Physicists are those people who know math (good ones also know some poetry) and are primarily concerned the problem of the limits of the universe. The limits of the universe are, to our knowledge, four.
limit of Origin:
really a serious problem. Various proposals have imagined all crap in my opinion: the big bang , the event primal singularity, intellectual cold quantum vacuum, the architect god creator of geometric axioms of the universe ... Pure tales of desperate teenager (who after all that we as a species). The embryogenesis of the universe is perhaps the oldest problem, and I think the only that can not be resolved satisfactorily.
limit as large :
The problem of the shape of the universe, its gross architecture. Really a minor problem in my opinion.
limit the smallest :
The problem microscopic constitution of the cosmos. Sincerely problem should be in the shadow response. Even assuming that it is in human hands to find the truth (which I doubt). I can only imagine what would happen if my intuition is correct. What is the micrometer of the universe?. Nothing, absolutely. Pure emptiness without form or time. Someone might say that how this is possible since it is clear that matter is something, if events happen how can the universe be nothing infinitesimal. But the idea that matter and events, to be added and subtracted, the stalemate is not refuted anything really. The universe as a whole may well be just an illusion epistemic our eyes absent, and most good thing is that nobody has to know.
The final boundary :
is the problem of where the universe is directed, what is their future. This is the issue that interests me at this time.
able to think the end of the universe does not seem a difficult thing at first. I think it's an issue that anyone who knows the second law of thermodynamics can be assumed. I quote the wisdom of the network because I am too lazy to write something I already own and also discussed the matter on a previous occasion :
" The second law of thermodynamics and second law of thermodynamics expressed in a concise, that" The amount of entropy of any isolated system thermodynamically tends to increase with time, reaching a maximum value. " More simply, when part of a closed system interact with the other hand, tends to divide power equally, until the system reaches thermal equilibrium. "
What this means is that energy is degraded slowly (dissipates) to the extent that no longer works to create matter or motion or anything like that. The power only works when there is asymmetry, when the power is "organized." A hydroelectric dam generates such energy that can be converted into electromagnetism because there is an imbalance between the high water in the dam and the river below. Gravity ensures that this imbalance will not last long and when all the water is at the same level the dam no longer serves. The walls of the dam will not serve to stop gravity (which is impossible) but to delay the process of increasing the entropy of the water system. It only delays the process, since the walls of the dam are organized systems gradually also become disorganized and enter a state of equilibrium with their environment. Asphalt is invaded by water, plant seeds soon corrode the surface and the dam derrumba.Eso without the energy produced by the dam will also pay the price, the rotor moves the water generates heat in addition to electromagnetism. That energy is converted into heat is dissipated and lost, so that the production of electromagnetism is never pure, never managed to make a direct, clean and energy expenditure. There is always something lost.
On the other hand, a system can only get out of balance (ie, organized) when external power the system has an effect on him. The refrigerators maintain such cold inside conducts heat inside to outside, and the thermal imbalance can only be done through the collaboration of additional energy (electricity). The fridge can do this because we, conscious and intelligent beings, we have built. Intelligence can do this because it is in some sense, a highly complex form of energy, and she comes from life forms that they themselves are far from equilibrium (highly organized).
Living beings are only highly effective superorder capsules. If we, therefore the fact that this state of organization can only be accomplished through additional energy and since energy is always degraded (so that the organization created by the energy is always less than herself, as there is a "cost" inevitable), then the obvious question is how complex living energy that was organized at first, as there is in the universe a system as highly organized as their own living. In short, what I mean is this: who the hell gave us the head start that allowed us to create Refrigerators ... This leads me to remember that when I meet an atheist, I smile and say nothing, I just laughed in my heart of its ingenuity and its stupidity. If someone tells me in an zeal of scientism that energy frugal living from the sun no more, and there is no need to think of something else (as a god, for example) I have two that say
1) But who the hell created the sun?, and if it passes ready for the use of the verb "create" ask, but what the hell allowed the creation of which helped create the sun, or tell me to see who was fucking who began to inoculate the energy needed to create what is needed for the organization of what was needed for the sun to be organized? ... Now it seems that one can not use a fucking verb, which is fuck all .... (In other words, if the issue of entropy moves toward the edge of the origin of the universe we are in a very serious problem).
2) The sun's energy can only be more and more disorganized. It is true that the sun's energy is stored in the earth, but what compelled her to organize very complex life forms?.
say that this is not sufficient evidence for the existence of a god or a stationary engine tolondrada such metaphorical. I only say that the mystery of this whole matter has not been resolved and close, and until it is resolved to be an atheist is no more rational who believe speaking in the language of Adam and dirty dance to tambourines, while listening to a well dressed moron chives Brazilian reciting one with an embarrassing histrionics that muerganez full of blood, sex and shit dry (donkey and camel) which call Bible, and that is just the log indulgent primitive nomadic tribe tontucios thirsty land and violence, together with subsequent biography of a guy who, though relatively quiet, most likely need (son of God or not) of a good antipsychotic.
