# 1 Knowledge Decreases with Time

## 1 Knowledge Decreases with Time

George Orwell wrote, “To see what is in front of one’s nose requires a constant struggle.” If the universe is dominated by a cosmological constant this will become more true, with a vengeance, as time proceeds.

The observable universe is remarkably homogeneous and isotropic on large scales. These properties enable us to parametrize the evolution of the universe’s large scale geometry in terms of one spatially homogeneous function of time, the scale factor $`a(t)`$. The observed expansion of the universe can be understood as the increase in $`a(t)`$. For objects comoving with this expansion, $`a(t)`$ describes how the distance between them changes. The evolution of the scale factor is given by the Einstein field equation appropriate for our very symmetric universe, the Lemaitre-Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (LFRW) equation:

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{k}{a^2}=\frac{8\pi G\rho }{3}.$$
(1)   
Here $`G`$ is Newton’s constant, $`\rho `$ is the energy density, and $`k`$ measures the curvature of space. The expansion history $`a(t)`$ depends strongly on: (1) the sign of $`k`$; (2) the dependence of $`\rho `$ on $`a`$, in particular the $`a`$-dependence of the most slowly varying component of the density. For all known equations-of-state, the time derivatives of $`\rho `$ and $`a`$ have the same sign.

If the universe becomes dominated by a constant positive energy density $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}`$, then the evolution of the metric quickly approaches that associated with a flat ($`k=0`$) Einstein-de Sitter universe, in which

$$a(t)=a(t_o)e^{\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}(tt_o)}.$$
(2)   
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is called the cosmological-constant, and $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ may be interpreted as the intrinsic energy density associated with the vacuum.

From equation (2), a point initially a distance $`d`$ away from an observer in such a universe will be carried away by the cosmic expansion at a velocity

$$\dot{d}=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}d.$$
(3)   
Equating this recession velocity to the speed of light $`c`$, one finds the physical distance to the so-called de Sitter horizon as measured by a network of observers comoving with the expansion. This horizon, is a sphere enclosing a region, outside of which no new information can reach the observer at the center, and across which the outward de Sitter expansion carries material. Each observer has such a horizon sphere centered on them. Similarly, any signal we send out today will never reach objects currently located distances further than the horizon distance. Moreover, this distance may be comparable to the current observable region of the universe. If we accept a cosmological constant of the magnitude suggested by the current data, then $`\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }6\times 10^{30}`$gm/cm<sup>3</sup> and the distance to the horizon is approximately $`R_H1.7\times 10^{26}\mathrm{m}18`$ billion light years.

While the effects of the de Sitter horizon are not yet directly discernible, this result suggests that they will be seen on a time-scale comparable to the present age of the universe. As objects approach the horizon, the time (as measured by the clocks of the comoving observers) between the emission of light and its reception on Earth grows exponentially. As the light travels from its source to the observer, its wavelength is stretched in proportion to the growth in $`a(t)`$. Objects therefore appear exponentially redshifted as they approach the horizon. Finally, their apparent brightness declines exponentially, so that the distance of the objects inferred by an observer increases exponentially. While it strictly takes an infinite amount of time for the observer to completely lose causal contact with these receding objects, distant stars, galaxies, and all radiation backgrounds from the Big Bang will effectively “blink” out of existence in a finite time – as their signals redshift, the time scale for detecting these signals becomes comparable to the age of the universe, as we describe below.

Eventually all objects not decoupled from the background expansion, i.e. those objects not bound to the local supercluster, will disappear in this fashion. The time-scale for this disappearance is surprisingly short. We can estimate it by taking a radius of $`R_{SC}=10`$ Megaparsecs (about $`3\times 10^7`$ light years, $`3\times 10^{22}`$m) as the extent of the local supercluster of galaxies – the largest observed structure of which we are a part. Objects further than this distance now will reach an apparent distance $`R_H`$ in a time given by

$$\frac{R_H}{R_{SC}}\frac{1.7\times 10^{26}m}{3\times 10^{22}m}5\times 10^3=\mathrm{exp}\left[\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}t\right].$$
(4)   
Thus, in roughly 150 billion years light from all objects outside our local supercluster will have redshifted by more than a factor of $`5000`$, with each successive 150 billion years bringing an equal redshift factor. In a little more than two trillion years, all extra-supercluster objects will have redshifted by a factor of more than $`10^{53}`$. Even for the highest energy gamma rays, a redshift of $`10^{53}`$ stretches their wavelength to greater than the physical diameter of the horizon. (There is no contradiction here. From the point of view of a comoving observer, the horizon appears infinitely far away. Infinitely large redshift means that objects possessing such redshifts will have expanded infinitely far away by the time their light arrives at the observer.) The resolution time for such radiation will exceed the physical age of the universe.

