Immortality for Atheists (and everyone else)

[[Syl]]

Eternity for Atheists (registration required)

If God is dead, does that mean we cannot survive our own deaths? Recent best-selling books against religion agree that immortality is a myth we ought to outgrow. But there are a few thinkers with unimpeachable scientific credentials who have been waving their arms and shouting: not so fast. Even without God, they say, we have reason to hope for — or possibly fear — an afterlife.

The most interesting possibilities for an afterlife proposed in recent years are based on hard science with a dash of speculation. In his 1994 book, “The Physics of Immortality,” Frank J. Tipler, a specialist in relativity theory at Tulane University, showed how future beings might, in their drive for total knowledge, “resurrect” us in the form of computer simulations. (If this seems implausible to you, think how close we are right now to “resurrecting” extinct species through knowledge of their genomes.) John Leslie, a Canadian who ranks as one of the world’s leading philosophers of cosmology, draws on quantum physics in his painstakingly argued new book, “Immortality Defended.” Each of us, Leslie submits, is immortal because our life patterns are but an aspect of an “existentially unified” cosmos that will persist after our death. Both Tipler and Leslie are, in different ways, heirs to the view of William James. The mind or “soul,” as they see it, consists of information, not matter. And one of the deepest principles of quantum theory, called “unitarity,” forbids the disappearance of information. (Stephen Hawking used to think you could destroy your information by heaving yourself into a black hole, but a few years ago he changed his mind.)

If death is not extinction, what might it be like? That’s a question the Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick, who died five years ago, enjoyed pondering. One of the more rococo possibilities he considered was that the dying person’s organized energy might bubble into a new universe created in that person’s image.

And some more food for thought from an article I linked in the Loresraat - Would you give up your immortality to ensure the success of a posthuman world?

The final speaker was inventor and self-acknowledged transhumanist Ray Kurzweil, who argues that "The Singularity is Near." The singularity is a metaphorical social event horizon in which accelerating technological trends so change society that it is impossible to forecast what the world will really be like. Kurzweill believes that humanity will accelerate itself to utopia (immortality, ubiquitous AI, nanotech abundance) in the next 20 to 30 years. For example, he noted that average life expectancy increases by about 3 months every year. Kurzweil then claimed that longevity trends are accelerating so fast that the life expectancy will increase more than one year for each year that passes in about 15 years. In other words, if you can hang on another 15 years, your life expectancy could be indefinitely long. He projects that by 2030, AI will be ubiquitous, and most humans will be physically melded to information and other technologies. Kurzweil argued that we must reject the fundamentalist desire to define humanity by its limitations. "We are the species that goes beyond our limitations," he declared.

[Lord Mhoram]

The resurrection of the human species by a new race would make an awesome sci-fi novel.

[wayfriend]

The resurrection of the human species by a new race would make an awesome sci-fi novel.

Yeah! And they could all be resurrected along a giant river that spans an entire globe...

- - - - - - - - - - -

Personally, as far as I can experience, I will never die. Isn't that immortal?

[Cail]

The resurrection of the human species by a new race would make an awesome sci-fi novel.

Wayfriend beat me to it. It's been done about 35 years ago.

[emotional leper]

Something about the Transhumanists always makes me nervous. Is there something so inherently wrong with human flesh that we should all discard it at the drop of a hat? I don't know about them, but I really, really like not being able to be killed by an EMP. Sure, I wouldn't mind, say, a robot arm -- it could be useful for cooking and picking up hot things, and strangling annoying people. But I don't want to ditch the whole thing.

[Xar]

If death is not extinction, what might it be like? That’s a question the Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick, who died five years ago, enjoyed pondering. One of the more rococo possibilities he considered was that the dying person’s organized energy might bubble into a new universe created in that person’s image.

Um, that sounds relatively close to postulating that the dying person would become the creator of a new universe - its god, so to speak... isn't that idea what the philosopher's trying to keep away from? Besides, if you postulate that, how can you not postulate that our universe might have been generated the same way - and thus has a "creator" of sorts? I don't really see how the philosopher can avoid having this concept clash with his atheism

Anyway, for another take on atheistic immortality, ever heard of quantum immortality? It's a concept related to quantum physics and the many-worlds interpretation. It basically goes like this: since in quantum physics, items can exist simultaneously in different states (such as Schroedinger's cat who is both alive and dead, or a die roll which simultaneously yields all possible results), then for each event in the world there must be another world where the event had any other possible result; this in turn results in an infinite number of worlds.
Quantum immortality postulates that no matter what accident might befall you, there will always be a subset of realities where you save yourself from that fate. Let's say you get run over by a bus in one reality; there will be at least another one where you dodge the bus in time, another in which someone saves you, another in which you sprout wings and fly away, and so on. Since consciousness flows continuously, you are not even aware of your "deaths"; but every time you are faced by such a situation, you continue existing only in a smaller and smaller (but still infinite) subset of universes. This theory then posits you can never truly die, because you'll always exist at least in one subset of infinite universes...

