§1 Prologue: Two Intuitions Worth Taking Apart
I want to think out loud about something that has the shape of a paradox and, I will argue, is not one.
The first intuition: we will never reach another galaxy, because we are bound by the speed of light. The second: our minds are not so bound. In imagination I stand in Andromeda now, at no cost and in no time, and something in that fact feels like it ought to matter to physics. What is that faculty? Is thought happening in some other space, a parallel arrangement of things, a place where dreams and imaginings are kept?
Both intuitions are wrong, and they are wrong in ways that teach more than either would if it were right. The first misidentifies the wall. The speed of light is not what keeps us from Andromeda, and the thing that actually does keep us from most of the universe turns out to be the same object I keep circling in this notebook: the energy of the vacuum. The second intuition mistakes a map for a journey. Nothing in the skull goes anywhere. What feels like travel is the rearrangement of one small, warm, strictly subluminal object into a likeness of a place it will never touch.
I will treat both with the same tool the rest of this series uses: derive everything, question every premise including my own, and flag every idealization where I make one. The prize at the end is a single asymmetry. To represent the universe costs almost nothing. To cross it costs almost everything. That gap is the whole story, and it is a fact about physics, not about the soul.
Conventions. I work in the metric signature $(-,+,+,+)$. I keep factors of $c$ explicit throughout, and restore SI units in every numerical estimate. For the cosmology I assume a spatially flat Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker universe unless I say otherwise, and I flag that assumption where it bites.
§2 Proper Time Is Not Coordinate Time
The claim “we cannot reach another galaxy because of $c$” quietly swaps two different clocks. There is coordinate time $t$, read by observers who stay home, and there is proper time $\tau$, read by the clock the traveller actually carries. The speed limit constrains the first. It is far gentler with the second, and the traveller only ever lives in the second.
2.1 The worldline of a constantly accelerating ship
Let a ship accelerate along the $x$ axis with constant proper acceleration $\alpha$, the acceleration felt in its own cabin (the thing that would read as steady weight on a bathroom scale). Restrict to one spatial dimension; I flag the idealization that I ignore transverse motion and treat the whole trip as radial.
The four-velocity of any timelike worldline satisfies $u^\mu u_\mu = -c^2$. In $1+1$ dimensions I can solve that constraint identically by writing it through a rapidity $\varphi(\tau)$:
The four-acceleration is $a^\mu = du^\mu/d\tau = c\,\dot\varphi\,(\sinh\varphi,\;\cosh\varphi)$, where the dot is $d/d\tau$. Its invariant magnitude is
Constant proper acceleration means $a^\mu a_\mu = \alpha^2$, so $\dot\varphi = \alpha/c$, and starting from rest ($\varphi(0)=0$),
Rapidity accumulates linearly in the traveller’s own time. That single fact is the engine of everything that follows, because the map from rapidity to velocity, $v = c\tanh\varphi$, saturates: $\varphi$ can grow without bound while $v$ never reaches $c$. Integrating the four-velocity components,
This is hyperbolic motion: $\left(x + c^2/\alpha\right)^2 – c^2 t^2 = (c^2/\alpha)^2$, a hyperbola in the home frame.
2.2 Inverting for the traveller’s clock
Solve the $x(\tau)$ relation for proper time to cover a coordinate distance $x$:
For $\alpha x/c^2 \gg 1$, using $\operatorname{arccosh}(y)\to\ln(2y)$,
The proper time grows only logarithmically in distance. Equivalently, proper distance grows exponentially in proper time once the ship is relativistic. This is the counterintuitive heart of the matter, and it is exact, not a trick.
