Agreed for the most part, but what makes us who we are is whatever it is that allows us to have consciousness and thought. This is the brain, but there's no reason I can think of that sufficient technology couldn't (eventually) replicate that, and the consciousness be transmitted via artificial add-ons. It is the consciousness itself that is the irreplaceable individual, not their cells except to the extent that neural connections are the physical manifestation of this. Provided there is no supernatural element to what makes us who we are, i.e. a soul or something, I think the above holds true.
well all i know is that we are far from truly mapping out someone's thoughts and consciousness. personally i believe in a soul. don't know the nature of it and whether or not it can mathematically be mapped out. to me that depends on whether or not God can be mathematically figured out- maybe someday those things will be figured out, if the missing pieces of the GUT are discovered. doubtful to me.
It is true that true immortality, or even the remote possibility of it, could be facilitated by infinite energy. While the concept of infinite energy sounds impossible, it is certainly no less plausible than the supernatural (many religious people would contend that infinite energy is one of god's attributes), and given our limited knowledge at this point it is impossible to know whether infinite energy in a natural sense can exist.
my point is that TRUE immortality REQUIRES infinite energy, not simply "be facilitated" by it, ( i did not say one way or the other whether i think it exists. we of course need to perfectly understand dark energy and dark matter before we can begin to remotely hypothesize if there is an infinite amount of energy). the only way around requiring infinite energy (to continue decreasing your local entropy) is if you exist outside of the laws of physics. that was my *point* in mentioning God as I see his existence.
One of the laws of thermodynamics states that energy-matter can neither be created nor destroyed. If the universe had a beginning, this cannot be the case. However, the alternative, an eternal universe, violates increasing entropy. Neither scenario makes much sense given what we know so far. For that reason, it seems the laws of thermodynamics are not perfectly applicable in all situations. Of course they are useful and applicable under conditions we've encountered so far. But that may be analogous to Newtonian physics before Quantum.
the universe arose from nothing. the big bang (most accepted and accurate theory, proven by loads of scientific evidence) occurred from a singularity, an infinitesimal point (nothingness). when this 'singularity' expanded, equal amounts of matter and anti-matter were formed, in an instant (unfathomably small amount of time). anti-matter + matter = 0 (nothing). in the first second of the universe's existence, most matter and anti-matter was annihilated. only a small amount of matter was left un-annihilated, but still is balanced by is counterpart antimatter. some kind of symmetry breaking occured. one theory i know of about how some matter was allowed to exist and not all annihilated by its anti-matter is because (somehow) that antimatter got trapped by the surface of black holes.
THUS, the universe had a beginning, and the first law of thermodynamics still holds. pretty cool. for every matter, there is anti-matter. thus matter/energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
sorry if my explanation sucked, it's been a couple years since i took a cosmology class.
basically your thinking is highly flawed. the laws of thermodynamics are laws because they are applicable in all situations. they are more difficult to understand at the quantum level but do not break down.
One reason it seems reasonable that infinite energy would be required is that, at the very least, electromagnetic radiation travelling away from the reachable universe
i don't understand? are you trying to say that EM radiation can
escape the universe? that assumes the universe is an open system. that violates the laws of thermodynamics. the universe is a closed system. it transfers neither energy nor matter to any outside system (if such a system exists, that is.)
thus, there is no reason to look for a "perfect barrier".
😕
its an endless cycle. entropy causes energy to be lost as heat. to reconvert that heat to useful energy for work, you require some OTHER source of energy put into the system to make the conversion. ultimately you always end up increasing entropy of the entire system as a whole. all you are doing is getting into the perpetual motion machine argument.
Excelsius said:
If the universe is closed and the Big Crunch imminent, then entropy will be decreasing and time running backwards.
The god concept does not work. If one questions: who created the universe? It must be god! Then one can also question: who created god? And if god created itself, then universe also created itself. That's actually a real theory put forward by Richard Gott, a physicist at Princeton. Let's not forget that matter and energy are interchangeable. If you accept that god is some sort of source of huge energy, then god is nothing but matter. And matter is universe. Therefore god=universe. A physicist calls it as such, a person looking for comfort assigns "intelligence" to matter-energy and calls it god. Familiar? We used to worship the sun, statues, and many other inanimate objects. The concept of God is the last vestige of human evolutionary advancement. In 100 years or so we will look back and marvel at our atavistic simplicity.
if this was a response to me, you are assuming a lot about my concept of God. also, you seem to be very arrogant that your belief is right. Einstein, as well as a staggering number of physicists today, believe in God. nearly all believe in some sort of higher, unifying force (whatever you wish to call it-- i dont care.) extensively study cosmology and see how much
we cannot explain (especially by chance) and truly do not know. then come back and talk, buddy
👍 also, you completely ignored my comment that i see God as something outside the laws of physics. thus God =/= matter-energy, to me. to me, Him representing eternity has no linkage to some kind of eternity of the universe- it had a beginning. that is overwhelmingly proven. it seems to me that atheists are the ones that try to assign 'intelligence' to inanimate objects as if they have a mind of their own to effortlessly by chance assemble into functioning, thinking machines. so tell me who is comforting themselves? and in your magical world 100 years from now, who has any right to define some type of universal morality?
just something to think about. not trying to start an argument. however, it would be nice if some atheists would stop complaining about religious people "pushing their beliefs on others" and yet doing the same thing with such a condescending, matter-of-fact tone.
