[extropy-chat] Sasha is alive!

[Giu1i0 Pri5c0]

Samantha, if I could answer the first question I would start Resurrection Inc.!
Of course you mean in principle, and not in detail. I do not have, of
course, the foggiest idea. A fictional technique that might work if
its assumptions are correct has been described by Sir A. Clarke and
Stephen Baxter in "The Light of Other Days" (links in
http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/engineering_transcendence/) and
is a way to retrieve very high resolution information from the past
without time travel.

Ben's technique based on everything being entangled with almost
everything else might also work, when we have the necessary tech.

As you say, the MWI avoids logical paradoxes by "permitting" only time
travel to "parallel" branches of the multiverse. But since these can
be arbitrarily close to ours (as far as the popular terminology based
on parallel universes makes sense, which I doubt), the copy could be
close enough to the original to be acceptable as a copy in the
identity sense.

The motivation argument. Suppose we had this technology now. We would
certainly use it to resurrect, say, Albert Einstein. But then *he*
would do his best to resurrect his family and friends. And then *they*
would do their best...
G.


On 1/3/07, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 1, 2007, at 2:03 AM, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
>
> > Now this is a really interesting new thread for 2007!
> > Of course I agree with Samantha that resurrecting the dead is not
> > doable with any of the technologies we are even remotely able to
> > imagine at this moment. The vast majority of the information is
> > indeed, according to our current knowledge of physics, gone. But
> > "there are more things in heaven and earth...".
> > Regaining the information would not require time travel, but only the
> > ability to retrieve information from the past, which is not the same
> > thing. Information transfer from the past to the future does not
> > create logical paradoxes.
>
> How exactly would you retrieve this rather dense amount of information
> from the past without going back to when it was still coherently
> available?
>
> > And come to that, full time travel itself does not create logical
> > paradoxes in the MWI.
>
> This may not help you.  By MWI as I understand it your time travel
> would branch the universe or some subset thereof so you could not
> bring information back to the same branch you started from.
>
>
> > If something is not against the fundamental laws of physics, sooner or
> > later engineers will find a way to do it. So, having never met Sasha,
> > I look forward to meeting him in a few thousands of years.
>
> Even granting that we do not yet know the truly fundamental laws of
> physics it is not certain that engineers will find a way to do all
> things that are possible to the degree of actually making doing them
> practical or the results of doing them sufficiently good.  Not all
> things that can be done are worth the expense needed to do them or are
> seen as good or advantageous to do.   But that is another subject in
> this area.
> >
>
> - samantha
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>