I was under the impression that even if SENS research is successful, it won’t be immortality that we achieve, but “only” much longer life spans. True immortality wouldn’t be possible without WBE.
Given that immortality is a word with a reasonably clear definition using a modifier like ‘literal’ or ‘actual’ (but, as you say, definitely not ‘true’) would be sufficient. Especially when the ‘other words’ are in the previous sentence.
Incidentally… the claim seems just wrong. You don’t need WBE to achieve immortality. Although at the level of technology required to achieve something sufficiently reliable as to be called immortality without WBE the WBE tech would probably be comparatively trivial.
I was under the impression that even if SENS research is successful, it won’t be immortality that we achieve, but “only” much longer life spans. True immortality wouldn’t be possible without WBE.
“True” immortality isn’t possible at all, because eventually the universe will end.
I haven’t read a whole bunch on cosmology, but I don’t think that that is entirely certain. Especially if we have a super-intelligence that is trying to make sure that the universe doesn’t end. Also, the difference between 200 years and 2^200 years enormous.
Also, the difference between 200 years and 2^200 years enormous.
Yet when cast to a boolean is ‘true’ and when negated to equality instead of difference is ‘false’. I suppose that kind of difference matters to people who, say, really don’t want to ever die. The difference takes on a whole new meaning when it is the difference between (infinity − 200) and (infinity − 2^200)
Especially if we have a super-intelligence that is trying to make sure that the universe doesn’t end.
The space of credible cosmologies where the will of even a super-intelligence from within the system being able to have an impact on that one way or the other seems comparatively small, does it not?
I haven’t read a whole bunch on cosmology, but I don’t think that that is entirely certain.
This seems to be your main objection and I think you’re spot on.
I was under the impression that even if SENS research is successful, it won’t be immortality that we achieve, but “only” much longer life spans. True immortality wouldn’t be possible without WBE.
In a misunderstanding revolving around a word, replace the word with others instead of modifying it with “true”.
Living for 1000+ (WBE) years as opposed to 200 (SENS).
WBE earth years, yes? Not subjective ones?
Given that immortality is a word with a reasonably clear definition using a modifier like ‘literal’ or ‘actual’ (but, as you say, definitely not ‘true’) would be sufficient. Especially when the ‘other words’ are in the previous sentence.
Incidentally… the claim seems just wrong. You don’t need WBE to achieve immortality. Although at the level of technology required to achieve something sufficiently reliable as to be called immortality without WBE the WBE tech would probably be comparatively trivial.
“True” immortality isn’t possible at all, because eventually the universe will end.
I haven’t read a whole bunch on cosmology, but I don’t think that that is entirely certain. Especially if we have a super-intelligence that is trying to make sure that the universe doesn’t end. Also, the difference between 200 years and 2^200 years enormous.
Yet when cast to a boolean is ‘true’ and when negated to equality instead of difference is ‘false’. I suppose that kind of difference matters to people who, say, really don’t want to ever die. The difference takes on a whole new meaning when it is the difference between (infinity − 200) and (infinity − 2^200)
The space of credible cosmologies where the will of even a super-intelligence from within the system being able to have an impact on that one way or the other seems comparatively small, does it not?
This seems to be your main objection and I think you’re spot on.