Re: Life extension and entropy

[Guest guest]

This person obviously has no understanding of entropy whatsoever.

If that were true, then evolution would also contradict the Second Law of

Thermodynamics (entropy), which is a common pseudo-argument of creationist

pseudo-scientists, and so would, for that matter, population increases and life

itself.

Any reaction increases the entropy of the universe but that doesn't mean it

changes the entropy of the system. Entropy of a system can continually

decrease as long as there is sufficient increase in entropy of the surroundings

to

compensate resulting in an overall increase of entropy of the universe.

Living systems do not decrease the entropy of the universe or they would not

occur.

A General Chemistry course will clear this up plenty for you, and even a

General Biology text wouldn't neglect to spend a paragraph debunking this myth.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Quoting paultheo2000 <paultheo2000@...>:

> I was talking to someone about life extension (future technology and

> such) and mentioned how aging was not a physical necessity (ie:

> immortality does not contradict any of the laws of physics). The

> person replied that immortality goes against the general tendency

> towards entropy. The argument seemed shaky to me, but I couldn't quite

> explain why. Any thoughts from the clever folks here?

Buildings go against the general tendency towards entropy. He's technically

correct, in the sense that eternal life is probably impossible (due to the

eventual heat death of the universe), but this has nothing to do with

aging. The general tendency towards entropy applies only to closed systems

which do not receive energy from outside sources. The Earth receives energy

from the sun (or from long-dead stars, in the case of uranium), and we can

use that energy to reduce entropy on Earth--to grow plants, to build

skyscrapers, or to stop and reverse aging. As long as we have an external

source of energy, there's no physical reason why we must continue to age.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

>

> I was talking to someone about life extension (future technology and

> such) and mentioned how aging was not a physical necessity (ie:

> immortality does not contradict any of the laws of physics). The

> person replied that immortality goes against the general tendency

> towards entropy.

I don't believe in universal entropy, but regardless,

I can't imagine how a human-being could last for

eternity (whatever that is!). The human brain is

a finite object. What happens when you reach the

limits of your brain's storage capacity? Will older,

less often accessed memories be dumped in favor of

new information? Do you simply stop being able to

remember anything new? With only so many senses,

and a limited brain, at some point you will begin

to experience the same things over and over again,

no matter how vast the universe might be, this is

a necessary result of living forever. Even if the

universe is infinite this would remain so, because

_we_ and our brains _aren't_ infinite, so there are

only so many sorts of experiences that we can have.

Take the total set of possible experiences that any

one person can have, calculate every mathematically

possible rearrangement of these experiences, and you

will see that at some point in infinite time, you

will repeat the exact same set. A limited memory

would be a blessing in this scenario so that you

wouldn't feel like you were going in circles. What's

the point? Another point that this all ignores is

the fact that the longer you live, the greater your

chance is of being killed by something other than old

age or disease, including possibly what some call

" the big crunch " which precedes each new " big bang " ,

and which of course would be completely unavoidable.

We should of course avoid death at all costs, and

attempt to extend our lives as long as possible, but

at the same we also need to recognize and accept the

fact that eventually we all must die.

[Guest guest]

(and Chris),

I think you guys nailed it. I feel foolish for not having thought of

that myself (the earth not being a closed system, duh!).

Thanks guys, I knew someone here would have an answer for me

-

> Quoting paultheo2000 <paultheo2000@y...>:

>

> > I was talking to someone about life extension (future technology and

> > such) and mentioned how aging was not a physical necessity (ie:

> > immortality does not contradict any of the laws of physics). The

> > person replied that immortality goes against the general tendency

> > towards entropy. The argument seemed shaky to me, but I couldn't quite

> > explain why. Any thoughts from the clever folks here?

>

> Buildings go against the general tendency towards entropy. He's

technically

> correct, in the sense that eternal life is probably impossible (due

to the

> eventual heat death of the universe), but this has nothing to do with

> aging. The general tendency towards entropy applies only to closed

systems

> which do not receive energy from outside sources. The Earth receives

energy

> from the sun (o

r from long-dead stars, in the case of uranium), and we can

> use that energy to reduce entropy on Earth--to grow plants, to build

> skyscrapers, or to stop and reverse aging. As long as we have an

external

> source of energy, there's no physical reason why we must continue to

age.

>

> --

> Berg

> bberg@c...

[Guest guest]

Oh sure, but wouldn't it be nice to live 500 years, rather than 80 or

100? I think finite memory wouldn't pose a problem unless you actually

reach thousands of years of longevity.

-

> >

> > I was talking to someone about life extension (future technology and

> > such) and mentioned how aging was not a physical necessity (ie:

> > immortality does not contradict any of the laws of physics). The

> > person replied that immortality goes against the general tendency

> > towards entropy.

>

> I don't believe in universal entropy, but regardless,

> I can't imagine how a human-being could last for

> eternity (whatever that is!). The human brain is

> a finite object. What happens when you reach the

> limits of your brain's storage capacity? Will older,

> less often accessed memories be dumped in favor of

> new information? Do you simply stop being able to

> remember anything new? With only so many senses,

> and a limited brain, at some point you will begin

> to experience the same things over and over again,

> no matter how vast the universe might be, this is

> a necessary result of living forever. Even if the

> universe is infinite this would remain so, because

> _we_ and our brains _aren't_ infinite, so there are

> only so many sorts of experiences that we can have.

> Take the total set of possible experiences that any

> one person can have, calculate every mathematically

> possible rearrangement of these experiences, and you

> will see that at some point in infinite time, you

> will repeat the exact same set. A limited memory

> would be a blessing in this scenario so that you

> wouldn't feel like you were going in circles. What's

> the point? Another point that this all ignores is

> the fact that the longer you live, the greater your

> chance is of being killed by something other than old

> age or disease, including possibly what some call

> " the big crunch " which precedes each new " big bang " ,

> and which of course would be completely unavoidable.

> We should of course avoid death at all costs, and

> attempt to extend our lives as long as possible, but

> at the same we also need to recognize and accept the

> fact that eventually we all must die.

>

>