|
| Thread: Immortality and the definition of life |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
posted September 15, 2009 12:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You're welcome to debate this part, but you asked for the point, and as you're the challenger I merely wrote the point was my claim that you challenged.
Again you must have misunderstood what I meant.
You told me that my point is emotionally biased.
I tried to explain that it is the opposite: I asked you what is the point you're making -- because, if I understood your point (before asking) and concluded that it's yours who is emotionally biased. For example: fear of death, feeling that your life is worth living, etc... 
My answers in this part went in relation to overpopulation. A claim like this:
Overpoulation makes immortality a bad idea -> No no we'll live in space ->
Still not enough room, because we'll increase in size faster and faster -> Even if we'd increase in size faster than the universe (which increases with 2/3 of light speed last I checked, doubtful we'd ever reach such a speed) then I've argumentet why we would probably reach a maximum population already decided by the laws of nature. ->
What's the point? -> The point is immortality is not bad because of the reasons you listed ->
No no, I'm talking about you're biased by emotions.
As you can see doesn't seem to make much sense, I believe our conversation about overpopulation is over for now, and in the next part of the text we can focus on who's emotionally biased, etc.
Quote:
Quote:
We can devide it up in emotions are lusts and our decisions are wants.
What is fear if not an emotion? 
Fear is certainly an emotion, but as I wrote earlier, if you already before the emotion tells you to, wants to do something, then it's not driven by emotions, an analogy of this:
You for some unknown reason wants to event A. Later on (you haven't done event A yet, and I don't know you want to) I tell you to go out and do event A. You ignore me, and go out and do event A. Someone else tells you that you're my slave because you did what I told you to.
Secondly my problem in general isn't with emotions, we all have them, it's following them for no other reason than the emotion, it's okay to be influenced by outer sources such as other people, or whatever that triggers your emotions, but only to the degree that you reflect upon them, and find out with yourself if you agree that those actions are something you truely want to do. I admit if I didn't have the fear response I cannot know how I'd look upon it, but I didn't follow that response right away, I reflected upon it, and came to the result that a part of it was in coherence with what I want.
Quote:
Quote:
Again I should emphazise that when I write we're alive, I mean we're consciouss, or to say, we've the ability to do what we want, if you read it that way I believe you'll see there's no emotional bias in what I wrote.
I'm not saying staying alive is an emotion, it is an instinct. However, why staying alive is a good thing, is an emotion -- or rather, why not staying alive is BAD (i.e fear of death). THAT is the emotion, not being alive. 
I'll give you the last part of the debate I'd with myself back when I thought of it, you see I thought partly like you, that how do I know I wasn't irrationally following some emotion? So I thought of it like this, and this argument at least settled it for me:
Given no immortality, at some point of time, you're not. Assuming the [for me] worst case scenario: Death = nothing at all (no consciousness, no awareness, no existance, forever). Then comparing immortality with non-immortality is to compare to exist, to be, that there's at least something, with non-existance, nothingness, forever.
So because there's a risk, as we do not yet know what lies beyond death, that there's nothing at all, that risk makes me evaluate that immortality, at least in my opinion, is always better than non-immortality.
So yes, an emotion made me aware of the problem, I'm not biased by it though I believe, because in stead of believing the emotion and act upon it like a slave, I reflected over it like an advice, and in the debate I had, that argument was what convinced me, that the emotion was correct. That's not the same as being emotional biased.
Quote:
Quote:
That's faulty logic, simply because logic cannot work without a premise, there's no absolute logic that is the premise for all things, otherwise we could derive the entire universe through mathmatics that'd forever hold true, no need for uncertainity, etc.
Who said probabilities and statistics based on chances can't be explained mathematically? In fact, it's pretty easy. (i.e "uncertainty")
Describing uncertainty, or in general randomness, is possible, correct (easy is subjective), but unless it's part of the "absolute logic" it has no place, which was kind of what I tried to come forward to, though I should probably have added the ideas of Newton in coherance (that we only measure uncertainty because of our instruments aren't 100% accurate, and because we do not have 100% information/control of the system we measure upon). Quantum mechanics are based on other ideas, but that's off topic now.
Quote:
Quote:
So you're probably thinking now, how do you then get the premise, the definition? You choose it, in the real world by a measure and for your goals in life, you choose.
Thereby you cannot create anything rational, without something irrational (something that has no logic reason to be) to start with. The irrational part is what other may say is what we thing of as the "meaning of life" or maybe our "purpose in life", or what they want. It's something you derive for yourself, and it may always be irrational, but to avoid confusion here, it does not have to be derived through emotions.
Actually you're pretty much right there, because rational can't exist without irrational, since it wouldn't be rational -- it would have nothing to make it rational, without irrational. However, I didn't say that emotions are irrational, not all of them are. The ones that are, though, are in this topic. Fear, for example.
I disagree, what makes emotions (or actually actions, to be precise) irrational is acting upon them without considering if what you do is what you want for other reasons than the emotion itself.
Emotions are triggered by the environment and can be looked at as similar to another person tells you what to do, except here it's merely your own body.
Therefore following such a command will always be irrational, unless you already want to do what you get told (my example with "event A").
Therefore you cannot simply say "all these emotions leads to irrational actions, while all these others doesn't". It all depends on the person who gets the emotions, merely following them like a slave would make all emotions irrational, always thinking before acting upon an emotion, finding an argument that has nothing to do with the emotion, would make your action rational. Finally a person who already know exactly what he/she wants, and follows this, would make all emotions unimportant, like the "event A"-example.
