12 replies to this topic

[AgentNyder]

[!]

Immortality is impossible.

The reason is because no one can say with 100% certainty that we are not going to die tomorrow. The notion that we are effectively immortal is false.

Of course no one can also say that there will never be an 100% certainty of immortality.

So how do we approach this problem and how do we measure immortality? With great difficulty.....

You have to measure the probability of death in a certain time frame (for simplicity I'll say the probability of dying on any given day). There are many factors to consider when measuring the probability of death:

*There are many ways to die. Each of these ways has to be objectively measured to find out the probability of them occuring at any given time. For example; in if you were living in Queensland (depending on how long you were there) in the year 1999-2000 your chance of being murdered was 211/the population of Qld, ceteis perebis. However since murder rates don't tend to fluctuate much you could get a fairly good trend result and give a fairly accurate figrue of your probability of getting murdered on any given day in the state of Qld. Although to be more accurate you would need to find specific murder rates in specific geographical locations within QLD. Of course there are other modes of death but this is just one example.

*Location plays an important factor of course, given for example that infant mortality rates are higher in Tunisia then Britain. Or your probability of being killed by a Polar Bear is higher in Antarctica then in Paris.

*Technology has to be factored in, as it is arguably safe to say that the probability of living to 80 is much higher now than in 1800 obviously due to medical advances.

*Externalities - such as the chance that we'll get hit by an asteroid, wiped out by aliens or other factors that are difficult to measure.

*Individual characteristics (such as whether you're risk averse, risk accepting or risk neutral); cognitive machines could be useful here: http://www.businessw..._4912_tc121.htm

Can anyone think of any more?

Since you cannot measure probabilities with the greatest accuracy you have to allow for margin of error. However as our knowledge increases we may be able to reduce this margin of error as much as possible.

The point of all this? Statisticians can measure progress by how much we have reduced the probability of death so that it it gets as close as it can to ZERO. Whether we ever reach ZERO is uncertain.

One argument against immortality is that the more you live, the greater the probability of having an accident or something. The probability of death gets larger. Yet of course death rates in all categories are bound to change. So this is close to irrelevant. Past probabilities won't matter as future probabilities get closer and closer to zero, thus in 20 years we will be living with far greater certainty in the present and the expected future from that point (20 years from now).

When we have super-intelligent AI they could give us even better results and this progress indicator could be our evidence of where we are at on the immortality scale. I think it is relatively safe to say that the graph will show an upward trend. [B)]

[Bruce Klein]

We're slowly putting together the Threats To Life Council TTCL. You may wish to explore and interject as this will be of importance to ImmInst. I'll draft more explicit plans, but in general we'll attempt to enumerate and categorize in order of importance the risks to life over time.

[chubtoad]

That is an interesting idea BJKlein. Maybe start another thread to discuss it? AgentNyder I see your point but I might be able to think of a loophole in your argument, you suggest that there are infinite time intervals with some probability of dieing in each so when you add up the probabilities you have a certainty. But the sum of an infinite series does not always add up to infinity. For example 1/2 +1/4 + 1/8 +1/16 + ...... approaches the finite number 1 not infinity. I am not sure if this kind of situation could happen with immortality though, so you may be right.

[AgentNyder]

I did think of that, chubtoad, but I thought along the lines of this:

If the probability of death gets smaller, then say today my probability of dying is 0.0001 whilst next year it will be 0.00001 until it gets smaller and smaller. As long as I am able to survive these probabilities and say I make it to the year 2100 and the probability of dying on any given day is 0.000000000000000000000000001 then all of the probabilities in my past won't matter but I can continue to look forward to the future where each probability that adds up each day gets tinier.

So it'd be like:

0.0001 + 0.000001 +0.000000000001 +0.000000000000000000000001 as the future probabilities.

So the main issue is surviving them up to a point which is possible as long as the probability of death never approaches 1.

[Mind]

One argument against immortality is that the more you live, the greater the probability of having an accident or something. The probability of death gets larger.

I have to clarify this point a bit AgentNyder. It a misconception that the risk of death gets greater each day. If I have a 1 and 20 risk of dying from cancer each day... this does not mean that I only have 20 days to live cancer-free. Each day the risk is only 1 in 20. 100 years from now when I wake up in the morning the risk would still be 1 in 20.. Now, this is just a theoretical example, but the point is one about probabilities. It is common to think that given a certain probability something will happen...as days go by...it becomes inevitable that the event will happen. This is not true. The probability stays the same.

Of course, in the example I am not including changes in information. Things we do and learn each day will help us refine or change the probabilities. We can get a more accurate picture.

[AgentNyder]

You're right mind as with each event the probability remains the same like tossing a coin in consecutive events will always yield the same probability of a head or tail.

[AgentNyder]

You're right mind as with each event the probability remains the same like tossing a coin in consecutive events will always yield the same probability of a head or tail.

EDIT: Double post [angry]

For some reason I was thinking about marginal probability but the fact is that our probabilities of death can get smaller and smaller. Although some probabilities might get larger and we have to work on those.

