Given that empirical science cannot ever conclusively prove anything, you may never find a physicist to tell you that it isn’t possible. But there’s no reason to think that it is possible. Compare to Russell’s Teapot.
Regarding your argument about probabilities—yes, the probability of an omnipotent god is necessarily smaller than that of any infinite source of energy (although it’s not a product—that’s just true for independent events). However I was not only talking about omnipotent gods, and anyway this probabilistic reasoning is the wrong way to think about this. When you do it, you get things like Pascal’s wager (or Pascal’s mugging, have your pick).
Given that empirical science cannot ever conclusively prove anything, you may never find a physicist to tell you that it isn’t possible. But there’s no reason to think that it is possible. Compare to Russell’s Teapot.
We don’t know whether this is possible. You are the only one to make the choice between:
so we shouldn’t try to find out
so we should try to find out
Pascal’s wager and oppotunity cost madness ensues thereafter. However, maybe I’m blindspotted, but I can’t find a better topic to bet on—would solve all problems solvable with resources.
I don’t think I can find a non-emotional way to convince people to switch from we should not search to we should search (for infinite energy).
Addressing rationally (but it’s not clear how reason can change values/emotions) :
there’s a big difference in the impact of Russel’s teapot and infinite energy. One is irrelevant, the other is extremely relevant
2000 years ago, there was no reason to think that it would be possible to get to the moon or have mobile phones. The universe isn’t obliged to respect human intuitions.
True, there’s at this point no clear reason to think this is possible
well except energy possibly not being conserved in general relativity—I can’t tell if there’s a consensus on this topic or not at this point—crazy!
Also, fundamentally because something exists (rather than nothing), some hope exists that there’s arbitrarily more of this “something”. Why would existence necesarily be constrained to a finite quantity?
However, the impact of infinite energy, to me, seems high enough to require some serious research on the topic. The current times also leave a lot of gaps, where we can try to find infinite energy:
quantum mechanics and relativity are incompatible with each other
relativity itself is failing (dark energy vs dark matter clearly show we don’t understand what happens in ~95% of the universe). Dark matter can explain some things but not others, modified gravity explains others, but not some.
the big bang at t=0 possibly violates conservation of energy
Comparison to Pascal’s wager is an interesting point. Sounds like it makes sense to some extent. I am not 100% certain though that the one could fundamentally boil down the infinite energy problem to Pascal’s wager, because:
I am not certain if we can even talk about
how many gods there are
and how compatible they are with one another
how many of them could be real at the same time
whereas science pretty much converged on very few ways to look at the world
and especially on the concept of energy—it is present in all the major theories of physics (at least to my knowledge)
So in a way, the infinite energy idea is at the very least more like a Pascal’s wager, where there seem to be far fewer gods.
But ultimately, this is an emotional issue. It is very similar to climate change in this regard, just more abstract, further away, and with higher payoffs.
Given that empirical science cannot ever conclusively prove anything, you may never find a physicist to tell you that it isn’t possible. But there’s no reason to think that it is possible. Compare to Russell’s Teapot.
Regarding your argument about probabilities—yes, the probability of an omnipotent god is necessarily smaller than that of any infinite source of energy (although it’s not a product—that’s just true for independent events). However I was not only talking about omnipotent gods, and anyway this probabilistic reasoning is the wrong way to think about this. When you do it, you get things like Pascal’s wager (or Pascal’s mugging, have your pick).
Hi Guy,
Thanks for your answer.
We don’t know whether this is possible. You are the only one to make the choice between:
so we shouldn’t try to find out
so we should try to find out
Pascal’s wager and oppotunity cost madness ensues thereafter. However, maybe I’m blindspotted, but I can’t find a better topic to bet on—would solve all problems solvable with resources.
I don’t think I can find a non-emotional way to convince people to switch from
we should not searchtowe should search(for infinite energy).Addressing rationally (but it’s not clear how reason can change values/emotions) :
there’s a big difference in the impact of Russel’s teapot and infinite energy. One is irrelevant, the other is extremely relevant
2000 years ago, there was no reason to think that it would be possible to get to the moon or have mobile phones. The universe isn’t obliged to respect human intuitions.
True, there’s at this point no clear reason to think this is possible
well except energy possibly not being conserved in general relativity—I can’t tell if there’s a consensus on this topic or not at this point—crazy!
Also, fundamentally because something exists (rather than nothing), some hope exists that there’s arbitrarily more of this “something”. Why would existence necesarily be constrained to a finite quantity?
However, the impact of infinite energy, to me, seems high enough to require some serious research on the topic. The current times also leave a lot of gaps, where we can try to find infinite energy:
quantum mechanics and relativity are incompatible with each other
relativity itself is failing (dark energy vs dark matter clearly show we don’t understand what happens in ~95% of the universe). Dark matter can explain some things but not others, modified gravity explains others, but not some.
the big bang at t=0 possibly violates conservation of energy
Comparison to Pascal’s wager is an interesting point. Sounds like it makes sense to some extent. I am not 100% certain though that the one could fundamentally boil down the infinite energy problem to Pascal’s wager, because:
I am not certain if we can even talk about
how many gods there are
and how compatible they are with one another
how many of them could be real at the same time
whereas science pretty much converged on very few ways to look at the world
and especially on the concept of energy—it is present in all the major theories of physics (at least to my knowledge)
So in a way, the infinite energy idea is at the very least more like a Pascal’s wager, where there seem to be far fewer gods.
But ultimately, this is an emotional issue. It is very similar to climate change in this regard, just more abstract, further away, and with higher payoffs.