76 replies to this topic

[Clifford Greenblatt]

Clifford Greenblatt:
Are you talking about intentional seeding of universes with duplicates, or MWI? With intentional seeding, by the time technology facilitates such seeding, aging will likely have been defeated and the duplicates in the other univeres will retain all knowledge from their originals including the cure for aging.

If you're referring to MWI, then in regards to the highlighted portion of your post, you may be correct.

My post does not assume anything about the truth or falsity of MWI. Intentional seeding is done by intentionally creating universes by extreme concentration of energy. Eternal expansion of our universe alone, without benefit of either MWI or intentional universe creation, would yield an infinite number of child universes through QM vacuum fluctuations. A statistical proportion of those universes would be very nearly identical to our own and in a statistical proportion of those universes a given person would have various degrees of duplicates. By Brian W’s present state argument, the sufficiently good duplicates will be as good as the “original.” You would have no way of knowing whether you are an “original” person or a very good duplicate of many others from long ago and far away.

[Clifford Greenblatt]

infinite lifespans are possible with finite duplication.

This means that the probability of a fatal accident can be reduced to absolute zero. Is this true? If the probability of a fatal accident could be reduced to one in 10^(10^(10^(10^(10^10)))) per 10^(10^(10^(10^(10^10)))) years it is still infinitely far from being absolute zero.

[Clifford Greenblatt]

Is it not possible for existential risks to approach 0 as time approaches infinite? A recursively self-improving intelligence that has managed to survive the throes of early existance, could concievably have a handle on it's existential risks, managing to continually reduce those risks over time.

Intelligence can do much to reduce risks of fatal accidents but to make the risks approach zero may be in conflict with fundamental QM laws. QM is statistical by nature and no amount of intelligence can make QM deterministic. Even if computress could expand a person to ten times the size of our present universe, there would be a certain probability per unit time that QM vacuum fluctuations would reduce the person to chaotic rubble. In 10^(10^(10^(10^(10^10)))) years, the likelihood of such a devastation is practically certain even with the most advanced possible intelligence.

[Clifford Greenblatt]

I'm not sure I'm qualified to argue with you on this specific subject. If the Omega point theory is valid, and a universe of finite dimensions (space and time) has infinite processing capacity, isn't immortality inevitable?

My mathematical knowledge is not sufficient to fully critique Frank Tipler’s omega point analysis. The idea of getting infinite processing power from a universe of finite dimensions (space and time) is rather interesting. This would seem to mean that a computer could be built that could compute all infinity digits of the decimal solution to the square root of two in a finite amount of time. Such a computer would require infinite memory. How do you get infinite memory when Frank Tipler calculated that there are no more than 10^(10^123)) bits of information in our entire visible universe (p. 220 of The Physics of Immortality, 1994)? I wonder what mainstream mathematicians and scientists would have to say about this.

Is there a minimum probability of destruction per unit time, after which no furthur reduction in existential risks are possible according to QM?

I could not tell you what the figure would be but the statistics of QM would definitely set such a limit.

[Clifford Greenblatt]

Would this be the case for all universes (as I assume it would)? If so, it would seem that immortality is achievable only through duplication or data imaging for the purpose of duplication. Where infinite duplicates would ensure immortality, whether through intentional seeding or natural processes.

This would be the case for all universes because QM applies to all possible universes. Physicists do not know how QM operates in a black hole, but gravity is so intense in a black hole that no kind of biological system could survive in it. If people in this universe could create child universes and send probes into them which reconstitute them, they would still face the QM limitations in the child universes. If they could multiply child universes at an exponential rate then they could make the multiplication process immortal but personal immortality would be through infinite duplication. An infinitesimal fraction of the propagation lines for a given person would be immortal but all other propagation lines for the person would eventually die. This would fail to make the person any more immortal than infinite duplication in an infinitely expanding universe. Even in this case, there would be an infinitesimal fraction of the infinite duplicates that would be immortal.

[Clifford Greenblatt]

I understand. Though technically, one universe alone wouldn't contain the infinite constituent parts required for infinite duplicates, correct? Unless an "infinitely expanding universe" would somehow permit the creation of infinite copies.

At any given time, the eternally expanding universe can contain only a finite number of duplicates. However, the number of duplicates grows with time. The number becomes infinite when time is considered infinitely into the future. If this universe is a child universe that descended from an infinite line of parent universes then the number of duplicates would be infinite already.

[Mind]

The fellow Bruce quoted in the first post has it wrong when he says life cannot be defined without death (and thus it follows that aging is a natural part of life). There are things....like rocks....that are not dead but they are not alive (in the most common sense of the definition). Thus I would say things can exist without being dead, or without aging.

Evolution designed us to age. It is a popular program on this planet, but it does not mean it is absolute throughout the universe. There is no "a priori" reason why we "have" to age. Given enough resources and intelligence, we should be able to change the program that nature delivered unto us.