2.3 The numbers for Andromeda
Take $\alpha = g = 9.81\ \mathrm{m\,s^{-2}}$, the comfortable case where the crew feels Earth gravity for the whole trip. Then the natural timescale is
the well-known near-coincidence that one year of one-$g$ thrust brings you to nearly $c$. Andromeda lies at $x = 2.5\times10^{6}$ light-years $= 2.37\times10^{22}\ \mathrm{m}$, so
A one-way flyby, accelerating the whole way (no stopping):
To actually arrive and stop, accelerate for the first half of the distance and decelerate for the second. By symmetry the proper time doubles the half-distance result:
A crew that leaves at thirty arrives before sixty, having crossed two and a half million light-years. The peak rapidity at turnaround is $\varphi_{\max} = \operatorname{arccosh}(1+\alpha x/2c^2) \approx 14.8$, so the peak Lorentz factor is
At that instant the remaining distance to Andromeda, length-contracted into the ship frame, is about $(x/2)/\gamma_{\max} \approx 1.25\times10^{6}/1.3\times10^{6} \approx 1$ light-year. From inside the cabin the galaxy has fallen to within arm’s reach. The speed of light is not the wall. Nobody who leaves is forbidden from arriving in a single working life.
The home frame tells the complementary story without contradiction: in Earth’s clock the trip still takes over $2.5\times10^6$ years, because $t(\tau) = (c/\alpha)\sinh(\alpha\tau/c)$ grows exponentially in $\tau$. Both are true. Time dilation reconciles them. The point stands: for the traveller, distance is cheap in time.
§3 The First Real Wall Is Energy, and It Is Only Engineering
If $c$ is not the obstacle, something else must be, because plainly no crew has gone. The first true obstacle is the fuel, and I want to show precisely how severe it is, and then insist on its status: severe, but a matter of engineering and resources, not a prohibition written into law.
3.1 The relativistic rocket equation
A rocket that throws mass backward to go forward obeys, relativistically, a rapidity budget. Conserving energy and momentum for exhaust ejected at speed $v_e$ in the instantaneous rest frame, the accumulated rapidity relates to the mass ratio by
I will not reproduce the full mass-momentum bookkeeping here; its structure is the relativistic generalization of Tsiolkovsky, with velocity replaced by rapidity because rapidities, unlike velocities, add linearly along a straight-line boost sequence. For the ultimate engine, a photon rocket whose exhaust is light itself, $v_e = c$ and
3.2 The toll for Andromeda
To reach Andromeda and stop, the ship accumulates rapidity $\varphi_{\max}$ during acceleration and sheds the same amount during deceleration, a total budget $\Delta\varphi = 2\varphi_{\max} \approx 29.5$. Hence
For every kilogram delivered to Andromeda at rest, a perfect photon rocket must start with about six billion tonnes of fuel converted with perfect efficiency into a collimated beam of light. A round trip squares the problem: $\Delta\varphi = 4\varphi_{\max}$, giving $M_i/M_f = e^{59}\approx 4\times10^{25}$.
These numbers are catastrophic, but notice their character. They are large finite ratios of ordinary positive mass-energy. Nothing in them is forbidden. Contrast this with the wormholes and time machines of the previous essay in this notebook, where the obstruction was the sign of the required energy, a violation of the null energy condition that classical matter can never supply. Here the energy is honest, positive, and merely enormous. That is the signature of an engineering wall, not a physical law. I flag the idealizations that make even this understated: a real drive is nowhere near a perfect photon rocket, and I have ignored the reaction mass problem of carrying fuel to accelerate fuel.
3.3 An obstacle I did not expect: the sky becomes a weapon
There is a second physical hazard that is easy to miss and is not merely engineering. At $\gamma_{\max}\sim10^{6}$, the cosmic microwave background, a bath of photons at $2.7\ \mathrm{K}$ with energies near $10^{-3}\ \mathrm{eV}$, is blueshifted head-on by a factor $\gamma$ into the ship frame:
The gentle warmth of the universe becomes a continuous frontal bath of soft X-rays. Worse, each interstellar hydrogen atom the ship meets arrives with kinetic energy $(\gamma-1)m_pc^2 \sim 10^{6}\times 0.94\ \mathrm{GeV} \approx 10^{15}\ \mathrm{eV}$, a cosmic-ray proton delivered straight into the hull, at a flux set by the interstellar density. This is a genuine physical constraint on ultra-relativistic travel, independent of fuel, and it caps the practical $\gamma$ well below the kinematic ideal. I include it precisely because the fuel calculation alone would flatter the prospect.
