The Unavoidable Truth

[Crystal Estelle]

EOD_Jess2cool

The Unavoidable Truth is that I don't give a ********.

Whoopty ******** doo

[garyonline]

Crystal Estelle

The Unavoidable

You, me, and everyone you love will die
Everyone you've ever know will die
Everyone who will live on to remember you will die

We live our lives worrying about money
We try to accumulate some sort of worth in our lives
We try to find meaning in things that have none

This doesn't make me sad
This a truth and nothing more
It's something you can never change

Life is not a question
There is no answer
It's a statement you
And it's only for a moment

Inspired "My Boy Builds Coffins" by Florence +The Machine

dat shet was so d0p3 omgg ik just the song for this


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1me3YTob2M

[Crystal Estelle]

lenon01

Crystal Estelle

lenon01

Crystal Estelle

The Unavoidable

You, me, and everyone you love will die
Everyone you've ever know will die
Everyone who will live on to remember you will die

We live our lives worrying about money
We try to accumulate some sort of worth in our lives
We try to find meaning in things that have none

This doesn't make me sad
This a truth and nothing more
It's something you can never change

Life is not a question
There is no answer
It's a statement you
And it's only for a moment

I call bullshit!

State your point

Did you read the article? Apparently not.

The point being that the rapid acceleration in the advancement of science and technology, in particular the knowledge of the human body and the current mapping of the brain, might allow humans to become practically immortal by as early as the year 2045 C.E.

( C.E. stands for 'current era'; it's the same thing as 2045 A.D., just I got used to it from a history class I took one year and it's stuck with me ever since. )

I read the article, and have done much of my own searching of the idea of immortality, and I once again ask you state your point. My writing is a truth, it is not an argument to be had. To try to say anything to the contrary would need fact and proof, not science fiction. And also to think that we are anywhere near scratching the surface of cheating death is laughable.

[Crystal Estelle]

Skuuuuuuuuuurt

Crystal Estelle

The Unavoidable

You, me, and everyone you love will die
Everyone you've ever know will die
Everyone who will live on to remember you will die

We live our lives worrying about money
We try to accumulate some sort of worth in our lives
We try to find meaning in things that have none

This doesn't make me sad
This a truth and nothing more
It's something you can never change

Life is not a question
There is no answer
It's a statement you
And it's only for a moment

Inspired "My Boy Builds Coffins" by Florence +The Machine

dat shet was so d0p3 omgg ik just the song for this


]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1me3YTob2M

Thank you, and that wasn't quite the mood that I had imagined when I wrote this lol

[lenon01]

Crystal Estelle

lenon01

Crystal Estelle

lenon01

Crystal Estelle

The Unavoidable

You, me, and everyone you love will die
Everyone you've ever know will die
Everyone who will live on to remember you will die

We live our lives worrying about money
We try to accumulate some sort of worth in our lives
We try to find meaning in things that have none

This doesn't make me sad
This a truth and nothing more
It's something you can never change

Life is not a question
There is no answer
It's a statement you
And it's only for a moment

I call bullshit!

State your point

Did you read the article? Apparently not.

The point being that the rapid acceleration in the advancement of science and technology, in particular the knowledge of the human body and the current mapping of the brain, might allow humans to become practically immortal by as early as the year 2045 C.E.

( C.E. stands for 'current era'; it's the same thing as 2045 A.D., just I got used to it from a history class I took one year and it's stuck with me ever since. )

I read the article, and have done much of my own searching of the idea of immortality, and I once again ask you state your point. My writing is a truth, it is not an argument to be had. To try to say anything to the contrary would need fact and proof, not science fiction. And also to think that we are anywhere near scratching the surface of cheating death is laughable.

I just stated my point. It's that immortality is theoretically plausible.
The fact that there's an entire organization, several actually, that are devoted to finding ways to eliminate unwanted death. If we can't do it way X, then we'll do it way Y. If that's not possible, there's always cryogenics until immortality and resurrection becomes a technological possibility.

You also seem to be ignoring the rapid pace of technological progress. Ever heard of Moore's Law?

Wikipedia

Moore's law is the observation that over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years. The period often quoted as "18 months" is due to Intel executive David House, who predicted that period for a doubling in chip performance (being a combination of the effect of more transistors and their being faster).[1]

And now, with prosthetics being experimented with in such a way that allows a person's nerves to control them and the mapping of the human brain, it may be possible to just take human biology out of the equation entirely and upload them into a robotic body, if not a computer chip.