Also, on cosmological scales, it makes most philosophical sense to me that the universe is infinite on both size and time scales. Thus there is an unlimited amount of energy at our disposal to remain immortal.

If the fellow wants to argue that proving something is immortal is akin to counting to infinity, let him ply that logic and die.

[Clifford Greenblatt]

Obviously what is the imperative for us is to determine the technological solution that will enable the pattern encoding experience and identity to be preserved.

How would the pattern encoding experience and identity be preserved if a person remains forever young but is sufficiently dynamic such that old experiences and identity eventually become irrelevant and are gradually replaced with new experiences and an ever changing "identity?" The original person would not die through aging but would perish through gradual replacement with a continuum of new persons.

[Clifford Greenblatt]

The informationally catastrophic abruptness of death will not be experienced.

Looking at time on a much broader scale, how does anyone avoid experiencing the informationally catastrophic abruptness of death? Even if a version of a person could suceed in becoming immortal, how does that person prevent mortal versions of himself from appearing in other universes? According to Brian W's present state argument, those mortal versions will have essentially the same identity if their information structure is sufficiently similar.

[rshack]

I am swamped right now. I will get back to this discussion soon.

[Clifford Greenblatt]

This hasn't come up yet, but proton decay could render infinite duplication impossible in this particular universe (and perhaps in all universes, individually). Though, infinite duplication would still be achievable among an infinite number of universes collectively, as discussed earlier.

According to Kenneth W. Ford, the lower limit of proton lifetime has been estimated to be 10^25 years No proton decay mechanism is known and no proton decay has ever been observed. Protons could be annihilated by eventually meeting up with antiprotons but, as far as I know, the number of protons in our universe is extremely greater than the number of antiprotons. If people could live long enough for proton decay to become an issue, they could create proton-antiproton pairs by high energy photon collision. Then there is the entropy issue to deal with long before this. Of course, there is the speculation that a type III civilisation could sort the entropy problem by creating new universes and crawling into them through wormholes.

It may not be possible to prevent random duplication in other universes.

It would be quite interesting to compute the statistics of life spans for the set of all duplicates of a person in all universes over all time infinitely into the future. Such statistics would have to account for the effect of intelligence and the will of the duplicates and their societies to be immortal. The possibility of creating and escaping into other universes would also figure into such statistics. Computing such statistics would be quite a tall order.

[Clifford Greenblatt]

Regarding quantum entanglement, could two particles be entangled across two universes? Could information be exchanged across universes this way, without the need for wormholes?

First, it would be of interest to consider whether quantum entanglement could be used for superluminal communication within a universe. A proof of the impossibility of this was presented in a 1998 paper. Using quantum entanglement for communication between two universes seems to me to present even more problems that superluminal communication of messages within one universe but I would not know how to go about proving this.

[manowater989]

Actually, since technological development, barring a catastrophic collapse and reversal, builds upon itself exponentially, (not just continuing to increase, but continuing to increase the RATE at which it continues to increase by geometric factors), I think we could easily hit Type III status sooner than 5,000 years, but this is just my theory. If one considers the definition of technology, which is putting knowledge of the way in which reality functions to use in order to produce desired effects, then the theoretical "ultimate" or "final" technology, which would consist of the ability to construct devices out of space-time itself, use ST as a material, alter it as desired, and rewrite the laws of physics to our liking by making use of either super-high-energy devices (most probably some type of "energy lenses", as some theoretical physicist who's name eludes me at the moment suggested) or the idea of "chronospacial or quantum robots", (and I should mention, are not "robots" in any sense of the word people commonly think of, merely protocols that produce a physical effect, related to quantum computers, one of which the universe itself may be, in the same way that conventional robots are related to conventional computers) which essentially create effects by reprogramming reality within an area on a fundamental level; may not be nearly as far off as we think.

What then? I don't know. One of us who gets his or her (or its'?) hands on it first, or maybe all of us (if we've reached some kind of plateau of egalitarianism by then), will be true gods of the stars if and when this technology comes around, nothing will be beyond our reach. I don't want to end up like that patent guy from a 100 years ago or whenever it exactly was who boldly proclaimed "there's nothing else to invent.", but I really believe this could happen, and I KNOW that we can't even try to begin to imagine what life would be like approaching this turning point, no less beyond it.

As to the subject of immortality set aside from everything else, the idea of wormholes to send things to other universes is precisely how personal immortality could be virtually assured. Trillions of constantly interconnected copies of a person (which would constituter a single, colossal hive-individual), whether they existed as biological, electronic, or some other form of substrate we haven't even theorized of yet, if maintained by constant-repair nanopresence constantly updated from a continually re-saved and backed-up design spec and making use of quantum encryption between segments to prevent any possibility of a virus introduced to one "cell" or "piece" spreading across the system, combined with some form of uninterruptible signal transmission (quantum entanglement was mentioned and would certainly make a good candidate) and maybe a few other clever, super-high-safety countermeasures I've neglected to think of, would, in all calculable, probabilistic, and actual likelihood remain stable no matter how long the time scale was stretched out to (feel free to add as many "10^"s as you like)...