This time-scale is remarkably short, at least compared to the times we shall shortly discuss. It implies that when the universe is less than two-hundred times its present age, comparable to the lifetime of very low mass stars, any remaining intelligent life will no longer be able to obtain new empirical data on the state of large scale structure on scales we can now observe. Moreover, if today $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ contributes $`70\%`$ of the total energy density of a flat ($`k=0`$) universe, then the universe became $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated at about 1/2 its present age. The “in principle” observable region of the Universe has been shrinking ever since. This loss of content of the observable universe has not yet become detectable, but it soon will. Objects more distant than the de Sitter horizon now will forever remain unobservable. On the bright side for astronomers, funding priorities for cosmological observations will become exponentially more important as time goes on.

## 2 The Recoverable Energy Content of the Observable Universe

As we shall discuss, it will be crucial for the continued existence of life for the recoverable energy in the universe to be maximized. If the universe is dominated by a cosmological constant, then although the volume of the universe may be infinite the amount of energy available to any civilization, like the amount of information, is limited to at most what is currently observable, and so is finite. But what if the cosmological constant is instead zero, or time varying, so that it does not ultimately dominate the energy density of the Universe?

Suppose that at very late times in the history of the universe, the dominant form of energy density $`\rho _{dom}`$ scales with the expansion as $`a^{n_{dom}}`$, with $`n_{dom}>0`$ (if $`n_{dom}=0`$, then the universe is cosmological constant-dominated). Equation (1) can then be solved for the evolution of the scale factor — $`at^{2/n_{dom}}`$. If $`n_{dom}<2`$, then the expansion is accelerating and, as in the case of a cosmological constant dominated universe, one is forever limited to the energy and information content of a finite subvolume of the universe. If on the other hand $`n_{dom}2`$, then the total energy that can eventually be contained within the causal horizon may be infinite.

Knowing that there are infinite energy reserves ultimately containable within the (ever growing) causal horizon is not enough. One must be able to recover the energy to use it! Can a single civilization recover an infinite amount of energy given an infinite amount of time in an expanding universe? The answer, as we now show, appears to be no.

Suppose that intelligent life-forms in the universe seeking to fuel their civilization construct machines to prospect and mine the universe for energy. The energy source they seek to collect may or may not be the dominant energy density of the universe, so its energy density $`\rho _{coll}`$ can scale as $`a^{n_{coll}}`$, with $`n_{coll}n_{dom}`$. To compete with the decreasing energy density, the number $`N`$ of such machines may be increased, so at some late time in history let $`Nt^b`$. The mass $`M`$ of each machine may also be changed, so that $`Mt^c`$. The total collected energy will therefore depend on the efficacy $``$ of each machine, the physical volume per unit time per unit machine mass from which the machine is able to extract energy. Suppose this scales as $`t^d`$ at late times. We allow all the energy recovered to be funneled into the construction of mining machines, and ignore the ongoing energy expenditures to run the machines. Clearly, this is overly optimistic. However, we will find insurmountable difficulties even ignoring this inevitable energy sink.

The most optimistic rate of energy recovery is therefore

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=NM\rho t^{b+c+d2n_{coll}/n_{dom}},$$
(5)   
while the rate of growth of the total mass of the machines is

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(NM\right)(b+c)t^{b+c1}.$$
(6)   
Since the total machine mass can ultimately grow no faster than the total recovered energy, we must have either

$$d2\frac{n_{coll}}{n_{dom}}11\mathrm{o}rb+c<0$$
(7)   
to be able to maintain indefinitely this rate of energy recovery. If $`d2\frac{n_{coll}}{n_{dom}}1`$, then an infinite amount of energy can be collected. However, if $`d<2n_{coll}/n_{dom}1`$, so that $`b+c0`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }t^p`$, with $`p<1`$, and the total recovered energy will be finite. The crucial question is therefore: how fast can the efficacy $``$ grow? The answer depends on the type of energy density that one is collecting.