And what do you mean , "My writing is a truth"? If you believe that regardless of any kind of evidence I offer you then I won't even bother making another reply due to the innate ability of humans to deny anything other than what they believe personally regardless of anything presented otherwise.
To make a statement like, "My writing is a truth" implies the very above thing, at least in my eyes; please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Crystal Estelle]

lenon01

Crystal Estelle

lenon01

Crystal Estelle

lenon01

I call bullshit!

State your point

Did you read the article? Apparently not.

The point being that the rapid acceleration in the advancement of science and technology, in particular the knowledge of the human body and the current mapping of the brain, might allow humans to become practically immortal by as early as the year 2045 C.E.

( C.E. stands for 'current era'; it's the same thing as 2045 A.D., just I got used to it from a history class I took one year and it's stuck with me ever since. )

I read the article, and have done much of my own searching of the idea of immortality, and I once again ask you state your point. My writing is a truth, it is not an argument to be had. To try to say anything to the contrary would need fact and proof, not science fiction. And also to think that we are anywhere near scratching the surface of cheating death is laughable.

I just stated my point. It's that immortality is theoretically plausible.
The fact that there's an entire organization, several actually, that are devoted to finding ways to eliminate unwanted death. If we can't do it way X, then we'll do it way Y. If that's not possible, there's always cryogenics until immortality and resurrection becomes a technological possibility.

You also seem to be ignoring the rapid pace of technological progress. Ever heard of Moore's Law?

Wikipedia

Moore's law is the observation that over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years. The period often quoted as "18 months" is due to Intel executive David House, who predicted that period for a doubling in chip performance (being a combination of the effect of more transistors and their being faster).[1]

And now, with prosthetics being experimented with in such a way that allows a person's nerves to control them and the mapping of the human brain, it may be possible to just take human biology out of the equation entirely and upload them into a robotic body, if not a computer chip.

And what do you mean , "My writing is a truth"? If you believe that regardless of any kind of evidence I offer you then I won't even bother making another reply due to the innate ability of humans to deny anything other than what they believe personally regardless of anything presented otherwise.
To make a statement like, "My writing is a truth" implies the very above thing, at least in my eyes; please correct me if I'm wrong.

OK let me do this from a different approach. First when I said that my writing is a truth I didn't mean that when I say something that it is a non deniable fact. What I meant was that what I said is a non deniable fact. You understand? Like it's not because I said it, it already was regardless of my observation. Even though I grossly disagree with your statement it's easier to argue another truth.

For the purpose of this argument ending (one I never wanted to have mind you) I will act as if in some point in our future we become immortal. In this future we will of course have found a way to fuel ourselves without fossil fuel, presumably the Sun. At some point the star that allows us to live will also die. Once this happens I will also offer the scenario in which we are able to travel great distances in short times. So much so that we can jump from star to star living off of the energy that it provides until it to dies. We will continue this until we have jumped to the last star in existence. After this star dies ever the billions of years of energy we could possibly save up will too die. And then we humans, masters of the universe will die.

[lenon01]

Crystal Estelle

lenon01

Crystal Estelle

lenon01

Crystal Estelle

State your point

Did you read the article? Apparently not.

The point being that the rapid acceleration in the advancement of science and technology, in particular the knowledge of the human body and the current mapping of the brain, might allow humans to become practically immortal by as early as the year 2045 C.E.

( C.E. stands for 'current era'; it's the same thing as 2045 A.D., just I got used to it from a history class I took one year and it's stuck with me ever since. )

I read the article, and have done much of my own searching of the idea of immortality, and I once again ask you state your point. My writing is a truth, it is not an argument to be had. To try to say anything to the contrary would need fact and proof, not science fiction. And also to think that we are anywhere near scratching the surface of cheating death is laughable.

I just stated my point. It's that immortality is theoretically plausible.
The fact that there's an entire organization, several actually, that are devoted to finding ways to eliminate unwanted death. If we can't do it way X, then we'll do it way Y. If that's not possible, there's always cryogenics until immortality and resurrection becomes a technological possibility.

You also seem to be ignoring the rapid pace of technological progress. Ever heard of Moore's Law?

