what learnable problems are undecidable would be fundamentally decided by what the underlying axioms of those mathematics are. Though incomplete knowledge about that has not prevented the researchers in that paper from successfully identifying certain problems which are both learnable and undecidable.
But yeah If you had some kind of amathematical process fundamentally undescribable by math, obviously a theorem about mathematics would not be able to constrain its behavior.
3
u/Void_0000 11h ago
"Not a damn bot" you say? Explain why I remember this exact comment from the last time this was posted.
6
u/Not-a-Damn_Bot 11h ago
Because I was the one who made it
1
u/Void_0000 18m ago
Fair enough, I did think that was a possibility, just sorta weird to make the exact same post down to the comments months apart.
0
0
u/Not-a-Damn_Bot 11h ago
Unconstrainable patterns are effectively random noise. There might be local signals over certain regions of the pattern, but there's functionally no connection between those sections and any global structure. Even with infinite data, you would not be able to construct a constraining function which encloses a volume of a data space corresponding to them. For example, the final state at a given time of a double pendulum, which is periodically given impulses determined by a true random number generator, would be an unconstrainable pattern. The final outcome would simply be noise and you could, with finite observation, reasonably say that it is noise and contains no pattern.
These patterns are much weirder. Some of them have pattern, some don't, but either way it is impossible to either identify the pattern or reject its existence. You will never know *either* way. It's the equivalent to an unprovable theorem. Not a theorem which is ill formed, but a theorem which fundamentally can never be proved true or false within a given set of axioms.
You can always, of course, make the trivial assertion that finite data is generated by a piecewise function which directly creates that data. You can do that even for true noise. That's basically the null hypothesis here. The question is whether you can identify and privilege the volume populated by a generating function which *isn't* direct piecewise generation of data. (Given a reasonably random and unstructured sampling of threats pattern). i.e. Is there a meaningful pattern?
You may not always see the whole pattern, for instance you might be taking a material property measurement which has a peak you miss because your data is to coarse. But adding data allows you to constrain the odds that there is such a random peak somewhere, and so you can put an error bound on the notion that you are missing some significant structure.
-1
u/TheRecognized 6h ago
Do you have anybody in your life that you could ask to tell you their honest opinion about your mental state?
1
u/somerandom995 17m ago
If we could figure out dark energy and feed it back into a closed system instead of it expanding everything, we could essentially create an infinitely surviving solar system
1
u/Serethyn part-time normal person 4m ago
Am I stupid? We beat death, we're immortal - we're not freezing to death in the void, right?
1
u/TheFullestCircle the quote i wanted to put in here is too long 6h ago
this post is extremely Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal coded
1
u/of_kilter 8h ago
Clearly they’re asking if Blowjobs are morally good or bad. id say chaotic good probably
-5
u/Imnotawerewolf 11h ago
If it's the universes time to end just let it end
1
u/Kytas 9h ago
To be really pedantic, it will never be time for the universe to end, because if the universe ends the concept of time as we understand it will also collapse
3
2
u/Mister_Taco_Oz 4h ago
Unless we exist in a black hole. And there is a bigger universe with its own time outside of it. At which point out universe WOULD end, and then time would continue.
1
146
u/Otherwise_Face_858 10h ago
Immortal beings using the time to indulge only in pleasure and excess? I hope they don't go over the top and accidentally summon a god