Why it may be impossible to live forever

[INRM]

I was thinking about this while I was taking a shower and I was thinking.

Nothing man made can last forever. It would inevitably degrade. The only solution would be to transmit yourself into a universe where time has no meaning.

The problem is that you would 'contaminate' that universe. Think about it. Time is zero, but for you it's one. Even a butterfly changes the mass of the universe if it suddenly popped into it.

Now, we would cause the time to go from zero, to a very small number. Do you understand?

We would sort of "contaminate" their timeline.

Additionally... you did originally come from a universe that had time, that means that you may (if you even do) achieve immortality, but your roots are originated in mortality. So that means what?

 

[BillyJoe]

I was thinking about this while I was taking a shower and I was thinking.

That was your first mistake.....enjoy your shower.
You are heading off to work and it's going to be a long hard day.....relax......take it easy.....feel the warm water run over your body......

Nothing man made can last forever. It would inevitably degrade.

Yes, even God is man-made and cannot last forever.

The only solution would be to transmit yourself into a universe where time has no meaning.

Where time stands still?.....
Without time there is no change.
Without change there is no experience.
You might as well be.....dead!

The problem is that you would 'contaminate' that universe.

In fact, you would change it from one where time had no meaning into one in which things change and, therefore, one in which there is time.

Think about it.

....but not in the shower!

Time is zero, but for you it's one.

Now, we would cause the time to go from zero, to a very small number. Do you understand?

Not exactly.
How exactly would we cause time to move on from zero?

We would sort of "contaminate" their timeline.

Well, perhaps we would kick-start their timeline.

Additionally... you did originally come from a universe that had time, that means that you may (if you even do) achieve immortality, but your roots are originated in mortality. So that means what?

If you go from a universe that has time to one that doesn't, what this means is that you are effectively....dead!

 

[Agammamon]

We have no real definition of time other than "its what keeps everything from happening at once". No one's ever measured time so its pretty difficult to say what properties it actually has.
In any case, while anything "man-made" may have a finite lifetime, that doesn't necessarily apply to this hypothetical multiverse, so that even introducing "time" to a universe eventually kills it, you can just move to another.

As fas a my past being rooted in mortality. That really means only what you let it mean. Mortality isn't a physical constant. Its a limit of our current form, a limit that can be removed.

 

[American]

If you mean truly "forever", I don't think that's an issue we can deal with realistically. If you mean extending our lifespan by hundreds of years, that's only a few decades away, I believe. Too late for us, we're doomed to live a normal lifespan I think, but the next few generations may see it happen.

 

[AmateurScientist]

The way you have framed the issue is really a cosmic question.

There is likely a much more prosaic answer. It seems that cells may have a finite number of times in which they can divide. Without further cell division, life cannot continue, as organs would wear out without repair and maintenance and wounds would not heal.

Death may be pre-programmed into out bodies.

AS

 

[Frostbite]

Never say impossible.

 

[Diamond]

Never say impossible.

You just have....

 

[BillyJoe]

Death may be pre-programmed into out bodies.

Yes, as far as evolution is concerned, once we've finished procreating, we may as well be dead.

 

[Crossbow]

It is impossible to make anything last forever let alone live forever.

Given enough time even electrons and protons will breakdown;
without electrons and protons, there will be no atoms;
without atoms, there will be no elements;
without elements, there will be no molecules;
without molecules, there are no compounds; and
without compounds, bilogical life cannot happen.

 

[rwald]

There's a very good reason that we can't live forever. Entropy. Or, more loosly, everything decays over time. So must we.

 

[BillyJoe]

ENTROPY LIVES FOREVER

While everything else gets weaker and dies, entropy gets stronger and lives forever.

 

[rwald]

Actually, "life" could be defined as a local reversal of entropy (in an open system, of course, so that the second law isn't broken). Thus, saying that "entropy lives forever" is nicely ironic.

 

[Yahweh]

Its no secret nothing man-made will last forever. Not even twinkies.

 

[Drifterman]

BillyJoe originally posted:
Yes, as far as evolution is concerned, once we've finished procreating, we may as well be dead

Depends on how you define procreation. Parenting is an important aspect of our reproductive cycle. If good parenting is an evolutionary advantage, then good grandparenting might be too. And good great- grandparenting, and so on.

 

[BillyJoe]

Good point, Drifterman, but you get my gist don't you.

 

[Drifterman]

Aye, your gist is clear.

 

[xouper]

American: If you mean extending our lifespan by hundreds of years, that's only a few decades away,

This reminds me of a related question I have. As I understand it, medical science has made great strides in eliminating things that keep people from living to their potential maximum age, but has medical science done anything to increase that potential maximum age?

I'm using the term "potential maximum age" quite loosely here because I don't know what the appropriate term is. What I mean by that is the upper bound that some people have lived to. In other words, my question is, that while the average lifespan has increased, has the upper bound of the range been increased by any significant amount?

Or if that's still not clear, let me try my question another way. For the sake of the following question, I shall use 90 as an arbitrary number, so please subsititute a better number if you like. As I understand it, two centuries ago, for example, there were fewer people who lived to be 90 years old. Nowadays medical science has helped more people to live to 90 (thus increasing the average), but has medical science helped people live beyond that (increasing the upper bound)?

 

[American]

This reminds me of a related question I have. As I understand it, medical science has made great strides in eliminating things that keep people from living to their potential maximum age, but has medical science done anything to increase that potential maximum age?

Not humans, but worms (I think nematodes, increasing their normal lives from 1 to 3 weeks, if I recall). The key is to alter the germ line; there are specific genes they've identified that are common to "all species" (that's BS, I really mean "all vertebrates", or some lineage). They've bred worms to play with those age genes (tracking every cell's development in its body, I think ~1200 total).

It's no small thing jumping to humans. It goes beyond gene therapy, ethically, to altering the species.

I think if we don't make a controlled effort to do it, it will happen in other ways that we won't be able to control and regulate (like in the course of treating disease, or simply exporting the technology to countries where it's legal).

My big question is how you will perceive this from within your own mind and body. Maybe brain activity/metabolism feels pretty much the same no matter what your natural lifespan, for example the short life a toad may feel like the long life of a tourtise to the organism. So would a 300-year old be lacking in observational skills, as if the brian can only take the information of a regular life? That's my own weird notion, I can't say why one might think that.

 

[clusterm2]

Actually, "life" could be defined as a local reversal of entropy (in an open system, of course, so that the second law isn't broken). Thus, saying that "entropy lives forever" is nicely ironic.

More so than "Nothing lives for ever"?

 

[csense]

I was thinking about this while I was taking a shower and I was thinking.

Nothing man made can last forever. It would inevitably degrade. The only solution would be to transmit yourself into a universe where time has no meaning.

The problem is that you would 'contaminate' that universe. Think about it. Time is zero, but for you it's one. Even a butterfly changes the mass of the universe if it suddenly popped into it.

Now, we would cause the time to go from zero, to a very small number. Do you understand?

We would sort of "contaminate" their timeline.

Additionally... you did originally come from a universe that had time, that means that you may (if you even do) achieve immortality, but your roots are originated in mortality. So that means what?

Considering the context of your entire post, you're positing an alternative universe in which time is non existent.
If there is no time, then there is no distance or motion.
If there is no distance or motion, then there is no space.
If there is no time and space, then there is no universe.