Wikipedia

Moore's law is the observation that over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years. The period often quoted as "18 months" is due to Intel executive David House, who predicted that period for a doubling in chip performance (being a combination of the effect of more transistors and their being faster).[1]

And now, with prosthetics being experimented with in such a way that allows a person's nerves to control them and the mapping of the human brain, it may be possible to just take human biology out of the equation entirely and upload them into a robotic body, if not a computer chip.

And what do you mean , "My writing is a truth"? If you believe that regardless of any kind of evidence I offer you then I won't even bother making another reply due to the innate ability of humans to deny anything other than what they believe personally regardless of anything presented otherwise.
To make a statement like, "My writing is a truth" implies the very above thing, at least in my eyes; please correct me if I'm wrong.

OK let me do this from a different approach. First when I said that my writing is a truth I didn't mean that when I say something that it is a non deniable fact. What I meant was that what I said is a non deniable fact. You understand? Like it's not because I said it, it already was regardless of my observation. Even though I grossly disagree with your statement it's easier to argue another truth.

For the purpose of this argument ending (one I never wanted to have mind you) I will act as if in some point in our future we become immortal. In this future we will of course have found a way to fuel ourselves without fossil fuel, presumably the Sun. At some point the star that allows us to live will also die. Once this happens I will also offer the scenario in which we are able to travel great distances in short times. So much so that we can jump from star to star living off of the energy that it provides until it to dies. We will continue this until we have jumped to the last star in existence. After this star dies ever the billions of years of energy we could possibly save up will too die. And then we humans, masters of the universe will die.

I understand your point, but assuming that solar power is going to be our only major source of energy is folly. Also, assuming that in the billions upon billions of years that pass in between now and the last star dying that we don't find some other, self-generated way to create our own energy (through various ways; consider, perhaps, that through advanced technology we'd be able to create stars) is also folly.

Then one must consider the idea of the 'multiverse', which is apparently gaining momentum among theoretical physicists. The basic idea is that there are other 'bubbles' of universes that exist in a larger 'multiverse' that houses a bunch of other universes that could potentially be traveled to using wormholes.

And if you want to get really detailed and complicated it might even be worth it to mention that some futurists who promote transhumanism suggest that our consciousnesses, once being able to be uploaded and our perception and concentration enhanced, will be able to wireless inhabit multiple 'bodies', or 'swarms' of machines that are ours to control. Using Quantum Keys, we could theoretically control their actions instantly across even lightyears.

There are way too many layers to consider besides, 'Oh, so far humans can't make their own energy!'
I recently read about 'breeder reactors', which are basically nuclear power plants that, in essence, synthesize their own fuel. It's actually a rather fascinating concept, and the argument of the dangers of nuclear power is entirely averted when it comes down to the power plants being located on another planet or not having a biological body to get sick.

[Crystal Estelle]

lenon01

Crystal Estelle

lenon01

Crystal Estelle

lenon01

Did you read the article? Apparently not.

The point being that the rapid acceleration in the advancement of science and technology, in particular the knowledge of the human body and the current mapping of the brain, might allow humans to become practically immortal by as early as the year 2045 C.E.

( C.E. stands for 'current era'; it's the same thing as 2045 A.D., just I got used to it from a history class I took one year and it's stuck with me ever since. )

I read the article, and have done much of my own searching of the idea of immortality, and I once again ask you state your point. My writing is a truth, it is not an argument to be had. To try to say anything to the contrary would need fact and proof, not science fiction. And also to think that we are anywhere near scratching the surface of cheating death is laughable.

I just stated my point. It's that immortality is theoretically plausible.
The fact that there's an entire organization, several actually, that are devoted to finding ways to eliminate unwanted death. If we can't do it way X, then we'll do it way Y. If that's not possible, there's always cryogenics until immortality and resurrection becomes a technological possibility.

You also seem to be ignoring the rapid pace of technological progress. Ever heard of Moore's Law?

Wikipedia

Moore's law is the observation that over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years. The period often quoted as "18 months" is due to Intel executive David House, who predicted that period for a doubling in chip performance (being a combination of the effect of more transistors and their being faster).[1]

And now, with prosthetics being experimented with in such a way that allows a person's nerves to control them and the mapping of the human brain, it may be possible to just take human biology out of the equation entirely and upload them into a robotic body, if not a computer chip.

