Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brazilian Billionaire Creates Plan to Beat Death

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: Brazilian Billionaire Creates Plan to Beat Death

#61

Post by randallsquared »

endtime wrote: post #57
ericb wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because physics doesn't have a notion of identity, doesn't mean there is no such thing. Identical particles have different identities because they have a different location in space-time. The location in space-time creates the identity. There's also a problem with the math of your claim. They can't "be the same particle" if you can have two of them. 1 != 2

> Just because physics doesn't have a notion of identity, doesn't mean there is no such thing. How is that not exactly what that means?

Identity, like beauty, fun, and spiciness, is[1] something that's built on physics, not requiring a fundamental property, just as asking how much spiciness an electron has is futile.

[1] Well, presuming it actually does exist as something other than confusion, which I'm not currently arguing, though I'm sympathetic to the notion.

Re: Brazilian Billionaire Creates Plan to Beat Death

#62

Post by Houshalter »

benpbenp wrote: post #52
Houshalter wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A copy of you isn't you. I'm surprised people still believe this. There are no souls. Nothing about the atoms in your brain are special. If I replaced them all right now with "different" atoms (if the universe even does have a unique identity assigned to every particle) you would be the same person.

What if the copy is running while I'm still alive, would I experience what the copy experiences? No, right? So what gives? Why should I expect to live on in my software copy?

That's very strange logic. You don't experience future versions of yourself in the present either. But they are also you.

Re: Brazilian Billionaire Creates Plan to Beat Death

#63

Post by loup-vaillant »

ericb wrote: post #56
loup-vaillant wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A copy of you isn't you Actually, it is. The current laws of physics don't have the notion of identity. So swapping two identical particles not only doesn't have any effect, it doesn't even make physical sense . Like the rest of physics, this principle stays valid at the macroscopic scale. Teletransportation is a genuine form of transportation. It doesn't kill you, and the result is not a mere copy. It was traditio…

Just because physics doesn't have a notion of identity, doesn't mean there is no such thing. Identical particles have different identities because they have a different location in space-time. The location in space-time creates the identity. There's also a problem with the math of your claim. They can't "be the same particle" if you can have two of them. 1 != 2

You should read the Quantum Physics sequence I mentioned above. There is no Royal Road, and the whys and hows just cannot be explained in a few lines[1]. If you want a short-cut nonetheless, try here[2] to understand what is a configuration space, then proceed there[3] to understand what "no identity" really means. I won't repeat Eliezer here, you really have to follow the links.

Now I did made some language abuse.

First, there is no such things as a particle at the basic level. I mean, there are particles, but in the same sense that there are houses: particles are not the fundamental stuff, they are made up of the fundamental stuff, just like houses are made up of bricks.

Second, It is possible to test whether two situations are the same, or not. And I don't mean "nearly the same", I mean exactly the same. The difference is rather drastic: in one case you end up with |x|²+|y|² (where x and y are two complex numbers), and in the other case, you end up with |x+y|².

Third, there are no labels attached to particles. The universe is not like "photon A here, photon B there". It is more like "photon here, photon there". We know that because of my second point: there is just no difference between "photon A here, photon B there" and "photon B here, photon A there", it is the same configuration.

Now, when you move a particle from point A to point B, those are certainly different configuration. (So you do have a point). On the other hand, the way you move the particles doesn't matter in the slightest, as long as the end result is the same: having the particle at point B.

Well, the same goes for a human. Flying from London to New-York doesn't destroy your identity. The only thing that matters it that you end up in New-york. So, whether you took the plane, or have been wired across the internet just doesn't matter. You end up in New York.

Now, sure there is some difference: locally, you are the same. But the world around you is different. So this is a different configuration[4]. The plane didn't fly, computers did some more work, bandwidth got consumed… But that doesn't sound like the kind of difference that destroys your identity, even intuitively. I mean, by writing this text, I have a much greater influence over your than the motion of a plane could ever have (unless you're in it, or watching it). And I don't destroy your identity.

Now that's about it. Those who hunger for more should really read the whole Quantum Physics Sequence.

[1]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/kg/expecting_short_inferential_dista...

[2]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/pi/classical_configuration_spaces/

[3]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/pl/no_individual_particles/

[4]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/pf/distinct_configurations/

Re: Brazilian Billionaire Creates Plan to Beat Death

#64

Post by johnday »

endtime wrote: post #57
ericb wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because physics doesn't have a notion of identity, doesn't mean there is no such thing. Identical particles have different identities because they have a different location in space-time. The location in space-time creates the identity. There's also a problem with the math of your claim. They can't "be the same particle" if you can have two of them. 1 != 2

> Just because physics doesn't have a notion of identity, doesn't mean there is no such thing. How is that not exactly what that means?

I think the problem there is with the first half of that statement,

> Just because physics doesn't have a notion of identity

I inferred that the intended meaning was "Just because the field of physics has no notion of identity". Obviously in philosophical and sociological circles there is absolutely a concept of identity.

Re: Brazilian Billionaire Creates Plan to Beat Death

#65

Post by hsk »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #40
exratione wrote: post #29

His plan is only a plan to live healthily. In that he is like David Murdoch [1], who has the fortunate coincidence of living longer, being very wealthy, and having long had good health practices. But once you get past your 70s and 80s, the odds of living longer start to have much more to do with your genes than your past health practices. 75% of everyone with the best diets and healthiest lifestyles die before reachi…

> A copy of you isn't you Actually, it is. The current laws of physics don't have the notion of identity. So swapping two identical particles not only doesn't have any effect, it doesn't even make physical sense . Like the rest of physics, this principle stays valid at the macroscopic scale. Teletransportation is a genuine form of transportation. It doesn't kill you, and the result is not a mere copy. It was traditio…

The target particles in quantum teleportation are sort of a canvas on which to paint the properties of the original particles. After teleportation, the two entities will be indistinguishable.