Quote:
Quote:
I've watched the matrix.
What's your point about the matrix?
It answers your question. This:
Finally let's note this about emotions, if we're in such a high control of ourself that we actually can decide exactly how long we exist, what makes us not able to likewise decide actually how we want to feel at any given time? After all emotions are merely chemicals getting transported in your brain.
I still don't get it, you probably have to explain what this have to do with the matrix, if you want me to realise what you're trying to tell me.
@JollyJoker
I'm not going to interfer with the boredom part again, I think it's pretty cool that you try to turn it around, and use the anti-boredom emotion, curiosity, since it'd seem like emotions playes a big role for some here, but I don't think you can fight fire with fire, because emotions are after all basicly random, and it seems like it's more the fear of boredom for longer periods (maybe eternal) that frightens. I do also agree with you that it seems ignorant by the others, but I think that's only because I'm of another opinion than them (I think they see me as ignorant as well)
However let me add this, about memory, about emotions and about the change of body:
First of all, please don't say no to change, merely because it's change, reflect upon it and argument. (Which people have done)
Secondly if we exist in a future with immortality, we've in principle eternal time (let's say immortality like a backup so if accidents happen you can re-exist, being the same uniquely you) to solve these rather simple problems.
So how about memory? You don't think we can upgrade this if you're afraid of forgetting? Me I've personally no problem with the way it's today, I don't generally care about the past, simply because the past is the past, it's something that has happened, and doesn't really matter for my future anymore. Since memory always in the current form will be up to date with recent events in the place you're and given in a utopia like world, where you're with those you love and care, and that goes for all, then that memory should be sufficient, at least for me. Or to say it shortly, the thoughts and actions you do mostly are those that'll be remembered best, and those are most likely also what is important, and only what's important. I hardly believe we can make enough actions pr. memory-span for what's important for us is forgotten, unless you start doing stuff that aren't important to you, but then why'd you do it in the first place, and I'm talking doing this stuff over a long time?
Therefore, if you want more memory you can probably get it, however I believe I'd be fine without.
So how about emotions, well again the same arguments goes through. First of all, emotions are environment triggered mechanics, which basicly isn't you, you may listen to the emotion like an advice, reflect upon it and decide, or you may ignore it if you already know exactly what you want to do, or the only negative consequence, you may succumb and follow it like a slave. However again emotions, like memory, is fairly simple as we've experience in both of these on a biological level, and therefore most likely something you can change as you wish, how would you say about eternal happiness? Sure you may think happiness is relative, and not something you merely choose, but I'll tell you this, happiness is nothing else than a bunch of chemicals that're activated in our brain, and since we've no control of this in general, except we of course have a gradient for every emotion, we experience happiness as something very relative to our situation (if you're rich, money won't make you happy, but if you're poor, money will momentary make you happy, etc.). You may have often experienced happiness to go away easier the more happy you're, and again it's merely the chemicals.
Though to avoid confusion, and to remove a common misconception from back before the medieval time. What makes us unique is not our feelings (often back then, it was thought the heart was you), likewise it's not our memory (often today it's believed that we're merely like advanced robots), no what makes us unique is what defines us as a unique existance, most likely a configuration of elements of the brain, and without that, we'd be nothing more than like a rock composed of lots of different non-rock stuff, having chemicals that make us follow action gradients due to energy conservation (feelings), or having the ability to addept and learn from the past (memory), we'd still merely be machines, not aware, having no inner observer, and in no sense be more unique than a rock.
So again, don't base your existance on emotions, those aren't you, and don't base your existance on memory, because it likewise aren't you, both are simply utilities you've at your possesion, which increases your opportunities if you use them correct. And if you finally will, something that you can have changed as you wish.
Now finally about the body, I can understand many would like the very same human body due to emotion reasons, such as it's hard to imagine loving something (in the sexual way) that doesn't resemble us at all.
However, as written in the above, we'd not let us control by our emotions, secondly if you really do not like the concept of change (at least I've experienced that change do feel weird often) then we could always by taking some simple advantages of the light, maybe reporgramming the eyes a bit, make it all look the very same, eventhough it isn't, and as you might know, it won't differ at all from the whole "brain in a jar"-concept in any way except we'd know about it, but then again why care, everyone would be satisfied, and you could of course also choose to not know, though that makes no sense to me.
Quote:
And the overpopulation counterargument isn't valid -- because when I say immortal I mean humans, as we currently are, not in a "meta-mind" state or whatever.
I never wrote about any "meta-mind" in my argumentation, I argumented of why, as we're today, given we're immortal, that there'd still be a by nature decided maximum population. Beside who're you to say what's valid or not 
In stead of saying it's not valid, you could write something along the lines of "It solves the problem, but if there were no such thing the problem would not be solved", as that's just as valid, as writing "this and this aren't allowed". Though again, I don't know what you mean by "meta-mind" .
Quote:
Of course the Universe will be there forever and nothing will be "consumed", but since we're talking about the "precious" thing here called life, the laws of conservation do NOT apply -- life is SUCKING energy/matter, so to speak, from this viewpoint, not merely "transforming" it.
False, the conservation of energy applies in all matters as of yet measured. It all comes from newtons second law of motion, as long as that holds true for any given system, energy conservation does so as well, neither of those have ever been proved invalid for any system.