And what do you mean , "My writing is a truth"? If you believe that regardless of any kind of evidence I offer you then I won't even bother making another reply due to the innate ability of humans to deny anything other than what they believe personally regardless of anything presented otherwise.
To make a statement like, "My writing is a truth" implies the very above thing, at least in my eyes; please correct me if I'm wrong.

OK let me do this from a different approach. First when I said that my writing is a truth I didn't mean that when I say something that it is a non deniable fact. What I meant was that what I said is a non deniable fact. You understand? Like it's not because I said it, it already was regardless of my observation. Even though I grossly disagree with your statement it's easier to argue another truth.

For the purpose of this argument ending (one I never wanted to have mind you) I will act as if in some point in our future we become immortal. In this future we will of course have found a way to fuel ourselves without fossil fuel, presumably the Sun. At some point the star that allows us to live will also die. Once this happens I will also offer the scenario in which we are able to travel great distances in short times. So much so that we can jump from star to star living off of the energy that it provides until it to dies. We will continue this until we have jumped to the last star in existence. After this star dies ever the billions of years of energy we could possibly save up will too die. And then we humans, masters of the universe will die.

I understand your point, but assuming that solar power is going to be our only major source of energy is folly. Also, assuming that in the billions upon billions of years that pass in between now and the last star dying that we don't find some other, self-generated way to create our own energy (through various ways; consider, perhaps, that through advanced technology we'd be able to create stars) is also folly.

Then one must consider the idea of the 'multiverse', which is apparently gaining momentum among theoretical physicists. The basic idea is that there are other 'bubbles' of universes that exist in a larger 'multiverse' that houses a bunch of other universes that could potentially be traveled to using wormholes.

And if you want to get really detailed and complicated it might even be worth it to mention that some futurists who promote transhumanism suggest that our consciousnesses, once being able to be uploaded and our perception and concentration enhanced, will be able to wireless inhabit multiple 'bodies', or 'swarms' of machines that are ours to control. Using Quantum Keys, we could theoretically control their actions instantly across even lightyears.

There are way too many layers to consider besides, 'Oh, so far humans can't make their own energy!'
I recently read about 'breeder reactors', which are basically nuclear power plants that, in essence, synthesize their own fuel. It's actually a rather fascinating concept, and the argument of the dangers of nuclear power is entirely averted when it comes down to the power plants being located on another planet or not having a biological body to get sick.

Damnit why can't you just be stupid? You making me have to do way more that what I want to. But, I'm stubborn you see.

And I simply don't believe that we will be able to instantly transfer data on the scale that your bringing up. Even if we do somehow gain the ability to transport ourselves, it would take an unimaginable amount of energy, to do so. And I'd like to see the article about these breeder reactors that I honestly just do not believe exist. And as for your point made about the 'multiverse' a term I pray wasn't coined from Crisis on Two Earths, is something that can not be proven. Which come to think of it is something all your points have in common. These are things that we could argue about in great lengths if we were in the speaking on theoretical physics, but seeing as how we're speaking on proven facts not speculation. I would like your next point to be something proven if you don't mind.

[lenon01]

Crystal Estelle

lenon01

Crystal Estelle

lenon01

Crystal Estelle

I read the article, and have done much of my own searching of the idea of immortality, and I once again ask you state your point. My writing is a truth, it is not an argument to be had. To try to say anything to the contrary would need fact and proof, not science fiction. And also to think that we are anywhere near scratching the surface of cheating death is laughable.

I just stated my point. It's that immortality is theoretically plausible.
The fact that there's an entire organization, several actually, that are devoted to finding ways to eliminate unwanted death. If we can't do it way X, then we'll do it way Y. If that's not possible, there's always cryogenics until immortality and resurrection becomes a technological possibility.

You also seem to be ignoring the rapid pace of technological progress. Ever heard of Moore's Law?

Wikipedia

Moore's law is the observation that over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors on integrated circuits doubles approximately every two years. The period often quoted as "18 months" is due to Intel executive David House, who predicted that period for a doubling in chip performance (being a combination of the effect of more transistors and their being faster).[1]

And now, with prosthetics being experimented with in such a way that allows a person's nerves to control them and the mapping of the human brain, it may be possible to just take human biology out of the equation entirely and upload them into a robotic body, if not a computer chip.

And what do you mean , "My writing is a truth"? If you believe that regardless of any kind of evidence I offer you then I won't even bother making another reply due to the innate ability of humans to deny anything other than what they believe personally regardless of anything presented otherwise.
To make a statement like, "My writing is a truth" implies the very above thing, at least in my eyes; please correct me if I'm wrong.