However, I do not think it means you are the same person. Currently, quantum teleportation destroys the original copy. For the sake of philosophical argument, suppose it did not. Then that new person would be conscious independent of you. Clearly, you are not that person.

Now imagine your particles becoming destroyed. You are dead. He is alive. He is not you, even though it would be impossible to tell that he was not you.

Re: Brazilian Billionaire Creates Plan to Beat Death

#66

Post by keeptrying »

sanoli wrote: post #47

Brazilian here. Diniz is ripped and muscular because he takes steroids, as one HNer questioned below. This is well known here to people who strength train, from all the photos he takes showing off his muscles, and from the doctors he's associated with (doctors who charge an arm and a leg to legally prescribe steroids -- this was exposed in a national magazine recently, but was quite known before). How he does keep hi…

Taking steroids doesn't reduce the effort in getting abs and muscles. You still have to put in a heckuva effort to build that muscle.

Re: Brazilian Billionaire Creates Plan to Beat Death

#67

Post by weirdcat »

hsk wrote: post #65
loup-vaillant wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A copy of you isn't you Actually, it is. The current laws of physics don't have the notion of identity. So swapping two identical particles not only doesn't have any effect, it doesn't even make physical sense . Like the rest of physics, this principle stays valid at the macroscopic scale. Teletransportation is a genuine form of transportation. It doesn't kill you, and the result is not a mere copy. It was traditio…

The target particles in quantum teleportation are sort of a canvas on which to paint the properties of the original particles. After teleportation, the two entities will be indistinguishable. However, I do not think it means you are the same person. Currently, quantum teleportation destroys the original copy. For the sake of philosophical argument, suppose it did not. Then that new person would be conscious independe…

I think the whole discussion doesn't lead anywhere. We're trying to bend the ideas of self, continuity and sameness to our quite limited imagination.

Let's take the teleportation example: my rebuilt self is just as much "me" as the original was (or still is, should the device keep it intact) -- all atoms are in exactly the same place, and what's crucial, the memories and mental characteristics are preserved. It's not my clone (where only the DNA is the same), it's the exact replica. Doesn't matter that it's built from freshly assembled atoms, since our bodies continuously assimilate new atoms and shed old ones anyway. In that we're more resembling a wave on the ocean than a Luke Skywalker's lightsaber prop, where it actually counts that it's the exact set of atoms that Mark Hamill wielded on set. If you care about memorabilia anyway.

The two existing duplicates of me are obviously not "the same me", but nobody should expect them to be. They both are a continuation of myself. Like the aforementioned wave, I'm not my atoms and their configuration, I'm the continuity of their ever-changing state.

.......

When a cell divides, does it cease to exist? If so, at which point exactly? Are the two newly created cells the same cell as the one that was there before? Are they a half-cell each, even though they both are full cells now? Is one of them the original cell that gave half of its matter to create an offspring? Would everything be back to normal if one of them ate the other one and we could say that the original cell just performed a crazy transformation, but it's still the same cell (the same atoms, chromosomes and all)?

These questions might seem reasonable, but I think they stem from our mistaken desire to qualify and label things. Still, the reality isn't limited to our understanding of it.

Re: Brazilian Billionaire Creates Plan to Beat Death

#68

Post by benpbenp »

Houshalter wrote: post #62
benpbenp wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the copy is running while I'm still alive, would I experience what the copy experiences? No, right? So what gives? Why should I expect to live on in my software copy?

That's very strange logic. You don't experience future versions of yourself in the present either. But they are also you.

Really? Very strange logic? I experience future versions of myself in the future, and present version(s) of myself in the present. That seems normal. You say, "they [future versions] are also you." But your tense is wrong. Don't you mean... "will be also you"?

The fact that the software copy of me is in my present time frame and yet is obviously separate from me seems to force the conclusion that I am not it, generally, in all time frames. This does not fill me with confidence that I will live on in any sense in this software copy once my present conscious experience is snuffed out.

Re: Brazilian Billionaire Creates Plan to Beat Death

#69

Post by capisce »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #40
exratione wrote: post #29

His plan is only a plan to live healthily. In that he is like David Murdoch [1], who has the fortunate coincidence of living longer, being very wealthy, and having long had good health practices. But once you get past your 70s and 80s, the odds of living longer start to have much more to do with your genes than your past health practices. 75% of everyone with the best diets and healthiest lifestyles die before reachi…

> A copy of you isn't you Actually, it is. The current laws of physics don't have the notion of identity. So swapping two identical particles not only doesn't have any effect, it doesn't even make physical sense . Like the rest of physics, this principle stays valid at the macroscopic scale. Teletransportation is a genuine form of transportation. It doesn't kill you, and the result is not a mere copy. It was traditio…

So if a copy of you were made, you would be ok with swallowing a suicide pill?

Re: Brazilian Billionaire Creates Plan to Beat Death

#70

Post by bigd »

jganetsk wrote: post #59
bigd wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to state this controversial position, in the hope that is read with the open-mindness of the "what you don't say" thread: I believe that many of the problems of our society are due to people afraid of dying: Accumulating money in the delusion of fighting death. The universal fight for happiness is impersonated in one extra year of struggle, often by sacrificing the life of others. Seems to me that despite 20…

History is a lot longer than 2000 years.

indeed. I was roughly counting 2000 since stoics philosophy
Post reply on HN