### 2.1 Prospecting for Matter

First, let us consider prospecting for non-relativistic matter ($`n_{coll}=3`$). Because the matter is effectively at rest, the prospector must bring the matter into the system. If the prospector makes use only of short range forces (those which fall faster than the square of the distance to the machine), then the prospected volume per unit mass per unit time will saturate, $`d0`$. The total recovered energy will be finite.

The prospecting machine would therefore need to use a long range force to continuously increase its sphere of influence as the universe expands. The available long range forces (gravity and electromagnetism) fall off as the inverse square of the distance, but grow linearly as the mass (or charge) of the machine. Using gravity is a more optimistic option, since the Coulomb force can screened by negative charges. We therefore consider a massive prospecting machine. Particles at rest with respect to the comoving expansion, if sufficiently close to such an object, will fall towards it.

Simple arguments based on the growth of structure imply that the volume of the sphere of influence of our mining machine cannot grow as fast as $`t`$ in an ever expanding universe. Indeed in an ever-expanding universe all objects have a finite ultimate sphere of gravitational influence. Consider a region that has a density $`\rho +\delta \rho `$ which exceeds the mean density $`\rho `$ of the universe. If the region is sufficiently large, gravity will cause the region to expand somewhat more slowly than the average. The over-density $`\delta \rho /\rho `$ of the region compared to the mean will increase. Once $`\delta \rho /\rho `$ approaches one, the region will decouple from the background expansion, grow slightly and then collapse.

Because there is a uniform background density of material, the gravitational effect of any local mass distribution becomes negligible as one goes to larger volumes – all objects are gravitationally influenced only by larger mass overdensities. For $`n_{dom}3`$ (e.g. curvature, radiation, or cosmological constant dominated), expansion eventually wins out over collapse on large scales, and structure formation ceases; the gravitationally accessible mass for our “machine” is therefore finite.

Only in a matter-dominated ($`n_{dom}=3`$) flat ($`k=0`$) universe, does structure continues to grow hierarchically. We do not appear to live in such a universe. Nevertheless, even in this case the gravitationally accessible mass appears to be finite, though the ultimate result of large scale structure formation would depend upon the spectrum of primordial density perturbations.

Primordial density perturbations could be absent on large scales, so that ever larger structures do not form. In this case the accessible $`n_{coll}=3`$ energy contained within the collapsed perturbations is clearly finite. Alternately, non-zero density fluctuations could continue to come inside the horizon indefinitely. In this case, structures on ever larger scales will continue to form. As described above, after entering the horizon, fluctuations will grow in size until $`\delta \rho /\rho 1`$. At this point they will decouple from the expansion and soon begin to recollapse. For the structures we currently observe, such as galaxies or cluster of galaxies, the recollapse has been (temporarily) halted by the internal pressure of the collapsing matter. This happened long before their average density exceeded the critical density of a black hole of that mass, $`\rho _{BH}=\frac{3c^2}{32\pi G_N^3M^2}`$. However, once the collapsing structures are sufficiently large and the collapsing matter is sufficiently cold, there is no known source of internal pressure to halt the collapse until after they have exceeded this critical density. Not only is the energy accessible to civilizations finite in such cases, but it all must ultimately end in the singularity inside a black hole. This is identical in detail with the ultimate fate of life in a collapsing universe. Thus, in a flat, matter dominated universe, life either is stranded on isolated islands of finite total energy, or is swept into a large black hole.

Hence, it appears that in any cosmological model, only a finite amount of $`n_{coll}=3`$ energy can be recovered by static machines.

### 2.2 Relativistic matter, and mobile mining machines

If the energy to be mined involves radiation, rather than matter, then $`n_{coll}=4`$. This applies to a uniform background of radiation, such as the Cosmic Microwave Background. If the source of such radiation lies instead in discrete concentrations of matter, then the preceding analysis applies, and only a finite total energy can be mined.

For the case of an $`n_{coll}=4`$, background, one must perform a different analysis. It is also worth recognizing that we can include here the special case in which we move mining machines to scoop up matter or energy. The case of a static detector intercepting radiation will be equivalent to a moving detector with $`v=c=`$constant, for example.