OK let me do this from a different approach. First when I said that my writing is a truth I didn't mean that when I say something that it is a non deniable fact. What I meant was that what I said is a non deniable fact. You understand? Like it's not because I said it, it already was regardless of my observation. Even though I grossly disagree with your statement it's easier to argue another truth.

For the purpose of this argument ending (one I never wanted to have mind you) I will act as if in some point in our future we become immortal. In this future we will of course have found a way to fuel ourselves without fossil fuel, presumably the Sun. At some point the star that allows us to live will also die. Once this happens I will also offer the scenario in which we are able to travel great distances in short times. So much so that we can jump from star to star living off of the energy that it provides until it to dies. We will continue this until we have jumped to the last star in existence. After this star dies ever the billions of years of energy we could possibly save up will too die. And then we humans, masters of the universe will die.

I understand your point, but assuming that solar power is going to be our only major source of energy is folly. Also, assuming that in the billions upon billions of years that pass in between now and the last star dying that we don't find some other, self-generated way to create our own energy (through various ways; consider, perhaps, that through advanced technology we'd be able to create stars) is also folly.

Then one must consider the idea of the 'multiverse', which is apparently gaining momentum among theoretical physicists. The basic idea is that there are other 'bubbles' of universes that exist in a larger 'multiverse' that houses a bunch of other universes that could potentially be traveled to using wormholes.

And if you want to get really detailed and complicated it might even be worth it to mention that some futurists who promote transhumanism suggest that our consciousnesses, once being able to be uploaded and our perception and concentration enhanced, will be able to wireless inhabit multiple 'bodies', or 'swarms' of machines that are ours to control. Using Quantum Keys, we could theoretically control their actions instantly across even lightyears.

There are way too many layers to consider besides, 'Oh, so far humans can't make their own energy!'
I recently read about 'breeder reactors', which are basically nuclear power plants that, in essence, synthesize their own fuel. It's actually a rather fascinating concept, and the argument of the dangers of nuclear power is entirely averted when it comes down to the power plants being located on another planet or not having a biological body to get sick.

Damnit why can't you just be stupid? You making me have to do way more that what I want to. But, I'm stubborn you see.

And I simply don't believe that we will be able to instantly transfer data on the scale that your bringing up. Even if we do somehow gain the ability to transport ourselves, it would take an unimaginable amount of energy, to do so. And I'd like to see the article about these breeder reactors that I honestly just do not believe exist. And as for your point made about the 'multiverse' a term I pray wasn't coined from Crisis on Two Earths, is something that can not be proven. Which come to think of it is something all your points have in common. These are things that we could argue about in great lengths if we were in the speaking on theoretical physics, but seeing as how we're speaking on proven facts not speculation. I would like your next point to be something proven if you don't mind.

Wikipedia-Quantum Entanglement

Quantum entanglement occurs when particles such as photons, electrons, molecules as large as buckyballs,[1][2] and even small diamonds[3][4] interact physically and then become separated; the type of interaction is such that each resulting member of a pair is properly described by the same quantum mechanical description (state), which is indefinite in terms of important factors such as position,[5] momentum, spin, polarization, etc.

Quantum entanglement would allow for particles to become 'synchronized', or in 'the same quantum mechanical state', and therefore the spin on particle A and particle B, while 40,000 light years away, would be the same immediately. It is only constrained by the speed of light in the means that they need to get that far away in the first place; otherwise it is instantaneous. This could be used to translate into 1's and 0's for computer code, for example. They are not actually changing positions; because there are two of them, they don't have to go anywhere - it's the state that changes.

Wikipedia-Breeder Reactor

A breeder reactor is a nuclear reactor capable of generating more fissile material than it consumes[1] because its neutron economy is high enough to breed fissile from fertile material like uranium-238 or thorium-232. Breeders were at first considered superior because of their superior fuel economy compared to light water reactors. Interest in breeders reduced after the 1960s as more uranium reserves were found, and new methods of uranium enrichment reduced fuel costs.

Basically, the high 'neutron economy', or abundance of neutrons, allows it to crash these neutrons into other atoms and change their isotopes. There is a major difference between uranium-238 and uranium-235; one is weapons grade and one is reactor grade. I don't remember which is which right now, though. The actual energy generated from nuclear reactors is heat powered and not actually from radiation or whatever is the prevalent public idea.

