I wont' say "evidence" we have settled that and you have followed the topic nicely. Coulda woulda shoulda, I wish. Someone hopes and they even talk about it. How about space travel through a black hole where when yolu emerge in another dimension you get to start all over in another time warp! We could do it if we replaced cells with machines that never break down, wear out, or become obsolete. I am sure they could get us through the black hole.
The thing is some have already speculated that some cells, even in humans, such as neurons do not truly age but only suffer from neurodegeneration due to aging supporting cells, such as glia and vascular cells.
We already know that you can transplant a neuron from a mouse to a rat that lives twice as long and the neuron will last twice as long as the original host mouse, all without genetic engineering.
Already in humans we've seen humans last over 120 years, that is neurons lasting over 50% longer than the average lifespan without genetic engineering, mostly the same genetic maintenance and repair exists in all humans and in all human cells. Some cells lasts months others last decades, and some believe perhaps indefinitely.
It is a phenomena similar to that which happens in insects where despite the exact same genome differences in gene expression can lead to over10 fold differences in lifespan. Some insects lasting months while others last over half a century.
We could check the neural genetic maintenance and repair of say bowhead whale, as well as their metabolic activity. In terms of repair and maintenance, I doubt drastic SENS like engineering was done by evolution. It is imho likely that human neurons if transplanted into a bowhead whale would last just as long, over two centuries. At least that is what the mice results, and the lifespan of Jeanne Calment without dementia would suggest. Ponder if without genetic modification individual human cells can last over 120 years, how come individual humans tend to last just around 80 years? Ponder if a mouse has genetic repair and maintenance that allows its cells to last over twice its lifespan why does it live half as long as its very cells have the potential to live?
In humans we've already seen people who worked for decades in offices where you could barely see from all the smoke, also people who smoked two packs of cigarettes a day, and even those who were high amounts of burnt black processed meat eaters. Nothing stopped these people from reaching centenarian status, obviously such high carcinogen load led to cancerous cell after cancerous cell formation, but their body fought it off.
Already it has been seen in some mice that there is a sort of cancer immunity present, able to naturally fight off implants of aggressive cancer cells:
"Spring 1999. “Professor Cui, this mouse didn’t get cancer. Should I get rid of him?” It was a standard experiment in Zheng Cui’s lab at Wake Forest University, North Carolina: Inject inbred mice with cancer cells, not to study cancer, but to produce antibodies for a lipid experiment. “There must have been a mistake,” said Cui, “Inject him again.” Two weeks later, still no cancer. “Try again with a higher dose!” Still no cancer. No cancer even at a million times the lethal dose. Cui decided to breed the mutant mouse."-source huffington post
Research in some humans also showed similar immune cells more apt at fighting cancer, indicating that some form of cancer immunity might be present in some humans.
Two interesting snippets from the above huffington post article:
1st
"Cui began to seek funding to test the transfusion theory. He already knew support wouldn’t come easily; blood transfusions are old technology and so can’t be patented. The pharmaceutical industry of course would take no interest. And as Cui found, clinical oncologists resist anything outside the usual treatments, even when they have nothing more to offer their patients."-source huffington post
Again this bad horrible lust for uncontrollable wealth from many in the industry is sad. Anything that can't make loads of money tends to be ignored, the pathetic thing is that many of the people involved from pharmaceutical CEOs to oncologists are drowning in cash from their large salaries, yet it seems many want more and can ignore promising new therapies if it won't satistify the uncontrollable lust for money. I mean if you're already wealthy, this quest for more, more, more, well it's like some sort of mental disease especially when it costs human lives by delaying promising treatments.
2nd
"The bad news: His wife was diagnosed with stage IV squamous cell carcinoma with massive metastases to all her major organs (lungs, liver, spleen and kidneys) and was given months to live. She had run out of conventional treatment options after partial surgery and chemotherapy. But he planned to take her to China for treatment at his other trial site in March 2013. Two months ago, good news and bad news again. Good news: we met with Cui and his wife. She looked terrific. To the astonishment of her doctors, her condition appears completely stable after 14 months, with no further treatment of any sort. She told us the transfusions gave her a high fever, but no other side effects."-source huffington post
Further reading of the huffington post article shows how promising therapies go unfunded while millions go into pathetic drugs that at most tend to offer only a few more months of life with many side effects. Cancer is an evolving, an adapting, living disease, to fight such immune therapies seem far more promising. Given that some people live through decades of high carcinogen consumption, as mentioned above, and again still live symptom, disease, free, obviously the bodies of some are able to handle it, to defeat it.
It's good to see that at least some of those involved in cancer research can get what seems like access to such promising research.
The natural state of biology is to self renew, to self perpetuate, biology is fundamentally ageless. Even some of the fastest reproducing cell lines only have about 400 mutations after a century of lifespan, that is in a human centenarian, compared to around 50 mutations in a newborn, negligible in a genome of billions of bases.
Simulations of immortal versus mortal organisms, have suggested that mortals can actually outcompete immortals such that mortality can evolve.
In the brain it seems as long as the glymphatic system is operational molecular garbage can be removed and no neurodegeneration occurs. It is failure of the glymphatic system that appears to precipitate degeneration and disease. How do we know that the lymphatic system in the rest of the body doesn't also have a similar function carrying away molecular junk?
In any case just as a human can last 50% longer than average without vast engineering solutions, it may be the case that each cell has the genetic maintenance and repair to last twice as long, perhaps indefinitely. At least in the mice each cell has the capacity to last twice as long as the mice itself does.
Regards moving or traveling, if all is digital all that is needed is to change the local digital patterns, and you can bring people and places from past present future in any location real or fictional. No need to traverse the stars or universes. All possible worlds would be accessible from within the ultimate computer. I also do not think a digital computer needs to run for time within the simulation to exist, from an atemporal pattern or an eternal pattern time may emerge as some physicists believe might be the case for our reality with the idea of the temporal block time universe where all moments are eternal and an atemporal superstructure holds them all.
So all that would need happen is for the appropriate pattern to be embedded in an eternal substrate, which may already be the case.
Edited by Castiel, 31 August 2016 - 02:17 AM.