Technological Immortality

[Mudhammam]

Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions.

You gullible fucking idiot. 
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_deity

[Iroscato]

I'll give him credit, he probably wipes his dick with a thesaurus after he finishes wanking like an angry sailor over the bible...

[Esquilax]

Hi, Esquilax. In the very post of mine which you partially quote, I then go on to show how the Omega Point cosmology uniquely conforms to Christian theology. For much more on this matter, and for many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology uniquely and precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything"; and my article "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", also previously cited within this thread.

But you didn't though: omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence are not exclusive to the christian god, that's all you said, and there's a bunch of additional characteristics of the christian god that are more important to it, yet not present in what you're saying. Like ninety percent of christian apologetics, you're stretching from a deist god to the christian one with no justification at all.

Regarding your second paragraph above, unfortunately, most modern physicists have been all too willing to abandon the laws of physics if it produces results that they're uncomfortable with, i.e., in reference to religion. It's the antagonism for religion on the part of the scientific community which greatly held up the acceptance of the Big Bang (for some 40 years), due to said scientific community's displeasure with it confirming the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo, and also because no laws of physics can apply to the singularity itself: i.e., quite literally, the singularity is supernatural, in the sense that no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform arithmetical operations on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time.

I'm not going to take any accusations of a grand anti-theistic scientific conspiracy seriously; you literally have no way of knowing what you've just claimed.

[AdamLOV]

Why would anyone want to prolong human life? Why go through such a hassle just to avoid something as painless as death? In the view of Epicurus, death is something to be embraced, for it puts an end to suffering and pain. Transhumanism seems like just another way of trying to avoid or sublimate the threatening, but, for better or worse, "unavoidable shipwreck" (Schopenhauer) that nonexistence poses.

[KevinM1]

Why would anyone want to prolong human life? Why go through such a hassle just to avoid something as painless as death? In the view of Epicurus, death is something to be embraced, for it puts an end to suffering and pain. Transhumanism seems like just another way of trying to avoid or sublimate the threatening, but, for better or worse, "unavoidable shipwreck" (Schopenhauer) that nonexistence poses.

If suffering and pain can be mitigated and/or eliminated here, then why not?  That's the entire point of medicine, no?  I mean, if that's really your view, then I guess you don't need those pesky vaccinations, or any kind of life-prolonging upkeep.

I want to live as long as I can because I'm curious.  I want to see if we ever leave the solar system.  I want to see if we ever meet other intelligent life.  I want to see if we can stop from destroying ourselves.  I want to see what passes as popular culture a couple hundred years from now.  Everything from music, to theater, to fashion, to literature, and to all the things which may supplant them.  I want to see Catholicism whither and die as the outdated patriarchy it is.  I want to see the developed countries give a shit about Africa.  I want to see us actually obtain energy independence and an entirely renewable infrastructure.

I can't see most/any of that when I'm dead. 

[AFTT47]

The field of physics does involve mathematical proofs of physical theories, i.e., physical theorems, such as the Penrose-Hawking-Geroch Singularity Theorems which proved that the Big Bang initial singularity necessarily exists per General Relativity and given attractive gravity. Likewise, the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory is a mathematical theorem if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are correct. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have been confirmed by every experiment to date, and so the only way to avoid the Omega Point theory of quantum gravity is to reject empirical science.

So being that it is that tight, why have I never heard of it? Even allowing for a grand conspiracy among the physics community, they couldn't avoid this if it's that ironclad. And people get famous when they overthrow the established order, you know. Yet in over two decades, no graduate student has latched onto this and launched himself to the forefront. Probably because it's nowhere near as ironclad as you make it sound.

[AdamLOV]

Why would anyone want to prolong human life? Why go through such a hassle just to avoid something as painless as death? In the view of Epicurus, death is something to be embraced, for it puts an end to suffering and pain. Transhumanism seems like just another way of trying to avoid or sublimate the threatening, but, for better or worse, "unavoidable shipwreck" (Schopenhauer) that nonexistence poses.