[Loredoctor]

However, I think that's referring, or trying to refer, to superposition of states. But I don't think we have 'quantum states' on the macroscopic scale - and even if we did, the existence of an observer would collapse the superposition.

[Prebe]

Even if the observer was an ant?

[Loredoctor]

Even if the observer was an ant?

Given that no one, as far as I know, has tested that, I really cannot comment.

[Prebe]

Heh! The reason I'm asking this apparently childish question is that there is something (no, lots of things) in quantum mechanics, that I just can't wrap my head around. One of the most important - running contrary to my understanding - is: You can't observe something without changing it. It is probably a simplification, and I would probably never understand the real thing, but this assumed simplification does not state what observation is. If the ant opens the door and looks at the Cat (Schrödinger's just to pick a random feline) it would't draw any conclusions as to the state of the cat. But if I opened the door I would conclude that the cat was either alive or dead.

Can you see what I mean? Or perhaps explain what it is I'm missing.

[Loredoctor]

Now that you mention it, it might cause the cat to 'assume a state', given that the ant has to perceive in order to function (i.e. smell).

[Prebe]

So, IOW, there is no lower level of perception?
You could also say it in another way: Is life (as we know it) a necessity for quantum mechanisms to work? I mean, without life no perception right?

[Avatar]

If death is not extinction, what might it be like? That’s a question the Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick, who died five years ago, enjoyed pondering. One of the more rococo possibilities he considered was that the dying person’s organized energy might bubble into a new universe created in that person’s image.

Um, that sounds relatively close to postulating that the dying person would become the creator of a new universe - its god, so to speak... isn't that idea what the philosopher's trying to keep away from? Besides, if you postulate that, how can you not postulate that our universe might have been generated the same way - and thus has a "creator" of sorts? I don't really see how the philosopher can avoid having this concept clash with his atheism

Of the nature of Death and the Dead, we may enumerate twelve types.

First are those who become new gods, and for whom new universes are born...

I've always been damn fond of that idea myself. And I promise, if I get a whole new universe to play with, I'll renounce my atheism very quickly.

--A

[Xar]

However, I think that's referring, or trying to refer, to superposition of states. But I don't think we have 'quantum states' on the macroscopic scale - and even if we did, the existence of an observer would collapse the superposition.

But in the "quantum immortality" theory, who would be the observer? You can't be, because you're part of the experiment - you're Schroedinger's cat, so to speak. So who could be the observer that causes the states to collapse? Other people? Unlikely, given they, too, would be IN the experiment, directly or not. You'd need someone from outside who observes the universe, for the universe to collapse and for "quantum immortality" to be voided, wouldn't you?

[Prebe]

Is it because my "tree falling in the woods" question about quantum reality is to childish/obvious that nobody cares to answer eh???

[Avatar]

With no perception there would simply be a continuous undetermined state, surely? (Both waveforms existing simultaneously? (What I know about quantum mechanics is dangerous... ) )

--A

[emotional leper]

Until observed, a thing is considered to be in all possible states at once, which is to say, until INTERACTED with, the thing is in all possible states at once. Since a thing is constantly being interacted with, the waveform always collapses and no superposition is possible. Atleast, for macro-scale objects.

Also, my answer to "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound," is Mu.

[Avatar]

It think you're actually thinking of Cl.

Anyway, you're saying that any form of interaction collapses the waveform? Not perception?

--A

[Xar]

Until observed, a thing is considered to be in all possible states at once, which is to say, until INTERACTED with, the thing is in all possible states at once. Since a thing is constantly being interacted with, the waveform always collapses and no superposition is possible. Atleast, for macro-scale objects.

Also, my answer to "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound," is Mu.

But what if the "thing" is the universe? If it only collapses once something interacts with it, CAN it collapse at all? All things within the universe are part of it and therefore cannot "interact" with it; the only possibility for this collapse would be if something outside the universe observed or interacted with it...

[[Syl]]

Also, my answer to "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound," is Mu.

Funny, that's my answer to "Does a dog have buddha nature?"