The multiverse? It's only a hypothesis at the moment; and I will admit that this is the shakiest of my mentioned ideas. If you will, you can choose to ignore it. I suggested it as a possibility, not an actuality. I don't actually know where the term came from.

Facts? You want me to provide you with facts when we're discussing something at the very least decades into the future? I cannot predict with any certainty anything, anywhere in the future! To attempt to do so is fallacious. What I am doing is attempting to support, with promising evidence, that immortality is sustainable should it be conceived and implemented.
What I do know is that leading transhumanists, including Ray Kurzweil, claim that immortality is achieved by the year 2045.

If you want pure facts, then you should never, ever debate about something that isn't yet within the realms of current understanding.

[Insidious Outlaw]

If you work for a living, why do you kill yourself working?

[Crystal Estelle]

lenon01

Crystal Estelle

lenon01

Crystal Estelle

lenon01

I just stated my point. It's that immortality is theoretically plausible.
The fact that there's an entire organization, several actually, that are devoted to finding ways to eliminate unwanted death. If we can't do it way X, then we'll do it way Y. If that's not possible, there's always cryogenics until immortality and resurrection becomes a technological possibility.

You also seem to be ignoring the rapid pace of technological progress. Ever heard of Moore's Law?


And now, with prosthetics being experimented with in such a way that allows a person's nerves to control them and the mapping of the human brain, it may be possible to just take human biology out of the equation entirely and upload them into a robotic body, if not a computer chip.

And what do you mean , "My writing is a truth"? If you believe that regardless of any kind of evidence I offer you then I won't even bother making another reply due to the innate ability of humans to deny anything other than what they believe personally regardless of anything presented otherwise.
To make a statement like, "My writing is a truth" implies the very above thing, at least in my eyes; please correct me if I'm wrong.

OK let me do this from a different approach. First when I said that my writing is a truth I didn't mean that when I say something that it is a non deniable fact. What I meant was that what I said is a non deniable fact. You understand? Like it's not because I said it, it already was regardless of my observation. Even though I grossly disagree with your statement it's easier to argue another truth.

For the purpose of this argument ending (one I never wanted to have mind you) I will act as if in some point in our future we become immortal. In this future we will of course have found a way to fuel ourselves without fossil fuel, presumably the Sun. At some point the star that allows us to live will also die. Once this happens I will also offer the scenario in which we are able to travel great distances in short times. So much so that we can jump from star to star living off of the energy that it provides until it to dies. We will continue this until we have jumped to the last star in existence. After this star dies ever the billions of years of energy we could possibly save up will too die. And then we humans, masters of the universe will die.

I understand your point, but assuming that solar power is going to be our only major source of energy is folly. Also, assuming that in the billions upon billions of years that pass in between now and the last star dying that we don't find some other, self-generated way to create our own energy (through various ways; consider, perhaps, that through advanced technology we'd be able to create stars) is also folly.

Then one must consider the idea of the 'multiverse', which is apparently gaining momentum among theoretical physicists. The basic idea is that there are other 'bubbles' of universes that exist in a larger 'multiverse' that houses a bunch of other universes that could potentially be traveled to using wormholes.

And if you want to get really detailed and complicated it might even be worth it to mention that some futurists who promote transhumanism suggest that our consciousnesses, once being able to be uploaded and our perception and concentration enhanced, will be able to wireless inhabit multiple 'bodies', or 'swarms' of machines that are ours to control. Using Quantum Keys, we could theoretically control their actions instantly across even lightyears.

There are way too many layers to consider besides, 'Oh, so far humans can't make their own energy!'
I recently read about 'breeder reactors', which are basically nuclear power plants that, in essence, synthesize their own fuel. It's actually a rather fascinating concept, and the argument of the dangers of nuclear power is entirely averted when it comes down to the power plants being located on another planet or not having a biological body to get sick.

Damnit why can't you just be stupid? You making me have to do way more that what I want to. But, I'm stubborn you see.

And I simply don't believe that we will be able to instantly transfer data on the scale that your bringing up. Even if we do somehow gain the ability to transport ourselves, it would take an unimaginable amount of energy, to do so. And I'd like to see the article about these breeder reactors that I honestly just do not believe exist. And as for your point made about the 'multiverse' a term I pray wasn't coined from Crisis on Two Earths, is something that can not be proven. Which come to think of it is something all your points have in common. These are things that we could argue about in great lengths if we were in the speaking on theoretical physics, but seeing as how we're speaking on proven facts not speculation. I would like your next point to be something proven if you don't mind.