Imagine collectors of effective area $`A`$ intercepting the energy (with $`A`$ equal to the number of scattering centers times the cross section for scattering of each scattering center), so that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\rho NAv.$$
(8)   
At late times $`vt^e`$ with $`e0`$. (For a static detector receiving radiation with $`v=c`$, $`e=0`$.) Note that a moving machine will be slowed down as it sweeps up energy from the background, requiring a continuing input of energy into the machine. As the mass of the machine grows, the energy input required will also increase with time. We will ignore this need to input kinetic energy for the moment, as it is irrelevant for what turns out to be the optimal possibility: a static detector receiving radiation.

At first sight, it seems that the most efficient collectors would be black holes. As a black hole passes through the universe (or as radiation streams by the black hole), it effectively traps all material which falls within the disk spanned by its event horizon. The area of the black hole’s horizon scales as $`M_{BH}^2`$, so $`At^{2c}`$

Equivalently, we might optimistically consider investing collected photons in new collecting machines which might somehow coherently convert them into material particles. In this case, the cross section for these machines would grow as the square of the the number of material particles. (Note that this is the most optimistic assumption one can make.) In either case, we can then consider a rate of energy collection optimistically given by:

$$\frac{dE}{dt}=\gamma E^2t^{8/n_{dom}}$$
(9)   
with $`\gamma =(16\pi G^2/c^3)\mathrm{\Omega }_o^{rad}\rho _ct_o^{8/n_{dom}}`$ in flat space ($`k=0`$). Here $``$ is the gravitational focusing factor, which is a number of order $`1`$ that depends on the velocities of the particles being collected. (The curved space result is more complicated, but the final results are unchanged, as we will describe.) Here $`\rho _c`$ is the critical density of the universe. (If $`\rho >\rho _c`$ then $`k>0`$; if $`\rho <\rho _c`$ then $`k<0`$.) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_o^{rad}\rho _c`$ is the current energy density in radiation; $`t_o`$ is the current age of the universe. The long term behavior of $`E(t)`$ in this case is:

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}E(t)=\frac{E_o}{1\frac{\gamma E_ot_o^{18/n}}{8n}}.$$
(10)   
This is finite so long as the initial mass $`M_o=E_o/c^2`$ is less than a critical value:

$$M_c\frac{(8n)c}{16\pi G^2\rho _ct_o\mathrm{\Omega }_o^{rad}}$$
(11)   
This critical mass is equal to the mass within the entire visible universe times a factor of order $`1/\mathrm{\Omega }_o^{rad}`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_o^{rad}10^4`$, even under this overly optimistic assumption, the radiation energy that such a machine (black hole or otherwise) can collect is finite. (For a black hole, we have the additional problem that the energy collected is stored for a long time, as the black hole lifetime goes as $`M^3`$. Hence the usable power quickly falls in this case, so that the power required to run energy metabolizers could quickly exceed the available supply.).

We can understand this general result as follows. If such a machine, say a black hole, could collect infinite energy, this would imply that the entire visible universe could collapse into such an object. But general arguments based on the growth of large scale structure tell us that only if one starts out with an extra-horizon-sized black hole can this be the case.

Next, it is worth pointing out that not only the total energy but also the number of photons received by any individual scattering center, integrated over the history of the universe, is finite. This can be seen by integrating the photon number density times the relevant scattering cross section, over time, as follows

$$N_{tot}_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}}n_\gamma \sigma 𝑑t.$$
(12)   
Since $`n_\gamma t^{6/n_{dom}}`$, and since the total mass of the prospector and thus the number of scattering centers is finite, this integral is finite unless the electromagnetic cross section rises steeply with decreasing energy. However, as all such cross sections approach a constant at low energy, the number of photons collected is therefore finite. We shall return to this issue later in this paper. 

Finally, we note that in the case of a cosmological constant-dominated universe, Gibbons-Hawking radiation exists. One might imagine that this radiation, at a constant temperature related to the horizon size, could provide an energy source to be tapped. However, while it would take work to keep any system at a lower temperature (see below), the energy momentum of this radiation is that appropriate to a cosmological term and not a standard radiation bath, and thus it cannot be extracted for useful work without tapping the vacuum energy itself.