Beside, if you're in to body building (muscle training) you'd know that the equation used for creating your own, relative exact, weight gain and muscle gain, through food and training are using conservation of energy as the ground princip, and it works fine, as long as you stick with it.
No the reason we talk about saving energy, etc. is like I stated before, due to entropy, heat is the least effective form of energy, because the energy is scattered the most among particles, as the movement of a lot of particles goes in the wrong direction than the direction you want to use to get movement transfered, and as we use our mechanical energy, this gets transformed into heat (likewise doing our daily life we produce a lot of heat), and only a lower percentage of this can be transformed back into mechanical energy, all in all the entropy rises and if you go to an infinite time in the future you'll see the universe so energy spreaded that only atoms can exist. Again this doesn't mean we won't be able to live forever as I've wrote before, simply because entropy is a question of probability.
@Doomforge
You write you're a christian, as you write it I believe it's something that matters to you, not that I'm going to go into details here or a long debate, but iirc, christians gets to live eternaly according to the bible, either in heaven or in hell, and as most people would prefer heaven, let's use this, how does it differ being in heaven forever and being on earth forever with unlimited options (except you cannot limit the options of others)?
It's like the Carlisle song, let's make heaven a place on Earth, haha, sorry .
Quote:
If you were to watch it backwards, you'd end up with an immortal robot with no feelings.
I haven't read the book, if you want please explain, though as I see it now, it's the same argument as if you video taped yourself and then watched yourself, claiming that you're a robot because you know each and every action you're about to do.
I wouldn't take such an argument seriously though.
Quote:
Seriously though, life is all about the purpose we give it. It has no inherent purpose. We are born, we grow up, we die. What gives life meaning is what we do, and the struggles we have along the way.
I partly agree, I think what gives it meaning is what we choose to, then we'll through experiences in the future maybe change this, maybe not, however it's out choice all the way. That's what I think is important in this context.
Quote:
It's an interesting philosophical question to wonder about things such as the value of love and happiness. The Bicentennial Man gave up his mechanical immortality to become another human, all because of love.
Again I haven't read the book, but that part just doesn't make much sense, how can he ever decide to give up everything, for something he doesn't even know about, just for finding out? I'll quote myself on this:
Quote:
I can follow you want to know and risk your very existance for this knowledge, I however won't if I have the choice, and I believe that's what differs us.
So unless he already knew love (experienced it), I've a hard time believing that book have a serious point, however if he'd already experienced it, he must already know how he felt, thereby know love, and no reason to give up on immortality in the first place.
Quote:
What value does immortality truly have in the grand scale of things? If you were the only immortal on the planet, wouldn't the pain of loss be worse than death?
I advocate for everyone who wants to, to become immortal, when we found out how.
Quote:
I like the discussion guys, just thought I should add something.
Also, ITT: tl;dr (mostly).
And I like what you added, always nice to have several viewpoints .
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 15, 2009 04:42 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 16:51, 15 Sep 2009.
|
Quote:
My answers in this part went in relation to overpopulation. A claim like this:
Overpoulation makes immortality a bad idea -> No no we'll live in space ->
Still not enough room, because we'll increase in size faster and faster -> Even if we'd increase in size faster than the universe (which increases with 2/3 of light speed last I checked, doubtful we'd ever reach such a speed) then I've argumentet why we would probably reach a maximum population already decided by the laws of nature. ->
What's the point? -> The point is immortality is not bad because of the reasons you listed ->
No no, I'm talking about you're biased by emotions.
As you can see doesn't seem to make much sense, I believe our conversation about overpopulation is over for now, and in the next part of the text we can focus on who's emotionally biased, etc.
First of all you are completely wrong on BOTH accounts. Physics first. The universe does NOT increase in MATTER, but only in size. This is actually BAD for life which needs to suck energy constantly to "live" -- as energy will be dispersed and evenly distributed making it lifeless in the end (really, really long time, but still...), look up "Big Freeze" or "Big Rip" to see what I'm talking about. So basically "immortality" is impossible anyway, but let's just assume immortal means "really long time to live" to avoid the technicalities. You can see from this that, as Einstein said, the difference between the past, present and future is an illusion -- you really cannot escape death no matter what, it's just a time which seems insignificant once you get close to death, no matter how much you lived (trust me, on your deathbed, you don't care about that...). The amount of time you spend in "nothingness" (death, if there's no afterlife) is INFINITELY more than the amount of time you actually live, no matter how much (since it isn't infinite), that's why it's "insignificant" from a rational perspective. But anyway let's ignore this for the time being. (mathematics is rational mate, just compute the 'limits' and see for yourself why infinity/ANY number results in infinity).
The second account is more like this (what I added is in blue for you, and red for me):
Overpoulation makes immortality a bad idea -> No no we'll live in space ->
Still not enough room, because we'll increase in size faster and faster -> Even if we'd increase in size faster than the universe (which increases with 2/3 of light speed last I checked, doubtful we'd ever reach such a speed) then I've argumentet why we would probably reach a maximum population already decided by the laws of nature. You are emotionally biased on this exploitation. ->
What's the point of living, rationally, if not for emotions saying life is good?? -> ???
Remember the virus argument? Around there (2 posts later or so) you accused me of being emotionally biased. That's where I pointed out that choosing life as special is actually the bias here. Let's move on from this.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We can devide it up in emotions are lusts and our decisions are wants.
