You're gonna die some day.

>>30495466
Not if I freeze myself and they thaw me and give me whatever technology they have to make me live forever, or at least until I'm tired of living.

>>30495466
So will pones

>>30495466
Which thread was it this time, young man

>>30495466
https://youtu.be/CJkWS4t4l0k

You're gonna carry that weight fatass

>>30495466
Prove it.

File: 1497566828814.jpg (75KB, 822x851px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 822x851px

>>30495466
hopefully

File: EOD awesome.png (84KB, 278x208px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 278x208px

>>30495466
I hope I die gloriously.

File: 6573532452827361231?account_id=1.jpg (102KB, 640x654px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 640x654px

>>30495466
>Implying I'm not a God

File: thank god.jpg (62KB, 504x470px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 504x470px

>>30495466
Hopefully then we can experience true freedom.

>>30495466
Another will be born one day.
I just hope I can die painlessly, and it doesn't drag on. That's what really gets me: death will happen, but being a living zombie or on life support till I actually die would be worse then death I think.

File: Just like me.jpg (274KB, 1920x1920px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1920x1920px

>>30495466
I'm glad that i'm going

File: barnes.jpg (161KB, 1905x1080px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1905x1080px

>>30495466
I know.

File: Thief of Waifu.gif (130KB, 338x554px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 338x554px

We all disappear one day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK5KLazC42s

File: Emptiness.jpg (30KB, 450x327px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 450x327px

>>30495570
Fug, came here to post this.

>>30495466
If the human perspective of science is correct, so will the universe. Even the multiverse.

Using death as a term for the transformation of these entities is just complicating things. Death is a transformation. Things are either things, non-things, or in-between things. Death is like the breathe in the life of time.You're all a part of something much bigger and much greater. I find that comforting.

File: 100% Sad.jpg (103KB, 442x740px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 442x740px

>>30495466
Not soon enough.

>>30495466
millions have already died before me, millions will die after me. its a comforting feeling of connection in its own way. its the one experience everyone in the world will share equally.

frankly enough im not affraid of death

>>30496165
>>30497069
I'm a selfish bastard, I don't find these things comforting at all. The thought of dying and losing consciousness and memory and me terrifies me. But so to does the thought of immortality and never ending.

>>30497101
remember all the things you worried about before you were born?
itll be like that.

>>30497155
But I don't want to.

Both finite and infinite life terrify me. I know I won't be able to feel anything, but that still scares me now.

>>30497164
How can one be scared of both dying and never dying? What's the middle ground? Living for thousands of years? Dying when you want?

>>30497175
>Middle ground
There is none. It's either one or the other and neither choices are good.

Although if I had to choose, I'd like to go to Equestria when I die and then live there until I choose to die for real

>>30497190
What's the difference between dying here and not existing and dying in Equestria and not existing?

File: ....png (97KB, 600x631px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 600x631px

>>30497240
I don't know.

I just want to experience Equestria.

Doesn't make sense, I know.

File: 03380428c7a0b4edd3c8a4ea02448cc6.png (377KB, 1169x862px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1169x862px

>>30495466
I find that fact comforting.

>>30497101
I'm like you but not afraid of the last part

>>30495466
Prove it.

File: 1488729878250.png (288KB, 900x586px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 900x586px

>>30495780
>>30498210
>>30495476
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe
The universe will end in heat death, the big rip, or false vacuum collapse. Maybe you live trillions of years, but no matter what, you will die some day.

File: 1489502773463.png (291KB, 691x576px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 691x576px

>>30495466
Man, I hope so.

>>30498284
jew propaganda trying to promote nihilism in whites, don't fall for it

>>30495466
I feel comfortable knowing I will die one day.

>>30498308
Poe's law is real.

>>30497101
The thought of dying isn't what scares me, it's the thought of the things I like being forgotten that gets me. Take musical enjoyment for example, how many people will know the joy and exuberance that can be felt from Frank Sinatra's music? How many people will experience the enjoyment of kicking back and listening to Mezame by Mai-Hime? The fact that things that I enjoy from before my time could be forgotten or discarded by the future scares the utter shit out of me more than dying. There will be things that carry forward and people who look into the things of yesteryear that will find enjoyment with various things, just as I have, so perhaps my fear is irrational. /blog

>>30498358
>non-centrist views are indistinguishable from sarcasm
off yourself

File: 1497773042140.png (694KB, 775x768px) Image search: [Google]

694KB, 775x768px

>>30498400
>>30498308 isn't just non-centrist. It's anti-science; you deny the second law of thermodynamics. You may as well say evolution is a Jewish conspiracy to promote nihilism, except that the second law of thermodynamics is a mathematical theorem of statistical mechanics. I mean, I'm almost at a loss for words for your level of willfully ignorant anti-intellectualism.

