Forums > Social Chat > The Physics of Immortality.
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Has anyone read Frank Tiplers 'The Physics of Immortality'?
Tipler is a respected academic with post grad qualifications in cosmology, quantum physics and computing science.
His book aims to prove, using ideas in physics/computing/cosmology that at the end of time we will all be ressurected to an eternal afterlife i.e. that the judeo/christian view is essentially correct.
Here's a very consise summary of the essentials of his theory: -
Human Consciousness is essentially a program running on hardware (the brain being the hardware) and, as such, could be run on a silicon equivalent i.e. artificial intelligence.
It is impractical for humanity to explore/populate the cosmos by sending people into space, limitations imposed by being restricted to sub light velocity, transporting masses of the order of human body weight over cosmological distances and maintaining human life etc; mean that the only viable solution is that small computerised craft with artificial intelligence consciousness' go instead.
The systems will be self replicating i.e. can travel to a different system, collect matter and reproduce themselves; the copies can then travel on and do the same.
Such craft, traveling close to the speed of light, will be able to populate the galaxy, then cross the vast inter galaxial distances and ultimately populate the entire universe.
By the time this has happened the universe will have reached maximum expansion, and have commenced it's contraction (the theory does rest on the view that the expanding universe is 'closed' and will collapse, rather than being 'open' and expanding for eternity- Tipler explains why the universe must be closed in the scientific appedix at the back of the book).
As the universe gets closer to its doom, radiation levels will be too high for matter as we know it to exist, and the conscious units that populate will have to be embodied on subatomic particle systems.
An important thing to note here is that the percieved time flow of an 'artificial intelligence' based consciousness need bear no relation to time flow in the external world i.e. it could experience ten seconds of life whilst in the real world a year passes.
Conversly, given sufficent computing power (processor speed/memory capacity) a thousand lives could be lived in the passing of ten seconds of 'real' time.
This is important because the computer system in place in the last few minutes of the universes existance will make use of the ever increasing heat to enable greater processing speed.
In these last few minutes its computing power will become so great that it will have enough resources to systematically simulate the consciousness of every one who has ever lived.
As the simulation of a consciousness is effectivly identical to the original consciousness, the result is that we long dead individuals will be ressurected at the end of time.
I expect that the more astute amongst you will be thinking 'that seems to make sense, but, given that the universe and all it contains is mere seconds away from total destruction, where does the eternal life part come into it?'
This is where it gets clever, at a certain point the rising heat level of the collapsing universe enables the increase in processing power to outstrip the diminishing size of the universe.
i.e. the processing power will more than double for each halving of the size of the world giving rise to the following situation: -
Size of the universe- 1 1/2 1/4 1/8 1/16 1/32..........0
Processing power 1 2 4 8 16 32..........infinite
Thus, as the universe proceeds to zero size (it's end), the processing power increases without limit.
Bearing in mind that the percieved time flow of the simulated consciousnesses is independant of real time, and is a function of the processing speed of the system it is held on; this means that an unlimited no. of individuals can be ressurected, and will have the option of an unlimited amount of apparent time to exist in i.e. eternal life.
It all sounds a bit crazy on first hearing, but Frank Tipler is well respected in the various disciplines he works in.
I have seen a few references to his theory in academic works on cosmology, and the general view seems to be that, while his conclusion is a little wild, the physics and maths used in his arguments are valid. He is certainly not considered to be a crank.
His book is split into two parts, the main section being an accessible overview of the theory which can be understood by anyone who has a laymans grasp of quantum physics.
The second section is a set of appendices which contain the detailed proofs and equation; this is totally beyond me as it uses very advanced maths and physics.
Has anyone read Frank Tiplers 'The Physics of Immortality'?
Tipler is a respected academic with post grad qualifications in cosmology, quantum physics and computing science.
His book aims to prove, using ideas in physics/computing/cosmology that at the end of time we will all be ressurected to an eternal afterlife i.e. that the judeo/christian view is essentially correct.
Here's a very consise summary of the essentials of his theory: -
Human Consciousness is essentially a program running on hardware (the brain being the hardware) and, as such, could be run on a silicon equivalent i.e. artificial intelligence.
It is impractical for humanity to explore/populate the cosmos by sending people into space, limitations imposed by being restricted to sub light velocity, transporting masses of the order of human body weight over cosmological distances and maintaining human life etc; mean that the only viable solution is that small computerised craft with artificial intelligence consciousness' go instead.
The systems will be self replicating i.e. can travel to a different system, collect matter and reproduce themselves; the copies can then travel on and do the same.
Such craft, traveling close to the speed of light, will be able to populate the galaxy, then cross the vast inter galaxial distances and ultimately populate the entire universe.
By the time this has happened the universe will have reached maximum expansion, and have commenced it's contraction (the theory does rest on the view that the expanding universe is 'closed' and will collapse, rather than being 'open' and expanding for eternity- Tipler explains why the universe must be closed in the scientific appedix at the back of the book).
As the universe gets closer to its doom, radiation levels will be too high for matter as we know it to exist, and the conscious units that populate will have to be embodied on subatomic particle systems.
An important thing to note here is that the percieved time flow of an 'artificial intelligence' based consciousness need bear no relation to time flow in the external world i.e. it could experience ten seconds of life whilst in the real world a year passes.
Conversly, given sufficent computing power (processor speed/memory capacity) a thousand lives could be lived in the passing of ten seconds of 'real' time.
This is important because the computer system in place in the last few minutes of the universes existance will make use of the ever increasing heat to enable greater processing speed.
In these last few minutes its computing power will become so great that it will have enough resources to systematically simulate the consciousness of every one who has ever lived.
As the simulation of a consciousness is effectivly identical to the original consciousness, the result is that we long dead individuals will be ressurected at the end of time.
I expect that the more astute amongst you will be thinking 'that seems to make sense, but, given that the universe and all it contains is mere seconds away from total destruction, where does the eternal life part come into it?'
This is where it gets clever, at a certain point the rising heat level of the collapsing universe enables the increase in processing power to outstrip the diminishing size of the universe.
i.e. the processing power will more than double for each halving of the size of the world giving rise to the following situation: -
Size of the universe- 1 1/2 1/4 1/8 1/16 1/32..........0
Processing power 1 2 4 8 16 32..........infinite
Thus, as the universe proceeds to zero size (it's end), the processing power increases without limit.
Bearing in mind that the percieved time flow of the simulated consciousnesses is independant of real time, and is a function of the processing speed of the system it is held on; this means that an unlimited no. of individuals can be ressurected, and will have the option of an unlimited amount of apparent time to exist in i.e. eternal life.
It all sounds a bit crazy on first hearing, but Frank Tipler is well respected in the various disciplines he works in.
I have seen a few references to his theory in academic works on cosmology, and the general view seems to be that, while his conclusion is a little wild, the physics and maths used in his arguments are valid. He is certainly not considered to be a crank.
His book is split into two parts, the main section being an accessible overview of the theory which can be understood by anyone who has a laymans grasp of quantum physics.
The second section is a set of appendices which contain the detailed proofs and equation; this is totally beyond me as it uses very advanced maths and physics.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
member
31 posts
Location: Kingston
31 posts
Location: Kingston
Posted:
When was this written? Unless something has changed very recently, the most current theories predict that the universe is open.
When was this written? Unless something has changed very recently, the most current theories predict that the universe is open.
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
Sounds like an interesting proof I once heard. Went like this. You are traveling to the door. Your travel toward it can be seen as 1/2ing the current distance left each time you reach the previous half-way point. As you approach nearer and nearer, the 1/2 way distance gets smaller and smaller, until (theoretically) you raech the door. Its a valid way of looking at travel, only you can never ever possibly reach your goal, as each time you get half way there, you half the distance again and again infintesimly small once you get near it.
Similarly, the universe collapses nearer and nearer but never reaches "true" collapsing as the computer has reached a computational level that makes times relativeness obsolete.
Here's a loophole though. The second rule of thermodynamics states that entropy (disorder) is constantly increasing. Thus the universe is always expanding. A collapsing universe would work in the opposite direction, entropy decreasing until all matter is one. Essentially, time moves forward to the point where the universe begins collapsing, and then it moves backwards (from our point o view). How do memory circuits work in that scheme? Does the computer "remember" the future, or the past that has "not technically" happened yet because now time is moving backwards? Further, if the universe will collapse like this, then it is equally probable that the reversal of time not only will happen, but has happened several times already (The windows-screensaver-where-the-ball-keeps-exploding-and-coming-back-together theory of time if you will) Why then do you "remember" the past and not the future?
