• Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 day ago

    Luckily, this is the epitome of that Epicurus quote:

    Why should I fear death? If I am, then death is not. If Death is, then I am not. Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not?

    • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Well, maybe it’s because we mostly fear the WAY towards death, not the end of being a thing that is. Unless we get hit by a moving train…

    • threeduck@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      23 hours ago

      You know how when you get put under for anaesthesia, and you don’t notice the time you were gone? It’s like a cut in the tape of life.

      What if death is like that, and BAM your consciousness re-emerges billions of years in the future the moment you die.

      But your consciousness is alone. And in pitch black nothingness. Forever.

      • Radioactive Butthole@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        This is what I think happens. You don’t experience death, you just reemerge on the other side, no matter how long it takes.

        The chances of your brain being created were infinitely small before you were born, but it still only took 14 billion years for it to happen.

      • Famko@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Entropy would end up taking your consciousness as well, so I doubt you’d be there, 14.3 billions years later, forever.

        • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          We don’t really know what consciousness is, so we can’t really be sure that it is subject to entropy.

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s not the death I’m worried about. I just don’t want to suffer leading up to it or put my family through some long drawn out ordeal watching me die.

    • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      didnt need the wikipedia page. soon as I read a couple pop sci articles on this I was like “welp this shit sounds dangerous it was nice to know you all”

      • Comment105@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I’m about as worried about this as I am about galaxy eating monsters. Not at all, really.

        I’m more bothered by our apparently non-existent ability to detect and divert asteroids. More than that, I’m terrified of our habit of using global cataclysm as a strategic threat. But at the same time I feel like a species that acts like this probably should end themselves like that. Russian civilians consent to nuclear apocalypse.

        So yeah, not very bothered by idea of false vacuum.

  • Godort@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    144
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m not worried about this specific apocalypse, if only because there is literally nothing that can be done to prevent it nor stop it if it starts.

    I’m far more worried about more localized, preventable, human-caused apocalypse like climate or nuclear war.

    • Hossenfeffer@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      2 days ago

      Also, we won’t see it coming and won’t feel it happen. As far as deaths go, it’s about as easy as it gets.

    • Tower@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 days ago

      Exactly. Same energy as worrying about Earth being hit by a gamma ray burst - 🤷‍♂️

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      I would be very glad if it was something only destructive to humans, and not the planet(s ecosystems).

      • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        The dowvotes signal a trend against misanthropy, which is the only logical conclusion.

        Let me test this theory: We are a virus. An STD that is always lethal and should be eradicated for the planet’s good.

        But also let me quote Dostoyevsky to end my point positively:

        “I have seen the truth; I have seen and I know that people can be beautiful and happy. … I will not and cannot believe that evil is the normal condition of mankind.”

  • Xanthrax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Wikipedia:

    "threat

    If our universe is in a false vacuum state rather than a true vacuum state, then the decay from the less stable false vacuum to the more stable true vacuum (called false vacuum decay) could have dramatic consequences.[5][6] The effects could range from complete cessation of existing fundamental forces, elementary particles and structures comprising them, to subtle change in some cosmological parameters, mostly depending on the potential difference between true and false vacuum. Some false vacuum decay scenarios are compatible with the survival of structures like galaxies, stars,[7][8] and even biological life,[9] while others involve the full destruction of baryonic matter[10] or even immediate gravitational collapse of the universe.[11] In this more extreme case, the likelihood of a “bubble” forming is very low (i.e. false vacuum decay may be impossible).[12] "

    Also, of course there’s a Kurzesagt

    • xthexder@l.sw0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      20 hours ago

      I’m going to file this under the category of philosophy similar to “what if we’re living in a simulation?” and “parallel universe” theory. As far as I’m aware we have no evidence that there’s even such thing as a false vacuum, so this is all just speculation based on some theories.

      • Klear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Yeah, if you need existential dread, a gamma-ray burst could end us in an instant too and they’re confirmed to exist and much more likely.

    • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 days ago

      Does this mean the laws of physics could just… Change?