What is fear if not an emotion?
Fear is certainly an emotion, but as I wrote earlier, if you already before the emotion tells you to, wants to do something, then it's not driven by emotions, an analogy of this:
You for some unknown reason wants to event A. Later on (you haven't done event A yet, and I don't know you want to) I tell you to go out and do event A. You ignore me, and go out and do event A. Someone else tells you that you're my slave because you did what I told you to.
You mean desire? Who said that desire can't be influenced by emotions?
Quote:
Secondly my problem in general isn't with emotions, we all have them, it's following them for no other reason than the emotion
And what is "I have to live as long as possible for enjoyment of life" other than an emotion? That's like saying "I have to live as long as possible to feel emotions.", there is no difference.
ANY feeling is an emotion. Enjoying life is too.
If, on the other hand, you said "I have to live as long as possible to do X" where X could be a responsibility or something, it would be rational (even if the responsibility is emotional, the decision is rational). Immortality is not like a gift, it's more like a responsibility.
Quote:
Given no immortality, at some point of time, you're not. Assuming the [for me] worst case scenario: Death = nothing at all (no consciousness, no awareness, no existance, forever). Then comparing immortality with non-immortality is to compare to exist, to be, that there's at least something, with non-existance, nothingness, forever.
So because there's a risk, as we do not yet know what lies beyond death, that there's nothing at all, that risk makes me evaluate that immortality, at least in my opinion, is always better than non-immortality.
But you will die no matter what, because the Universe will become static (in a long, long time, but still makes NO difference compared to "infinite non-existence").
The fact that it seems a "long" time is actually an ILLUSION of your brain -- in truth, it is infinite non-existence whether you live 1 year or 1 million years, because infinity/any number in limits is still infinity (mathematics...  ).
Quote:
Describing uncertainty, or in general randomness, is possible, correct (easy is subjective), but unless it's part of the "absolute logic" it has no place, which was kind of what I tried to come forward to, though I should probably have added the ideas of Newton in coherance (that we only measure uncertainty because of our instruments aren't 100% accurate, and because we do not have 100% information/control of the system we measure upon). Quantum mechanics are based on other ideas, but that's off topic now.
Quantum mechanics says that your instruments CANNOT be precise no matter what, they always influence the result. That's basically it.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 15, 2009 05:22 PM |
|
|
Why you commented few points, but not those I think I'd made better, I do not understand, as your comments below suggests that you didn't agree with them, I'll explain.
Quote:
The universe does NOT increase in MATTER, but only in size.
I never wrote it increased in matter.
Quote:
This is actually BAD for life which needs to suck energy constantly to "live" -- as energy will be dispersed and evenly distributed making it lifeless in the end (really, really long time, but still...), look up "Big Freeze" or "Big Rip" to see what I'm talking about.
Read what I wrote about entropy (and also the teleportation part, I think I mentioned it there as well), I gave a solution to the problem, from a very simple observation.
Quote:
You can see from this that, as Einstein said, the difference between the past, present and future is an illusion -- you really cannot escape death no matter what, it's just a time which seems insignificant once you get close to death, no matter how much you lived (trust me, on your deathbed, you don't care about that...). The amount of time you spend in "nothingness" (death, if there's no afterlife) is INFINITELY more than the amount of time you actually live, no matter how much (since it isn't infinite), that's why it's "insignificant" from a rational perspective.
I don't understand the point in this, and I don't care who said the same, it doesn't make it more or less true.
I agree with the part about death (given you aren't ressurected or reborn, which I think I wrote about earlier that as our uniquely defined self must be physical manifested, as we do not believe in magic (hopefully not), that it's very likely the same unique combination will reoccour given enough time), which leads to the whole maximum population thing. Basicly if that's true, all you ever need is to store memory, identify consciousness and you can actually never die by age, accident, disease or anything else micro-/macroscopic. And if we get the automatification placed in the smallest parts of us, not even entropy can holds us down, but again all this I've written about before.
Quote:
But anyway let's ignore this for the time being. (mathematics is rational mate, just compute the 'limits' and see for yourself why infinity/ANY number results in infinity).
I know that if you only exist a limited time-span, and time is forever that you're correct. Though I don't get the point like I wrote above. Unless the point is in relation to you believing we won't exist forever due to entropy (or big freeze as you write), and to that I've answered this part. In reality you can calculate in comparision with the time the universe have existed, if my suggestion works, how big percentage you'll exist. It's all about probabilities and probably not something that's difficult to calculate if one decides to do so. I know that the percentage will be veeery low, but as long as it isn't zero (like in your case, or if you want, infinity by reversing the denominator and the nominator) then there's no problem and we'd actually be existing forever, if time is eternal.
Quote:
The second account is more like this (what I added is in blue for you, and red for me):
Overpoulation makes immortality a bad idea -> No no we'll live in space ->
Still not enough room, because we'll increase in size faster and faster -> Even if we'd increase in size faster than the universe (which increases with 2/3 of light speed last I checked, doubtful we'd ever reach such a speed) then I've argumentet why we would probably reach a maximum population already decided by the laws of nature. You are emotionally biased on this exploitation. ->
What's the point of living, rationally, if not for emotions saying life is good?? -> ???
Well for me the point is merely to be alive, that's enough for me I believe, but if you wish for emotions, then as I wrote in the previous post, there's no reason why you can't have the emotions you want in an utopia-like future.