§4 The One Wall That Is Law: The Reachable Universe Is Finite
Now the obstacle that is not engineering. Even granting a perfect ship and a shielded crew, most of the universe is permanently beyond reach, and the reason is the accelerating expansion of space. This is the wall I care about, because it is set by the vacuum.
4.1 The comoving reach of a signal
In an FLRW universe with scale factor $a(t)$ and comoving radial coordinate $\chi$, a radial light ray satisfies $ds^2 = 0 = -c^2dt^2 + a^2(t)\,d\chi^2$, so
A signal emitted at cosmic time $t_0$ can ever reach a comoving coordinate no larger than
where $t_{\max}$ is the end of time ($\infty$ for a universe that expands forever). The proper distance to that boundary, measured now, is the event horizon:
The question is whether this integral converges. In a decelerating, matter-dominated universe it diverges, and in principle everything is eventually reachable. In our universe it converges, and that changes the human situation permanently.
4.2 The de Sitter radius
Once dark energy dominates and matter has thinned away, the Friedmann equation becomes $H^2 = (\dot a/a)^2 = \Lambda c^2/3$, a constant, so the scale factor grows exponentially:
Substituting,
The integral converges. The reachable universe has a finite radius, and that radius is exactly the de Sitter radius $\sqrt{3/\Lambda}$. Put the number in. Using the asymptotic Hubble rate $H_\Lambda \approx H_0\sqrt{\Omega_\Lambda} \approx 67\sqrt{0.69}\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}} \approx 1.8\times10^{-18}\ \mathrm{s^{-1}}$,
A ship travels on a timelike worldline, strictly inside the light cone, so the set of galaxies it can ever reach is a subset of what a photon launched at the same moment can reach. The event horizon therefore bounds travel even more tightly than it bounds signalling. Everything now more distant than about sixteen billion light-years of proper distance is unreachable, not for want of speed or fuel, but because the space between us and it is being created faster than any causal influence can cross it. And because $a(t)$ keeps stretching, galaxies presently inside the horizon drift across it and out of contact one by one. The reachable set is shrinking. In the far future only the gravitationally bound Local Group, which has decoupled from the expansion, remains; the rest of creation reddens, dims, and departs.
4.3 The cage is the vacuum
Look at what sets the size of the cage. The radius is $\sqrt{3/\Lambda}$, and $\Lambda$ is the cosmological constant, which is to say the energy density of the vacuum, $\rho_\Lambda = \Lambda c^2/(8\pi G)$. This is the same $\Lambda$ that Direction 01 of this project is built around, the quantity whose measured value disagrees with the naive quantum field theory estimate by some 120 orders of magnitude. That discrepancy is usually posed as an abstract embarrassment of theory. It is not abstract. The vacuum energy is the wall of the world. Its tiny positive value is precisely what walls us into a finite neighbourhood and, over cosmic time, into the Local Group alone. When I ask in this notebook why the vacuum energy has the value it has, I am asking, among other things, how large a universe we were ever permitted to touch.
I must question the premise that produced the clean $\sqrt{3/\Lambda}$. The exponential $a(t)$ assumes dark energy is a true constant, an equation of state $w = -1$ holding forever. If dark energy instead evolves, the horizon integral changes and the reachable radius with it; a sufficiently phantom component ($w < -1$) would even tear bound structures apart, and a decaying one could reopen the horizon. Observational programmes are actively testing whether $w$ is exactly $-1$, and the matter is not settled. So the sixteen-billion-light-year figure is conditional on the simplest dark energy, and I hold it as the leading case rather than a theorem. That caveat granted, within any standard cosmology the qualitative verdict is robust: the reachable universe is finite, and its scale is set by the vacuum.
