We still have billions of year to find a way to make artificial big bangs, reverse entropy or jump to parallel universes, so even the death of the universe might not be the end.

There fixed it. Either way death of the sun would have the same outcome to anyone still left "alive"

No? That would be getting into semantics.

Nothing is by definition no thing. Therefore when I say nothing is forever, I'm not stating that an absence of things is forever. I'm saying no specific things are forever. The laws of the universe essentially don't allow it as we understand them. Even the heat death of the universe will potentially undergo some form of transformation. There has been speculation that there will be some inverse of the big bang at some point.

But our best understanding is that due to thermodynamic entropy there will always been a natural inclination towards disorder and this is especially relevant in the context of heat and energy which is to say that any system reliant on such would eventually succumb to failure or at least an inability to maintain structure and control which in the context of life... in whatever form we're talking about would be failure.

Say thousands of years from now a human was built into a computer and could essentially keep itself going through successive creation of robotic components/bodies/etc. But it essentially has the ability to outlive biological limitations. Well it would still likely run out of energy at some point. So how would it resolve that? Use other energy systems? Systems reliant on exotic matter? Seemingly limitless fuels? Well that's just it, nothing is limitless. There is a finite amount of anything that exists in the universe and barring some sort of perfect ability to convert energy and matter back into either form over and over forever (Which by the laws of thermodynamics would be as we understand it impossible) you're still going to hit an end... it may be a very VERY long life but it would not be "forever".

Just saw your edits and honestly... what are you even talking about?

>If nothing is forever then isn't that a type of forever? Isn't nothingness just forever nothing?

"Nothing" is not a thing... that's the whole point. It's an absence of things. But that isn't even the context in which my commentary was made. What I was saying is that no "things" are forever. If it exists, it isn't forever. If it doesn't exist, well there's really no way of knowing if it'll never exist.

>But aren't we alive because nothing can truly be forever nothing?

Again, you are operating on a completely opposite basis from what I actually said. You seem to have in your mind turned nothing (or the absence of things) into something and are now discussing that as a state which in a roundabout way yes but that deals in the nature of entropy and how everything is always in a state of change and disorder. We are alive and exist because of a very complex series of chaotic changes over a very long period of time.

>So aren't we just under the law of forever is nothing and nothing is forever?

There is no "law of forever". In fact based on the nature of spacetime it is entirely possible that there is no forever, and there might not be any real concept of "nothing" either. Even in the void of space there is going to be something, it might be imperceptible but it is not nothing.

>we're here because nothing could truly be nothing which is just a form of forever because nothing can be nothing forever which is a law of forever.

Again, not a thing. I have to genuinely ask, are you high? Because your post is kind of a word salad that sounds like the ramblings of someone on drugs.

>But because we're no longer nothing we're under law of nothing is forever which is a form of forever because nothing is forever which is forever until nothing is forever in which it's forever nothing.

I... don't think you understand what you're talking about. The fact that you've now referred to the law of nothing and law of forever despite neither of those things actually existing suggests to me that you're going into this weird deep philosophical place but without the knowledge or articulation to really appreciate the concepts you're thinking about which is leading you wildly astray of anything tangible or meaningful.

For instance, you've completely missed the mark on "Nothing" and you seem to be word salading the concept into something that might seem coherent and sensible to you but otherwise makes no real sense.

You seem to be touching a wee bit on the law of thermodynamics but from a place of what I can only describe as ignorance. So if this topic does interest you I would sincerely suggest looking into thermodynamics as it is super fascinating and might put you in a better position to understand what it is you're thinking about.

>Nothing is forever Is wrong because forever has always been nothing, nothing could change forever because it's forever and forever will always be because it's forever.

Existence would disprove that entire statement.

>We may be forever nothing, forever something no matter what we can't escape forever because forever never can be one thing and will be forever one thing because it's forever.

Again, what are you talking about? "We may be forever nothing" you do know the words you're using have definitions right? We are not nothing, therefore we cannot be "forever nothing". You're just throwing the words forever and nothing around like they ironically have no meaning.

>Forever will always be forever just as nothing can never be nothing because nothing has to be something for us to exist.

I don't mean to be mean but you sound like someone who is trying REALLY hard to sound smart but have no idea what they're talking about. Lines like that one just come across as pseudo-scientific jibberish.

Which come to think of it might be part of the problem. You definitely seem to be approaching this from a philosophical point of view (Though I'm not entirely sure why) so there is definitely some interesting conceptual discussions that could be had there but like it's just so wildly off the mark in the context in which it is being discussed. As in... it has no relation to this topic or my comments.

>Nothing is nothing it's again another form of forever.

Uh... that's not correct.

>so we can't truly say nothing is forever if you do you have to acknowledge that the idea of nothing is forever can't be forever because nothing is forever which creates a paradox.

Lol no. Like... ridiculously no. You've completely butchered concepts and words to essentially make something true that just isn't... that just isn't how anything works as we understand it.