Wikipedia-Quantum Entanglement

Quantum entanglement occurs when particles such as photons, electrons, molecules as large as buckyballs,[1][2] and even small diamonds[3][4] interact physically and then become separated; the type of interaction is such that each resulting member of a pair is properly described by the same quantum mechanical description (state), which is indefinite in terms of important factors such as position,[5] momentum, spin, polarization, etc.

Quantum entanglement would allow for particles to become 'synchronized', or in 'the same quantum mechanical state', and therefore the spin on particle A and particle B, while 40,000 light years away, would be the same immediately. It is only constrained by the speed of light in the means that they need to get that far away in the first place; otherwise it is instantaneous. This could be used to translate into 1's and 0's for computer code, for example. They are not actually changing positions; because there are two of them, they don't have to go anywhere - it's the state that changes.

Wikipedia-Breeder Reactor

A breeder reactor is a nuclear reactor capable of generating more fissile material than it consumes[1] because its neutron economy is high enough to breed fissile from fertile material like uranium-238 or thorium-232. Breeders were at first considered superior because of their superior fuel economy compared to light water reactors. Interest in breeders reduced after the 1960s as more uranium reserves were found, and new methods of uranium enrichment reduced fuel costs.

Basically, the high 'neutron economy', or abundance of neutrons, allows it to crash these neutrons into other atoms and change their isotopes. There is a major difference between uranium-238 and uranium-235; one is weapons grade and one is reactor grade. I don't remember which is which right now, though. The actual energy generated from nuclear reactors is heat powered and not actually from radiation or whatever is the prevalent public idea.

The multiverse? It's only a hypothesis at the moment; and I will admit that this is the shakiest of my mentioned ideas. If you will, you can choose to ignore it. I suggested it as a possibility, not an actuality. I don't actually know where the term came from.

Facts? You want me to provide you with facts when we're discussing something at the very least decades into the future? I cannot predict with any certainty anything, anywhere in the future! To attempt to do so is fallacious. What I am doing is attempting to support, with promising evidence, that immortality is sustainable should it be conceived and implemented.
What I do know is that leading transhumanists, including Ray Kurzweil, claim that immortality is achieved by the year 2045.

If you want pure facts, then you should never, ever debate about something that isn't yet within the realms of current understanding.

Ignoring the fact that you started this debate. nothing I've said isn't within our current realm of understanding. That's what I've been trying to say this whole time.

[lenon01]

Crystal Estelle

lenon01

Crystal Estelle

lenon01

Crystal Estelle

OK let me do this from a different approach. First when I said that my writing is a truth I didn't mean that when I say something that it is a non deniable fact. What I meant was that what I said is a non deniable fact. You understand? Like it's not because I said it, it already was regardless of my observation. Even though I grossly disagree with your statement it's easier to argue another truth.

For the purpose of this argument ending (one I never wanted to have mind you) I will act as if in some point in our future we become immortal. In this future we will of course have found a way to fuel ourselves without fossil fuel, presumably the Sun. At some point the star that allows us to live will also die. Once this happens I will also offer the scenario in which we are able to travel great distances in short times. So much so that we can jump from star to star living off of the energy that it provides until it to dies. We will continue this until we have jumped to the last star in existence. After this star dies ever the billions of years of energy we could possibly save up will too die. And then we humans, masters of the universe will die.

I understand your point, but assuming that solar power is going to be our only major source of energy is folly. Also, assuming that in the billions upon billions of years that pass in between now and the last star dying that we don't find some other, self-generated way to create our own energy (through various ways; consider, perhaps, that through advanced technology we'd be able to create stars) is also folly.

Then one must consider the idea of the 'multiverse', which is apparently gaining momentum among theoretical physicists. The basic idea is that there are other 'bubbles' of universes that exist in a larger 'multiverse' that houses a bunch of other universes that could potentially be traveled to using wormholes.

And if you want to get really detailed and complicated it might even be worth it to mention that some futurists who promote transhumanism suggest that our consciousnesses, once being able to be uploaded and our perception and concentration enhanced, will be able to wireless inhabit multiple 'bodies', or 'swarms' of machines that are ours to control. Using Quantum Keys, we could theoretically control their actions instantly across even lightyears.