§5 What “The Mind Reaches Anywhere” Actually Claims
Turn now to the second intuition, the one that feels like a loophole. In thought I am in Andromeda instantly and for free. Does that faculty evade the walls just built? I will argue that it evades nothing, because it never attempts the thing the walls forbid. The deflation is not dismissive. It is the necessary clearing of ground before the one genuine mystery can be seen for what it is.
5.1 Nothing leaves the skull
Begin with a bookkeeping question that settles more than it seems to. When I imagine Andromeda, how much information about Andromeda’s actual present state enters my head? Consider the mutual information between my brain’s microstate $B$ and the galaxy’s true current configuration $A$:
Mutual information can only be created by physical interaction along a causal channel, and the only channel from Andromeda to me is light, which left there two and a half million years ago. Nothing about the galaxy’s present has reached me; it lies outside my past light cone. So $I(A;B_{\text{now, about A’s now}}) \approx 0$. What I hold is not Andromeda. It is a cached, coarse, two-and-a-half-million-year-stale model assembled from photographs, themselves built from ancient light, filtered through a nervous system. I have evoked a map. I have not visited the territory, and the map’s correlation with the territory’s present is essentially nil. No physical influence propagated to the galaxy or from its present, so the light-speed bound has nothing to act on. It governs the transport of causal influence between events, and here no such transport was even attempted.
5.2 Thought is not fast; the represented distance is small
The intuition insists thought is instantaneous. It is not. Action potentials propagate along the fastest myelinated axons at up to about $120\ \mathrm{m\,s^{-1}}$. Set that beside light:
Neural signalling is roughly six orders of magnitude slower than light, not faster. A signal crossing the fifteen-centimetre width of the brain takes on the order of a millisecond along the quickest fibres and far longer through the unmyelinated majority and across synapses, which is why deliberate thought unfolds over hundreds of milliseconds. The sense that imagining Andromeda is instantaneous is not a report about speed. It is a report about size. The represented distance, “two and a half million light-years,” is a small datum inside a compact local model. Activating that datum moves a few grams of ions a few centimetres. The vastness is in the referent, not in the operation, and the operation is sluggish, local, and utterly subluminal.
5.3 The mind is a physical object, entirely inside spacetime
So the honest description of the imagining is this. One object of about $1.4\ \mathrm{kg}$, dissipating about $20\ \mathrm{W}$, made of ordinary matter obeying ordinary electrochemistry, changes its internal configuration. It is fully within spacetime, fully within its own light cone, fully causal, fully subluminal. Whatever “reaching Andromeda in thought” is, it is this. There is no measurement one could perform, in the galaxy or between here and there, that would register the event. It leaves the rest of the universe exactly as it was.
§6 The Space a Thought Moves Through
If thought is not motion through physical space, the intuition that it is motion through some space still deserves a fair hearing, because it is correct. There is a space. It is simply not a place, and it needs no parallel universe.
6.1 Configuration space, not location
Model the brain, crudely, as a dynamical system of $N \sim 10^{11}$ neurons coupled through $\sim 10^{14}$ synapses. Its instantaneous state is a point in an enormous state space: firing rates, membrane potentials, synaptic weights, neurotransmitter concentrations, a vector with a colossal number of components. A thought is a trajectory of this point. “Going to Andromeda in imagination” is the system moving from one region of its state space, where the Andromeda-model is dormant, to another, where it is active, in a few hundred milliseconds.