>>30498438
>you deny the second law of thermodynamics
First law of thermodynamics says energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.

>>30498495
Correct, or more precisely,
>The second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase over time. It can remain constant in ideal cases where the system is in a steady state (equilibrium) or undergoing a reversible process. The increase in entropy accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes, and the asymmetry between future and past.

The second law of thermodynamics is a mathematical consequence of quantum statistical mechanics and holds from the smallest to largest scales of the universe.

The universe is expanding due to dark energy, i.e. the positivity of the cosmological constant; in the distant future, galaxies other than our own will no longer be visible. Thus our galaxy will be a closed system aside from the faint microwave background radiation, which is static and approaching absolute 0 in temperature anyway.

The second law of thermodynamics then applies: entropy increases. It cannot remain constant because life is a dynamic process (the system is not in equilibrium) and the existence of life implies irreversibility (life locally decreases entropy through creating order via heat differentials, and because perpetual motion machines cannot exist, Carnot's theorem entails heat loss in this process. More directly, life takes energy and is in motion, and perpetual motion machines do not exist; all require energy and thus contribute to the equilibration of temperature.)

Thus the galaxy approaches a state of maximum entropy in which no work can be done due to thermal equilibrium; in fact, the temperature of everything will approach absolute zero due to radiation in the form of light (all matter emits light according to its temperature and thus loses energy.) Hence the "Big Freeze" or "Heat Death."

So that's going to happen unless something else happens first, such as false vacuum decay or the big rip. But no matter what, all life ends.

>>30498604
but you yet do not know the absolute particles or whatever, so what if heat death happens but the particles are pure energy and move out of kinetics? Huh? Did you ever think of that you pasty mofo? Please tell me everything will be alright...

>>30498652
I'm sorry the thought of everything dying is distressing to you, but we have a hundred trillion years before the last stars go out, and after that, we can build Dyson spheres around brown dwarfs and survive for quadrillions of years. Intelligent life has a very long time, but the fact it is not forever just makes our time here that much more precious.

>>30498604
You're forgetting that nothing is being destroyed only changed.

Many texts define the second law as “the entropy of the universe increases during any spontaneous process” and then throw qrev/T or free energy = ΔG and ΔS at you.

The second law is based on human experience. It doesn’t come from complicated theory and equations. So, think of these experiences that you have had: A rock will fall if you lift it up and then let go. Hot frying pans cool down when taken off the stove. Iron rusts (oxidizes) in the air. Air in a high-pressure tire shoots out from even a small hole in its side to the lower pressure atmosphere. Ice cubes melt in a warm room.
What’s happening in each of those processes? Energy of some kind is changing from being localized ("concentrated" in the rock or the pan, etc.) to becoming more spread out. Look at those examples again to see how that statement fits them all.

>>30498730
The laws of thermodynamics began by empirical observation, but today are known to be mathematical theorems of quantum mechanics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_thermodynamics#The_emergence_of_the_second_law_of_thermodynamics

This is a much, much stronger statement. The laws are not guesses based on observation and intuition, but mathematical theorems of the axioms of quantum mechanics.

>>30498851
>The laws of thermodynamics began by empirical observation
Thanks for proving my point.

Here is a link that even you can understand
http://physicsforidiots.com/physics/thermodynamics/

This has nothing to do with the original argument that nothing is being destroyed only changed.

>>30498240
>Heat death
Nigga it's freezing, check your facts.

>>30498932
The Big Freeze is also called Heat Death, they're synonyms.

>>30498284
Don't believe everything you read on wikipedia : P

>>30498910
I wasn't aware there was an argument, and I think we agree. The laws of thermodynamics began by empirical observation, but all I was saying is that's a pretty lousy reason to believe them. Even statistical thermodynamics is not a good reason, because what is the physical foundation of its mathematical axioms? It's circular. Using QFT as a mathematical foundation, though—the most well-tested and predictive theory in physics, our theory of the entire universe minus gravity—is good evidence, especially since QFT has only one metalogical axiom: the minimization of action in the Feynman path integral formulation. Reject the second law of thermodynamics, and you dismiss QFT itself.