If suffering and pain can be mitigated and/or eliminated here, then why not?  That's the entire point of medicine, no?  I mean, if that's really your view, then I guess you don't need those pesky vaccinations, or any kind of life-prolonging upkeep.

I want to live as long as I can because I'm curious.  I want to see if we ever leave the solar system.  I want to see if we ever meet other intelligent life.  I want to see if we can stop from destroying ourselves.  I want to see what passes as popular culture a couple hundred years from now.  Everything from music, to theater, to fashion, to literature, and to all the things which may supplant them.  I want to see Catholicism whither and die as the outdated patriarchy it is.  I want to see the developed countries give a shit about Africa.  I want to see us actually obtain energy independence and an entirely renewable infrastructure.

I can't see most/any of that when I'm dead. 

The fact that you want to see all that in no way implies that others would even want to see the fruition of those possibilities. Thermodynamics does not care about our hopes and desires. This may seem callous, but it is a fact of existence that negentropic living systems are born so as to die. The very callousness of evolution, the fact that it has resulted in unattainable desires, such as those listed by yourself (some, if not all of the utopian goals listed by yourself are unattainable, that much we can admit), would militate against prolonging negentropy. Life, put simply, does not deserve to be prolonged. Medical science has made great strides in eliminating physical pain, and even psychological suffering could one day be eliminated, but it is doubtful that suffering in general could ever be eliminated. Therefore life would, at best, become a condition filled with unbearable boredom. Furthermore, the New-And-Improved humanity's levels of tolerance in relation to suffering would be greatly diminished, and were technology to, horrible dictu, experience a regression, they would find many of the forms of suffering we have grown used to simply intolerable. Relegation of present forms of suffering could therefore have the side-effect of sentencing future generations to even more horrible levels of pain. Perhaps you do not really want to see what technolgical innovation may have in store. That said, suffering should definitely be combatted in any way possible, for example via encouragment of euthanesia for the terminally ill. But we should never forget that life itself is a terminal illness.

[AFTT47]

Life, put simply, does not deserve to be prolonged.

Feel free to make that decision - for yourself. Leave the rest of us out of it.

[KevinM1]

If suffering and pain can be mitigated and/or eliminated here, then why not?  That's the entire point of medicine, no?  I mean, if that's really your view, then I guess you don't need those pesky vaccinations, or any kind of life-prolonging upkeep.

I want to live as long as I can because I'm curious.  I want to see if we ever leave the solar system.  I want to see if we ever meet other intelligent life.  I want to see if we can stop from destroying ourselves.  I want to see what passes as popular culture a couple hundred years from now.  Everything from music, to theater, to fashion, to literature, and to all the things which may supplant them.  I want to see Catholicism whither and die as the outdated patriarchy it is.  I want to see the developed countries give a shit about Africa.  I want to see us actually obtain energy independence and an entirely renewable infrastructure.

I can't see most/any of that when I'm dead. 

The fact that you want to see all that in no way implies that others would even want to see the fruition of those possibilities. Thermodynamics does not care about our hopes and desires. This may seem callous, but it is a fact of existence that negentropic living systems are born so as to die. The very callousness of evolution, the fact that it has resulted in unattainable desires, such as those listed by yourself (some, if not all of the utopian goals listed by yourself are unattainable, that much we can admit), would militate against prolonging negentropy. Life, put simply, does not deserve to be prolonged. Medical science has made great strides in eliminating physical pain, and even psychological suffering could one day be eliminated, but it is doubtful that suffering in general could ever be eliminated. Therefore life would, at best, become a condition filled with unbearable boredom. Furthermore, the New-And-Improved humanity's levels of tolerance in relation to suffering would be greatly diminished, and were technology to, horrible dictu, experience a regression, they would find many of the forms of suffering we have grown used to simply intolerable. Relegation of present forms of suffering could therefore have the side-effect of sentencing future generations to even more horrible levels of pain. Perhaps you do not really want to see what technolgical innovation may have in store. That said, suffering should definitely be combatted in any way possible, for example via encouragment of euthanesia for the terminally ill. But we should never forget that life itself is a terminal illness.

