General / Off-Topic Living "Forever" ?
- Thread starter Robin of Spiritwood
- Start date
Even if afterthe death there is only nothingness, the eternal life would not be a renewed chore again and again ?Well to be honest I'm not a believer, but I have played with the thought of going to heaven with Ned Flanders et al, or down under where they have this animated party going on with awesome pyrotechnic and promiscuous women.
Life or nothingness. It's crazy how adding the word "eternal" can complicate the choice.
At least we can already make inmortal apples
That's an interesting angle....Even if afterthe death there is only nothingness, the eternal life would not be a renewed chore again and again ?
Life or nothingness. It's crazy how adding the word "eternal" can complicate the choice.
I'm not totally disagreeing with you. I just don't know if I would use the word "futile" as such to describe living. In my view, good, bad or indifferent, it just is was it is. One gets whatever Nature gives and you suck it up.
There is not so much futility; just impermanence.
Last edited:
Yes and even existential.
I've noticed that mathematicians working with infinities often get this strange, haunted and scared look on their face.Even if afterthe death there is only nothingness, the eternal life would not be a renewed chore again and again ?
Life or nothingness. It's crazy how adding the word "eternal" can complicate the choice.
I've always been a fan of Existentialism. Satre and Camus said some good stuff.
Another thought: All this life-extension concept may be seen as humans messing with and flying in the face of Nature. As history has told us, Nature has a nasty habit of biting us back when we do stuff that messes with "the grand design".
Eventually the rent becomes due....
In my limited understanding of Quantum Mechanics uncertainty is fundamental to those physical models.....
Last edited:
Now that I began to study maths, I've heard rumors from students and professors that those who study maths at research level are autistic/odd/crazy and they don't say that as an insult at all (hell, my professors are mathematicians). In any case, one can avoid infinity more than it appears, for example, limits are formally defined using equivalences and order of the reals although the reals themselves are shocking.
If anyone introduced "uncertainty" to maths, it was this guy:
He wasn't free of mental issues either, he died of starvation after his wife met the same fate. Why? He thought he'd be poisoned.
He wasn't free of mental issues either, he died of starvation after his wife met the same fate. Why? He thought he'd be poisoned.
I think wrapping your brain around concepts as infinity and eternity will alter your understanding of reality somewhat. An example: Lets say you could live "forever". Many many years into the future the Universe will probably reach the state we call "Heat Death" were entropy is infinitely large and everything is the same. Does time then go on? If time was created with the three spatial dimensions, does the future already exist? What is "now"?
If anyone introduced "uncertainty" to maths, it was this guy:
He wasn't free of mental issues either, he died of starvation after his wife met the same fate. Why? He thought he'd be poisoned.
Also: say my name................
Yes; if you could "live forever" what happens when the last photon in this universe reaches the point of zero energy?
The whole live forever concept, in the current physical model, violates the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Last edited:
Also: say my name................
Yes; if you could "live forever" what happens when the last photon in this universe reaches the point of zero energy?
He introduced uncertainty to physics.
If we had life spans so long it would be important to have something to actually live for. Plus, if you think we have a problem with over crowding, resource consumption and pollution now, just imagine if we were gifted with dramatically increased lifespans.
Four-dimensionalism - Wikipedia
now, combine that with
Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia
and I think you're getting close to something...
The meaning of "forever" in this context-
Suppose there was an intervention we could do, to prolong our lives. Just a bit.
Can we do that now? Yep. You could control your blood pressure and get that. Or just walk 1/2 hour a day. Or lose a few pounds, and adjust your diet a bit. Or quit a bad habit like smoking, or implement eating more fresh veggies, beans, and fruit.
Let's say we did all those basic things. And we got say a conservative 15% extension in lifespan. Suppose, that for you, that works out to 10 years or so.
Humanity now has 10 years to come up with something else new, that can get you some more years. A vaccine, or a new medicine, maybe an implant, or viral gene therapy, or artificial organs, or something.
Then we get more time to get the next advance.
So basically we need to achieve a rate of new discoveries, that matches or exceeds the gain of years that the person lives for each interval. This theoretical rate of new discoveries is loosely called the "Escape Velocity". Because of the incredible rate of published papers now, it is probable that we already are there. To know for sure, we'd have to know everything in those papers, and apply it properly, and then see how long we get. No human can do that.
So the Escape Velocity will really emerge, when we get medical grade AI.
This of course raises the famous Axe paradox of the ancient Greeks.
If you have a simple axe with just a blade and handle, and use it long enough, the handle will fail first and be replaced. Many handles later, you have to get a new blade too.
Is it still YOUR old axe? or has it become something completely new?
Suppose there was an intervention we could do, to prolong our lives. Just a bit.
Can we do that now? Yep. You could control your blood pressure and get that. Or just walk 1/2 hour a day. Or lose a few pounds, and adjust your diet a bit. Or quit a bad habit like smoking, or implement eating more fresh veggies, beans, and fruit.
Let's say we did all those basic things. And we got say a conservative 15% extension in lifespan. Suppose, that for you, that works out to 10 years or so.
Humanity now has 10 years to come up with something else new, that can get you some more years. A vaccine, or a new medicine, maybe an implant, or viral gene therapy, or artificial organs, or something.
Then we get more time to get the next advance.
So basically we need to achieve a rate of new discoveries, that matches or exceeds the gain of years that the person lives for each interval. This theoretical rate of new discoveries is loosely called the "Escape Velocity". Because of the incredible rate of published papers now, it is probable that we already are there. To know for sure, we'd have to know everything in those papers, and apply it properly, and then see how long we get. No human can do that.
So the Escape Velocity will really emerge, when we get medical grade AI.
This of course raises the famous Axe paradox of the ancient Greeks.
If you have a simple axe with just a blade and handle, and use it long enough, the handle will fail first and be replaced. Many handles later, you have to get a new blade too.
Is it still YOUR old axe? or has it become something completely new?
Last edited:
For those asking what could happen in the extreme future:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincaré_recurrence_theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincaré_recurrence_theorem
Also: say my name................
Meth-ematics!