Well I may die, but not before I find a way to fuck Fluttershy.

>>30499046
>I wasn't aware there was an argument, and I think we agree.
You say the universe will be destroyed
I say that's not true, it will only change.

The second law of thermodynamics says nothing about destruction.
The second Law of Thermodynamics is about the quality of energy.

>>30499111
When the temperature of everything is .000001 K and all potential energy has been released, there is no useful work that can be done and thus life can no longer exist. That is the change and that is what heat death means. Did you not understand the concept?

>>30499203
First law of thermodynamics
Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

again, the second law of thermodynamics doesn't say anything about destruction but does say energy can change

You're grasping at straws

>>30495466
>You're gonna die some day.

Yes.
But the death penalty will have been worth it after raping and killing Fluttershy. Not necessarily in that order.

>>30499218
Yes, and the energy all changes into useless, homogenous heat with no heat differences or potential energy to convert to kinetic energy from which work can be done.

The point is, of course energy is not destroyed, but also life can no longer exist because nothing can be done; there is no useful energy left.

>>30499272
>Yes
Glad you agree
>The point is, of course energy is not destroyed, but also life can no longer exist because nothing can be done; there is no useful energy left.
Wrong
Nothing is being destroyed
You went from the universe is being destroyed to "well life can no longer exist" backpedaling from your original argument.
The universe will still exist but have a different form

>>30499297
I never said the universe is destroyed; energy is never destroyed. Even the big rip does not destroy the universe; it is just a vertical aymptote in the expansion of space past which no particle can interact with any other particle. That's what we mean by the end of the universe: not its destruction (becoming nothingness), but its ultimate fate past which life can no longer exist because nothing can happen.

>>30499324
>I never said the universe is destroyed; energy is never destroyed.
See >>30499203 you argued against me when I said this and now change your tune.

Even now you are trying to reword it so you can save face.

>>30499354
No, I agreed with you and explained what the change is. You said nothing is destroyed, that things only change. I said what the change is that people call "heat death" and why it is called "heat death."

Why do you keep thinking I'm arguing with you? Do you agree with heat death or not? (Assuming something else like the big rip doesn't end the universe as we know it first.)

>>30499409
>I said what the change is that people call "heat death" and why it is called "heat death."
Wrong
My first post >>30498495 which was a response to you arguing for the destruction of the universe and cited the second law of thermodynamics as your source.

The second law of thermodynamics doesn't say anything about this.

"Heat death" doesn't matter
You seem to think that you need life for a universe to exist.

So basically nomatter what, we're gonna die, even if we become robots.

File: 1490195435404.png (1MB, 5860x5900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5860x5900px

>>30499430
Anon, I am not arguing with you; I never have. I was under the impression you didn't understand what heat death meant, and I was explaining it to you.

You seem to not fully understand it if you don't see how the second law of thermodynamics implies it; heat death is when the universe is in a state of maximum entropy, and the second law says entropy is always increasing for irreversible processes. Heat death is when this maxes out.

But that's ok. We agree that there will come a time in the universe past which life can no longer exist because nothing can happen. That is what is known as the heat death of the universe: it is when all life must die forever. That is why it is called heat death. That is all. And we agree. Good.

>>30499461
Yes.

wouldn't wind power still be a thing? (coming from someone who obviously doesn't know what y'all are talking about)

>>30495466
Feels bad, and it doesn't matter how hard I try to make a legacy I'll never get to see it. Also you only get one life, after you die the universe pretty much ends.

>>30499491
There's no wind in the vacuum of space.

>>30499469
>You seem to not fully understand it if you don't see how the second law of thermodynamics implies
Pot calling the kettle black: the post

You can't seem to grasp that It's about the quality of energy and how it can change.

>muh heat death
Universe is still there that's not gonna change only it's form.
I like how you avoiding answering how you needed life for a universe to exist

>>30499469
>Yes
No, you'll become energy and lose your form.
Kinda like how water can be solid, a liquid and a gas
Still there just in another form

By the time the universe is mostly composed of red and white dwarfs couldn't a type 3 civilization find a way to engineer things on a cosmic scale?