And please don't include the "emotional biased" part in this, that part goes against the whole concept of boredom/fun, etc. to say short emotion.
Quote:
Remember the virus argument? Around there (2 posts later or so) you accused me of being emotionally biased. That's where I pointed out that choosing life as special is actually the bias here. Let's move on from this.
I remember you assembling my idea with the life of a virus yes, where I disagreed because the difference is that when we reach the maximum population we can choose a rule like 1 mind pr. body and thereby we won't flood. Choosing that life is special does not have to be emotional biased, I wrote why in my previous post, decisions doesn't have to be emotional biased, but they may be so. Again look at it like this, either life or non-life, if non-life means nothing at all, then what's there to choose else than life?
Quote:
You mean desire? Who said that desire can't be influenced by emotions?
Sure desire can be influenced by emotions, but no, I wouldn't call "want" and desire the same, you can have desires derived through a lot of things, but what is it that you consciously want, and what's merely desire due to lust should be seperated.
Quote:
Quote:
Secondly my problem in general isn't with emotions, we all have them, it's following them for no other reason than the emotion
And what is "I have to live as long as possible for enjoyment of life" other than an emotion? That's like saying "I have to live as long as possible to feel emotions.", there is no difference.
You're the only one bringing in enjoyment here , check my "final argument" in the previous post, and you'll see it has nothing to do with enjoyment, it has something to do with life is all there's so in reality there's no choice.
Quote:
But you will die no matter what, because the Universe will become static (in a long, long time, but still makes NO difference compared to "infinite non-existence").
The fact that it seems a "long" time is actually an ILLUSION of your brain -- in truth, it is infinite non-existence whether you live 1 year or 1 million years, because infinity/any number in limits is still infinity (mathematics... ).
How great, you did take my "final argument" with in your comments though in a way I'd say you shouldn't have written all the text above first, I'm not going to delete my comments about those parts, though answering this alone would probably have been enough:
Because the fact is I've written why the entropy problem is not unsolveable, and from that your first part doesn't hold true.
Thereby your illusion part makes no sense, because you know have infinity/infinity, and yes I do admit that the time of consciousness compared to the time of the universe is very small when we let time go to infinity, it's still infinite in itself and the length do unconsciousness do become an illusion, because you're not consciousness about it.
As a comment on something else btw:
I do honestly think, given my guesses are correct and we develop this technology, that our worst enemy will be what we try to preserve, life itself.
Oh and if you don't want to go back and read about all the entropy stuff I wrote before, which explains why your "big freeze" is not a problem, then here's a short summary:
Entropy is all about statistics, and there's a very very very small, but yet existing chance, that everything will be in one point, much bigger, still extreeemly small chance that huge amount of mass will be in several small points. The thing is, as given time is eternal, all probabilities will become true and we'll have a new big bang.
Now from this point, the whole concept of teleportation (or memory stored in atoms actually) will make it possible for us to reassemble with the very same consciousness and thereby the problem is solved.
Again I emphasize it's merely guesses, and guesses that don't have the same amount of data backing them up as the rise of entropy will keep on, or many other examples, but it'd however solve the problem you rise.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 15, 2009 05:26 PM |
|
|
I would not want to live forever.
Everybody else and all of your friends, familiy and relatives would die around you. And your body would probably still age and get weaker each day.
I want to live untill around 80-90 years old when you start to lose control over yourself and start to go senile etc.
I do think that eventually, there will be some "much longer life" "medicine".
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 15, 2009 05:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The universe does NOT increase in MATTER, but only in size.
That's a very fooslish thing to say, Death. How would you - or anyone else for that matter - know?
I find it actually a hell of a lot more likely that the universe is increasing its mass constantly.
This is going a bit far off-topic, but, you see, the assumption that there has been a fixed amount of matter/energy "hanging around", "waiting" for the big bang to occur is - in my humble opinion - a pile of nonsense.
It makes much more sense to assume a constant "trickling-in" of matter, specifically of neutrons.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 15, 2009 05:37 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 17:38, 15 Sep 2009.
|
Quote:
I never wrote it increased in matter.
So what sense does the argument that "it increases faster than we can catch it" make?
Quote:
Read what I wrote about entropy (and also the teleportation part, I think I mentioned it there as well), I gave a solution to the problem, from a very simple observation.
Hmm to be honest I didn't understand what you meant before, and I don't understand what you mean now -- I mean I get what you're saying, but I cannot see how it works out. Entropy isn't something magical, it's just statistics observation.
Think more in physics rather than some entropy magic: the Universe expands, accelerating so (not constantly but faster and faster). This means that, eventually, the force pulling it would become so strong that individual atoms get split up -- the atom force holding it will be not enough anymore. But this will happen long after the universe is actually dead -- as before that the Sun and any other star would be too far to provide energy anyway... just hypothetically speaking.
I cannot see how a second Big Bang is feasible from this. Seems to me the Universe is going the opposite direction, expanding ever more faster.
Quote:
Basicly if that's true, all you ever need is to store memory, identify consciousness and you can actually never die by age, accident, disease or anything else micro-/macroscopic. And if we get the automatification placed in the smallest parts of us, not even entropy can holds us down, but again all this I've written about before.
Ohforfsake, this is what I already said before: I'm talking about human-like humans, not in a "meta-mind" state -- that is, immortality for me in this sense means humans as we currently are, not in some special uploaded mind state.