[Clifford Greenblatt]

If one considers the definition of technology, which is putting knowledge of the way in which reality functions to use in order to produce desired effects, then the theoretical "ultimate" or "final" technology, which would consist of the ability to construct devices out of space-time itself, use ST as a material, alter it as desired, and rewrite the laws of physics to our liking by making use of either super-high-energy devices (most probably some type of "energy lenses", as some theoretical physicist who's name eludes me at the moment suggested) or the idea of "chronospacial or quantum robots", (and I should mention, are not "robots" in any sense of the word people commonly think of, merely protocols that produce a physical effect, related to quantum computers, one of which the universe itself may be, in the same way that conventional robots are related to conventional computers) which essentially create effects by reprogramming reality within an area on a fundamental level; may not be nearly as far off as we think.

The idea of rewriting the laws of physics to our liking and reprogramming reality is about the most amazing expectation about technological potential that I have encountered. Suppose our universe is not the beginning of nature but is the child of an infinite line of parent universes. Suppose versions of you were in a small fraction of those universes, meaning that you have infinite past versions of yourself. Would you not think that the people in some of those universes that you were in could have rewritten the laws of physics and reprogrammed reality so you would already be immortal in all universes, past present and future, and not have to be here as a mortal struggling with the issue of how to become immortal?

As to the subject of immortality set aside from everything else, the idea of wormholes to send things to other universes is precisely how personal immortality could be virtually assured. Trillions of constantly interconnected copies of a person (which would constituter a single, colossal hive-individual), whether they existed as biological, electronic, or some other form of substrate we haven't even theorized of yet, if maintained by constant-repair nanopresence constantly updated from a continually re-saved and backed-up design spec and making use of quantum encryption between segments to prevent any possibility of a virus introduced to one "cell" or "piece" spreading across the system, combined with some form of uninterruptible signal transmission (quantum entanglement was mentioned and would certainly make a good candidate) and maybe a few other clever, super-high-safety countermeasures I've neglected to think of, would, in all calculable, probabilistic, and actual likelihood remain stable no matter how long the time scale was stretched out to (feel free to add as many "10^"s as you like)...

You would need much more than trillions of redundant units to overcome the statistics of fatal accidents in 10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^10))))) years. If many of the redundant units die then are we not back to the problem that many of the duplicates will encounter a death experience?

[manowater989]

Ok, responses to everyone. Firstly, quantum entanglement does enable FTL transmission of data, that's the whole point of it. Entangled particles somehow "transmit" their spin-states instantaneously across any distance to their twin particles where-ever else they may be, although we have no way of knowing if it would work across multiple universes- if not, we may have to keep multiple wormholes running continuously so that the entanglement signals could be threaded through those, effectively making many universes into one for the sake of these purposes, but that could still be closed if a particular universe was approaching final heat-death or possibly collapse.

I'm not convinced that infinite material substrate would be needed simply because the time scale is infinite, I find reason to believe just a very high amount would suffice. But so be it, if infinite substrates are needed, the ability to produce infinite successions of universes and, therefore, matter within them (which is probably just an expression of space-time vibrating anyway) would handily provide it. Of course, I'm suggesting that new units be produced constantly to replace those that are destroyed, massive nano-accretion foundries built within nebulae could probably accomplish that in this universe, but ultimately, yes, over an infinite timescale, an infinite number of "cells" might potentially be needed, but a few trillion would be, in my estimation, the highest amount needed to remain stable at any given time, even 10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^10))))) years from now.

As for the prospect of god-like versions of me in past cycles of existence and why I would be here and not already all-powerful, I myself have been giving that a great deal of thought over the past several weeks. ST-Reprogramming or "ultimate" tech is indeed the most amazing thing we can probably conceive, it fits the bill of an actual, reproducible, scientific and engineering definition of what is literally magic or miracles, or even divine power. As to why I'm not already god if that's possible, of course the answer may be that it's not possible; but I don't believe that. I honestly think this is more of a philosophical question than one that science can answer at this time, even though it is science that will ultimately make it possible.

Instead of answering, let me answer your hypothetical question with another: if, in the future, the past is going to be changed, do we still in some way feel like we're experiencing the present, even though ultimately we won't remember it because none of it will ever have happened? If you believe in the quantum interpretation of time travel, than every possible past and future is already out there, and by "changing" them, you simply transport yourself to a different one, and the other people in the timeline you came from, from their perspective, don't notice any change. But the ability to alter reality itself throws even those rules out the window, it's just the next step up, as seemingly impossible and mind-boggling as time travel once seemed. It's an uneasy puzzle to solve.