Two POVs on this: one, time is one imutable shape, kinda like a cone in which change in place in time moves forward and back. Or two, the karmic interpetation I guess we can call it, time proceeds in one straight line and the universe collapses and blows up again and again, like an infinitely extended series of cones, however each cone is distinct and different, not the same one as in the previous one. Explains why you remember only the past. When "consciousness" reaches the end of the cone and turns back, is it "erasing" memory, "adding to memory" or does it simply forget and experience again what it once "remembered"? Time and space are forever linked: a change in one affects the other. Reversal of space = reversal of time, in some theories anyway.
Entropy is a crazy thing and fun to theorize about. I believe it is also the prime reason why modern theories state that the universe is most assuradly "constantly expanding". Either way it sucks. Either eventually the universe expands out to the point that everything reaches an energetic temperature of nil, or it collapses into a big ball of fire. Death by fire or ice?
Sounds like an interesting proof I once heard. Went like this. You are traveling to the door. Your travel toward it can be seen as 1/2ing the current distance left each time you reach the previous half-way point. As you approach nearer and nearer, the 1/2 way distance gets smaller and smaller, until (theoretically) you raech the door. Its a valid way of looking at travel, only you can never ever possibly reach your goal, as each time you get half way there, you half the distance again and again infintesimly small once you get near it.
Similarly, the universe collapses nearer and nearer but never reaches "true" collapsing as the computer has reached a computational level that makes times relativeness obsolete.
Here's a loophole though. The second rule of thermodynamics states that entropy (disorder) is constantly increasing. Thus the universe is always expanding. A collapsing universe would work in the opposite direction, entropy decreasing until all matter is one. Essentially, time moves forward to the point where the universe begins collapsing, and then it moves backwards (from our point o view). How do memory circuits work in that scheme? Does the computer "remember" the future, or the past that has "not technically" happened yet because now time is moving backwards? Further, if the universe will collapse like this, then it is equally probable that the reversal of time not only will happen, but has happened several times already (The windows-screensaver-where-the-ball-keeps-exploding-and-coming-back-together theory of time if you will) Why then do you "remember" the past and not the future?
Two POVs on this: one, time is one imutable shape, kinda like a cone in which change in place in time moves forward and back. Or two, the karmic interpetation I guess we can call it, time proceeds in one straight line and the universe collapses and blows up again and again, like an infinitely extended series of cones, however each cone is distinct and different, not the same one as in the previous one. Explains why you remember only the past. When "consciousness" reaches the end of the cone and turns back, is it "erasing" memory, "adding to memory" or does it simply forget and experience again what it once "remembered"? Time and space are forever linked: a change in one affects the other. Reversal of space = reversal of time, in some theories anyway.
Entropy is a crazy thing and fun to theorize about. I believe it is also the prime reason why modern theories state that the universe is most assuradly "constantly expanding". Either way it sucks. Either eventually the universe expands out to the point that everything reaches an energetic temperature of nil, or it collapses into a big ball of fire. Death by fire or ice?
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
I figure super strings if they can be tested and proven will enable space travel and all kinds of things. so we won't need all this AI sillyness.
I figure super strings if they can be tested and proven will enable space travel and all kinds of things. so we won't need all this AI sillyness.
BRONZE Member
old hand
1,107 posts
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Australia
old hand
1,107 posts
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Australia
Posted:
Well, in a hundred years, give or take, every one of us is going to find out if there's an after life or not. I'm not going to worry about it until then.
Well, in a hundred years, give or take, every one of us is going to find out if there's an after life or not. I'm not going to worry about it until then.
There is a slight possibility that I am not actually right all of the time.
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
Mr. (Dr.? - grad qualifications doesn't mean he ever got a Ph.D.) Tipler needs to bone up a bit on his cosmology me thinks.
He seems to neglect the fact that as the universe collapses, time itself would in change in its nature, slowing and then becoming meaningless at the final moment of collapse. Figuring computing power based on the speed of computation is meaningless when time is meaningless. The question is, would time slow faster than this computing power speed could increase? Well, the former is physics, so we could actually calculate that. The former is metaphysics, so that makes things harder to calculate. Even if I buy the arguement that the this processing power increases with the square of the universe's size (which I am dubious about, since all dimentions and spacial sizes will shrink, not just the ones between matter, but the ones of matter as well), the time will slow as per the same rate as as time dialation in special relativity (which, contrary to popular beleif, was NOT invented by Einstein, who is guilty of one of the world's most significant cases of plagerism in this regard), at least that would be my first guess - I could be wrong about that. Anyway, this means that while this proposed processing power increase will initially outstrip time dialation, the time dialation will win out in the end and the computation speed will become infinitely slow as the universe becomes infinitely close to final collapse.
Another factor is that processing power for a given processor slows with increased ambient heat. This is a consequence of entropy and a basic rule of the universe we live in. Time and entropy do not reverse in a contracting universe. Time will be affected in that it would slow, but only noticeably near the very end of the collapse. Entropy would continue to do its job until the very end. Once entropy was truely overcome, the next big bang would start and the universe would rise from its ashes like a pheonix. If entropy reversed before this, while the universe was still contracting, then the universe would cease to contract and start expanding again. Point in fact, entropy will never actually reverse, since time becomes meaningless at about the same time anything would hapen to entropy, so it is pointless to try and say when that would happen - in terms of this universe, it is effectively never, as time will stop before entropy reverses. once time stops, the basic definition of entropy is no longer valid, and entropy does not exist at all. But then neither does anything else. If entropy were to reverse, all our motors would become refigerators, and all your refigerators would become motors. It is not reasonable to assume that just because the gravitational pull of the universe slows and reverses the expansion of itself, that such an upheaval of physics would occure.
Anyway, the heat increase at the end of the universe would also counteract the increase in processing speed, at least in our universe.
As for this concept of artificial intellegence populating the universe, Tipler is hardly the originator of this idea. The problem with this idea is, why haven't we seen the robot emissaries yet? The universe is old enough and this system theoreticaly effecient enough that even the most negative assumptions on life occurance density in the galaxy lead to the inevitable conclusion that our galaxy should have been completely explored and colonized by now by any race that has more than a 100 million year head start on us - i.e. we wouldn't be here, unless we are either the first (extremely unlikely) or they happen to be so benevolant that they leave worlds with preexisting life on them alone. But then in the long run that would certainly and inevitably mean competition from some other technological civilization who might not be so benign, so why risk not colonizing their world?
Besides, the supposition that humans are too frail to populate the stars is a weak argument at best. Travelling at near light speeds, distances of hundreds of light years could be crossed in hundreds of light years plus a few percent in earth time, but only months would pass for those on board the ship. They may be forever after effectively separated from the rest of humanity except for communication with hundreds of years of delay, but they could certainly survive the trip and have a chance at making their own way.
Furthermore, we have plety of options open to us in other forms of colonization. Take that theory about self replicating artificial intellegence colonizing the galaxy and change it just a bit. Instead of a smart ship, it is an ordinary one. Its only passengers are some (perhaps modified) anerobic bacteria or other very durable and self replicating housing for DNA. Crash that ship into a planet around some distant star. If the conditions are anywhere close to correct, the bacteria will flourish. Wait a couple billion years, and the next thing you know, that bacteria has hands or tenticles and a brain or something similar, and it is building its own spacecraft and loading that very same anerobic bateria (perhaps with a few more modifications) onboard and sending it to a hundred or a thousand or a billion destinations of its choosing. Get smart about how you progam that DNA in that bacteria you send off, and perhaps you can guide this new evloution to be similar to the original. (there is a huge amount of apparently unused information in DNA sequences - think about it...)
So maybe earth has been colonized, and one day we will look into faces that do not look so much like ours but belong to our distant cousins none the less. Maybe we ourselves will never leave our vicinity of space, but before we make our final exit, I bet we will in our own turn send part of Gaia in the form of geneticaly programed microbes to propage in other parts of the galaxy and give birth to a new Gaia.
One last thing about the universe. It has become clear within the last few years that the universe does have enough mass (given recent findings on the amount dark matter and even more exotic forms of matter and energy) to one day collapse back in upon itself. Problem is though, they have also found that the universe is not only currently expanding, but it's rate of expansion is accelerating! A closed universe which is due to collase in on itself one day can certainly still be expanding in its youth, but that rate of expansion should always be deccelerating, and never accelerating - but the evidence is such that the acceleration is all but undeniable at this point. This is leaving quite a problem for cosmologists - they either need to ammend their old theories (such as general relativity) to a degree that makes them too complicated and ad-hoc to be plausible (or even solvable), make a large scale force that only operates over immense distances that is effectively a type of anti-gravity (not a completely implausible idea), or start taking new theories of the origin of the universe into serious consideration (such as the universe is region of energetic interaction between two things perhaps analogous to colliding shock waves in a hyper-universe).