This is motion in a real and richly structured space, the configuration space of one physical object. But it is a space of states the system can occupy, not a space of locations matter can travel to. To confuse the two is the entire error in the original intuition. When I “cross the universe” in thought, I move through the manifold of my own possible configurations. Nothing is transported to any location, because the axes of this space are not directions in the sky; they are degrees of freedom of a lump of tissue. There is no parallel universe on offer here, and none is needed. Positing one would be an extravagance the facts do not license, and the facts do not so much as suggest it. The state space of a single physical system is not a second world. It is a bookkeeping of how one world’s small piece can be arranged.
6.2 Can “distance between thoughts” be made rigorous?
I offered earlier that this idea is genuinely under-theorized, and I want to make good on that rather than wave at it. If thought is motion in a state space, does that space carry a metric, a rigorous notion of how far apart two thoughts are? There is a serious candidate from information geometry.
Represent a brain state not as a raw vector but as a probability distribution $p(x\,;\theta)$ over neural activity patterns $x$, parametrized by coordinates $\theta$ (the tunable variables of the state). The natural distance between two nearby distributions is not Euclidean; it is fixed by their statistical distinguishability, and the unique Riemannian metric consistent with that requirement (up to scale) is the Fisher information metric,
This is a legitimate geometry (the Fisher-Rao metric of Rao and Amari). It gives a line element $ds^2 = g_{ij}\,d\theta^i d\theta^j$, geodesics, and a well-defined length for any path through the space of brain states. “The distance between two thoughts” acquires a precise meaning: the geodesic length in the Fisher-Rao metric between the distributions that encode them. Two nearly identical mental states sit an infinitesimal distance apart; two states as different as reading and running are far apart in the sense that a good statistical test could quickly tell them apart.
I flag the load-bearing idealization at once, because it is where honesty is required. This metric measures distinguishability, how easily an ideal observer could separate the states from their activity. It does not, by construction, measure phenomenal similarity, how alike two thoughts feel from the inside. Whether the geometry of distinguishability has anything to do with the geometry of experience is not a question the mathematics answers. It is a restatement, in sharp form, of the hard problem, and I will not pretend the metric bridges it. What I claim is narrower and, I think, solid: the intuition that thought “moves through a space” can be made mathematically exact, the space is the state space of a physical brain, and it can be given a rigorous metric. None of that requires, or provides, another world.
§7 The Asymmetry That Is the Whole Point
Set the two halves side by side, in the same units, because the juxtaposition is the result.
To represent. The metabolic cost of the neural activity that constitutes imagining Andromeda is a small fraction of the brain’s $20\ \mathrm{W}$, sustained for the second or two of the act: on the order of joules at the crudest accounting, and if one asks for the thermodynamic floor rather than the biological cost, it is far smaller still. Landauer’s principle sets the minimum energy to erase one bit of information at
at body temperature. Even a generous $10^{14}$ irreversible bit operations for a single vivid thought have a reversible floor near $10^{14}\times3\times10^{-21} = 3\times10^{-7}\ \mathrm{J}$, a third of a microjoule. The brain runs many orders of magnitude above this floor, but the floor is the honest measure of what the information costs, and it is essentially nothing.
To transport. The kinetic energy of a modest $10^{3}\ \mathrm{kg}$ payload at the mid-journey $\gamma_{\max}\sim10^{6}$ is
before accounting for the exponential fuel ratio of §3, which multiplies the true energy budget far beyond even this. And beyond about sixteen billion light-years, no energy whatsoever suffices, because the obstacle is no longer energetic but causal (§4).
The ratio between the two columns is past astronomical. Representation of a place costs picojoules to microjoules and is bounded only by thermodynamics. Transport to the same place costs the output of a small star, or is flatly impossible. This asymmetry is the trick the mind plays, and it is not a violation of physics; it is a permission granted by physics. Nature allows a twenty-watt object to arrange itself into a working likeness of a universe it can never physically reach, because building a map is a local rearrangement of a few grams of matter, while reaching the territory is a global transport of mass-energy across an expanding cosmos. The map is nearly free. The journey is nearly forbidden. That is why thought feels boundless and starships do not fly.