Because most of my arguments are against human-like humans, not if we for example, become cyborgs, or uploaded in some hard-drive.
Quote:
Now from this point, the whole concept of teleportation (or memory stored in atoms actually) will make it possible for us to reassemble with the very same consciousness and thereby the problem is solved.
hmm isn't that more like cloning actually? I mean teleportation in this sense means constructing an identical you in another place, and destroying the current you. But why destroy the current? Why not just duplicate yourself?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 15, 2009 05:38 PM |
|
|
@Xerox
And if the immortality was for everyone, and we talk about you living the way you want (no sudden loss of control)?
Quote:
Quote:
The universe does NOT increase in MATTER, but only in size.
That's a very fooslish thing to say, Death. How would you - or anyone else for that matter - know?
I find it actually a hell of a lot more likely that the universe is increasing its mass constantly.
This is going a bit far off-topic, but, you see, the assumption that there has been a fixed amount of matter/energy "hanging around", "waiting" for the big bang to occur is - in my humble opinion - a pile of nonsense.
It makes much more sense to assume a constant "trickling-in" of matter, specifically of neutrons.
I believe the theory of today is actually that there is infinite matter(energy) in the universe, that's at least what I was told by one who is studying astrophysics. However that the universe should increase in matter, I've not heard before I must admit. Where does this "new matter" come from?
Edit:
Quote:
Quote:
I never wrote it increased in matter.
So what sense does the argument that "it increases faster than we can catch it" make?
That there always will be enough room. Though it doesn't matter much, the maximum population, though are more far out guess, is a better solution in itself.
Quote:
Read what I wrote about entropy (and also the teleportation part, I think I mentioned it there as well), I gave a solution to the problem, from a very simple observation.
Hmm to be honest I didn't understand what you meant before, and I don't understand what you mean now -- I mean I get what you're saying, but I cannot see how it works out. Entropy isn't something magical, it's just statistics observation.
It's all mathematics, I assume that we assume that the laws of physics today is correct, then by the second law of termodynamics (rise of entropy) and the assumption of eternal time, then at some point, as the probability is not-null, masses will be together, and it does not go against the second law as you believe (since we observe the reverse) as the second law talks about global expansion (looked over time), and this will be done in a very short time, and all in all you'll still have the global expansion, but locally you can have several big bangs.
So it might be something like this that for each, 10^(10^600) years of nothingness, there'll be 10^28 years of existance, random numbers I know, but it's to illustrate the size of things, and as we're not aware of the non existance period, and as we've made it so that the existance period reapply, then the problem is solved, the question is what's the smallest piece we need.
Quote:
Quote:
Basicly if that's true, all you ever need is to store memory, identify consciousness and you can actually never die by age, accident, disease or anything else micro-/macroscopic. And if we get the automatification placed in the smallest parts of us, not even entropy can holds us down, but again all this I've written about before.
Ohforfsake, this is what I already said before: I'm talking about human-like humans, not in a "meta-mind" state -- that is, immortality for me in this sense means humans as we currently are, not in some special uploaded mind state.
Because most of my arguments are against human-like humans, not if we for example, become cyborgs, or uploaded in some hard-drive.
Again I'm not talking about some "meta-mind", but I guess you can partly call it that, however the whole aspect of identifying what makes us ourself, uniquely, is really required. The memory storing was just for you and Doomforges sake, since you two seems to care about memory.
Also I can see how it seems non-human with memory-stored smallest part, again as that's my solution against the "big freeze" I think it's rather required.
Quote:
Quote:
Now from this point, the whole concept of teleportation (or memory stored in atoms actually) will make it possible for us to reassemble with the very same consciousness and thereby the problem is solved.
hmm isn't that more like cloning actually? I mean teleportation in this sense means constructing an identical you in another place, and destroying the current you. But why destroy the current? Why not just duplicate yourself?
For me teleportation equals "perfect" cloning where you destroy one part, or if you just transport all the parts of one part up another place, it doesn't matter how if you get into small enough pieces that it can be accelerated to light speed, as that's the fastest we can go.
However as I've written before, the whole concept behind it, is that it has to be the same mind, here's how I can best explain it:
Not the same mind:
You clone yourself, you see yourself, but you've no idea of what the other persons is thinking, seeing, going to do etc, you've no control of the clone.
The same mind:
You now have the senses of you having 2 bodies, but you've the exact same mind, and therefore you're consciously aware of both bodies, 2 bodies and 1 mind.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 15, 2009 05:40 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 17:41, 15 Sep 2009.
|
Quote:
That's a very fooslish thing to say, Death. How would you - or anyone else for that matter - know?
I find it actually a hell of a lot more likely that the universe is increasing its mass constantly.
This is going a bit far off-topic, but, you see, the assumption that there has been a fixed amount of matter/energy "hanging around", "waiting" for the big bang to occur is - in my humble opinion - a pile of nonsense.
It makes much more sense to assume a constant "trickling-in" of matter, specifically of neutrons.
The only problem with that is that the observation goes against it. More matter would mean the Universe's total gravity would increase, and start to collapse into itself, which means another Big Bang. This is in contrast to the expansion observed.
