From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sun Dec 01 2002 - 09:19:58 MST
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Avatar Polymorph wrote:
> Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>
> "There are two problems with this assertion. First, there is no
> "immortal maintenance" unless you can assert that protons do not decay.
> That is a fundamental question of physics currently unresolved."
>
> Robert, can you explain this further?
Sorry, my bad. I'm leaping from extremely long lifespans to unimaginably
long lifespans. The proton decay issue only comes in the extremely far
future (see "The Five Ages of the Universe" by Adams and Laughlin).
You are certainly dead by the time the protons decay unless you have
figured out how to trump the universe's hazard function. (For example
even a good hazard function like that found in the U.S. will limit
you to a few thousand years [on average]).
> Our bodies derive from information coding that has survived for billions
> of years: does the proton decay problem apply to us?
Not even in trillions of years does the proton decay problem apply
which is why the hazard function is of much greater significance.
The proton decay problem only applies if one figures out how
to trump all the other problems (all of the stars stop burning,
all matter getting sucked into black holes, etc.). The proton
decay problem is the ultimate wild card against "immortality"
but it comes long after some other very significant hurdles
must be avoided.
> I suspect long term problems will require the incorporation
> of nano mechanisms in cell structure for efficient and easy maintenance of a
> billion-year state of approximation (leaving the issue of memory aside).
This is something most people seem to not understand -- all of biology
involves "nano mechanisms". Its already here -- biotech *is* nanotech.
If you want to apply patches to the genome start thinking about engineered
intracellular bacteria. You don't need diamondoid. Now as far as
a "billion" years goes you aren't going to get close to that in your
current form. This was one of the main points I tried to make at Extro-3.
The only way you can trump a local hazard function is to become a
"distributed replicated intelligence". One of the main reasons
I developed the Matrioshka Brain architecture was so that "individuals"
could distribute themselves such that local "accidents" couldn't
destroy them.
In the long run one must upload or one is dead.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:31 MST