      Hoping for the scenario that means FTL travel is possible and nothing else changes lol

      • merthyr1831
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        yup. though if the laws of physics change then that also means the laws of physics holding your atoms together are gonna be blended up into a soup at the very least

      • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        That seems wildly improbable. What are you going to push off of to get you to speeds faster than light? There could be gimmicky ways like expanding / contracting space, but thats not moving faster than light, thats space changing faster than light. Changing cosmic topology to allow stable wormholes could possibly do something similar, but that could just as easily mean that you and all other matter exist in the exact same location. That would be… not fun

            • Dharma Curious (he/him)@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              There’s a principle, I can’t remember the name of it, but basically it goes that the universe exists in such a way as to support life, because if it didn’t, there would be no one around to discuss the ways in which the universe might have formed. Which is to say, while it’s all good to contemplate a different set of physical laws in which we could not exist, we cannot use the condition of our existing as proof that the universe must allow us to exist. Any universe in which an observer exists is necessarily a universe in which an observercould exist. We will only ever get to observe that which allows our existence.

              It’s mainly used, to my knowledge, to attempt to dissuade the religious of ideas of a creator deity.

              But I think here it has another application. If false vacuum decay happens, and all of everything just goes poof, that’s not interesting. There will be no observer, no one to mark it, no one to study it. On top of that, no one to even know there was once someone. Who knows, maybe it’s happened hundreds of trillions of times, maybe infinite times, maybe once, maybe never. Either way, we, and anyone else out there, will have no way of knowing, or remembering, or anything else. So it’s not interesting. There’s nothing of value to be learned, because there’s no way to use the knowledge to do anything.

              But contemplating the ways in which it could happen and we could survive? Suddenly a new set of physical laws govern us? Different, but just similar enough that we don’t explode, implode, or just dissipate into component atoms (if atoms still exist!)? That’s interesting! That’s worth contemplation and thought! At the very least it’s worth a damn fine dime store paperback sci Fi novel!

              Let’s do something interesting here! What’s your wish list for a change in our physical laws that still allows our existence? I went utopian, ftl space flight, nothing else changes. But maybe it’s some mad max universe now? Maybe it changes our physical structure enough that we’re all cronenberg monsters limping our way through the universe in tiny, slapped together vessels that we put together as we saw what was approaching on the horizon of the observable universe, and in the new laws planets can’t form? Searching, seeking, viciously lonely abominations, wandering a void unlike anything we’ve ever experienced?

              Maybe the only change is that idiots stop voting and wealth disparity disappears somewhere. Be adventurous! Be the change you hope the decay will bring!

              • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                22 hours ago

                There’s a principle, I can’t remember the name of it, but basically it goes that the universe exists in such a way as to support life, because if it didn’t, there would be no one around to discuss the ways in which the universe might have formed.

                The Anthropic Principle. It’s a mind-bender, especially because it’s fundamentally unfalsifiable.

  • ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    If our particular bubble of the universe has remained unmolested for 13.8 billion years, it is safe to assume it will continue to be for the next 1000 years.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      24 hours ago

      Also it’s not like assuming it will collapse in the next decade will make any difference other than having a harder time enjoying the time before then.

    • markinov@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      i don’t know quantum mechanics or much about particles. I watched a video on False vacuum decay, and it says if higgs change state it might change the laws of physics

      So can’t it be that the universe had change of states of other particles maybe in past (billions year before life) that changed the laws of physics and so on.

    • BellaDonna@mujico.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Until we build a particle accelerator that does something novel that even the rest of the universe never managed to do

    • jabathekek@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’d much prefer death by a solar system wide tsunami of highly energetic particles then the slow, agonizing death march we’re currently doing.

      • metaStatic@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        I was gonna say it might be worse if you’re on the opposite side of the planet that gets hit but I’ll give you that one.

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 days ago

    I believe that it is possible that false vacuum decay has already begun, but so far away that it might not ever reach us.

      • ace_garp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        He is exceptional at writing hard sci-fi that unnerves you.

        I’m moderately certain, whichever future timeline we move to, there will be aspects of Egan’s works.

        Modern day Jules Verne, recommended to read at least one book of his.