Quote:
I believe the theory of today is actually that there is infinite matter(energy) in the universe
Also unless you have infinite space scattered for the matter, you cannot have infinite matter -- at least if we take gravity and not some unknown force keeping it from working. Infinite matter means the Universe would be a black hole.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 15, 2009 05:45 PM |
|
|
|
No, Death, that would be true only, if the universe wasn't expanding or not expanding fast enough.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 15, 2009 05:51 PM |
|
|
But then, if the Universe expands at the same rate, the gravity (force) in a local area would not change, which goes again against the observations.
If it expands faster than matter being poured in, it must expand REALLY fast -- but that doesn't change the fact that things will get torn apart either! More matter or no more matter, if the Universe expands faster than that (and it does), it's still going to get torn apart (at the same approximate predictions, unless something happens in the meantime -- i.e it changes from acceleration to deceleration for unknown reasons -- but another Big Bang will ALSO be the death of everything).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 15, 2009 05:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But then, if the Universe expands at the same rate, the gravity (force) in a local area would not change, which goes again against the observations.
Isn't the expand of the universe measured through the shift of wave length in light? That's at least how I have understood it was done.
Quote:
but another Big Bang will ALSO be the death of everything).
Temporary, yes, but not permantly, that's what I try to explain .
Finally, I believe, how weird it may sound, that I was told that the universe already is infinite in both size and mass, how it still expands is beyond me, however something to consider at least, which I've quoted before:
Imagine the universe did consist of several big bangs, long long away from eachother. As you probably know gravity travels with the speed of light, thereby it can be that there exists entire worlds out there of the same size as the known universe which is so far from us, that we as of yet still haven't felt the gravity pull.
And the very thing is, when the gravity pull hits our universe then we won't experience it, before it hits Earth, simply because gravity waves travels with the speed of light.
So you can have a universe with infinite mass, and no black whole already if that's it.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 15, 2009 05:58 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:01, 15 Sep 2009.
|
Quote:
It's all mathematics, I assume that we assume that the laws of physics today is correct, then by the second law of termodynamics (rise of entropy) and the assumption of eternal time, then at some point, as the probability is not-null, masses will be together, and it does not go against the second law as you believe (since we observe the reverse) as the second law talks about global expansion (looked over time), and this will be done in a very short time, and all in all you'll still have the global expansion, but locally you can have several big bangs.
So it might be something like this that for each, 10^(10^600) years of nothingness, there'll be 10^28 years of existance, random numbers I know, but it's to illustrate the size of things, and as we're not aware of the non existance period, and as we've made it so that the existance period reapply, then the problem is solved, the question is what's the smallest piece we need.
This doesn't have to be about the second "law" of thermodynamics, if you think that it's a flawed law or anything like that. It is as simple as this:
The Universe has gravity. Gravity is a pulling force (towards the center -- Big Bang, whatever). However the Universe is accelerating: this means something from outside is pulling it out, or something from the center is pushing it outside. Either way this is much more stronger than gravity force, so it wins (i.e it expands).
It's like taking a rope with tension: tension is like gravity, and you enlarging it is like the expansion. If you do it too much you'll break it apart.
Quote:
Finally, I believe, how weird it may sound, that I was told that the universe already is infinite in both size and mass, how it still expands is beyond me, however something to consider at least, which I've quoted before:
Imagine the universe did consist of several big bangs, long long away from eachother. As you probably know gravity travels with the speed of light, thereby it can be that there exists entire worlds out there of the same size as the known universe which is so far from us, that we as of yet still haven't felt the gravity pull.
And the very thing is, when the gravity pull hits our universe then we won't experience it, before it hits Earth, simply because gravity waves travels with the speed of light.
So you can have a universe with infinite mass, and no black whole already if that's it.
That's not quite how relativity works, which means, that the Universe is not absolute to begin with. But let's ignore that.
If the Universe is infinite in size, it COULD have infinite matter scattered all over it, but it is irrelevant, as that matter MUST be "outside" the boundaries that push it apart, and it's like it's not even there!
Theoretically, there could be Heaven outside the Universe for example, but it is completely irrelevant, you can't go there anyway! So such matter is completely worthless. Let's just assume that there isn't any, since it's no different than saying there's an afterlife, and both aren't very observable.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 15, 2009 06:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's all mathematics, I assume that we assume that the laws of physics today is correct, then by the second law of termodynamics (rise of entropy) and the assumption of eternal time, then at some point, as the probability is not-null, masses will be together, and it does not go against the second law as you believe (since we observe the reverse) as the second law talks about global expansion (looked over time), and this will be done in a very short time, and all in all you'll still have the global expansion, but locally you can have several big bangs.
So it might be something like this that for each, 10^(10^600) years of nothingness, there'll be 10^28 years of existance, random numbers I know, but it's to illustrate the size of things, and as we're not aware of the non existance period, and as we've made it so that the existance period reapply, then the problem is solved, the question is what's the smallest piece we need.
This doesn't have to be about the second "law" of thermodynamics, if you think that it's a flawed law or anything like that. It is as simple as this:
The Universe has gravity. Gravity is a pulling force (towards the center -- Big Bang, whatever). However the Universe is accelerating: this means something from outside is pulling it out, or something from the center is pushing it outside. Either way this is much more stronger than gravity force, so it wins (i.e it expands).
It's like taking a rope with tension: tension is like gravity, and you enlarging it is like the expansion. If you do it too much you'll break it apart.
Doesn't really matter, since we do not know what kind of force (black matter /energy suggestions comes to mind) that does this, we know very little of why the universe is actually expanding, we merely know it does, so for all we know lots of stuff can still happen.
