Why Don't We Live Forever?

[ST88]

Why don't we live forever?

Further, should the question be framed as metaphysical or scientific?

[mrmufin]

Why don't we live forever?

Wouldn't that result in the unemployment of a whole bunch of history teachers?

Not enough space, too little food, but plenty of time to learn to play the cello.

If everyone lived forever would murder become impossible?

Heck, I wouldn't mind living forever as long as my body didn't get any older, and it would be a really sweet deal if I could still retire at 65...

Further, should the question be framed as metaphysical or scientific?

Yes.

Regards,
mrmufin

[Corvus]

Why don't we live forever?

Metaphysically speaking, I am going to allow Andre Gide to speak for me:

Nathaniel, I must speak to you of moments. Do you realise the power of their presence? A not sufficiently constant thought of death has given an insufficient value to the tiniest moment of your life. Don’t you understand that the moment would not take on such incomparable vividness, if it were not thrown up, so to speak, on the dark background of death?
I should make no further attempt to do anything at all, if I were told, if it were proved to me that I had unlimited time to do it in. I should begin by resting from the effort of making up my mind to do something, if I had time enough to do everything else as well. I should always do no matter what, if I did not know there was an end to this form of life – and that when I have lived it out, I shall rest in a sleep a little deeper, a little more forgetful than the one I look forward to every night…


...


Our acts are attached to us as its glimmer is to phosphorous. They consume us, it is true, but they make our splendour.
And if our souls have been of any worth, it is because they have burned more ardently than others.


...


Everything comes at its own hour, Nathaniel; everything is born of its need and is merely, so to speak, the outward expression of a need.
‘I needed lungs,’ said the tree, ‘and my sap turned to leaves so that I might breathe. Then when I had breathed, my leaves fell and I did not die. My fruit contains all my thoughts life.’
Don’t be afraid, Nathaniel, that I shall overdo this form of apologue, for I don’t much approve of it. The only wisdom I want to teach you is life. For thinking is a heavy burden. I exhausted myself when I was young by following the results of actions as far as I could into the future, and I was never sure of not sinning save by not acting.
Then I wrote: ‘I owed the health of my body to the irremediable poisoning of my soul.’ Then I ceased to understand what I have meant by this.
Nathaniel, I no longer believe in sin.
Andre Gide, Fruits of the Earth.


Scientifically speaking, we could probably say that we owe the length of our lives to the fitness of the materials used in its construction, and life is a makeshift thing.

[otseng]

Why don't we live forever?

Further, should the question be framed as metaphysical or scientific?

The laws of thermodynamics constrains any system from existing forever. So, scientifically speaking, nothing can exist forever.

One question I'd like to add is, "Why do men have a desire for immortality?" If it's not scientifically possible, why do people seem to innately have a desire for it?

[Piper Plexed]

Why don't we live forever?

Further, should the question be framed as metaphysical or scientific?

The laws of thermodynamics constrains any system from existing forever. So, scientifically speaking, nothing can exist forever.

One question I'd like to add is, "Why do men have a desire for immortality?" If it's not scientifically possible, why do people seem to innately have a desire for it?

Otseng, I am curious, so I search, and find

First Law Of Thermodynamics


The first law of thermodynamics can be captured in the following equation, which states that the energy of the universe is constant. Energy can be transferred from the system to its surroundings, or vice versa, but it can't be created or destroyed.

First Law of Thermodynamics:
Euniv = Esys + Esurr = 0

A more useful form of the first law describes how energy is conserved. It says that the change in the internal energy of a system is equal to the sum of the heat gained or lost by the system and the work done by or on the system.

First Law of Thermodynamics:
Esys = q + w

If anything to me it would support perpetual existance. Since the human Body has the ability to reproduce elements necessary for the continuation of life then why would we in light of the laws of thermodyanmics cease to exist. As St88 already knows, yes my answer is metaphysical and much to his dismay leads me to my percertion of heaven OK now all attack! :nervious:

[ST88]

The laws of thermodynamics constrains any system from existing forever. So, scientifically speaking, nothing can exist forever.

Ms. Plexed beat me to this answer. If the Universe is a closed system that was started with a burst of energy, then the laws of thermodynamics state that the energy would go on forever either in the form of motion or heat. The loss of energy through friction in a system only applies if there is matter outside the system that can absorb the energy. As per our current understanding of the universe, there is nothing outside it, so even if there is a Big Crunch, the energy will not "dissipate" into anything else.

This isn't to say that the Earth or even the sun will go on forever, but the energy will.

[otseng]

I do not say that matter/energy will cease to exist.

Anytime that work is done, entropy will increase. That is, the amount of usable energy will decrease. Eventually, given enough time, the amount of usable energy will be 0. Matter and energy will still exist, but no usable energy will exist. Everything will have a constant temperature. Then the universe will be in this uniform condition in which no work can be performed. So, I should clarify myself. Energy/matter can exist forever, but any system that can do any work cannot exist forever (including life).

