From: Dickey, Michael F (michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com)
Date: Wed Sep 04 2002 - 08:03:14 MDT
From: gts [mailto:gts@optexinc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 5:49 PM
To: extropians@extropy.org
Subject: RE: Quantum tunneling and human immortality
Michael F Dickey wrote:
> Is your definition of immortal 'not capable
> of being killed'?
"Yes, of course. To be immortal is to be immune from death."
Then no one will ever be immortal, because there will always be a
possibility, however remote, that one will cease to exist.
> Extropians and transhumanists tend to use immortal in a
> sense that they are not predestined to an upward limit
> of life expectancy...
"I don't know that "predestination" has anything to do with the problem.
I certainly would like to agree that our deaths are not predestined
(i.e., not predetermined), and I support with great optimism any attempt
to extend human life expectancy. However I think the question of
determinism is a completely separate philosophical problem, and one
about which intelligent people are unlikely to find any consensus."
You take my statement to literally and ignore my meaning. There is nothing
philosophical about it, right now, we are all 'predestined' to die because
of aging, that is, because we all still age, and aging leads to death, we
will all die. I refer to predestined and determined in a physical sense,
i.e. extrapolations based on known laws of physics, not in a metaphysical
epistemological sense. Conquering this 'predestination' is what I was
referring to as an extropian meaning of immortality.
"I agree that if immortal beings should ever come to exist then they will
nevertheless die at the end of the universe (if such an end occurs)"
But you said for one to be considered immortal they must be immune from
death. If they can and will die at the end of the universe then by your
admitted definition they are not immortal. Because there will always be a
possibility that the universe can end, then no being is every immortal by
your definition, unless your definition of immortal has a disclaimer that
'the end of the universe' doesnt count.
"but aside from that special case I think we need to accept that immortality
is defined as a condition that precludes death from all causes."
That is not your definition of immortality, it is 'immune from death' or
'exempt from death' Either you are totally immune from death (i.e. no
possibility of death) or you are not. Your definition of immortality, as
you state, only applies to the former, and not the latter. Dying at the end
of the universe does not exclude you from death.
"Those subject to death are mortal. Those not subject to it are immortal. If
these are not the meanings of "mortal" and "immortal" then neither word
has descriptive value."
You have already distorted the descriptive values of these terms by
asserting (two paragraphs up) the beings can be both immortal and face death
at the end of the universe. This is my point, it is not productive to hold
such an absolute definition of immortality, a functional more practical
definition is necessary. Most extropes and transhumanists refer to the
conquering of senescence as functional immortality. You will still be
killed by bullets in the head and being dipped in lava, which is why we talk
of distributed backups. Words are our slaves not our masters, definitions
of words are arbitrary social constructs, its not too difficult to realize
that the 'websters' publishers probably have not thought as much about the
definition of 'immortal' as your average 1st day poster on the extropian
list has, so I do not hold them to a absolute authority on such issues.
Definitions are used to relay information, most extropians use 'immortal'
(as so far as I have witnessed) to refer to the concept that one will no
longer deteriorate chemically with time.
> Quantum tunneling does not imply such a limit as
> one merely needs to replace damanged parts faster
> than the rate of damage. Considering how
> slow Quantum tunneling damage accumulates, this will not be
> an issue.
"I don't believe that has been established. These hypothetical repair
mechanisms that will generate and replace damaged parts are themselves
subject to the same kind of decay they are designed to repair. This
implies a need for second-order repair mechanisms which will of course
also be subject to the decay. So then we must have third-order and
forth-order repair mechanisms, ad infinitum. In a bounded universe we
eventually we run out of time and resources. The house of cards comes
falling down."
Indeed repair mechanisms are subject to the same decay, but the repair
systems will not both decay at the same time, and if they do not then they
are still capable of repairing each other. There is a chance that they will
decay at the same time, but if you add a third the chance decreases that
they will decay simultaneously, adding a fourth reduces it further. This is
the advantage of redundancy. Not to mention, these systems would have to
decay to the point of non-functionality before they become useless, a
subatomic particle quantum tunneling away every few hundred thousand years
will not render either repair system non-functional before another has a
chance to replace that particular atom. If the rate of the repair
mechanisms exceeds the rate of decay, quantum tunneling will not create a
net decrease in information, this can be achieved without an infinite number
of repair mechanisms for the reasons stated above. To put it another way,
imagine two men bound by oath to heal the other if one is injured. If both
are injured at the same time, they are screwed. But if only one is injured,
the other can repair him, and vice versa. For every additional doctor the
likelihood of them all being injured simultaneously decreases. And if there
injuries occurred once every thousand years and took many millinea to even
remotely affect their functionality, you wouldnt need all that many doctors
to ensure one will always be working.
Of course, as you admit, in a bound universe we will eventually run out of
energy anyway, regardless of solving the 'quantum tunneling' problem.
Since you seem to make your definition of immortal 'immune from dying except
for at the end of the universe' then increasing the redundancy of doctors to
an extent that many times the expected age of the end of the universe is
required to even have a remote possibility of dying you have then achieved
your definition of immortality
Michael
LEGAL NOTICE
Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:41 MST