>>30499513
I agree that it's about the quality of energy and how it can change. The change in quality known as heat death is that there is no useful energy left to do work: that is the change in the quality of energy known as heat death. My goodness. I have never disagreed or argued with you. We agree 100% on every single thing and always have.

I wasn't aware that you had asked me if the universe needs life for it to exist. Why do you keep trying to argue with me? I agree with you in every single way. The universe will be dead (no life) but will still exist. It will just be dead. We agree 100% on every single thing and at no point have I ever disagreed with you.

>>30499548
The universe won't be dead, it will just be.
Get that through your head

File: 14.png (286KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 680x680px

>>30495466
Good, 'cause then I'll finally get some fucking sleep.
Gotta love the 5am grind.

>>30499529
Yes, Dyson spheres around white dwarfs, and then brown dwarfs, could last for quadrillions of years. But even they will eventually succumb to heat death.

>>30499565
I define our universe to be dead when everything in it has died forever and life can never exist again. By this definition of what it means for the universe to die, the universe will die.

You say "the universe will be devoid of life forever," I say, "the universe will die." Potato Potahto, we are saying the same thing and I agree with you 100% and in every single conceivable way.

>>30499618
>I define our universe to be dead when everything in it has died forever and life can never exist again. By this definition of what it means for the universe to die, the universe will die.
>the universe will die
There you go contradicting yourself
The universe isn't alive or dead, it just is
Rocks can't die
Water can't die
Void can't die

You're a hypocrite that keeps backpedaling when you are called out.

I'm sure we'll come up with a way to make it past this

>>30499643
When someone says, "Mars is a dead planet," that means that there is no life on Mars.

You can yell at someone when they say, "Mars is a dead planet," screaming, "A planet isn't alive," but that's what they mean: that Mars is a dead planet.

I have always agreed with you on every single possible conceivable thing and at no point have I backed out of anything because we have always agreed in every possible way and I have never argued about anything. You just don't like it when people say, "Mars is a dead planet" even though you know what they mean by it. That's perfectly alright with me.

>>30499688
>When someone says, "Mars is a dead planet," that means that there is no life on Mars.
So you admit you need life for the universe to exist?
Nice contradiction from your earlier posts.

You're grasping at straws again

>>30499705
I have never contradicted myself because we have always agreed on everything. Of course you don't need life for a universe to exist; I never said you did. We have always agreed in every way. You just dislike ascribing the properties "alive" and "dead" to a universe. I say the Earth is alive to mean that it is teeming with life, and after the sun becomes a red giant, the Earth will be dead. It will still exist; it will just be dead. Similarly, I say the universe is alive because it has life, and after all life dies forever, it will be dead. It will still exist; it will just be dead.

At no point have we disagreed about anything. I agree with you in every. single. way.

>>30499739
>I have never contradicted myself because we have always agreed on everything.
You: The universe will die.
Me: No it won't, it will just be.
another contradiction
You can keep making excuses but you're wrong

>>30499757
I have explained what I mean by "the universe will die." It's just a matter of semantics. Once again, when I say "the universe will die," I mean, "all life in the universe will die, and the universe will be devoid of life forever."

That is what I mean, and you agree with what I mean. You just don't like ascribing the property of "dead" to the universe because it was never alive, but I have explained to you what I mean by saying, "the universe will die" and WE AGREE.

Oh god the autism in this thread over simple physical facts, come on

>>30495466
I hope so. Being immortal is a gigantic pain in the ass.

>>30499806
It's crazy. The other anon and I have always agreed in every way, but he keeps trying to argue with me and I keep telling him that I agree with him in every way. It's kind of funny but also sad.

>>30499783
>I have explained what I mean by "the universe will die."
No, you just made up excuses on why you think you're right and continue to think you need life for the universe to exist or be.
You even say I must agree with you because by your logic it makes sense.
It doesn't make sense because the universe isn't alive to being with.
I don't agree with you or your reasons why I "should"

Again
The universe won't die, it will just be.

>>30499824
I know, right? I guess that's expected on 4chan, but still

>>30499824
>it's amazing
>someone doesn't agree with me and I keep telling him he does
You're right, that is sad.

