"If life wasn't short it wouldn't be meaningful"

>well, not soon enough for any of us,
FIGHT ME RIGHT NOW FUCKER

I've heard plenty of people arguing the fact that life is finite gives it meaning.

>this is my worry.
I doubt people will pass up extending their life over some quaint saying. It isn't a fundamental belief, so much as it is one of many hand wavings towards the inevitability of death.

Some people will no doubt refuse the immortality treatment, for themselves or for their children, but they'd be the minority, and the reasoning would likely be more often, "Life is suffering, and the universe was merciful, in making all suffering temporary."

...or yeah, religion - but you already have people refusing all sorts of medical treatment in the name of religion.

>not soon enough for any of us

>old people dictate policy
>old people have used the last decades to reinforce the belief of either afterlife or fatality being important
>old people have lost track of how good it feels to be young.
how exactly would people refuse it for their kids though? the kids would grow up and take it themselves

don't believe his retarded lies.
2050, not a year further
save this post

Are... You a geneticist or something? I can probably take a geneticist... Or at least all the biology majors I've met so far.

Maybe I should wait until I'm immortal, just to be safe though.

Well, assuming this is something that has to be DNA'd in prenatal or some such.

Granted, if we're talking biological immortality, rather than magical immortality, you can still die. It's not as if you can't undo it, more or less, at will.

I'm a puny fuckboi with a crippling fear of growing old. I dropped out of college
don't even suggest such things you dip.

You can undo it for yourself, at will, but you're still forced to live in a world with all the consequences it entails, with no other alternatives, save suicide. (Unless we're also colonizing the stars by then, and have colonies set aside for the biologically mortal.)

There'd be a lot of downsides to an immensely longer lived society, but a lot of advantages too. I suspect they'd cancel each other out, and mankind would end up just as miserable as before - which seems to be the case with nearly every set of technological advancements. You alleviate one form of suffering, just to discover a new one. Such is life.

the utopian timeline
fire->agriculture->the scientific method->electricity->genetics, advanced scientific fields->brain mapping, brain emulation->perfect VR->computers automatic all essential tasks->eternal life->really good mmo where I can be a cute elf girl and go on adventures

Literally no problems past that point. We'll just illegalize non-virtual procreation, and no one would care because we are all preferring virtual

>timeline has no space colonization
Your utopia would be doomed to extinction come any of the thousands of possible cosmological or terrestrial disasters.

Also don't forget:
>answer The Last Question.
As even space colonies won't save your immortal VR addicted asses from entropy.

youtube.com/watch?v=ojEq-tTjcc0

>As even space colonies won't save your immortal VR addicted asses from entropy.
doesn't entropy just infinitely go closer to absolute standstill? if so, just upload everything to a computer, you'll never notice that the code takes millions or billions of years to calculate a single byte.
if not, I think I can deal with only living until entropy occurs. who knows, we might work our way through that with some future tech anyways

It's popular because death is not only scary, it's a fucking nuisance

That's... An interesting interpretation of it, but no, that's not how entropic decay works.

In the short term, the problem is stars run down, and aren't recreated at the same rate at which they are extinguished. Only a tiny fraction of them go nova, and thus provide a birthplace for new stars. More often, they become brown dwarfs, never returning their energy to the universe, and somewhat less frequently than that (but still more common than novae), they become black holes, effectively removing their matter from the universe, in addition to any additional matter and energy they collect. True, those black holes eventually evaporate, but by the time they do, all the rest of the universe has experienced heat-death, and then there's the second part of the problem...

...and that is that the universe is expanding at an ever accelerating rate. Meaning, in few hundred billion years, we won't be able to see any of the other galaxies (save the few blue shifted ones that merge with us), nor the background radiation that gives a clue as to the origin of the universe. It will look as if our galaxy is the entirety of the universe, with no evidence being available to the contrary, for everything else will be moving away from us at, relatively, faster than the speed of light. Eventually, space will expand so much, that the space between stars in the galaxy, in turn, will create the same effect for solar systems. Soon after, planets will be moving away from stars too quickly to retain their gravitational pull, and awhile after that, every atom will be moving away from every other atom, faster than the speed of light, relative to one another. Every atom will be its own universe, and soon after that, particle interaction will come to an end.

...and around that time, the smallest of the black holes over ten solar masses will finally evaporate, and all the energy they release, will immediately expand into that same nothingness.

...Just how immoral do you want to be?

>...Just how immoral do you want to be?
*immortal... Damnit... Moral decay is another topic entirely.

This harshly answers my question. Since at that point I'll be within an emulation run by a computer made to function under these circumstances. An emulation doesn't need to change. The only question of relevance is, does the universe ever reach a state of being COMPLETELY static?

It doesn't get static, it gets pulled apart - including all the atoms making up your computer simulation. Not to mention, whatever is powering it, is long dead before then.

Unless, of course, you find an answer to that Last Question first - certainly, you've enough time.

Assuming it's answerable at all.

>42

The point is the computer would be powered by the natural heat of the universe. Very little energy, but that's not noticably within the simulation. So if a complete heat death never occurs it could go infinitely

Meaning is a spook

That doesn't help when both you and your machine's molecules are moving away from each other at faster than the speed of light, relative to one another. The electrons required for the simulation can never reach their destination, as both they and it are moving away from them, faster than they travel.