### 2.3 Extended sources of energy

For $`n_{coll}<3`$, recoverable energy sources are infinitely extended objects (cosmic strings have $`n_{coll}=2`$ , domain walls give $`n_{coll}=1`$) which do not fall freely into any localized static machine, thus once again $`d<1`$, and the total collectible energy is finite. One caveat to this argument is that we have assumed that the energy density to be cannibalized is, on average, uniformly distributed throughout space, so that general scaling relations for energy density are appropriate. An exception to that assumption is any topological defect such as cosmic strings or domain walls, in which the number density redshifts as $`a^3`$, however the linear/surface energy density of the defect remains constant so that $`\rho `$ scales as $`a^2`$ or $`a^1`$ respectively. Could the energy in such defects be cannibalized? The problem is that the rate at which one can extract energy from the strings (or walls) is finite (at any given time there is only a finite amount of string in the observable universe) and one can not continue extracting the energy indefinitely. Why? Because whatever strategy one develops for mining the string, the universe can, and will, emulate. Consider cosmic strings. If they are unstable, then their energy density will eventually decline exponentially. If they are (topologically) stable, then the only way to mine them is by nucleating either monopole- antimonopole pairs or black-hole pairs along their length. However, the universe will also avail itself of precisely the same strategy. In fact, no matter what, black hole pairs will eventually nucleate on the strings and consume them. The length of string in the observable universe is growing at most as a power of time, whereas at long enough time (longer than the characteristic time for a black hole pair to nucleate on a string) the rate at which black hole pairs are eating the string becomes exponential. The total length of string which you can eventually mine may be extremely long, but it must ultimately be finite. Could the rate of black-hole pair nucleation along the string itself be a rapidly decreasing function of time? Only if the gravitational “constant” were changing appropriately– a possibility perhaps in some theories of gravity, but hardly a good bet for the ultimate success of life.

On an optimistic note, while we argue that only finite energy resources are available, it is worth noting that in all expanding cosmologies, the actual amount is very large indeed, allowing life-forms with metabolisms equivalent to our own to exist, in principle for times in excess of $`10^{50}`$ years. Other issues, including proton decay, for example, may become relevant before an energy crisis arises. Nevertheless, we next address the question of whether, even with finite energy resources, life might, in principle, be eternal.

## 3 Living with Finite Energy In an Ever-Cooling Universe

It was Dyson  who first seriously addressed the question of the ultimate fate of life in an open universe. Having assumed that the supply of energy ultimately available to life would be finite (as we have shown above always to be the case), he realized that life will be forced eventually to go on an ever stricter diet to avoid consuming all the available energy.

The first question he identified is whether consciousness is associated with a specific matter content, or rather with some particular structural basis. If the former, then life would need to be maintained at its current temperature forever, and could not be sustained indefinitely with finite resources. If however consciousness could evolve into whatever material embodiment best suited its purposes at that time, “then a quantitative discussion of the future of life in the \[expanding\] universe becomes possible” . We will assume here, for the sake of argument, that it is structure which is essential; we will also assume that the embodiment of that structure must be material.

Dyson assumed a scaling law that is independent of the particular embodiment that life might find for itself, as follows: Dyson’s “Biological Scaling Hypothesis (DBSH): If we copy a living creature, quantum state by quantum state, so that the Hamiltonian

$$H_c=\lambda UHU^1$$
(13)   
(where $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian of the creature, $`U`$ is a unitary operator, and $`\lambda `$ is a positive scaling factor), and if the environment of the creature is similarly copied so that the temperatures of the environments of the creature and the copy are respectively $`T`$ and $`\lambda T`$, then the copy is alive, subjectively identical to the original creature, with all its vital functions reduced in speed by the same factor $`\lambda `$. ” 

As Dyson pointed out, the structure of the Schrodinger equation makes the form of this scaling hypothesis plausible. We shall adopt the DBSH here and comment later on possible violations.

The first consequence of the DBSH explored by Dyson is that the appropriate measure of time as experienced by a living creature is not physical (i.e. proper) time, $`t`$, but the “subjective time”

$$u(t)=f_0^tT(t^{})𝑑t^{},$$
(14)   
where $`T(t)`$ is the temperature of the creature and $`f`$ is a scale factor with units of $`(\mathrm{Ksec})^1`$ which is introduced to make $`u`$ dimensionless. Dyson suggests $`f(300\mathrm{K}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{c})^1`$ to reflect that humans operate at approximately $`300^oK`$ and a “moment of consciousness” lasts about one second, however the precise value is immaterial, only the fact that $`f`$ is essentially constant.