Wow, that was a whole lot of nothing.

Again, if you believe this, then you shouldn't partake in medical procedures (whether they're as simple as vaccinations or as involved as surgery) to prolong your life.

And I really don't care what others, outside of my loved ones, would like to see or not see.  And even then, their desires can only influence mine up to a point.

Keep in mind, I never said I wanted to live forever.  But, I find the 70-100 years (which is a much longer life span than humans had when living au naturel... I hope the irony isn't lost on you) to be far too short a span.  Give me a few centuries.  Maybe even 1000 years, and I'll be happy.

And, yes, I'm aware that my curiosity, were it fulfilled, may cause me to witness or directly experience negative results.  I'm okay with that.  I don't find the idea of living to be so utterly hopeless as you seem to.

[AdamLOV]

The fact that you want to see all that in no way implies that others would even want to see the fruition of those possibilities. Thermodynamics does not care about our hopes and desires. This may seem callous, but it is a fact of existence that negentropic living systems are born so as to die. The very callousness of evolution, the fact that it has resulted in unattainable desires, such as those listed by yourself (some, if not all of the utopian goals listed by yourself are unattainable, that much we can admit), would militate against prolonging negentropy. Life, put simply, does not deserve to be prolonged. Medical science has made great strides in eliminating physical pain, and even psychological suffering could one day be eliminated, but it is doubtful that suffering in general could ever be eliminated. Therefore life would, at best, become a condition filled with unbearable boredom. Furthermore, the New-And-Improved humanity's levels of tolerance in relation to suffering would be greatly diminished, and were technology to, horrible dictu, experience a regression, they would find many of the forms of suffering we have grown used to simply intolerable. Relegation of present forms of suffering could therefore have the side-effect of sentencing future generations to even more horrible levels of pain. Perhaps you do not really want to see what technolgical innovation may have in store. That said, suffering should definitely be combatted in any way possible, for example via encouragment of euthanesia for the terminally ill. But we should never forget that life itself is a terminal illness.

Wow, that was a whole lot of nothing.

Again, if you believe this, then you shouldn't partake in medical procedures (whether they're as simple as vaccinations or as involved as surgery) to prolong your life.

And I really don't care what others, outside of my loved ones, would like to see or not see.  And even then, their desires can only influence mine up to a point.

Keep in mind, I never said I wanted to live forever.  But, I find the 70-100 years (which is a much longer life span than humans had when living au naturel... I hope the irony isn't lost on you) to be far too short a span.  Give me a few centuries.  Maybe even 1000 years, and I'll be happy.

And, yes, I'm aware that my curiosity, were it fulfilled, may cause me to witness or directly experience negative results.  I'm okay with that.  I don't find the idea of living to be so utterly hopeless as you seem to.

You suggest that the goal of medical procedures would be to prolong life. I beg to differ. If one accepts, as neurology would attest to, that the nervous system usually becomes inoperative after clinical death (although out-of-body illusions have been experienced by some patients), then death cannot be painful. Rather, the imminence of death is what gives cause for apprehension, the suffering caused by terminal illness, and not the state of death itself. As Epicurus reminds us, dissolution is nothing to be feared. A sudden death, consequently, should not be feared, and indeed, cannot be directly averted by current medical procedures. Therefore, the goal of medicine would be to alleviate pain. I partake of medicine so as to avoid pain, for example the pain of falling gravely ill. A few more centuries of life and "you'll be happy?" I do not want to burst your bubble. I respect your optimism, especially considering the parlous state of the planet. In response, I would utilize a culinary analogy: if one pours too much salt in one's soup, the soup will not become less salty if one continues pouring salt into it.