There are way too many layers to consider besides, 'Oh, so far humans can't make their own energy!'
I recently read about 'breeder reactors', which are basically nuclear power plants that, in essence, synthesize their own fuel. It's actually a rather fascinating concept, and the argument of the dangers of nuclear power is entirely averted when it comes down to the power plants being located on another planet or not having a biological body to get sick.

Damnit why can't you just be stupid? You making me have to do way more that what I want to. But, I'm stubborn you see.

And I simply don't believe that we will be able to instantly transfer data on the scale that your bringing up. Even if we do somehow gain the ability to transport ourselves, it would take an unimaginable amount of energy, to do so. And I'd like to see the article about these breeder reactors that I honestly just do not believe exist. And as for your point made about the 'multiverse' a term I pray wasn't coined from Crisis on Two Earths, is something that can not be proven. Which come to think of it is something all your points have in common. These are things that we could argue about in great lengths if we were in the speaking on theoretical physics, but seeing as how we're speaking on proven facts not speculation. I would like your next point to be something proven if you don't mind.

Wikipedia-Quantum Entanglement

Quantum entanglement occurs when particles such as photons, electrons, molecules as large as buckyballs,[1][2] and even small diamonds[3][4] interact physically and then become separated; the type of interaction is such that each resulting member of a pair is properly described by the same quantum mechanical description (state), which is indefinite in terms of important factors such as position,[5] momentum, spin, polarization, etc.

Quantum entanglement would allow for particles to become 'synchronized', or in 'the same quantum mechanical state', and therefore the spin on particle A and particle B, while 40,000 light years away, would be the same immediately. It is only constrained by the speed of light in the means that they need to get that far away in the first place; otherwise it is instantaneous. This could be used to translate into 1's and 0's for computer code, for example. They are not actually changing positions; because there are two of them, they don't have to go anywhere - it's the state that changes.

Wikipedia-Breeder Reactor

A breeder reactor is a nuclear reactor capable of generating more fissile material than it consumes[1] because its neutron economy is high enough to breed fissile from fertile material like uranium-238 or thorium-232. Breeders were at first considered superior because of their superior fuel economy compared to light water reactors. Interest in breeders reduced after the 1960s as more uranium reserves were found, and new methods of uranium enrichment reduced fuel costs.

Basically, the high 'neutron economy', or abundance of neutrons, allows it to crash these neutrons into other atoms and change their isotopes. There is a major difference between uranium-238 and uranium-235; one is weapons grade and one is reactor grade. I don't remember which is which right now, though. The actual energy generated from nuclear reactors is heat powered and not actually from radiation or whatever is the prevalent public idea.

The multiverse? It's only a hypothesis at the moment; and I will admit that this is the shakiest of my mentioned ideas. If you will, you can choose to ignore it. I suggested it as a possibility, not an actuality. I don't actually know where the term came from.

Facts? You want me to provide you with facts when we're discussing something at the very least decades into the future? I cannot predict with any certainty anything, anywhere in the future! To attempt to do so is fallacious. What I am doing is attempting to support, with promising evidence, that immortality is sustainable should it be conceived and implemented.
What I do know is that leading transhumanists, including Ray Kurzweil, claim that immortality is achieved by the year 2045.

If you want pure facts, then you should never, ever debate about something that isn't yet within the realms of current understanding.

Ignoring the fact that you started this debate. nothing I've said isn't within our current realm of understanding. That's what I've been trying to say this whole time.

The point is that the premise of the debate isn't that, "Oh, here's my irrefutable evidence for the ability of humans to become immortal!"; it's, "Here is my position and this is how I'm going to back it up."
I never meant to imply that you started the debate; that likely could have been worded better. You, on the other hand, have not been able to refute anything I've said with the exception of the multiverse with anything other than, "Oh, that's all theoretical." Just like, you know, when Einstein was working on his Relativity idea or when they were busy searching for the higgs-boson recently.
I don't mean to say that you are saying things outside of current understanding; my point was that I was mentioning things outside of current human understand that are supported by that within human understanding.

Detracting the debate this way doesn't get us anywhere. Where do you find fault with my supporting evidence that isn't filled with, "Well, that's only theoretical"? Please, point me right to it, so that I may correct it or amend my position.