§8 What Survives the Deflation
I have argued that the mind reaches nowhere, transports nothing, and needs no other space. I have not argued that there is nothing left to wonder at. Two residues remain, and the writing standard of this notebook forbids me from dissolving them falsely, so I will name them precisely and leave them open.
8.1 The hard problem
Everything in §§5 to 7 accounts for representation: a physical system builds and activates a model of something absent. Mechanistically, this is unmysterious in principle. What is not accounted for, by anything above or by anything anyone has written, is why occupying that particular configuration is accompanied by experience, why there is something it is like to stand, in imagination, in a far galaxy, rather than the state-transition proceeding in the dark with nobody home. The Fisher-Rao metric of §6 measures distinguishable difference; it says nothing about felt quality. No derivation takes us from the dynamics of $10^{14}$ synapses to the presence of a point of view. This is the hard problem, and I flag it as genuinely unsolved. Crucially, its being unsolved licenses exactly one conclusion, which is that we do not know. It does not license teleportation, parallel worlds, or minds that outrun light. An open problem is an admission of ignorance, not a hidden door.
8.2 The status of the contents
There is a second, quieter question. My thought of Andromeda points at a galaxy, and I have handled that. But my thought of the number that governs the fine structure of light, or of a particular geometry, or of Andromeda-as-idea rather than Andromeda-as-object, points at something that is not obviously anywhere in spacetime at all. Do these abstract referents exist, and if so, where? That is the Platonism question, as old as philosophy and still live. I raise it only to place it correctly. It is a question in metaphysics, and it must wear that label. It is not physics, and it should not be smuggled in wearing the borrowed authority of physics. I have no resolution to offer, and I distrust anyone who claims a tidy one. What I will not do is let the genuine openness of §8.1 and §8.2 be used to reanimate the FTL and parallel-universe intuitions that §§2 to 7 dismantled. The mysteries that survive are real. They are not the mysteries the original intuition reached for.
§9 Questioning My Own Premises
The standard of this project is that I turn the same scrutiny on myself. So let me test the claims I began with, including the flattering one.
“The mind is not limited.” False, as stated. The mind is limited, only differently from a rocket. It is limited by conduction velocity, which is glacial next to light (§5.2). It is limited by a metabolic budget of about twenty watts, and by the Landauer floor beneath that. It is limited by the staleness of its data, bounded by the same light cone that bounds everything else (§5.1). And it is limited by the finiteness of its own state space: a system of $\sim 10^{14}$ synaptic variables has an enormous but finite number of distinguishable configurations, so there are thoughts it cannot think, distinctions it cannot draw, models too large for it to hold. “Unlimited” is the one thing the mind demonstrably is not. What is true is subtler and worth keeping: the mind is limited along completely different axes than a starship, and cheaply where the starship is dear.
“We can reach anywhere in a fraction of time.” We reach a representation in a fraction of a second, not the place, and not quickly in any absolute sense (§5). The fraction of time is the time to update a small local model. It is short because the model is small and near, not because any distance was crossed at speed.
“Is that a parallel universe or a different space?” No parallel universe is required, implied, or evidenced (§6.1). The space is real but it is the configuration space of one physical brain, a space of states rather than of places. Invoking a second world violates parsimony and explains nothing the state-space picture leaves unexplained.
And yet the intuition was not empty. This is the steelman I owe it. The intuition sensed that something about mind refuses to fit the kinematic story of the first half of this essay, and it was right, but it misplaced the refusal. What refuses to fit is not the transport (there is none) but the experience of the representation (§8.1), and the status of its abstract contents (§8.2). The intuition pointed, clumsily, at two real open problems and then mislabelled them as physics of travel. Corrected, it survives as a good question wearing the wrong clothes.
§10 Coda: The Map and the Territory Are Made of the Same Vacuum
This notebook began with light, and it returns to light here. In the essay on time machines I argued that light draws the causal skeleton of spacetime, and that the speed $c$ bounds the transport of causal influence between events. Everything above is a consequence of taking that seriously in both directions.
