4 ms·

Even if you manage to digitise yourself (which seems to be the fantasy of many posters here) you're still limited by the ultimate end of the universe.

adrianN 7y ago
There is a nonzero chance that we're wrong about that and manage to escape the universe.
- Santosh83 7y ago
  Escape the universe into what? And who are the "we" who will escape trillions of quadrillions of years hence? Time changes us, whether we like it or not. Eternity is an abstract concept that will never be realised. What people desire by all these wishes to extend life is continuity, yet given enough period of change, there won't be much continuity to savour. People imagine they are only their thoughts and memories but those very things are dependent not just on our bodies but also our environments. Given enough change in the latter two then our thoughts and memories will become so discordant that the "you" will no longer be continuous. In effect: death, which you tried so hard to avoid.
  - solarengineer 7y ago
    Your post reminded me of The Last Question by Asimov https://www.multivax.com/last_question.html https://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
  - pixelbash 7y ago
    Its true I am not the me I was at 5, or 10, or 15, or 20, or 25. But the observer was there, and the observer very much wants to keep observing.
SirHound 7y ago
Quite different limits
Udo 7y ago
> Even if you manage to digitise yourself This article talks about a potential way to increase lifespan and quality of life by a very modest amount, by a process that if it is feasible at all for humans (which it likely won't be), will only be available in the somewhat distant future. Digitizing yourself is several orders of magnitude removed from that, both technologically and in terms of what it would mean for the individual. > you're still limited by the ultimate end of the universe. There is a huge chasm between the prospect of an increased your lifespan and the notion that existence should never end, even if that increase in life expectancy would happen to be extreme from our current point of view. Just because literally eternal life is not in congruence with physics (or most practical definitions of intelligence for that matter) doesn't mean the idea of living far longer than currently possible is invalid. I would even say these two have very little in common. > (which seems to be the fantasy of many posters here) It's an aspirational fantasy that I share. I recognize the fact that this will not become feasible in my lifetime, but I do not think it's a fantasy in the sense that it is unattainable if we work towards that goal. Given the choice, I would do it in a heartbeat. It's possible that we as a civilization will just opt to not pursue the matter further, the same as with any other scientific or technological goal.
garmaine 7y ago
I'll take 100 trillion years over a brief 80, thanks.
eli_gottlieb 7y ago
Somehow I expect my life to be plenty valuable with its ending around age ~80, despite the inevitable heat-death of the universe. Existential and emotional issues are quite different from medical/public health ones, so trying to substitute the former for the latter comes across as, in a way, snobby. Imagine telling a pair of newlyweds, "oh, may you have long life, good fortune, and good health, but also some day the sun will burn to cinders and everything will decay into fundamental particles as entropy overtakes all." The latter is only even relevant to the former as a way of showing that you think inhuman universal things are somehow more important than human things.
- Santosh83 7y ago
  I was addressing a few posters on this article who were specifically taking about 'uploading' themselves into some kind of digital repository as a means of finally overcoming biological shortcomings of easy mortality. I'm not saying anything on the value of slowing the ageing process to buy a few more decades or centuries. That's a different matter. Plus in the ultimate analysis human beings are no more or less valuable than anything. Yes, that's my personal view so I don't speak for anyone else.
  - eli_gottlieb 7y ago
    I think whether it's a "different matter" is up to, well, those guys who are gonna do that stuff. To me at least, there's a pretty firm separation between lifestyle choices, almost no matter how radical and just plain fucking weird, and universal existential theorizing about the cosmos.

adrianN 7y ago

There is a nonzero chance that we're wrong about that and manage to escape the universe.

Santosh83 7y ago
Escape the universe into what? And who are the "we" who will escape trillions of quadrillions of years hence? Time changes us, whether we like it or not. Eternity is an abstract concept that will never be realised. What people desire by all these wishes to extend life is continuity, yet given enough period of change, there won't be much continuity to savour. People imagine they are only their thoughts and memories but those very things are dependent not just on our bodies but also our environments. Given enough change in the latter two then our thoughts and memories will become so discordant that the "you" will no longer be continuous. In effect: death, which you tried so hard to avoid.
- solarengineer 7y ago
  Your post reminded me of The Last Question by Asimov https://www.multivax.com/last_question.html https://www.multivax.com/last_question.html
- pixelbash 7y ago
  Its true I am not the me I was at 5, or 10, or 15, or 20, or 25. But the observer was there, and the observer very much wants to keep observing.

SirHound 7y ago

Quite different limits

Udo 7y ago

> Even if you manage to digitise yourself This article talks about a potential way to increase lifespan and quality of life by a very modest amount, by a process that if it is feasible at all for humans (which it likely won't be), will only be available in the somewhat distant future. Digitizing yourself is several orders of magnitude removed from that, both technologically and in terms of what it would mean for the individual. > you're still limited by the ultimate end of the universe. There is a huge chasm between the prospect of an increased your lifespan and the notion that existence should never end, even if that increase in life expectancy would happen to be extreme from our current point of view. Just because literally eternal life is not in congruence with physics (or most practical definitions of intelligence for that matter) doesn't mean the idea of living far longer than currently possible is invalid. I would even say these two have very little in common. > (which seems to be the fantasy of many posters here) It's an aspirational fantasy that I share. I recognize the fact that this will not become feasible in my lifetime, but I do not think it's a fantasy in the sense that it is unattainable if we work towards that goal. Given the choice, I would do it in a heartbeat. It's possible that we as a civilization will just opt to not pursue the matter further, the same as with any other scientific or technological goal.

garmaine 7y ago

I'll take 100 trillion years over a brief 80, thanks.

eli_gottlieb 7y ago

Somehow I expect my life to be plenty valuable with its ending around age ~80, despite the inevitable heat-death of the universe. Existential and emotional issues are quite different from medical/public health ones, so trying to substitute the former for the latter comes across as, in a way, snobby. Imagine telling a pair of newlyweds, "oh, may you have long life, good fortune, and good health, but also some day the sun will burn to cinders and everything will decay into fundamental particles as entropy overtakes all." The latter is only even relevant to the former as a way of showing that you think inhuman universal things are somehow more important than human things.

Santosh83 7y ago
I was addressing a few posters on this article who were specifically taking about 'uploading' themselves into some kind of digital repository as a means of finally overcoming biological shortcomings of easy mortality. I'm not saying anything on the value of slowing the ageing process to buy a few more decades or centuries. That's a different matter. Plus in the ultimate analysis human beings are no more or less valuable than anything. Yes, that's my personal view so I don't speak for anyone else.
- eli_gottlieb 7y ago
  I think whether it's a "different matter" is up to, well, those guys who are gonna do that stuff. To me at least, there's a pretty firm separation between lifestyle choices, almost no matter how radical and just plain fucking weird, and universal existential theorizing about the cosmos.