The second consequence of the scaling law is that any creature is characterized by its rate Q of entropy production per unit of subjective time. A human operating at $`300K`$ dissipates about 200W, therefore

$$\mathrm{Q}10^{23}$$
(15)   
Dyson asserts that this is a measure of the complexity of the molecular structures involved in a single act of human awareness. Though one might question whether this entire Q should be associated with the act of awareness, since in the typical human a significant fraction of Q is devoted to intellectually non-essential functions, nevertheless this does suggest that a civilization of conscious beings requires $`\mathrm{log}_2\mathrm{Q}>50100`$.

A creature/society with a given Q and temperature $`T`$ will convert energy to heat at a minimum rate of

$$m=kfQT^2.$$
(16)   
$`m`$ is the minimum metabolic rate in ergs per second of physical (not subjective) time and $`k`$ is Boltzmann’s constant. It is crucial that the scaling hypothesis implies that $`mT^2`$, one factor of $`T`$ coming from the relationship between energy and entropy, the other coming from the assumed (isothermal) temperature dependence of the rate of vital processes.

Suppose that life is free to choose its temperature $`T`$. There must still be a physical mechanism for radiating the creature’s excess heat into the environment. Dyson showed that there is an absolute limit on the rate of disposal of waste heat as electromagnetic radiation 

$$I(T)<2.84\frac{N_ee^2}{m_e\mathrm{}^2c^3}(kT)^3$$
(17)   
where $`N_e`$ is the number of electrons (or positrons) at temperature $`T`$. This limit arises from the rate of dipole radiation by the electrons. Any other form of radiation will have a stronger dependence on $`T`$, at least at low $`T`$: massless neutrinos are emitted from matter only by weak interactions, which are mediated by massive intermediate particles, gravitational radiation is coupled only to quadrupoles. Both therefore scale more strongly with temperature at low temperature. All free particles other than photons, gravitons and neutrinos are massive thus their emission is exponentially suppressed at low temperature.

The rate of energy dissipation, $`m`$, must not exceed the power that can be radiated, if the object is not to heat up, implying a fixed lower bound for the temperatures of living systems:

$$T>\frac{2Q\mathrm{}f}{N_ek2\alpha \gamma }\frac{m_ec^2}{k}\frac{Q}{N_e}10^{12}\mathrm{K}.$$
(18)   
$`N_e`$ cannot be increased without limit, since the supply of energy (and hence mass) is finite. Q however cannot be decreased without limit. (A system of one bit complexity is probably not living, a system of less than one bit complexity is certainly not living.) The slowing down of metabolism described by the DBSH is therefore insufficient to allow life to survive indefinitely.

Dyson goes on to suggest a strategy – hibernation. Life may metabolize intermittently but continue to radiate away waste heat during hibernation. In the active phase, life will be in thermal contact with the radiator at temperature $`T`$. During hibernation, life will be at a lower temperature, so that metabolism is effectively stopped. If a society spends a fraction $`g(t)`$ of its physical time active and a fraction $`[1g(t)]`$ hibernating, then the total subjective time will be given by

$$u(t)=f_0^tg(t^{})T(t^{})𝑑t^{}$$
(19)   
and the average rate of dissipation of energy is

$$m=kfQgT^2$$
(20)   
The constraint (18) is replaced by

$$T(t)>T_{min}\frac{Q}{N_e}g(t)10^{12}\mathrm{K}.$$
(21)   
Life can both keep in step with this limit and have an infinite subjective lifetime. For example, if $`g(t)=\frac{T(t)}{T_o}`$, with $`T_o>(Q/N_e)10^{12}K`$, and we let $`T(t)`$ scale as $`t^p`$, then the total subjective time is

$$u(t)^tt^{2p}𝑑t^{}$$
(22)   
which diverges for $`p1/2`$. The total energy consumed scales as

$$^tm(t^{})𝑑t^{}^tt^{3p}𝑑t^{}$$
(23)   
which is finite for $`p>1/3`$. Thus if $`1/3<p1/2`$, the total energy consumed is finite and the total subjective time is infinite.