>>30495466
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jxw_xae0Cc

>>30499828
>>30499848
I have explained what I mean by "the universe will die." It's just a matter of semantics. Once again, when I say "the universe will die," I mean, "all life in the universe will die, and the universe will be devoid of life forever." The universe will still exist, I agree with you; it will just be dead, meaning all life will die and it will be devoid of life forever. We agree.

That is what I mean, and you agree with what I mean. You just don't like ascribing the property of "dead" to the universe because it was never alive, but I have explained to you what I mean by saying, "the universe will die" and WE AGREE.

>>30499824
>I keep telling him that I agree with him in every way.
Except the part where you think the universe is "alive" and can "die"
But you keep making excuses

>>30499898
The universe isn't alive
It doesn't matter what you say or how you word it.
It isn't alive and can't die
It can only be.

We don't agree

>>30495570
what the fuck lol

>>30499900
I have explained what I mean by "the universe will die." It's just a matter of semantics. Once again, when I say "the universe will die," I mean, "all life in the universe will die, and the universe will be devoid of life forever." The universe will still exist, I agree with you; it will just be dead, by which I MEAN that all life will die and the universe will be devoid of life forever. WE AGREE.

>>30499906
I have explained what I mean by "the universe will die." It's just a matter of semantics. Once again, when I say "the universe will die," I mean, "all life in the universe will die, and the universe will be devoid of life forever." The universe will still exist, I agree with you; it will just be dead, by which I MEAN that all life will die and the universe will be devoid of life forever. WE AGREE.

>>30499921
>It's just a matter of semantics
Prove to bme the universe is alive
I'll wait
While you're at it prove you need life to determine if a universe is "alive" or 'dead"
Protip: you can't

You think just because life ceases to exist that the universe will "die"
Wrong
It was here before life and will be here after life.

We dont agree

We must escape to the FIM Universe!

>>30499943
>It was here before life and will be here after life.
I agree with you 100%, as usual.

It's just a matter of semantics. We have always agreed on everything.

>>30499967
>It's just a matter of semantics. We have always agreed on everything.
Another contradiction
You're making excuses and using semantics
I'll telling you how it is.
It's not a argument, it just is.

We don't agree

>>30499988
It's just a matter of semantics. We agree.

>>30500003
No its not
You say the universe can die
We don't agree

>>30500003
>>30500022
You two should get married.

Deadass what does thermodynamics have to do with Fluttershy fine ass?

Life is suffering and the world is full of bullshit. The knowledge that it will someday end gets me through my day.

>>30500559
Does it ever get any better anon?

File: 1498535378035.jpg (461KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

461KB, 900x675px

>>30500022

Good grief you two, I have never seen someone so concerned with semantics before in my life. He says that he considers the universe dead when all life ceases to exist, and you say that definition is flawed since the universe will still exist. You both understand that the final state of the universe will be one with maximum entropy and no life.

>No its not [semantics]
>You say the universe can die
>We don't agree

You are arguing over the definition of a dead universe, that is literally semantics friendo.

>>30495466
I already did, and I'm still here shitposting.

>>30500792
>zombieposting

>>30500022
>being this autistic
You really dont understand anything do you

>>30495466
You're fat.
Ad you'll always be fat.

>>30500981
>complaining about autism
>on 4chan
>on its pony board
Did you forget where you are?

>>30500742
>You are arguing over the definition of a dead universe
Universe can't die because it's not alive
It just is
>>30500981
Elaborate how the universe is alive and can die
>>30501035
No U

>>30501035
Basically this
Two arguing autistic anons tickle the autism of other anons and they respond with more autism.

>>30501052
You want me to elaborate, fine.
My definition if a dead and living universe is strictly based on the creation and abscence of life.
Or in autism speak
>ded universe = no life anywhere
>alive universe= life anywhere
The universe isnt physically alive, that would be silly.
Instead, the universe has life in it.
Ya hear?

My immortal spirit will live on
The body is just a temporary vessel

Don't forget there are supposedly 12 dimensions and we are in the 3rd

>>30501128
CRAP

>>30501118
Universe didn't have life before life came and it will still be around when it's gone.
It isn't "ded" or "alive" it just is

Holy tits, what is this thread
Came in expecting shitposting, found a bunch of nerds arguing over big freeze.

>>30495466
and then what?

>>30495466
valar morguhlis

I wish I could live some day