However the second law of thermodynamics (I do not believe it's flawed) explains this in overall (not in the detail we really need sadly), and as I believe it's true, thereby is the statement I presented earlier also true.
Edit: I'll not turn this into a chit-chat between us, so I'll log off now and come back later, that way other people won't be discouraged to read all of this.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 15, 2009 06:02 PM |
|
|
But that law has nothing to do with the expansion of the Universe directly, it explains only the conversion of energy and how a local system "preservers" (or not) energy. It's actually just a statistical law, not a "force" like the expansion.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 15, 2009 06:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But then, if the Universe expands at the same rate, the gravity (force) in a local area would not change, which goes again against the observations.
If it expands faster than matter being poured in, it must expand REALLY fast -- but that doesn't change the fact that things will get torn apart either! More matter or no more matter, if the Universe expands faster than that (and it does), it's still going to get torn apart (at the same approximate predictions, unless something happens in the meantime -- i.e it changes from acceleration to deceleration for unknown reasons -- but another Big Bang will ALSO be the death of everything).
Death, it's simply expanding and gaining mass. What's so difficult to understand about it? It's growing.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 15, 2009 07:53 PM |
|
|
I understand what you're saying but gaining mass means its total gravity increases.
Which means, if it expanded AND gaining mass at the same rate, it wouldn't expand, because the pulling forces (that expand it) would equal the gravitational forces. I don't know how to explain it easier sorry 
If it expands FASTER than gaining matter then we have what we observe today, it will perish some day. Whether or not it gains mass (gravity) doesn't matter, it matters whether the gain in mass (gravity) is smaller than the pulling forces (dark matter or whatever it's called, but I don't like that theory at all!), then we have the expansion which will lead to Big Freeze.
IF the mass gain (gravity increase) is faster than the expansion forces, then it will contract (due to gravity) and we'll have Big Crunch (aka another Big Bang). The only way for it to be stationary if it (the expansion forces) perfectly equal the mass gain. But that's not what is observed.
Of course, there is a lot we don't know and why it expands (like I said I hate the dark matter/dark energy theories), but for the moment it's the only observation we've got. (you know I'm not a 100% science freak so it's not like I'm not speculating "what if" myself either ).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 15, 2009 09:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If it expands FASTER than gaining matter then we have what we observe today, it will perish some day. Whether or not it gains mass (gravity) doesn't matter, it matters whether the gain in mass (gravity) is smaller than the pulling forces (dark matter or whatever it's called, but I don't like that theory at all!), then we have the expansion which will lead to Big Freeze.
Since no one knows what gravity actually is or how it works - witnh the exception that it works non-local (instanttaneous) - I cannot accept explanations that assume "pulling forces".
In fact we don't have much of a clue about all these things.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 15, 2009 09:20 PM |
|
|
No but it is expanding, and whether matter is poured or not, it seems the effect is nullified (i.e pulling force > gravity force, if we assume current physics anyway). Even if there are different physics in the middle, it doesn't change it that it's expanding -- unless the observations are wrong of course.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 15, 2009 10:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
But that law has nothing to do with the expansion of the Universe directly, it explains only the conversion of energy and how a local system "preservers" (or not) energy. It's actually just a statistical law, not a "force" like the expansion.
You're of course welcome to disagree all you like, but the fact is that as it is today, we don't know any reason (let's drop the religious parts) behind gravity or the concept of entropy rising, it may very well be the premise to any logic of the universe (together with other stuff such as electric forces, etc.).
Nor do we know everything there's to know, as we can't really explain why gravity works the way it does, merely describe it (which is really sufficient for me), the same goes with the anti-gravitational act of the universe expanding, and also the law of entropy, because we've only observed it for a finite time span, and in principle we can never know if the law we've derived to describe any given phenomena only works on local basis time-wise (it's like this now, but in a distant future don't expect there to be gravity or something like that), or if it's globally true.
We do of course assume global truth, because over the time spans we've observed and gathered data it's very likely that for us at least is very long time spans, these laws holds true.
Actually the law of entropy is about just as valid as the law of gravity in describing the general motion of the universe, and both predicts, in the long run, the very same thing, however the law of entropy do for local time spans predict the possibility of infinite big bangs, where as the law of gravity claims no statistics, but merely 100% always one direction.
In all honestly for me the law of entropy appeals much better, eventhough you can't use it to explain any local action, at least it's open for these, which the law of gravity isn't. Since both laws are equal valid, it's pretty much up to the person him-/herself to decide what to believe.
Okay now for something completely else. When I talk immortality, I mean not only humans, but everything that has a uniquely defined consciousness (a possible, though not certain, example could be animals). So not to repeat the whole "problem with immortality in the first place talk", let's assume we can avoid all problems, what's then your opinion about giving other species immortality? If we know they've a uniquely defined existance, or if we don't, etc.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 15, 2009 10:28 PM |
|
|
So what's wrong with expanding? It doesn't mean necessarily that something's pulling.
You know, Death, it's SPACE that's expanding. Gravitation, however, is WARPING it. MASS folds space around itself, so an EXPANDING universe based on MASS or MATTER "pulling" from AROUND space doesn't make that much sense, because that would mean that our universe was SURROUNDED by matter or "pulling force"
In that case, however, the mass or matter surrounding it would close the "gap" so-to-speak, instead of making it always bigger and bigger.
|
| |
|
|