It is clear that this strategy will not work in a cosmological constant-dominated universe. This is because a cosmological constant dominated universe is permeated by background radiation at a constant temperature $`T_{deS}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }/12\pi ^2}`$. A particle detector (such as a radiator for radiating away energy) will register the de Sitter background radiation, and bring the radiator into thermal equilibrium with the background. (Note however, for the reasons mentioned earlier, the energy in the cosmological constant cannot be tapped or converted into useful work if the cosmological constant remains constant.) Therefore $`T_{deS}`$ is the minimum temperature at which life can function. It is then impossible to have both infinite subjective lifetime and consume a finite amount of energy. Life must end, at least in the sense of being forced to have finite integrated subjective time. (Note that one cannot use the de Sitter radiation as a perpetual source of free energy. A cold body will indeed be warmed by the radiation, but it takes more free energy to cool the body than can be extracted.)

In fact, we now argue that this hibernation strategy will fail not only in a cosmological constant dominated universe, but in any ever-expanding universe. In order to implement the hibernation strategy there are two challenges. First, one must construct alarms which must be relied on to awaken the sleeping life. Second, one must recognize that eventually thermal contact with one’s surroundings effectively ends:

1) A standard alarm clock, one which is subject to the DBSH, suffers from the same constraints as those imposed above upon life. This clock must be powered at some level to keep time and it will thus dissipate energy. If it is subject to the DBSH, then there is a minimum temperature at which it can be operated. The alarm clock is a system of some complexity $`Q_{alarm}`$, which as Dyson showed cannot therefore be operated at arbitrarily low temperature. Since $`Q_{alarm}`$ cannot be reduced forever, eventually one cannot operate a standard alarm clock. As we shall show in section 4, even if one could manage to expend energy only to wake up the hibernator, and not to run the alarm clock in the interim, the alarm clock would still eventually exhaust the entire store of energy.

2) The living system is not in thermal equilibrium. As we have shown, the integrated number of CMB photons received over all time is finite. Therefore, after a certain time the probability of detecting another CBR photon, integrated over all of future history approaches zero. Thus, thermal contact with this background (and all other backgrounds) is lost.

Note also that in any case, the Dyson expression for dipole radiation, assumed above, clearly breaks down at some level, notably when the wavelength of thermal radiation becomes very large compared to the characteristic size of the radiating system. Put another way, the thermal energies will eventually become small compared to the characteristic quantized energy levels of the system, at which point radiation will by suppressed by a factor $`e^{E_{char}/kT}`$ compared to the estimate of Dyson. Once this occurs, further cooling will be difficult. The only alternative to avoid this is to increase the characteristic size of the system with $`a`$, which presents its own challenges.

Lastly, another problem ultimately presents itself independent of the above roadblocks. Alarm clocks are eventually guaranteed to fail. In the low temperature mode these failures may be statistical or quantum mechanical. If the number of material particles which can be assembled is finite, the catastrophic failure lifetime may be large, but it cannot be made arbitrarily so. In the absence of a sentient being to repair the broken alarm clock, hibernation would continue forever.

In fact this argument about broken alarm clocks applies equally well to living beings themselves. Eventually, the probability of a catastrophic failure induced by quantum mechanical fluctuations resulting in a loss of consciousness becomes important. One might hope to avoid this fate by keeping the structures in contact with their surroundings (which can suppress quantum fluctuations such as tunneling). However, hibernation requires precisely the opposite, and moreover, we have seen that such contact gets smaller over time. In any case, for a plethora of reasons, under the DBSH, it appears that consciousness is eventually lost in any eternally expanding universe.

## 4 Beyond the Biological Scaling Hypothesis

Clearly, if consciousness is to persist indefinitely, one must consider moving beyond the DBSH. The DBSH assumes implicitly that only rescalings and no fundamental improvements or alterations can be made in the mechanisms of consciousness. A particular consequence is that the rate of entropy production scales as $`T^2`$. Can one do better?

It may appear that a full answer to this question requires that we understand the mechanisms of consciousness. However, in fact, our above discussions indirectly point to an approach which demonstrates that as long as the mechanism of consciousness is physical, life cannot endure forever.

Let us return momentarily to the question of whether there are non-standard alarm clocks which can be operated at arbitrarily low temperature, with arbitrarily low energy per cycle. This possibility hearkens back to recent results on the thermodynamics of computation, and more importantly, issues of reversible quantum computation.

It was long thought that computation is an entropy generating process, and thus a heat generating process. More recently  it has been pointed out that as long as (a) one is in contact with a heat bath, and (b) one is willing to compute arbitrarily slowly, then computing itself can be a reversible process.