...But before that becomes a problem, the life support systems for billions of people in a VR simulation, requires a bit more power than is going to be available.

Huh, no, uploaded consciousness obviously.
And who's to say the architecture of the machine won't somehow account for that at the time, somehow

>the natural heat of the universe
They call it heat death for a reason. By the time the galaxies are moving away from each other at faster so quickly they effectively no longer exist to one another, the background radiation will be gone too. There will be no "natural heat of the universe" - only that of the ever-dwindling supply of stars left within the galaxy, and eventually, not even that.

Ya should listen to the story yonder ( ) - it's a good read. Problem is, it only takes thermodynamic entropy into account, because it's pre-Hubble, by decades. (Plus it requires this sci-fi "hyperspace" concept, but meh, still fun.)

>And who's to say the architecture of the machine won't somehow account for that at the time, somehow
Well, pretty much the only way that it could, would involve answering that question. Which I suppose you aren't very likely to do, if you're all playing little girl elves in an MMO all day.

But at least you all die happy - and for most people, for better or worse, that's all they really want.

You're both talking about two different ends to the universe. One is talking about Heat Death, the other is talking about the Big Rip.

Both are retarded because they're just hypotheses based upon the little information we have now. Not to mention the death of the universe is so ridiculously far away it doesn't even merit seriously thinking about.

As I've been told, heat death is an eternal process, moving closer and closer to a total standstill. Even a single jule in a trillion trillion years is fine on an infinite scaler. You can't observe the speed of the calculations from within the simulation.
This is all theoretical, even as a cute elf girl I doubt I'm up for hanging around on a universal timescale. But the ingenuity is left for the robots at that point, for arguments sake

>uploaded consciousness
>believing in pseudoscience

Nigga are you joking.

Meh, we're talking trillions of years - it's all pseudoscience techno-magic at that point.

All the current theories and observations say we're heading towards both.

youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

On the other hand, we've flipped our model of the universe on its head at least four times in the past hundred years, so yeah... For all our pride, we're probably still in John Snow'ville. Science in its infancy and all.

Scientists don't even understand consciousness now. Not to mention uploading consciousness is philosophically invalid. It's trying to pretend consciousness is just some computer code that can be copied and transferred. The thing is, a copied piece of code is indistinct from another, because code doesn't fucking perceive itself.
There's techno-magic and then there's shit that doesn't make any sense.

The point is that the universe can't die twice. Heat Death is understood as entropy just eventually killing the universe, while the Big Rip kills the universe long before heat death.

We can't even *define* consciousness now, let alone understand it.

But between ever increasingly detailed FMRI scanning technology and the like, and ever increasing computer power (which promises to jump by billions, once we finally move past silicon chips), we're well on our way to being able to simulate a working human brain, in real time, and a sufficient environment to prevent it from going comatose. You don't need to even define, let alone understand, consciousness to do that.

So, provided there's no dark age, that much is pretty much inevitable at this point.

Now, actually transferring a living human brain into a virtual simulation, that's where you get into some philosophical conundrums that we have threads all over going on about. Granted, one of the many proposed solutions is to create an unbroken stream of consciousness by slowly supplanting the physical brain with a digital one (and thus avoid the problem where you die, but a virtual copy of yourself lives on, via ye old Ship of Theseus).

We're talking trillions of years... And the guy started out with the concept of meatbags hooked up to a virtual reality to begin with. So no, it isn't beyond reason, just on the far edge of the future technological horizon.

Some fucking Catholics think suffering has meaning, like suffering builds character, or is admirable because Christ suffered, or something.

You can compare, or even equate, the brevity of life to suffering, and there's a ton of people out there who equate senseless suffering to virtue.

You have both problems at the same time, and that's the current outlook. The stars start running down and being few and far between long before the universe starts pulling itself apart at the molecular level, but the galaxies vanish to one another, and the background radiation goes away, well before then.

a beginning is predicated by an end

natality is predicated by fatality

"short" is an illusory concept

each moment is an eternity

to be awake in this moment is to be awake forever

If that's an original composition it's mediocre, if it's not original it's not worth quoting.
'Illusory concept' is utterly inappropriate for verse.

neerd

Not that it matters, stopping aging will happen in our lifetime whether we like it or not

The only people who wish for immortality are the ones that are either full of regrets or haven't lived their life to the fullest.

If they had; there would't be anything left to want

Or maybe they just aren't content with what can be theoretically accomplished within their natural lifespan, retardo.

>immortality
>accomplished within our lifespans
Good joke.

We can prolong life; sure, but attaining true immortality is the softest of sci-fi shit.

Not to mention it doesn't answer the question that if you've already lived your life to the fullest then only a pussy would fear death

not true immortality, just stopping aging. and that's not soft sci-fi at all, there's literally no physical laws that would prohibit this, there's pretty much a theoretical layout for making it work already, it just has severe side effects

>just stopping aging. and that's not soft sci-fi at all, there's literally no physical laws that would prohibit this
Yeah man; you just magic the decay out of there; easy as 1 2 3

>magic the decay away
You realize that's what the body does all the time, it's just one chemical process that stops working after a few reiterations? we can reverse aging in mice, it just gives them cancer.

What's her name?

none of your business buddy