[ST88]

Anytime that work is done, entropy will increase. That is, the amount of usable energy will decrease. Eventually, given enough time, the amount of usable energy will be 0. Matter and energy will still exist, but no usable energy will exist. Everything will have a constant temperature. Then the universe will be in this uniform condition in which no work can be performed. So, I should clarify myself. Energy/matter can exist forever, but any system that can do any work cannot exist forever (including life).

Ok, entropy. The problem with entropy is that the only force that act on its behalf is heat. As far as I remember, entropy says that all things tend toward dissolution or chaos. The random theory of particle movement says that my computer will disintegrate randomly, and then at some point in the infinite future, will randomly, spontaneously form itself again. But entropy states that the disintegration is permanent, which is much more reasonable.

However, in order for entropy to completely shut down a system as large as the universe, a steady-state suspension must be achieved in which all like particles are equidistant from one another, and all other particles are that much further or closer to each other depending on their atomic weight. In a system to which friction applies, the particles necessarily slow down and eventually stop.

Entropy, however, only applies on an atomic level. The laws of thermodynamics are atomic laws, not sub-atomic laws. In the universe, matter can never actually stop, because something else is always moving. Or, if it is not moving, it is at least bending the gravity fields of space, creating attraction. If a universe is completely dead, it would have to be matterless, otherwise gravity, electromagnetism, or either of the nuclear forces would pull the particles towards each other.

There is nothing in entropy which says that these four basic forces of nature will cease to exist. The weak nuclear force that binds quarks and leptons will not stop -- will never stop, and electrons that manage to radiate away from nuclei will never stand still in relation to other particles around it. Not only that, but the strong nuclear force increases as free quarks become farther apart, effectively binding them, meaning that these particles will never allow matter to become perfectly suspended, and will therefore continue motion in perpetuity.

The second law of thermodynamics implies that the universe cannot expand forever -- the initial burst of energy from which it sprung was necessarily not infinite and so the outward movement from it is not necessarily infinite. If the universe cannot expand indefinitely, this means that it must have a critical mass and contain all the energy and matter that there ever was. Such a structure would necessarily not die because of the reasons Ms. Plexed described above.

Further, remember that heat is merely the measurement of the amount of atomic energy in a system. Entropy would not be able to dissolve everything into a suspension because of the quantum laws of subatomic particle motion. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that energy from the sub-atomic level is always occuring until we look for it. That is, we can take the temperature of a system on the atomic level, the thermodynamic properties, and come up with a reasonable estimate. But we can't take the "temperature" of a sub-atomic system because by looking we will have changed the system. Because the sub-atomic world is always in motion, regardless of the energy transfer of the atoms which it comprises, the atoms will always have some sort of intrinsic motion independent of interaction between it and other atoms. It will therefore always be acted upon by the other forces, like gravity and electromagnetism, to make a dead universe impossible.

But assume for the moment that the universe can violate the second law of thermodynamics and expand forever. This is the only way that the universe will dissolve into an entropic paint bucket of suspension, because the energy required would necessarily be infinite, removing it from everything and giving it to everything else in equal amounts such that movement is effectively ceased. But if an infinite universe can violate the second law of thermodynamics, what's to say that the second law of thermodynamics even applies in an infinite universe? If the universe were to expand infinitely, then it would require an infinite amount of mass and energy, which would have to come from somewhere, increasing the amount of energy available to the system and keeping it alive in perpetuity.

[otseng]

However, in order for entropy to completely shut down a system as large as the universe, a steady-state suspension must be achieved in which all like particles are equidistant from one another, and all other particles are that much further or closer to each other depending on their atomic weight. In a system to which friction applies, the particles necessarily slow down and eventually stop.

I agree that the universe taken as a system can exist forever.

Looking at the question again, I had assumed that "we" meant human beings. Is that a correct assumption? If so, I again assume that we can all agree that, scientifically speaking, human beings (even as a species) cannot live forever. Now, metaphysically speaking, that would be a different matter.

[ST88]

I agree that the universe taken as a system can exist forever.

Looking at the question again, I had assumed that "we" meant human beings. Is that a correct assumption? If so, I again assume that we can all agree that, scientifically speaking, human beings (even as a species) cannot live forever. Now, metaphysically speaking, that would be a different matter.

But if the universe can never really run out of energy, why then must we? Theoretically, with an infinite supply of water, food, and air, we should be able to to live infinitely. Yet we age and die.

Prokaryotic organisms (like bacteria) do not behave this way. In fact, age is difficult to discern because prokaryotes reproduce by dividing into separate individuals. However, the energy from the original cell is never lost unless some outside force acts on it.

You can keep a bacterial culture growing indefinitely if you provide it with the nutrients and conditions it needs. However, if the culture is growing in a closed environment, eventually their own waste will build up, poisoning them, and nutrients will run out because of the sheer numbers.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00280.htm

However, eukaryotic organisms (such as we) die. Whether it is programmed obsolescence or planned error in genetic replication may be part of the answer to this question.

It is possible, for example, that in order for natural selection to work, that is, adaptation to new environments, organisms must die at regular intervals while their offspring -- the bearers of new benign mutations -- may live on. If the original organisms did not die, they might crowd out the offspring so much so that if a sudden shift in the environment occurred, there would be no mutated individuals to take advantage of it, and the species would die off due to the shift.