The Law of Entropy and Complications for Consciousness
I laid the groundwork for how transhumanism via A.I. will not solve the problem of bias; for how an ex-biological human digitally uploaded consciousness — is it still human — will still have limitations and therefore err; for how after death consciousness is a scientific data point from which to debate and theorize; and for how the World Economic Forum wants to eugenocide biological humanity. With this data laid out, let’s do a very short foray into why prolonging consciousness in this world, in this cosmos, is ultimately an act of futility. We will then, in the next article in this series, investigate components that typically go into ideas of afterlife as religiously and traditionally understood. The 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics state:
A few scientific points to put out there — in a very rudimentary way. The universe or cosmos is considered a closed system. This means there is nothing coming in from the outside, no energy input can be expected. Recall that this fits with how the scientific method assumes methodological naturalism in its development; it is a control on the experiment contours. The physics of the quantum realm are generally characterized as one of chaos, a realm in which logical or discernable order is difficult or impossible. The two laws of thermodynamics, when applied to the universe as a closed system, results in the well-known scientific conclusion of the ‘Heat death (deprivation) of the Universe.’ At some hellish point in the future, all energy will have been transferred from orderly to disorderly, and the entropy of the universe will be maxed out.
There will be no life, A.I., digital, or otherwise because all things require energy. The destiny of the universe (as a closed system) is death, utter futility, emptiness, a frozen abyss populated by the death of all things.
This is the context of prolonging consciousness in this world. The other naturalistic alternative for the closed system we call the cosmos would be that the universe ceases to expand, collapses in on itself, destroying all that was, and then re-exploding in a new big bang. Strictly speaking, this is highly theoretical and puts the continuity of this universe in the realm of mystery since investigating the original big bang along naturalist lines is unhelpful and generates more questions than answers. Most religions on the planet have a creation myth, mostly because one of the tasks of religion is to answer the big questions of existence. We translate that into the scientific talk here: religions generally agree that the universe is not a closed system, and its origin came from the “outside” and that its destiny resides in realizing this trans-dimensional bridge.
The World Economic Forum’s notions of transhumanism imply they intend to digitize human consciousness as a kind of consciousness prolonger. Although I contend the WEF’s transhumanism is intent on advancing themselves as little ‘g’ gods, digitally granting themselves false eternal life through abandoning their biology, it is nevertheless resoundingly naturalistic, likely functioning on metaphysical naturalism (that the natural world is all there is) but not naturalistic materialism (because the WEF believes consciousness is not identical with the material brain). This is decided logical if you are the WEF or a metaphysical naturalist because you believe, “who cares if the universe ultimately dies in the future, I’ll be dead in 50 – 100 years, and I will cease to exist. At least if I go digital, I can prolong some measure of existence for however long is possible.” Zoom out though and we see that prolonging consciousness with whatever temporary meaning that has will be consumed by the death of the universe and all meaning made vacuous by the lack of any mind or consciousness to give it standing or continuity. It is messed up that Scripture can speak of all this in such a dismissive and decisive way:
The WEF faces the prospect of oblivion; its answer is extending consciousness in a realm destined for death. Might it be easier to reject naturalism? The adage, “better to rule in hell than serve in heaven,” comes powerfully to mind. Is death the destiny of all things? Is it really the god humanity should be worshipping, the end all roads lead to, the inevitability no one can escape? The WEF might run from death, but death will haunt their steps, demanding it sacrifices, its homage, which will be paid by all things when death’s domain is absolute, when entropy reigns supreme. Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.