Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Why will time travel and human resurrection will take longer to happen than immortality?


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1
JourneyToUnknown962

JourneyToUnknown962

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
Is this because we have a long way to go to invent newer and innovative technology?

#2
Revolutionary Moderate

Revolutionary Moderate

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • LocationMassachusetts, United States

Well, time travel via time dilation is already possible, but we can't use it as time dilation only has noticeable effects when you go really fast. I think human resurrection is impossible, but immortality is hopefully possible. I also think immortally will be easier to achieve than time travel as because of the progress of anti-ageing that is currently happening.


The Potato Praiser 


#3
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,308 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

The Universe is stranger than we can imagine.

 

So following that in mind, we'll probably ultimately develop technologies much stranger than time travel and technologies that we consider "holy grails".


What are you without the sum of your parts?

#4
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,665 posts

Personally, the "what if you went back and killed your grandfather" paradox demonstrates to me that time travel is impossible.  Still, that is a speculative inference on my part.  Future physicists may very well laugh at what they may consider to be my primitive superstition and prove me to be wrong, not only through theoretical reasoning but as demonstrated by actual in place technology. 

 

As for immortality, I also have great doubts in that regard.  Still, I have no reason to doubt that the human life span can be indefinitely extended so that, for example, a hundred year old man might be considered very young with a reasonable expectation of living for many more decades, or even centuries.

 

In regards to human resurrection, more discussion would be needed to define exactly what that means, including defining exactly what it means to be "dead" and what it means to be "resurrected".  

 

Edit: Which all reminds me of the saying "the difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a little longer."  :) 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#5
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,108 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

Well, time travel via time dilation is already possible, but we can't use it as time dilation only has noticeable effects when you go really fast. I think human resurrection is impossible, but immortality is hopefully possible. I also think immortally will be easier to achieve than time travel as because of the progress of anti-ageing that is currently happening.

What about a resurrection following a successful cryogenic preservation?

 

Personally, the "what if you went back and killed your grandfather" paradox demonstrates to me that time travel is impossible.  Still, that is a speculative inference on my part.  Future physicists may very well laugh at what they may consider to be my primitive superstition and prove me to be wrong, not only through theoretical reasoning but as demonstrated by actual in place technology. 

 

As for immortality, I also have great doubts in that regard.  Still, I have no reason to doubt that the human life span can be indefinitely extended so that, for example, a hundred year old man might be considered very young with a reasonable expectation of living for many more decades, or even centuries.

 

In regards to human resurrection, more discussion would be needed to define exactly what that means, including defining exactly what it means to be "dead" and what it means to be "resurrected".  

 

Edit: Which all reminds me of the saying "the difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a little longer."  :)

The grandfather paradox can be avoided by the creation of a parallel universe.



#6
Revolutionary Moderate

Revolutionary Moderate

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • LocationMassachusetts, United States

 

Well, time travel via time dilation is already possible, but we can't use it as time dilation only has noticeable effects when you go really fast. I think human resurrection is impossible, but immortality is hopefully possible. I also think immortally will be easier to achieve than time travel as because of the progress of anti-ageing that is currently happening.

What about a resurrection following a successful cryogenic preservation?

 

 

The problem with cryogenic preservation is how you to die before you are frozen. So, your organs will starved of oxygen, becoming more and more damaged the longer it takes to freeze your body. So, even if you were successful in being cryogenically preserved, your life would be probably so after that you would prefer to stay frozen.


The Potato Praiser 


#7
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,665 posts

Futurist: The grandfather paradox can be avoided by the creation of a parallel universe.

 

*Moves time travel from the list of "definitely impossible" to "probably impossible" *

 

I dunno. That seems like it would take a hell of a lot of energy.  Maybe something we can do more than a thousand years from now, but not something that is right around the corner.  Also, given my premise of a high energy need, how would we create a "parallel universe" without initiating the destruction of our own universe?


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#8
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,108 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

 

Futurist: The grandfather paradox can be avoided by the creation of a parallel universe.

 

*Moves time travel from the list of "definitely impossible" to "probably impossible" *

 

I dunno. That seems like it would take a hell of a lot of energy.  Maybe something we can do more than a thousand years from now, but not something that is right around the corner.  Also, given my premise of a high energy need, how would we create a "parallel universe" without initiating the destruction of our own universe?

I honestly don't know, to be honest. For what it's worth, there is the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics:

https://en.wikipedia..._interpretation

 

So, maybe such an alternative universe already exists and we just have to get there? ;) But yeah, I'm not really sure as to how the mechanics of this would work. Where would all of the energy for infinitely many (or at least very close to infinitely many) universes actually come from?



#9
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,108 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

 

 

Well, time travel via time dilation is already possible, but we can't use it as time dilation only has noticeable effects when you go really fast. I think human resurrection is impossible, but immortality is hopefully possible. I also think immortally will be easier to achieve than time travel as because of the progress of anti-ageing that is currently happening.

What about a resurrection following a successful cryogenic preservation?

 

 

The problem with cryogenic preservation is how you to die before you are frozen. So, your organs will starved of oxygen, becoming more and more damaged the longer it takes to freeze your body. So, even if you were successful in being cryogenically preserved, your life would be probably so after that you would prefer to stay frozen.

This is why it's absolutely crucial to cryogenically preserve oneself immediately after one's death--as in, as soon as literally possible!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users