One last comment on entropy. it is a crazy thing to argue about as i8beefy2 points out. problem is, most people (including physicists and especially engineers) do not actually understand it well enough to argue correctly. Almost all philosophers get it completely wrong in fact. They see entropy as this negative thing that spoils efficiency, makes eternal motion machines impossible, and keeps you from getting something for nothing -o r at best a rule of the universe that you must accept (if you are leaning towards eastern philosophy). But that isn't it at all. without entropy, there would be nothing. stars wouldn't shine, big bangs would not happen, universes would not expand, galaxies would not form, life would not exist, matter would not exist, car motors would not work, you would be completely unable to walk or think or breath or have sex or post to the HoP BBS. Entropy is not only inexcapeable, it is absolutely required and is the best thing that ever happened to the universe! So what if it keeps you from doing a few things you'd really like to be able to do, it explicitely enables you to do every thing else!
Entropy - accept it, understand it, and love it, because you and everything you do is it.
Mr. (Dr.? - grad qualifications doesn't mean he ever got a Ph.D.) Tipler needs to bone up a bit on his cosmology me thinks.
He seems to neglect the fact that as the universe collapses, time itself would in change in its nature, slowing and then becoming meaningless at the final moment of collapse. Figuring computing power based on the speed of computation is meaningless when time is meaningless. The question is, would time slow faster than this computing power speed could increase? Well, the former is physics, so we could actually calculate that. The former is metaphysics, so that makes things harder to calculate. Even if I buy the arguement that the this processing power increases with the square of the universe's size (which I am dubious about, since all dimentions and spacial sizes will shrink, not just the ones between matter, but the ones of matter as well), the time will slow as per the same rate as as time dialation in special relativity (which, contrary to popular beleif, was NOT invented by Einstein, who is guilty of one of the world's most significant cases of plagerism in this regard), at least that would be my first guess - I could be wrong about that. Anyway, this means that while this proposed processing power increase will initially outstrip time dialation, the time dialation will win out in the end and the computation speed will become infinitely slow as the universe becomes infinitely close to final collapse.
Another factor is that processing power for a given processor slows with increased ambient heat. This is a consequence of entropy and a basic rule of the universe we live in. Time and entropy do not reverse in a contracting universe. Time will be affected in that it would slow, but only noticeably near the very end of the collapse. Entropy would continue to do its job until the very end. Once entropy was truely overcome, the next big bang would start and the universe would rise from its ashes like a pheonix. If entropy reversed before this, while the universe was still contracting, then the universe would cease to contract and start expanding again. Point in fact, entropy will never actually reverse, since time becomes meaningless at about the same time anything would hapen to entropy, so it is pointless to try and say when that would happen - in terms of this universe, it is effectively never, as time will stop before entropy reverses. once time stops, the basic definition of entropy is no longer valid, and entropy does not exist at all. But then neither does anything else. If entropy were to reverse, all our motors would become refigerators, and all your refigerators would become motors. It is not reasonable to assume that just because the gravitational pull of the universe slows and reverses the expansion of itself, that such an upheaval of physics would occure.
Anyway, the heat increase at the end of the universe would also counteract the increase in processing speed, at least in our universe.
As for this concept of artificial intellegence populating the universe, Tipler is hardly the originator of this idea. The problem with this idea is, why haven't we seen the robot emissaries yet? The universe is old enough and this system theoreticaly effecient enough that even the most negative assumptions on life occurance density in the galaxy lead to the inevitable conclusion that our galaxy should have been completely explored and colonized by now by any race that has more than a 100 million year head start on us - i.e. we wouldn't be here, unless we are either the first (extremely unlikely) or they happen to be so benevolant that they leave worlds with preexisting life on them alone. But then in the long run that would certainly and inevitably mean competition from some other technological civilization who might not be so benign, so why risk not colonizing their world?
Besides, the supposition that humans are too frail to populate the stars is a weak argument at best. Travelling at near light speeds, distances of hundreds of light years could be crossed in hundreds of light years plus a few percent in earth time, but only months would pass for those on board the ship. They may be forever after effectively separated from the rest of humanity except for communication with hundreds of years of delay, but they could certainly survive the trip and have a chance at making their own way.
Furthermore, we have plety of options open to us in other forms of colonization. Take that theory about self replicating artificial intellegence colonizing the galaxy and change it just a bit. Instead of a smart ship, it is an ordinary one. Its only passengers are some (perhaps modified) anerobic bacteria or other very durable and self replicating housing for DNA. Crash that ship into a planet around some distant star. If the conditions are anywhere close to correct, the bacteria will flourish. Wait a couple billion years, and the next thing you know, that bacteria has hands or tenticles and a brain or something similar, and it is building its own spacecraft and loading that very same anerobic bateria (perhaps with a few more modifications) onboard and sending it to a hundred or a thousand or a billion destinations of its choosing. Get smart about how you progam that DNA in that bacteria you send off, and perhaps you can guide this new evloution to be similar to the original. (there is a huge amount of apparently unused information in DNA sequences - think about it...)
So maybe earth has been colonized, and one day we will look into faces that do not look so much like ours but belong to our distant cousins none the less. Maybe we ourselves will never leave our vicinity of space, but before we make our final exit, I bet we will in our own turn send part of Gaia in the form of geneticaly programed microbes to propage in other parts of the galaxy and give birth to a new Gaia.
One last thing about the universe. It has become clear within the last few years that the universe does have enough mass (given recent findings on the amount dark matter and even more exotic forms of matter and energy) to one day collapse back in upon itself. Problem is though, they have also found that the universe is not only currently expanding, but it's rate of expansion is accelerating! A closed universe which is due to collase in on itself one day can certainly still be expanding in its youth, but that rate of expansion should always be deccelerating, and never accelerating - but the evidence is such that the acceleration is all but undeniable at this point. This is leaving quite a problem for cosmologists - they either need to ammend their old theories (such as general relativity) to a degree that makes them too complicated and ad-hoc to be plausible (or even solvable), make a large scale force that only operates over immense distances that is effectively a type of anti-gravity (not a completely implausible idea), or start taking new theories of the origin of the universe into serious consideration (such as the universe is region of energetic interaction between two things perhaps analogous to colliding shock waves in a hyper-universe).
One last comment on entropy. it is a crazy thing to argue about as i8beefy2 points out. problem is, most people (including physicists and especially engineers) do not actually understand it well enough to argue correctly. Almost all philosophers get it completely wrong in fact. They see entropy as this negative thing that spoils efficiency, makes eternal motion machines impossible, and keeps you from getting something for nothing -o r at best a rule of the universe that you must accept (if you are leaning towards eastern philosophy). But that isn't it at all. without entropy, there would be nothing. stars wouldn't shine, big bangs would not happen, universes would not expand, galaxies would not form, life would not exist, matter would not exist, car motors would not work, you would be completely unable to walk or think or breath or have sex or post to the HoP BBS. Entropy is not only inexcapeable, it is absolutely required and is the best thing that ever happened to the universe! So what if it keeps you from doing a few things you'd really like to be able to do, it explicitely enables you to do every thing else!
Entropy - accept it, understand it, and love it, because you and everything you do is it.
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
member
111 posts
Location: bottom left of the US
111 posts
Location: bottom left of the US
Posted:
I am only asking because what you wrote for the title has nothing to do with what you wrote in the body. I am not a scientist and have no clue what you or Vanize said, but to my uneducated eyes, it had nothing to do with religion or morality.
quote:You said that his book was written to prove the judeo/christian view. Did I miss something or did your report not cover anything about proving the judeo/christian view?
His book aims to prove, using ideas in physics/computing/cosmology that at the end of time we will all be ressurected to an eternal afterlife i.e. that the judeo/christian view is essentially correct.
I am only asking because what you wrote for the title has nothing to do with what you wrote in the body. I am not a scientist and have no clue what you or Vanize said, but to my uneducated eyes, it had nothing to do with religion or morality.
Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
jewish/christian belief is of an eternal afterlife.
this is what the book attempts to show is correct.
the theory laid out in the book suggests this is fulfilled through the processes dave described above.
personally i think since the nature of conciousness is so little understood that the assumption "the simulation of a consciousness is effectivly identical to the original consciousness" is too far a reach for me.
nice read though (and a great reply from vanize).
cheers dave
jewish/christian belief is of an eternal afterlife.
this is what the book attempts to show is correct.
the theory laid out in the book suggests this is fulfilled through the processes dave described above.
personally i think since the nature of conciousness is so little understood that the assumption "the simulation of a consciousness is effectivly identical to the original consciousness" is too far a reach for me.
nice read though (and a great reply from vanize).
cheers dave
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
member
111 posts
Location: bottom left of the US
111 posts
Location: bottom left of the US
Posted:
Thank you for the attempt at a Barny Style explination.
I think there should be a public health warning above threads like that... something about causing headaches!
Thank you for the attempt at a Barny Style explination.
I think there should be a public health warning above threads like that... something about causing headaches!
Wisdom calls aloud in the street, she raises her voice in the public squares; at the head of noisy streets she cries out, in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:
SILVER Member
Ghostbuster
455 posts
Location: York, UK
Ghostbuster
455 posts
Location: York, UK
Posted:
i think he's wrong
i think he's wrong
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Human bodies weigh around 170 Kg, those bodies need to be maintained with food and nutrients.
The alternative is small craft with artificial intelligence which can self replicate once they reach other sytems. They will weigh only a few Kg.
Even if population by self replicating artificial intelligence devices was set in motion by another species, there is no particular reason why we would be aware of it. The craft in question would likely be undetectable by us due to their small size.
Remember that when Tipler speaks of populating the cosmos, he's not talking about putting human beings on planets, he's talking about getting enough self replicating artificial intelligence devices out there so they encompass the whole of space as the universe reaches a critical stage in it's contraction.
The reason why this is important wasn't mentioned in my original post (much is ommited because the book is massive); it is that very specific conditions are required to enable the computers to do their job of enabling the emulated consciousnesses to experience eternal life.
This means that the final collapse of the universe needs to be manipulated and this is only possible if it is encompassed by the machines. Left to it's own devices the universe will tend to collapse in a manner which will not enable the emulated consciousnesses to experience eternal life.
quote:The main reason for not sending human beings into space isn't frailty, it's cost; the more mass you're transporting the more energy is required, therefore more expense.
Originally posted by vanize:
Besides, the supposition that humans are too frail to populate the stars is a weak argument at best.
Human bodies weigh around 170 Kg, those bodies need to be maintained with food and nutrients.
The alternative is small craft with artificial intelligence which can self replicate once they reach other sytems. They will weigh only a few Kg.
quote:The most negative assumption on life would be that humanity is the only intelligent life in the universe. I'm not saying that that is the case, simply that the conclusion you refer to is not from the most negative assumptions.
Originally posted by vanize:
....even the most negative assumptions on life occurance density in the galaxy lead to the inevitable conclusion that our galaxy should have been completely explored and colonized by now....
Even if population by self replicating artificial intelligence devices was set in motion by another species, there is no particular reason why we would be aware of it. The craft in question would likely be undetectable by us due to their small size.
Remember that when Tipler speaks of populating the cosmos, he's not talking about putting human beings on planets, he's talking about getting enough self replicating artificial intelligence devices out there so they encompass the whole of space as the universe reaches a critical stage in it's contraction.
The reason why this is important wasn't mentioned in my original post (much is ommited because the book is massive); it is that very specific conditions are required to enable the computers to do their job of enabling the emulated consciousnesses to experience eternal life.
This means that the final collapse of the universe needs to be manipulated and this is only possible if it is encompassed by the machines. Left to it's own devices the universe will tend to collapse in a manner which will not enable the emulated consciousnesses to experience eternal life.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
Ghostbuster
455 posts
Location: York, UK
Ghostbuster
455 posts
Location: York, UK
Posted:
LMAO human bodies weigh about 170kg ??!! is that a typo or are you talking about the average american? (no offense but a lot of them are very fat indeed)
edit: i can't believe my bad spelling.
[ 05. November 2003, 10:41: Message edited by: mrFlibble ]
LMAO human bodies weigh about 170kg ??!! is that a typo or are you talking about the average american? (no offense but a lot of them are very fat indeed)
edit: i can't believe my bad spelling.
[ 05. November 2003, 10:41: Message edited by: mrFlibble ]
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
quote:Typo; I meant lbs
Originally posted by mrFlibble:
LMAO human bodies way about 170kg ??!! is that a typo or are you talking about the average american? (no offense but a lot of them are very fat indeed)
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I've done some searching on the net, here's who Frank Tipler is; -
"Frank Tipler is professor of mathematics at Tulane University where his interests focus on cosmology, particularly the fate of the universe. His two books have stimulated much controversy: The Anthropic Principle, which states that this universe was required to bring forth conscious human life, and The Physics of Immortality, which presents a rather wild theory about the ultimate future state of the universe."
Here's a link to his webpage: -
https://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/
Finally, here's a copy and paste of his own consise summary of the theory:-
The Omega Point Theory
I have presented and defended my Omega Point Theory at length in my book The Physics of Immortality (Doubleday, 1994), which is available from Barnes and Noble or Amazon. As science, the Omega Point Theory makes five basic claims about the universe:
(1) the universe is spatially closed (has finite spatial size and has the topology of a three-sphere),
(2) there are no event horizons, implying the future c-boundary is a point --- the Omega Point,
(3) Life must eventually engulf the entire universe and control it,
(4) the amount of information processed between now and the final state is infinite,
(5) the amount of information stored in the universe diverges to infinity as the final state is approached.
I can show that these five basic claims directly follow from the most fundamental laws of physics: unitarity, general relativity with attractive gravity, and the Bekenstein Bound (aka the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). An outline of my proof is given on this web page.
I also argue that the ultimate future state of the universe, the Omega Point, should be identified with God. I have presented my argument in detail in my book The Physics of Immortality, but a main reason for my identification Omega Point = God, comes from Exodus 3:14. In this passage, God is speaking to Moses from the Burning Bush. God gives Moses His Name: EHYEH ASHER EHYEH (in Hebrew, of course). God's Name is best translated into English as I SHALL BE WHAT I SHALL BE. In other words, God is telling Moses that His essence is future tense. If we regard God as something Ultimate, then He is telling us that He is the Ultimate Future. Hence my identification Omega Point = God. My translation of EHYEH ASHER EHYEH is taken from the Oxford University Study Bible (Revised Standard Version), but the great German religious leader Martin Luther translated EHYEH ASHER EHYEH the same way into German: ICH WERDE SEIN, DER ICH SEIN WERDE. Luther's translation of the Bible was to the German language as the King James version was to the English language.
I am also including on this web page two critical defenses of both my scientific argument and my theological argument.
My science is defended by Dr. David Deutsch, a physicist at Oxford University. In January of 1998, Deutsch was awarded the Dirac Medal for his invention of the quantum computer. Deutsch's defense of my science is taken from his brilliant book The Fabric of Reality (Penguin Books, 1997). This book is available from either Barnes and Noble or Amazon. I can strongly recommend this book for its presentation of the Many-Worlds Interpretation, the physics upon which the quantum computer is based. In fact, I agree with almost everything Deutsch says in his book. Where we disagree, I believe it is only because Deutsch has rejected his own theory! I shall reproduce here (with permission) most of the 14th Chapter of Deutsch's book.
My theology is defended by Professor Wolfhart Pannenberg, a theologian at the University of Munich, Germany. Professor Pannenberg has been called "the most brilliant living theological mind". He has been termed "one of the three great theologians of the 20th century". He holds five honorary doctors of divinity degrees. He is eminently qualified to judge theology. Professor Pannenberg's paper, which I reproduce here (with his permission) was originally presented at a conference on my book, held in June of 1997 in Innsbruck, Austria.
Amusingly, the theologian Pannenberg is dubious about some of my physics, and the physicist Deutsch doesn't like my theology! As you will read, Pannenberg does not like the Many- Worlds Interpretation (which Deutsch --- and I --- believe in because it is required by quantum mechanics). Deutsch defends the MWI in his book. I am placing on this web page another defense of the MWI, entitled "Quantum Nonlocality Does Not Exist," which shows that locality --- a fundamental fact of relativity --- is restored to physics by the MWI. I might add that most of the great physicists --- Richard Feynman, Murray Gell-Mann, Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, for examples --- have publicly announced their support for the MWI.
I have included my replies to Deutsch's criticisms of my theology in the excerpts from Deutsch's book. Deutsch does not like the idea of God as the Ultimate Future, but Pannenberg many years ago concluded, as I have, that the Bible says God is the Ultimate Future.
By Frank Tipler.
