Hijack from What would happen to our society, if we live for a millenia?

[Greg A.]

On 6/12/2022 at 11:08 PM, dimreepr said:

Discuss...

A millennium, as depicted, is a measure of Time. So you might as well be asking what would be like to live forever as that term too is also a measure of Time.  

So the answer is simple, and would be no different than say living 50 years, because as a figure it is a measure of earth's rotations, each pretty much identical to each other. The point being that as Time has never been shown to exist, then there is not much to speculate about regarding it as a topic when we are now reaching the limits of possibilities. We could pretty much experience most things within 50 years of existence let's face it. 

On 6/13/2022 at 12:16 AM, swansont said:

Why is this a matter of philosophy?

Because it sure hasn't anything to do physics.  

On 6/13/2022 at 12:16 AM, swansont said:

What changes with respect to our aging process?

Age in relation to the question would need to be a concept.  

Edited August 2, 2022 by Greg A.

[Bufofrog]

22 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

The point being that as Time has never been shown to exist, then there is not much to speculate about regarding it as a topic when we are now reaching the limits of possibilities. We could pretty much experience most things within 50 years of existence let's face it.

Don't hijack threads to discuss your own ideas.

[exchemist]

22 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

A millennium, as depicted, is a measure of Time. So you might as well be asking what would be like to live forever as that term too is also a measure of Time.  

So the answer is simple, and would be no different than say living 50 years, because as a figure it is a measure of earth's rotations, each pretty much identical to each other. The point being that as Time has never been shown to exist, then there is not much to speculate about regarding it as a topic when we are now reaching the limits of possibilities. We could pretty much experience most things within 50 years of existence let's face it. 

Because it sure hasn't anything to do physics.  

Age in relation to the question would need to be a concept.  

Do you really think a millenium is the same as forever? You wouldn't be much good at geology.  

[Greg A.]

On 6/14/2022 at 12:26 AM, dimreepr said:

It was something explored by Isaac Asimov in his foundation series. 

As we get older we tend to get more conservative in our outlook, I think it's clear that an aging demographic has an effect on our society, and that's just a 50 year average age increase.

As the years go by we acquire knowledge, lose our naivety, throw away our rose colored glasses

On 6/14/2022 at 12:26 AM, dimreepr said:

Isaac was suggesting that an increased average age (300 year's in his world) would slow down the progress of society to the point of stagnation.

Just the opposite is set to happen as we discard carry-over conservative values replacing them with the primal (we are born naked) values of youth. With ever new generation primitives are born, conservatives pass away, an ever worsening situation. 

[dimreepr]

12 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

A millennium, as depicted, is a measure of Time. So you might as well be asking what would be like to live forever as that term too is also a measure of Time.  

So the answer is simple, and would be no different than say living 50 years, because as a figure it is a measure of earth's rotations, each pretty much identical to each other. The point being that as Time has never been shown to exist, then there is not much to speculate about regarding it as a topic when we are now reaching the limits of possibilities. We could pretty much experience most things within 50 years of existence let's face it. 

(bolded mine) The question was inspired by Assimov and explored in his foundation series, if we accept the premis that we tend to get more conservative as we age, then there would be a great deal of difference between a populace that die before that trend takes hold and a populace that has 950 year's for that trend to get a stranglehold.

 

23 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

The point being that as Time has never been shown to exist, then there is not much to speculate about regarding it as a topic when we are now reaching the limits of possibilities.

Does that mean, I can't meet my friend at 2 o'clock today?

[Greg A.]

2 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Don't hijack threads to discuss your own ideas.

I'm introducing facts and not hijacking anything. 

The threat of censorship is appearing early 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

I'm introducing facts and not hijacking anything. 

The threat of censorship is appearing early 

You're missing the point of this site; it's OK to discuss things that are wrong, and enjoy doing so, but there's wrong (worth discussing) and very wrong (nope); for instance, it's wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable, it's very wrong to say it's a banana... 🤔

[Greg A.]

8 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Do you really think a millenium is the same as forever? You wouldn't be much good at geology.  

One of the barriers that comes up when we consider the 'impossibility' of living "forever" is that the term implies a measure of Time, but that's when there is not a lot of evidence that Time exists. So with 'forever' out of the way as an obstacle we can believe that immortality is possible in the philosophic sense at least. Physically we grow up an become adults and that is as much as we can really experience, one year being near identical to the next we have no real measure of aging other than the physical process of growing old, something science is working on a 'cure' for at the moment. 

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You're missing the point of this site; it's OK to discuss things that are wrong, and enjoy doing so, but there's wrong (worth discussing) and very wrong (nope); for instance, it's wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable, it's very wrong to say it's a banana... 🤔

I agree completely. But it's sounding like a religious thing that's happening here and I am being a heretic by questioning an aspect of the OP.  I mean can't you see that as adults living one rotation of the planet earth is no different than living any subsequent rotation, when these rotations are in effect identical, and a millennium is a thousand of these rotations.  

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

One of the barriers that comes up when we consider the 'impossibility' of living "forever" is that the term implies a measure of Time

If we couldn't measure time, how did we confirm Einstein's musing's?

8 minutes ago, Greg A. said:

But it's sounding like a religious thing that's happening here and I am being a heretic by questioning an aspect of the OP.  I mean can't you see that as adults living one rotation of the planet earth is no different than living any subsequent rotation, when these rotations are in effect identical, and a millennium is a thousand of these rotations.  

To be a heretic, you must first understand the religion.

[Greg A.]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

If we couldn't measure time, how did we confirm Einstein's musing's?

Once again I don't know all too much about physics but will answer this with the line that Einstein's time is what cause gravity, it relates to the velocity of matter, nothing to do with the years, months, days as measures of time, which are concepts relating to the cycles of the heavenly bodies, the earth, the moon, and or  course the earth's rotation.  If we could de-age the earth would keep on turning. 

[dimreepr]

Just now, Greg A. said:

Once again I don't know all too much about physics but will answer this with the line that Einstein's time is what cause gravity, it relates to the velocity of matter, nothing to do with the years, months, days as measures of time, which are concepts relating to the cycles of the heavenly bodies, the earth, the moon, and or  course the earth's rotation.  If we could de-age the earth would keep on turning. 

That's akin to saying "I don't speak your language but I'm sure that wogawomphtamof is a real word".

[Greg A.]

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If we couldn't measure time, how did we confirm Einstein's musing's?

To be a heretic, you must first understand the religion.

Good answer!

 

But I'm not right about anything it appears be it physics or philosophy. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Greg A. said:

But I'm not right about anything it appears be it physics or philosophy. 

None of us are that's lesson 101, congrats you're ready for lesson 102...

[Greg A.]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That's akin to saying "I don't speak your language but I'm sure that wogawomphtamof is a real word".

Very good! 

But because I don't speak your language does not mean I am not human. 

I'll maybe start a new thread even if only to avoid the orgy of incestuous exchange of ideas happening here. 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Greg A. said:

But because I don't speak your language does not mean I am not human. 

Indeed, but it does mean you are capable of learning a human language, listening helps.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Greg A. said:

So the answer is simple, and would be no different than say living 50 years, because as a figure it is a measure of earth's rotations, each pretty much identical to each other. The point being that as Time has never been shown to exist, then there is not much to speculate about regarding it as a topic when we are now reaching the limits of possibilities. We could pretty much experience most things within 50 years of existence let's face it. 

!

Moderator Note

You were told not to bring this up in other threads when your original foray into this was locked.

 

6 hours ago, Greg A. said:

I'm introducing facts and not hijacking anything. 

The threat of censorship is appearing early 

Those pesky rules, ruining your fun...