But I got sidetracked.
The main issue is that according to the second principle, the universe does not have no choice but degrade, become completely inert. Itself disappear into a void filling material at absolute zero. This is what I call "glass death." There is no way to escape this fate, so everything else is 5 fleas.
(Obviously this is more complicated because the entropy does not play a single role, calculate the fate of the universe from various other variables. For example, the level of expansion. But if I get really thinking about all that ended up needing antipsychotic myself, and the idea of \u200b\u200bwriting is very spare me those annoying chores. So the very intellectuals who read these things because the paralytic and his Superfriends and reflection do not annoy me.)
death is impossible to avoid if the universe is itself a closed system inert. That destiny is frightening and the question I propose to answer is whether there is any way to avoid this miserable conclusion that obviously cares about a penny a man on foot because the problem about what to chew on is becoming increasingly important.
Only one way to that destination is different. What I will propose, as everything I write, is not new. It's an idea perhaps as old as mankind and mysterious primitive animisms. As each stone and the river had a reason and a soul ... The only way I have to believe that the universe can escape the death of glass is to accept that our home is not inert, that the universe is a living being like us, and how we can organize itself.
This premise has two obvious consequences:
- living beings within the universe, then we are not more than parasites. This conclusion is not need of premises. Against logic there is no evidence worth and for the truly important things in this world, logic only serves to make the clown intellectual (soon to talk about that in the arenite ).
- If the universe is a living then you can not think without an ecosystem, as the organization of living systems can only be sustained because they remain in balance with their environment, exchanging fluids and energy by eating highly organized (other living things) and entropic driving Organic Waste (an elegant euphemism for "shit" (I mention this not happen crude and ordinary, but because people are very dear to you do not like euphemisms, then sorry for the sensitive)).
The second I extracted result looks beautiful. The universe, as a living, you must have an ecosystem, a wide context that gives meaning. Because obviously the universe itself does not. The only meaning of life in isolation is to continue living, moving parasites living jiggle in an effort to satisfy their need to be, as a great sexual freak turns and wiggles around your body to self-destruct, that copula with air and himself to death. That we are living no more.
As at this point most readers will have pulled away by a maelstrom of boredom / lack of understanding then I can afford a bit of sentimentality:
wish I could understand this nonsense we call the universe. I want a credible lie disclosed to me offered. When I look at the sky, when my eyes like the stars give you all I can feel up there, despite all the beauty that part of me might imagine, could find only banalities. Then we too are just one manifestation of the great cosmic stupidity, the great existential insult.
How to think differently?. How can you think of the universe as something that causes serious, something worthy of honor and praise?. Only through a great imaginative power I can think of the universe as something that deserves even be thought. Achievement only imagining belonging to a greater whole (which is ironic because obviously assumes that the universe is that big yet).
But the important point here is that if the universe is a large living should also be a "parasite" something (all living beings are in a sense parasites , think about the reader because if not capable of understanding that does not deserve to read what follows), then the universe must be equal to those who inhabit it. What is living?. Of all beings on earth is a kind-kingdom seems to me the most wonderful of all. So I imagine the universe as a fungus . A fungus that eats the eternal plural and infinitely hard wall material smooth, snowy, outside of a macrocosm of space-time. I imagine those walls, no extension, no color, made with a flat perfect geometry. I imagine the world glued to the flat glass without figures, a sunken spot lame. I rejoice with this intuition. The universe as a mammoth fungus that eats and eats. Ultradimensional as a Buddha in lotus position undermines the ground with his butt.
The universe expands and infection perseveres and selfs. It is no longer possible to think of the final limit, the universe now is unlimited because it refuses to die casting their spores on itself same. Now we have it for eternity, the great universe, motionless heterotrophic colony is only intended to accommodate other heterotrophs still. The mushroom man is but a parasite of a parasite of a parasite of a parasite. Human banality is not just another of the many faces of the god of parasitism regressive. The universe basically good for nothing more.
strange that one can find beauty only in the banal.
Hopefully, some will say maybe, to not use a good anti-fungal in those crystal walls.
feel pleasure also believe that our universe is a simple fungus, but that in the vast non-place in the ecosystem of paradoxes, cockroaches and flies must also exist. These complex neural and violent universe-insect, who anxiously mercilessly devour other living worlds, must be of unquestionable beauty and horrifying.
Amen.