I've done some searching on the net, here's who Frank Tipler is; -
"Frank Tipler is professor of mathematics at Tulane University where his interests focus on cosmology, particularly the fate of the universe. His two books have stimulated much controversy: The Anthropic Principle, which states that this universe was required to bring forth conscious human life, and The Physics of Immortality, which presents a rather wild theory about the ultimate future state of the universe."
Here's a link to his webpage: -
https://www.math.tulane.edu/~tipler/
Finally, here's a copy and paste of his own consise summary of the theory:-
The Omega Point Theory
I have presented and defended my Omega Point Theory at length in my book The Physics of Immortality (Doubleday, 1994), which is available from Barnes and Noble or Amazon. As science, the Omega Point Theory makes five basic claims about the universe:
(1) the universe is spatially closed (has finite spatial size and has the topology of a three-sphere),
(2) there are no event horizons, implying the future c-boundary is a point --- the Omega Point,
(3) Life must eventually engulf the entire universe and control it,
(4) the amount of information processed between now and the final state is infinite,
(5) the amount of information stored in the universe diverges to infinity as the final state is approached.
I can show that these five basic claims directly follow from the most fundamental laws of physics: unitarity, general relativity with attractive gravity, and the Bekenstein Bound (aka the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). An outline of my proof is given on this web page.
I also argue that the ultimate future state of the universe, the Omega Point, should be identified with God. I have presented my argument in detail in my book The Physics of Immortality, but a main reason for my identification Omega Point = God, comes from Exodus 3:14. In this passage, God is speaking to Moses from the Burning Bush. God gives Moses His Name: EHYEH ASHER EHYEH (in Hebrew, of course). God's Name is best translated into English as I SHALL BE WHAT I SHALL BE. In other words, God is telling Moses that His essence is future tense. If we regard God as something Ultimate, then He is telling us that He is the Ultimate Future. Hence my identification Omega Point = God. My translation of EHYEH ASHER EHYEH is taken from the Oxford University Study Bible (Revised Standard Version), but the great German religious leader Martin Luther translated EHYEH ASHER EHYEH the same way into German: ICH WERDE SEIN, DER ICH SEIN WERDE. Luther's translation of the Bible was to the German language as the King James version was to the English language.
I am also including on this web page two critical defenses of both my scientific argument and my theological argument.
My science is defended by Dr. David Deutsch, a physicist at Oxford University. In January of 1998, Deutsch was awarded the Dirac Medal for his invention of the quantum computer. Deutsch's defense of my science is taken from his brilliant book The Fabric of Reality (Penguin Books, 1997). This book is available from either Barnes and Noble or Amazon. I can strongly recommend this book for its presentation of the Many-Worlds Interpretation, the physics upon which the quantum computer is based. In fact, I agree with almost everything Deutsch says in his book. Where we disagree, I believe it is only because Deutsch has rejected his own theory! I shall reproduce here (with permission) most of the 14th Chapter of Deutsch's book.
My theology is defended by Professor Wolfhart Pannenberg, a theologian at the University of Munich, Germany. Professor Pannenberg has been called "the most brilliant living theological mind". He has been termed "one of the three great theologians of the 20th century". He holds five honorary doctors of divinity degrees. He is eminently qualified to judge theology. Professor Pannenberg's paper, which I reproduce here (with his permission) was originally presented at a conference on my book, held in June of 1997 in Innsbruck, Austria.
Amusingly, the theologian Pannenberg is dubious about some of my physics, and the physicist Deutsch doesn't like my theology! As you will read, Pannenberg does not like the Many- Worlds Interpretation (which Deutsch --- and I --- believe in because it is required by quantum mechanics). Deutsch defends the MWI in his book. I am placing on this web page another defense of the MWI, entitled "Quantum Nonlocality Does Not Exist," which shows that locality --- a fundamental fact of relativity --- is restored to physics by the MWI. I might add that most of the great physicists --- Richard Feynman, Murray Gell-Mann, Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking, for examples --- have publicly announced their support for the MWI.
I have included my replies to Deutsch's criticisms of my theology in the excerpts from Deutsch's book. Deutsch does not like the idea of God as the Ultimate Future, but Pannenberg many years ago concluded, as I have, that the Bible says God is the Ultimate Future.
By Frank Tipler.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
member
64 posts
Location: Cardiffy, Londony places
64 posts
Location: Cardiffy, Londony places
Posted:
I'm unfortunatley cursed in being moderately incapable of dealing with numbers beyond basic algebra (aiin't dyslexia a b*tch?!), so I never progressed hugely far in the practical side of it even though the theory enthralled me. So bearing in mind I'm at a disadvantage in talking about entropy and stuff, the only real problems with the theory aI can find are how exactly are the computers that this transendential super AI identy is rooted from coping with the collapsing planets and stars and intnese heat generated from the end of the universe, and they're survival these apocolyptic events, being either destroyed or outlasting them surley jeopordises the theory either way, unless I'm missing something. I also agree on what was mentioned before (I forget by whom), but I was always lead to believe that heat inhibits electrical movement and ups the resistance of whatever it is moving through and thus slowing down the processing power. But secondly, even though is equation apparently seems mathematically sound (when the matter in the universe=0 the ultimate human conscience=infinity) physically I'm not sure if he explains how this electronically stored data transcends its boundaries and carries on once it's origins and memories are destroyed... I mean, mathematically its true, someone else said this to, that if you keep halving a distance you'll never reach an end point thus, concievabley, any proposed AI entity could escilate, but physically, in the real world, we deal with finite spaces. If this mathematical conundrum applied to me and getting from her to bed, I would never reach it (who'll reach a £100 sack of coins on the other side of a room if all they can do is halve the distance they move between it: the mathematician or the physicist? THe physicist, because he knows the distance is finite and will get there in teh end, whilst the mathematician follows the theory and never gets there. In the same manner, a pot of water would never boil completely away, and a universe would never cease to exist. But these things all do happen, so once the universe has ceased to exist, and there is nothing left of it, maths and its application are removed from the equation. By definition if nothing can exist, nothing can exist...
Like I say, I'm not sure how valid these problems are, but on a prating note I want to point out that our maths system is flawed, especially when it comes to dealing with infinitessimal numbers... the fact that there is no way to calculate the cirumference of circles and stuff exactly in theory at the moment proves this. Right now we use pi to calculate this, but as pi is considered an infinite number we are left with and infinate measurement, although I can quite happily pick up a string and measuring tape and measure the sides of a cirlce, try doing this through numbers and you get a hideous amount of decimal places to deal with... And with this in mind, I'd be very wary of any mathematical argument that deals with infinates and zeroes. HAs anyone been confused by the decimal notation system? It's by no means the most efficient (a dodecimal system would be) and the 0, 10, 20 etc system suggests to us that nothing (zero) is prominent in 10's. Is it one ten and zero units or ten units (as it should be)? Our current method is silghtly flawed, not hugely (or we'd not be building bridges that stand the test of time and stuff). I hope thats not too crazy or waffley to make enough sense...
um, I guess you can shoot me down now if you like...
I'm unfortunatley cursed in being moderately incapable of dealing with numbers beyond basic algebra (aiin't dyslexia a b*tch?!), so I never progressed hugely far in the practical side of it even though the theory enthralled me. So bearing in mind I'm at a disadvantage in talking about entropy and stuff, the only real problems with the theory aI can find are how exactly are the computers that this transendential super AI identy is rooted from coping with the collapsing planets and stars and intnese heat generated from the end of the universe, and they're survival these apocolyptic events, being either destroyed or outlasting them surley jeopordises the theory either way, unless I'm missing something. I also agree on what was mentioned before (I forget by whom), but I was always lead to believe that heat inhibits electrical movement and ups the resistance of whatever it is moving through and thus slowing down the processing power. But secondly, even though is equation apparently seems mathematically sound (when the matter in the universe=0 the ultimate human conscience=infinity) physically I'm not sure if he explains how this electronically stored data transcends its boundaries and carries on once it's origins and memories are destroyed... I mean, mathematically its true, someone else said this to, that if you keep halving a distance you'll never reach an end point thus, concievabley, any proposed AI entity could escilate, but physically, in the real world, we deal with finite spaces. If this mathematical conundrum applied to me and getting from her to bed, I would never reach it (who'll reach a £100 sack of coins on the other side of a room if all they can do is halve the distance they move between it: the mathematician or the physicist? THe physicist, because he knows the distance is finite and will get there in teh end, whilst the mathematician follows the theory and never gets there. In the same manner, a pot of water would never boil completely away, and a universe would never cease to exist. But these things all do happen, so once the universe has ceased to exist, and there is nothing left of it, maths and its application are removed from the equation. By definition if nothing can exist, nothing can exist...