So does anyone here think this is a good way to measure immortality? [?]

Edited by AgentNyder, 02 September 2003 - 02:26 AM.

[chubtoad]

I have reconsidered what I said AgentNyder and I dont beleave that the probabilities of death will keep decreasing at that exponential rate although they may effectively become 0 outside of some quantummechanical madness( I don't think human error is going to be a problem any more). But, if you consider the quantum mechanical flukes as sources of death then we are all being killed constantly so I wouldn't consider a real argument. On the idea of the if a coin comes up tails 1000 times it still has a 1/2 chance of coming up heads I agree. But there may be a problem when you flip the coin infinite times. If heads meant you would survive then your probability of surviving n flips would be 1/(2^n). If you lived forever the # of flips would increase without bound so your probabability of surviving would be lim(n>>infin)1/(2^n) = 0. I am not really sure how the world will be though, if it is a nice exponential decrease in death probability then immortality will be fine, if it levels off then immortality will be impossible(I think this is a very unlikely result), if it shrinks to 0 outside quantum mechanics we are fine. I think that if immortality is permitted by physics then probability won't do anything to stop it. Interesting topic AgentNyder, certainly something that needed to be considered.

[AgentNyder]

I have reconsidered what I said AgentNyder and I dont beleave that the probabilities of death will keep decreasing at that exponential rate although they may effectively become 0 outside of some quantummechanical madness( I don't think human error is going to be a problem any more). But, if you consider the quantum mechanical flukes as sources of death then we are all being killed constantly so I wouldn't consider a real argument. On the idea of the if a coin comes up tails 1000 times it still has a 1/2 chance of coming up heads I agree.  But there may be a problem when you flip the coin infinite times.  If heads meant you would survive then your probability of surviving n flips would be 1/(2^n).  If you lived forever the # of flips would increase without bound so your probabability of surviving would be lim(n>>infin)1/(2^n) = 0.  I am not really sure how the world will be though, if it is a nice exponential decrease in death probability then immortality will be fine,  if it levels off then immortality will be impossible(I think this is a very unlikely result), if it shrinks to 0 outside quantum mechanics we are fine.  I think that if immortality is permitted by physics then probability won't do anything to stop it.  Interesting topic AgentNyder, certainly something that needed to be considered.

Sorry, I don't quite grasp what you said about quantum mechanics. Give me some time to research that one but thanks for mentioning that.

1/(2^n) - Do you mean 1 divided it by 2 to the power of infinity? Can you tell me how you reached that conclusion? If say, my probability of being killed on any given day is 1/2, then I assumed that each day would be a single event - like a flip of a coin. So even reaching up to infinity you still have infinity seperate events with the same probability (assuming it doesn't change). Anyway, by my reasoning, the number of possible outcomes would increase exponentially, but the probability will always remain the same.

[exarch]

Ive noticed that you seem to want to include human error in this when you are calculating, the possible numeric line that would determine what the probability is of you dying that day. Yet two errors here.
1. With immortality it is a given that death need not come into the picture.
As immortality is in other words not-mortal. Meaning that death is not a posibility.

2. It is of human nature and of human evolution that each generation die, thusfore advancing the next, without the hinderence of the previous generation.
Therefore determining that immortality, is a non-human trait, and therefore cannot have human error.
- Mortimer Temporis, Comptroller - Interation X

[Daedal the 13th Son]

Immortality Is 100 % true

I am Immortal not becuase I decided, but because of my wisdom my connection with the Divine. I joined this site. Because of the topic Immortality. I have realized that There is alot of science behind some of your views. About 7 years ago sometimes I doubted what I was trying to understand of the realization of acsension. I knew that science was moving at a rate were I knew through science It could be possible. But over time my spirtual path progressed I came to the realization that I truely was Immortal. To acieve this state, Science may one day acomplish this. Or you can learn as I did. All the answers are inside you. You must learn the progressions and thought patterns to achieve this.

Daedal

[Omnido]

Interesting how you say you are immortal.
How do you define this immortality?
What is the nature of the "Divine" ?
What is the purpose of the "Divine" ?

You speak of ambiguities and abstracts. Perhaps you might formulate some system of comprehensive explanation behind your interests and opinions?

Yes, many if not most of us are scientific. This shouldnt deter you from expressing your opinion, and in most cases it should facilitate an easier transition and assisted definition for you by those of us who take an interest in your views.

When we speak of immortality, we are referring to physical immortality. I.E immortality of the body and biological mind as some form of continued substrate or operation beyond the normal genetic predispositional time limits and constraints.
Perhaps you might elaborate on what you define as your "Immortalty."

[brokenportal]

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is
possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something
is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
- Arthur C. Clarke's First Law

There are so many dimensions to a concept. When all imaginable aspects seem to be exhausted, then who ever sees that as the end of the road? It seems always that we have just reached the limit of the angles we can imagine at that time. If we continue looking for the way through, it seems the answer is always there to be found.