GENIUS FORUMS

Anyone who has studied economics should be familiar with the law of Diminishing returns. And I think most people who encounter this concept for the first time usually try to understand it by reflecting on Agriculture, which is the roots that sustain civilization.

Immediately, upon considering such things, the question should arise: "Can we engineer an agriculture system whose output does not gradually diminish and whose inputs do not gradually diminish? Can't we engineer a system that sustains itself perfectly, or even improves?"

In other words, if agriculture is a grazing beast - must this beast gradually consume finite inputs faster than the inputs can be regenerated? After all, our system of agriculture is a child we gave birth to. And who are we? We are lunatics. Therefore, our child is likewise a wanton lunatic - because the child mirrors the parent.

And isn't that the current state of affairs? Isn't it true that we have given birth to a beast that consumes energy faster than can be sustained? And isn't that because we gave birth to something which is mirroring us?

Surely to God any reasonable fellow will optimistically assert: "We can be better parents. A balance can be established by limiting the population, improving our agriculture awareness techniques, improving our technology, by genetically engineering our species to require less food (and to have the sophistication not to be gluttons), and by genetically engineering our crops to perform more efficiently.

So it would appear as if it is possible to conquer the dreaded law of diminishing returns.

Ah, but hold on.

The sun doesn't appear as if it's going to last forever. Even if we manage to strike a perfect balance between our biological demands, and the demands of our agricultural system - we are still a slave to the law of diminishing returns. After all, the sun, being the beast it is, is eventually going to consume all of it's available food. And so the sun must die. But must we die with it?

Surely to God any reasonable fellow will optimistically assert: "In the ten billion years it will take for the sun to die, by then we will have migrated to new stars"

Again, it would appear that the law of diminishing returns can be overcome.

But hold on,

All stars must die. It will take hundreds, maybe thousands of billions of years - but our stars will run down. The law of diminishing returns can't be conquered. Or can it?

Well, an optimistic fellow will tell you - there is more than just this mere Galaxy.

And by then, we will have achieved immortality.

And perhaps because of this immortality, entities of consciousness will fill an entire galaxy.

And with all of that space to conquer, why not allow such a population to double every hundred years? There's plenty of room. We can fill up galaxies.

Cory Duchesne wrote:After all, our system of agriculture is a child we gave birth to. And who are we? We are lunatics. Therefore, our child is likewise a wanton lunatic - because the child mirrors the parent.

Picture of Cory

Cory,

Yes, I agree that humanity should be able to get its act together through increased rational behavior, combined with enhanced technology to achieve a more sustainable balance with the cosmos.

However, remember that documentary that illustrates how there is an anti-gravitational force pulling the universe apart? And remember how the anti-grativiational force has actually overcome the gravitational force that has been keeping galaxies together? If this is true, then perhaps you are correct that sentience will eventually conquer parts of the entire universe, but only to have the entire totality freeze up as galaxies get ripped apart.

Moreover, we may develop such sophisticated technology that sentience will be able to live in an environment devoid of the classic star/planet duo, so perhaps sentience will be able to overcome the degeneration of the cosmos… who knows.

It is all speculation of course, On the other hand, perhaps someday all that will exist in the cosmos is burnt out stars, frozen planets, huge mounds of garbage from sentience hurtling through space, and reruns of I Love Lucy that can only be picked up by outdated telecom receivers…

Moreover, we may develop such sophisticated technology that sentience will be able to live in an environment devoid of the classic star/planet duo, so perhaps sentience will be able to overcome the degeneration of the cosmos… who knows.

Perhaps good ol' jesus believed in that as well. This doc possibly reflects Jesus's imaginations about the "heavens" better than the bible does - not that I understand any of it.

http://gnosis.org/library/pistis-sophia/ps005.htm

I read CHAPTER 102 of the above document first, and though "Hey, this is OK", but then I went to the beginning and found out this was not so.

Well yes, galaxies shouldn't be exempt from the laws of diminishing returns. Just like stars, galaxies too should run down.

However, in billions of years - who knows how powerful sentience might become.