Like I say, I'm not sure how valid these problems are, but on a prating note I want to point out that our maths system is flawed, especially when it comes to dealing with infinitessimal numbers... the fact that there is no way to calculate the cirumference of circles and stuff exactly in theory at the moment proves this. Right now we use pi to calculate this, but as pi is considered an infinite number we are left with and infinate measurement, although I can quite happily pick up a string and measuring tape and measure the sides of a cirlce, try doing this through numbers and you get a hideous amount of decimal places to deal with... And with this in mind, I'd be very wary of any mathematical argument that deals with infinates and zeroes. HAs anyone been confused by the decimal notation system? It's by no means the most efficient (a dodecimal system would be) and the 0, 10, 20 etc system suggests to us that nothing (zero) is prominent in 10's. Is it one ten and zero units or ten units (as it should be)? Our current method is silghtly flawed, not hugely (or we'd not be building bridges that stand the test of time and stuff). I hope thats not too crazy or waffley to make enough sense...
um, I guess you can shoot me down now if you like...
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
The programs will have to be run on whatever is left at those temperatures. I can't comment on the feasibility of that as I'm not a quantum physicist.
However, given that the programs make it up to that point and will still be developing their knowledge, it seems plausible that they can find ways to survive using what is available.
As for heat resisting electron flow and upping resistence, that won't be relevant as there will be no electrons left.
However, it the time leading up to its ending, the emulated consciousnesses will experience eternal life, as their perception of time will outstrip the diminishing actual time of the universe.
e.g. with one millisecond left till the universe ceases:-
in the first 1/2 millisecond the emulated consciousnesses will experience 1 year of life..
in the next 1/4 millisecond they will experience 1 year of life..
in the next 1/8 millisecond they'll experience one year of life..
etc.
quote:At some point the computers will have to stop being based on normal matter as the universe will be so hot that electrons, protons etc will no longer exist.
Originally posted by Mr Hands:
...how exactly are the computers that this transendential super AI identy is rooted from coping with the collapsing planets and stars and intnese heat generated from the end of the universe..... I was always lead to believe that heat inhibits electrical movement and ups the resistance of whatever it is moving through and thus slowing down the processing power....
The programs will have to be run on whatever is left at those temperatures. I can't comment on the feasibility of that as I'm not a quantum physicist.
However, given that the programs make it up to that point and will still be developing their knowledge, it seems plausible that they can find ways to survive using what is available.
As for heat resisting electron flow and upping resistence, that won't be relevant as there will be no electrons left.
quote:You're right, once the universe is over there will be no consciousnesses.
Originally posted by Mr Hands:
...But these things all do happen, so once the universe has ceased to exist, and there is nothing left of it, maths and its application are removed from the equation. By definition if nothing can exist, nothing can exist
However, it the time leading up to its ending, the emulated consciousnesses will experience eternal life, as their perception of time will outstrip the diminishing actual time of the universe.
e.g. with one millisecond left till the universe ceases:-
in the first 1/2 millisecond the emulated consciousnesses will experience 1 year of life..
in the next 1/4 millisecond they will experience 1 year of life..
in the next 1/8 millisecond they'll experience one year of life..
etc.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
member
60 posts
Location: the world at large (mainly UK)
member
60 posts
Location: the world at large (mainly UK)
Posted:
well two facts i would like to through to the crowd are these.
1/ at the moment the current thinking is that the universe will either continue expanding or remain at balance point, the collapse is looking more and more less likly.
2/ we already have a way to travel to other gallaxys instantly, if only in prliminary form at the moment! you ask what? well last year the Australians anounced that they had sucsessfully telleported photons. now anyone says trecky i will sulk. but the way this was done was using a loop hole in quantium phisics. i will not bore you those who want to know how its done ask a teacher.
what this means though is that you can now send a photon from one place to another instantly as long as there is a machine at each end!
this means at the moment all we can do is send photons, but photons are what we send all are data on, ie phone lines!!!!!!!! what comes nect is electrons, then we can theoretically send energy anywhere in the universe instantly. how about beeming a supply of energy to a space ship instead of making it onboard?! eventually we can upgrade to whole atoms and eventually objects!
some people say you then have the problem with the theroy that you can not determine where all the particles of something are at an instant in time. well i say one lets wait and see as we have only been at this for less than a 100 years and two does it matter? could we not just put them in the approximate right place by a few nanobits, are bodies deal with worse after radiation from an xray dont we?
my thought is we send the machine at supper fast speed or even nanobots that can build the machin, to other galaxies and then beem through when we get the meesage back that there ready! think stargate but with teleporters!
well two facts i would like to through to the crowd are these.
1/ at the moment the current thinking is that the universe will either continue expanding or remain at balance point, the collapse is looking more and more less likly.
2/ we already have a way to travel to other gallaxys instantly, if only in prliminary form at the moment! you ask what? well last year the Australians anounced that they had sucsessfully telleported photons. now anyone says trecky i will sulk. but the way this was done was using a loop hole in quantium phisics. i will not bore you those who want to know how its done ask a teacher.
what this means though is that you can now send a photon from one place to another instantly as long as there is a machine at each end!
this means at the moment all we can do is send photons, but photons are what we send all are data on, ie phone lines!!!!!!!! what comes nect is electrons, then we can theoretically send energy anywhere in the universe instantly. how about beeming a supply of energy to a space ship instead of making it onboard?! eventually we can upgrade to whole atoms and eventually objects!
some people say you then have the problem with the theroy that you can not determine where all the particles of something are at an instant in time. well i say one lets wait and see as we have only been at this for less than a 100 years and two does it matter? could we not just put them in the approximate right place by a few nanobits, are bodies deal with worse after radiation from an xray dont we?
my thought is we send the machine at supper fast speed or even nanobots that can build the machin, to other galaxies and then beem through when we get the meesage back that there ready! think stargate but with teleporters!
What you don't know won't hurt you? well i intend to get to know as much as possible so that i can make sure no one else has to so they carn't get hurt.
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
Actually frostypaw, it's "Dr. Vanize", not Mr. (no joke - I have a phd in space physics and am one of those science geek researcher types)
I don't buy the arguement that we are a one of a kind occurance in the galaxy. the way nature works, something that is likely enough to happen once will happen a lot more times than just that once. Again, this gets me into entropy arguments, which I don't have time to expound on today, but basically life is an experssion of entropy. The universe likes to maximize entropy where ever and how ever possible. When life is around, entropy suddenly jumps an order of magnitude.
many people think life is reversal of entropy - a highly organized system, but they are making the mistake of only looking at the living being itself, and not all the disorder its living creates, how efficently it consumes other things of a high degree of order, how much energy it consumes, etc. The very fact that life increases entropy pretty much insures that it will find a way to exist if it is possible in any way shape or form. In essence, life is an expression of thermodynamics, and anything that happen in thermodynamics is either likely to happen and happens all the time, or is so unlikely to happen that you can wait for a thousand lifetimes of the universe and still not expect to have a reasonable chance of it ever occuring. That's just the way it is.
I don't know a single person who really has a fair understanding of the immensity of our galaxy who's most pessimistic estimate of life density is 1 per galaxy or less. to think we are so special is pure arrogance on our part. Hell, I'd put even money on our finding other life within our own solar system before I die.
as for eternal life - I'm going to be pissed if I find an afterlife when I die. When I die, I want it to be done. An eternity of conciousness? no thank you!
[ 05. November 2003, 22:46: Message edited by: vanize ]
Actually frostypaw, it's "Dr. Vanize", not Mr. (no joke - I have a phd in space physics and am one of those science geek researcher types)
I don't buy the arguement that we are a one of a kind occurance in the galaxy. the way nature works, something that is likely enough to happen once will happen a lot more times than just that once. Again, this gets me into entropy arguments, which I don't have time to expound on today, but basically life is an experssion of entropy. The universe likes to maximize entropy where ever and how ever possible. When life is around, entropy suddenly jumps an order of magnitude.
many people think life is reversal of entropy - a highly organized system, but they are making the mistake of only looking at the living being itself, and not all the disorder its living creates, how efficently it consumes other things of a high degree of order, how much energy it consumes, etc. The very fact that life increases entropy pretty much insures that it will find a way to exist if it is possible in any way shape or form. In essence, life is an expression of thermodynamics, and anything that happen in thermodynamics is either likely to happen and happens all the time, or is so unlikely to happen that you can wait for a thousand lifetimes of the universe and still not expect to have a reasonable chance of it ever occuring. That's just the way it is.