This opens the possibility that if living systems can alter their character so that consciousness can be reduced to computation, one could in principle reduce the amount of entropy, and hence the amount of heat produced per computation arbitrarily, if one is willing to take arbitrarily long to complete the computation. Thus, metabolism, and the continued existence of consciousness, could violate the DBSH.

There are two problems. First, as we have shown, living things cannot remain in thermal equilibrium with the cosmic background forever, so inevitably the process of computation becomes irreversible. Also, the question of computational reversibility is in some sense irrelevant, since the process of erasing, or resetting registers inevitably produces entropy. If one simply reshuffled data back and forth between registers, reversibility would be adiabatically possible in principle. However, we have shown that only a finite number of material particles are accessible. Thus any civilization can have only a finite total memory available, and resetting registers is therefore essential for any organism interacting with its environment, or initiating new calculations. While an existence, even nirvana, might be possible without this, we do not believe it is sensible to define this as life. Life therefore cannot proceed reversibly, and organisms cannot continue computationally metabolize energy into heat at less than essentially $`kT`$ per computation. In this case, one must perform a detailed analysis to determine if the energy radiated can continue to cool a system so that its metabolism falls fast enough to allow progressively less energy utilization, leading to a finite integrated total energy usage. We find that the constraints on such radiation even in the most optimistic case require the density of the radiating system to reduce along with the expansion.

We do not provide the details of this analysis here because we believe there is a more general argument which establishes that consciousness cannot be eternal. In order to perform any computation, quantum or classical, at least two states are needed. One can in principle force the computation to proceed in one direction or another, reversibly, by altering adiabatically the external conditions. However, if erasures are performed, or if heat is generated because one is not in perfect equilibrium with the environment, then after the computation one must be in a lower energy state than before the computation, as heat has been radiated. To perform an infinite number of calculations then implies one must have an infinite tower of states. This does not require infinite energy, if the states approach an accumulation point near the ground state. However, no finite system has such a property. (The emission of arbitrarily many massless particles of ever low energy should not be regarded as adding new states, since such particles cannot be confined in a finite material system.) Hence, no finite system can perform an infinite number of computations. Thus, if consciousness can be reduced to computation, life, at least life which involves more than eternal reshuffling of the same data, cannot be eternal. It may be that this reductionist view of consciousness as computation is incorrect. However, it is hard to imagine a physical basis for consciousness which avoids the scaling relationships we have described.

Finally, it is worth emphasizing another issue that we have only peripherally noted thus far. We have shown that it is impossible to collect more than a finite amount of any quantity that scales as $`1/a^3`$. However, the entropy density of the universe scales in this fashion. Thus, independent of issues of whether there is infinite information in an infinite universe, it is impossible to collect more than a finite amount. Effectively even an infinite universe allows only a finite computational system.

## 5 Conclusions

The picture we have painted here is not optimistic. If, as the current evidence suggests, we live in a cosmological constant dominated universe, the boundaries of empirical knowledge will continue to decrease with time. The universe will become noticeably less observable on a time-scale which is fathomable. Moreover, in such a universe, the days — either literal or metaphorical — are numbered for every civilization. More generally, perhaps surprisingly, we find that eternal sentient material life is implausible in any universe. The eternal expansion which Dyson found so appealing is a chimera.

We can take solace from two facts. The constraints we provide here are ultimate constraints on eternal life which may be of more philosophical than practical interset. The actual time frames of interest which limit the longevity of civilization on physical grounds, are extremely long, in excess of $`10^{50}10^{100}`$ years, depending upon cosmological and biological issues. On such time-scales much more pressing issues, including the death of stars, and the possible ultimate instability of matter, may determine the evolution of life.

Next, and perhaps more important, strong gravitational effects on the geometry or topology of the universe might effectively allow life, or information, to propagate across apparent causal boundaries, or otherwise obviate the global spatial constraints we claim here. For example, it might one day possible to manipulates such effects to artificially create baby-universes via wormholes or black hole formation or via the collision of monopoles . Then one might hope that in such baby universes conscious life could eventually appear, or that one might be able to move an arbitrarily large amount of information into or out of small or distant regions of the universe. While these are interesting possibilities, at this point they are vastly more speculative than the other possibilities we have discussed here.

## Acknowledgements

We thank C. Fuchs, H. Mathur, J. Peebles, C. Taylor, M. Trodden and T. Vachaspati for discussions and J. Peebles and F. Wilczek for comments on the manuscript. This research is supported in part by the DOE and NSF.