Toward the stars, $c$ does not forbid the journey; proper time is generous, and the true walls are the fuel, which is only engineering, and the finite reachable universe, which is set by the energy of the vacuum, the same $\Lambda$ whose unexplained smallness is the deepest open number in the series. Toward the mind, $c$ has nothing to forbid, because nothing goes; what feels like a voyage is one small object rearranging itself into a likeness of a cosmos it can never touch.
So the paradox dissolves into a single asymmetry, and the asymmetry is honest physics. To hold the universe as a map costs almost nothing, a local rearrangement of a few grams of warm matter, bounded below only by thermodynamics. To cross the universe as territory costs almost everything, and past a certain distance costs more than everything, because the vacuum keeps building new space faster than any ship can close it. The mind never broke the light-speed cage. It never left the room. It is a transient ordered pattern riding a trickle of metabolic energy, and it arranges itself into a model of the rest of the world, and the model became good enough to feel like travel. The wonder is not that thought escapes physics. It is that physics permits a twenty-watt corner of the cosmos to carry a working likeness of the whole, and to know, from inside its finite cage, exactly how the walls are built.
References
Grouped by theme. DOIs included where I could confirm them.
A. The provocation and popular framing
1. Kaku, M. (2003, August 1). A user’s guide to time travel. Wired.
B. Relativistic motion and proper time
2. Rindler, W. (2006). Relativity: Special, General, and Cosmological (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
3. Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., and Wheeler, J. A. (1973). Gravitation. Freeman. (Hyperbolic motion and the uniformly accelerated observer.)
4. Hafele, J. C., and Keating, R. E. (1972). Around-the-world atomic clocks: observed relativistic time gains. Science 177, 168. doi:10.1126/science.177.4044.168
5. Ashby, N. (2003). Relativity in the Global Positioning System. Living Rev. Relativ. 6, 1. doi:10.12942/lrr-2003-1
C. Cosmological horizons and dark energy
6. Davis, T. M., and Lineweaver, C. H. (2004). Expanding confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the universe. Publ. Astron. Soc. Aust. 21, 97. doi:10.1071/AS03040
7. Loeb, A. (2002). The long-term future of extragalactic astronomy. Phys. Rev. D 65, 047301. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.65.047301
8. Krauss, L. M., and Scherrer, R. J. (2007). The return of a static universe and the end of cosmology. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 39, 1545. doi:10.1007/s10714-007-0472-9
9. Planck Collaboration (2020). Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910
D. Neural signalling and brain energetics
10. Hodgkin, A. L., and Huxley, A. F. (1952). A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. J. Physiol. 117, 500. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1952.sp004764
11. Attwell, D., and Laughlin, S. B. (2001). An energy budget for signaling in the grey matter of the brain. J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab. 21, 1133. doi:10.1097/00004647-200110000-00001
E. Information, thermodynamics of computation
12. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27, 379. doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
13. Landauer, R. (1961). Irreversibility and heat generation in the computing process. IBM J. Res. Dev. 5, 183. doi:10.1147/rd.53.0183
14. Bérut, A., Arakelyan, A., Petrosyan, A., Ciliberto, S., Dillenschneider, R., and Lutz, E. (2012). Experimental verification of Landauer’s principle linking information and thermodynamics. Nature 483, 187. doi:10.1038/nature10872
F. Information geometry
15. Rao, C. R. (1945). Information and accuracy attainable in the estimation of statistical parameters. Bull. Calcutta Math. Soc. 37, 81.
16. Amari, S., and Nagaoka, H. (2000). Methods of Information Geometry. American Mathematical Society / Oxford University Press.
G. Philosophy of mind
17. Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? Philos. Rev. 83, 435. doi:10.2307/2183914
18. Chalmers, D. J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. J. Conscious. Stud. 2, 200.