I don't know a single person who really has a fair understanding of the immensity of our galaxy who's most pessimistic estimate of life density is 1 per galaxy or less. to think we are so special is pure arrogance on our part. Hell, I'd put even money on our finding other life within our own solar system before I die.
as for eternal life - I'm going to be pissed if I find an afterlife when I die. When I die, I want it to be done. An eternity of conciousness? no thank you!
[ 05. November 2003, 22:46: Message edited by: vanize ]
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
my opinion only of course - but I think the anthropic principle is bunk - it is one of the most self-centered and ridiculous theories for human life I have ever heard, though it does make quite a number of scientists feel very justified about themselves and the human race.
it is pretty obvious these days that the universe is not defined by a "three-sphere". That implies the universe exists in only 4 dimentions. Most authorities on the dimentionality of the universe think 11 are need, unless you bring in string theory, which can drop a few a few dimentions for you (if I recall correctly)
there are event horizons. black holes have been observed, and event horizons are an inexcapable consequence of a black hole.
anyone who thinks that anything infinite can be achieved does not understand infinity (many people understandably don't though - it is very complex to understand despite the simplicity of the idea)
Unitarity is not a "fundamental" law of physics. It is true that quantum states are normalized (i.e. the sum of all their probablities are equal to one - as in unitary), but this is a statement of basic mathmatics applied to reality. It doesn't really say anything about physics. It is a useful tool for quantum mechanics, but it isn't 'fundimental'.
And anyone who hangs their hat on general ralativity is looking at some hard facts these days - all three basic assumptions neccisary to make the general relativity equation solvable (the universe in homogenious, the universe is isotropic, and the speed of light is constant) are ALL in serious doubt now.
And a deeper problem with this assertation is that quantum mechanics and general relativity are not compatable - one of them is evidently wrong (I say it is general relativity, mainly because of serious doubts arising in its basic assumptions). To say you can use tenants of quantum mechanics and general relativity together assumes the two things are compatable - but they aren't. that doesn't stop plenty of people from tying though I suppose.
rest assured that it is not only theologians who are dubious of this Dr. Tipller's physics. But that is the nice thing about being a tenured professor - you can spout quack theories all you like, and no one will be able to fire you.
you will notice that if you look on Dr. Tipler homepage at Tulane university, he has only had two publications in refereed journals in the last decade, and he has no grad students. To the science community, that basically says that his work is unfit for serious scientific consideration and that he is unable to pull in legitimate research dollars to support his research - i.e. no one takes him seriously.
Just because someone is hyped as being a major player on the science scene by his publicist (and probably himself) doesn't mean he is. This guy clearly depends on publishing 'popular science' books to suppliment his university salalry for teaching. more power to him if he is a good writer, but 'popular science' doesn't usually float in reality. read it for the entertainment value, but don't take it much more seriously than you would a sci-fi book (mostly because they neglect some fundemantal reason it isn't possible, either by accident or on purpose).
why am I writing all this - I have a deadline later today!!!
[ 05. November 2003, 22:42: Message edited by: vanize ]
my opinion only of course - but I think the anthropic principle is bunk - it is one of the most self-centered and ridiculous theories for human life I have ever heard, though it does make quite a number of scientists feel very justified about themselves and the human race.
it is pretty obvious these days that the universe is not defined by a "three-sphere". That implies the universe exists in only 4 dimentions. Most authorities on the dimentionality of the universe think 11 are need, unless you bring in string theory, which can drop a few a few dimentions for you (if I recall correctly)
there are event horizons. black holes have been observed, and event horizons are an inexcapable consequence of a black hole.
anyone who thinks that anything infinite can be achieved does not understand infinity (many people understandably don't though - it is very complex to understand despite the simplicity of the idea)
quote:unitarity and general relativity? I'd love to see someone try and argue that in front of a bunch of serious physicists! (though I have a phd in physics, I am not particularly serious about it compared to some). man, that would be a show in humilation!
I can show that these five basic claims directly follow from the most fundamental laws of physics: unitarity, general relativity with attractive gravity, and the Bekenstein Bound (aka the Heisenberg uncertainty principle).
Unitarity is not a "fundamental" law of physics. It is true that quantum states are normalized (i.e. the sum of all their probablities are equal to one - as in unitary), but this is a statement of basic mathmatics applied to reality. It doesn't really say anything about physics. It is a useful tool for quantum mechanics, but it isn't 'fundimental'.
And anyone who hangs their hat on general ralativity is looking at some hard facts these days - all three basic assumptions neccisary to make the general relativity equation solvable (the universe in homogenious, the universe is isotropic, and the speed of light is constant) are ALL in serious doubt now.
And a deeper problem with this assertation is that quantum mechanics and general relativity are not compatable - one of them is evidently wrong (I say it is general relativity, mainly because of serious doubts arising in its basic assumptions). To say you can use tenants of quantum mechanics and general relativity together assumes the two things are compatable - but they aren't. that doesn't stop plenty of people from tying though I suppose.
rest assured that it is not only theologians who are dubious of this Dr. Tipller's physics. But that is the nice thing about being a tenured professor - you can spout quack theories all you like, and no one will be able to fire you.
you will notice that if you look on Dr. Tipler homepage at Tulane university, he has only had two publications in refereed journals in the last decade, and he has no grad students. To the science community, that basically says that his work is unfit for serious scientific consideration and that he is unable to pull in legitimate research dollars to support his research - i.e. no one takes him seriously.
Just because someone is hyped as being a major player on the science scene by his publicist (and probably himself) doesn't mean he is. This guy clearly depends on publishing 'popular science' books to suppliment his university salalry for teaching. more power to him if he is a good writer, but 'popular science' doesn't usually float in reality. read it for the entertainment value, but don't take it much more seriously than you would a sci-fi book (mostly because they neglect some fundemantal reason it isn't possible, either by accident or on purpose).
why am I writing all this - I have a deadline later today!!!
[ 05. November 2003, 22:42: Message edited by: vanize ]
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Posted:
You're writing because it's interesting to us hobby physicists
thanks.
You're writing because it's interesting to us hobby physicists
thanks.
member
192 posts
Location: oxford
192 posts
Location: oxford
Posted:
whilst travelling across the cosmos may seem like a good to those who forget the parasitic nature of humans, stopping to think for just a second about the very esance of human nature (destruction - even the basic transfer of energies is predominantly entising. think smashing a glass on the ground or something like that. the reaction of your action is enough to make you want to do it again in so many people) may leave you to wonder whether its really the best idea to start cruising round Andromada or anywhere else we fancy only to ultimatly screw it up.
sorry about the bring down. i just have very little empathy for the human race in general.
whilst travelling across the cosmos may seem like a good to those who forget the parasitic nature of humans, stopping to think for just a second about the very esance of human nature (destruction - even the basic transfer of energies is predominantly entising. think smashing a glass on the ground or something like that. the reaction of your action is enough to make you want to do it again in so many people) may leave you to wonder whether its really the best idea to start cruising round Andromada or anywhere else we fancy only to ultimatly screw it up.
sorry about the bring down. i just have very little empathy for the human race in general.
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
Someone needs a trip to burningman!
Someone needs a trip to burningman!
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
One of the fundamental principles of calculus is that it is, in fact, possible to fit an infinite number of things into a finite space if those things become infinitessimally small. So there is no paradox.
I know, I'm a killjoy.
quote:Yet you do get to the door. You even go through it.
Originally posted by i8beefy2:
Sounds like an interesting proof I once heard. Went like this. You are traveling to the door. Your travel toward it can be seen as 1/2ing the current distance left each time you reach the previous half-way point. As you approach nearer and nearer, the 1/2 way distance gets smaller and smaller, until (theoretically) you raech the door. Its a valid way of looking at travel, only you can never ever possibly reach your goal, as each time you get half way there, you half the distance again and again infintesimly small once you get near it
One of the fundamental principles of calculus is that it is, in fact, possible to fit an infinite number of things into a finite space if those things become infinitessimally small. So there is no paradox.
I know, I'm a killjoy.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
ok, there is a science joke that uses that very postulate of af going half the remaining distance with each step. It goes likre this.
there is a pretty woman at the other end of the room, and with each step you travel half the remaining distance to her. can you ever get to her.
a mathemtician (or physicist, depending o who you feel like ribbing) would say, "no, I could never get to her."
an engineer would say, "I can get close enough!"
ok, there is a science joke that uses that very postulate of af going half the remaining distance with each step. It goes likre this.
there is a pretty woman at the other end of the room, and with each step you travel half the remaining distance to her. can you ever get to her.
a mathemtician (or physicist, depending o who you feel like ribbing) would say, "no, I could never get to her."
an engineer would say, "I can get close enough!"