It could be so powerful that it could harvest stars, much like we grow crops here on earth. We could build new stars out of interstellar gas. There may be some way to reverse entropy. But would we be merely prolonging an inevitable death?

Can entropy be perpetually conquered, for infinity?

I think this really will turn out to be the most enduring and important of all empirical questions. Humanity should cherish this question more and more as it ages.

After ten trillion years, man might become so conscious that each entity will probably lose his individual mental identity. The universe may be so networked, that it may in effect become a true conscious God with the power to create an entirely new universe for itself. Let their be light!

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:After all, our system of agriculture is a child we gave birth to. And who are we? We are lunatics. Therefore, our child is likewise a wanton lunatic - because the child mirrors the parent.

Picture of Cory

Hahaha

It could be so powerful that it could harvest stars, much like we grow crops here on earth. We could build new stars out of interstellar gas. There may be some way to reverse entropy. But would we be merely prolonging an inevitable death? Can entropy be perpetually conquered, for infinity? I think this really will turn out to be the most enduring and important of all empirical questions. Humanity should cherish this question more and more as it ages. After ten trillion years, man might become so conscious that each entity will probably lose his individual mental identity. The universe may be so networked, that it may in effect become a true conscious God with the power to create an entirely new universe for itself. Let their be light!

Throughout the course of the constant trillion year battle against entropy, humanity will perpetually stay motivated by Rick Roll.

An unwitting messiah.

Unwitting? I believe Rick Roll knew his special destiny - he sensed the intimate relationship he would have with humanity for trillions of years to come. Such was his greatness.

Cory, have you read The Last Question by Isaac Asimov? I highly recommend it. There's a lot of similarities between that short story and what you've written here.

Also reminds me of Dyson spheres.

Jason wrote:Cory, have you read The Last Question by Isaac Asimov? I highly recommend it.

Thanks for the link - amazing story. A guy I used to meet up was an Asimov enthusiast, and he told me that story, urging me to read more Asimov. John Horgan also mentioned something about how the destiny of humanity may be to unify the entire universe into a single omnipotent consciousness, which may have the power to create a new world. It wasn't until I started thinking about the problem of entropy and diminishing returns (a few days ago) that I realized how epic of a problem it is. It's an empirical problem, and humanity should always cherish it as one of it's most valuable possessions.

Cory wrote:

Throughout the course of the constant trillion year battle against entropy, humanity will perpetually stay motivated by Rick Roll.

haha, yeah Rick Roll should be nominated universally as the cosmic mascot of cheese…. And it is eerie just how catchy and memorizing cheese can be….

In his tight buttomed up denim shirt, and high riding denim pants, with the oversized shades, with his two step sway motion and his double arm roll move…. there is something that keeps you watching the video over and over…. some mysterious force… some force that perhaps will never be fully understood….

That is another age old empirical problem that humanity should treasure – a question for David or Kevin – what keeps you watching the Rick Roll video even after you thoroughly understand how cheesy it is?

It wasn't until I started thinking about the problem of entropy and diminishing returns (a few days ago) that I realized how epic of a problem it is. It's an empirical problem, and humanity should always cherish it as one of it's most valuable possessions

.

Yes, it is the law of entropy and diminishing returns that creates a challenging world… I’m reminded by the Movie, “The Matrix” that stated, ‘that if humans are given an ideal utopia where there is nothing to do, no problems to solve, and no way to improve, then humans simply wouldn’t accept the design…

There is something elegant about the world of causality, as it creates empirical problems, moral problems, and challenges in general…and its pressures push humanity in a more intelligent direction…

Metaphorically, The law of diminishing returns reminds me of an all-pervasive and consistent Tsunami in all empirical fields that puts continual pressure on ships to find creative paths out of the storm/danger, and many ships are swallowed, but the lessons learned from those ships are passed on to the next generation.

The problem with consciousness most of us don’t fully understand our empirical past in great detail, as in how (all the experiments necessary) did humans progress from early hominids rolling a rock down a cave to the current civilization with electricity, transistors, the internet, and all the rest of it.

A goal of future consciousness should be to use technology to enhance our ability of understanding applied science in more detail.