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
From the Ashes of a Ninja Rise THE HIPS OF RAGE
371 posts
Location: Edinburgh
371 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Ok another cheesy science joke that anyone who bothered to read this thread probably already knows.
There was a little chemist but now he is no more for what he thought was H2 0 was H2 S 04
sorry can't do proper symbols on my keyboard but you should get it anyway
Ok another cheesy science joke that anyone who bothered to read this thread probably already knows.
There was a little chemist but now he is no more for what he thought was H2 0 was H2 S 04
sorry can't do proper symbols on my keyboard but you should get it anyway
Viva UGLY STAFF
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
As much as I hated calculus, I was pretty good at it (not anymore, though!). However, some of the philosophical things it brings up can be cool.
For example, we learn in grade school that infinity is infinity and is neither greater nor less than any other infinite number. Except some infinities are greater than others. For example, a line segment is made up of an infinite number of points. If a 1 cm segment is made up of an infinite number of points, a 2 cm line segment is also made up of an infinite number of points, but it is twice as long. Therefore, some infinities, while all infinite, are larger than others. And some infinities are finite (our 2cm line segment) and some infinites are infinite (a line or ray). Or rather, bounded and unbounded.
Kinda cool stuff. Not as cool as molecular neurocellular biology, but cool.
As much as I hated calculus, I was pretty good at it (not anymore, though!). However, some of the philosophical things it brings up can be cool.
For example, we learn in grade school that infinity is infinity and is neither greater nor less than any other infinite number. Except some infinities are greater than others. For example, a line segment is made up of an infinite number of points. If a 1 cm segment is made up of an infinite number of points, a 2 cm line segment is also made up of an infinite number of points, but it is twice as long. Therefore, some infinities, while all infinite, are larger than others. And some infinities are finite (our 2cm line segment) and some infinites are infinite (a line or ray). Or rather, bounded and unbounded.
Kinda cool stuff. Not as cool as molecular neurocellular biology, but cool.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
SILVER Member
remember
433 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia, Earth, Milky Way, Universe
remember
433 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia, Earth, Milky Way, Universe
Posted:
Oh man, until it degraded into a swamp of engineer-physicist-mathematician jokes, this was possibly my favourite HOP thread ever (said the engineer)..
But nonetheless thanks for a great read.
In reply to Vanize's comment: "as for eternal life - I'm going to be pissed if I find an afterlife when I die. When I die, I want it to be done. An eternity of conciousness? no thank you!"
Agreed.. in a sense. I'd say the only thing that could ever make an eternal consciousness 'not-hell', is ignorance. ie. the complete absence of any understanding that it is in fact eternal. Which, i would argue, is exactly what this is right now.
We're just sitting here waiting for eternity, as if it's as something we'll experience 'later'.. when we die. And that when that time comes, so will all the answers (hence the 'i don't need to think about it now' opinions). But we're always waiting to die, can you ever remember a time when you weren't? This is it. It's as much eternity now as it will be later. And if we were ever to exist as an eternal memory or reproduction of our lives as single consciousness, then it's already happened, and it's happening now.
Oh man, until it degraded into a swamp of engineer-physicist-mathematician jokes, this was possibly my favourite HOP thread ever (said the engineer)..
But nonetheless thanks for a great read.
In reply to Vanize's comment: "as for eternal life - I'm going to be pissed if I find an afterlife when I die. When I die, I want it to be done. An eternity of conciousness? no thank you!"
Agreed.. in a sense. I'd say the only thing that could ever make an eternal consciousness 'not-hell', is ignorance. ie. the complete absence of any understanding that it is in fact eternal. Which, i would argue, is exactly what this is right now.
We're just sitting here waiting for eternity, as if it's as something we'll experience 'later'.. when we die. And that when that time comes, so will all the answers (hence the 'i don't need to think about it now' opinions). But we're always waiting to die, can you ever remember a time when you weren't? This is it. It's as much eternity now as it will be later. And if we were ever to exist as an eternal memory or reproduction of our lives as single consciousness, then it's already happened, and it's happening now.
-As angels debate chance and fate-
i was riding through melbourne on a midget giraffe, things were peachy.
member
36 posts
Location: Newcastle
36 posts
Location: Newcastle
Posted:
i only really flicked through most of this cos dont have that much time just now...
the 'laws of the universe' and 'laws of physics' -all very good and well but i must admit i believe that everything and anything is somewhere and somehow possible and there are or will be some way or ways to bypass these inconvenient structures of reality -physics laws are played around with like jelly inside black holes and as for event horizons and wormholes, dark matter and simple matter existence and change... -um my science is a bit shaky here...
populating other planets: the perfect thing to send: a modified virus(virus' being ultra fast evolving pure DNA ina protein jacket -unencumbered by bodies -adaptable and virtually immortall if they can find a energy source(GM can solve this -not advicating merely speculating)
as for sending humans -yip too expensive just now but things are always changing, hmmm stored brains on computers and a cloned body which grows as the ship reaches the destination???
as for why have we not been visited or populated by now??? - well the idea of sending bacteria (or viruses, viruses are better) to start the very slow population of a planet may have occured to someone else u know...
plus despite my belif in anything is poss. the chances of a life form evolving on a nearby world which is compatable with our planet, recognizable as life and even based on remotely similar chemistry is quite slim -anyway give them a chance -we're quite out of the way here.
as for sending AI beware!!!
take memes for example(u all seem quite sciency so no explanation for now)
they are(in one theory) the new self replicators, the modern fast replacement of genes.
they 'live?' in our brains(over simplification) but once AI truly exists as a self sufficient form and the computer brain takes over ours in terms of speed -surely this is a much better hme for memes.
an as memes will surely out evolve genes so our AI will out evolve the 'survival machines' we are.
"...a problem down where the genes meet the little machines..."
shit late bye x
i only really flicked through most of this cos dont have that much time just now...
the 'laws of the universe' and 'laws of physics' -all very good and well but i must admit i believe that everything and anything is somewhere and somehow possible and there are or will be some way or ways to bypass these inconvenient structures of reality -physics laws are played around with like jelly inside black holes and as for event horizons and wormholes, dark matter and simple matter existence and change... -um my science is a bit shaky here...
populating other planets: the perfect thing to send: a modified virus(virus' being ultra fast evolving pure DNA ina protein jacket -unencumbered by bodies -adaptable and virtually immortall if they can find a energy source(GM can solve this -not advicating merely speculating)
as for sending humans -yip too expensive just now but things are always changing, hmmm stored brains on computers and a cloned body which grows as the ship reaches the destination???
as for why have we not been visited or populated by now??? - well the idea of sending bacteria (or viruses, viruses are better) to start the very slow population of a planet may have occured to someone else u know...
plus despite my belif in anything is poss. the chances of a life form evolving on a nearby world which is compatable with our planet, recognizable as life and even based on remotely similar chemistry is quite slim -anyway give them a chance -we're quite out of the way here.
as for sending AI beware!!!
take memes for example(u all seem quite sciency so no explanation for now)
they are(in one theory) the new self replicators, the modern fast replacement of genes.
they 'live?' in our brains(over simplification) but once AI truly exists as a self sufficient form and the computer brain takes over ours in terms of speed -surely this is a much better hme for memes.
an as memes will surely out evolve genes so our AI will out evolve the 'survival machines' we are.
"...a problem down where the genes meet the little machines..."
shit late bye x
Be a dreamer.....
.....dreams can change the world.
GOLD Member
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
addict
674 posts
Location: Ohio, USA
Posted:
I had so much good stuff written and about to post when my cat sat on the escape key and erased it all. Arg. Ill just make the book recomendation I have: Hyperspace. It really does a lot to explain modern theory and such, and its applications.
I had so much good stuff written and about to post when my cat sat on the escape key and erased it all. Arg. Ill just make the book recomendation I have: Hyperspace. It really does a lot to explain modern theory and such, and its applications.
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
I hate it whan that happens!!!
I hate it whan that happens!!!
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
member
16 posts
Location: rotherham, south yorkshire
16 posts
Location: rotherham, south yorkshire
Posted:
I am so confused.
I am so confused.
m/:Dm/
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [physic * immortality] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > The Physics of Immortality. [35 replies]
- Forums > Translation Fun [6 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com