Can we stop time?

[Ann]

In a recent thread, geckzilla asked about the fate and nature of the universe. I replied and talked about the ever-changing nature of the universe. The universe, like humans, responds to time and changes with time.

Can we stop this change? Can we stop time?

Today I leafed through some new astronomy magazines. I decided against buying them, mostly because I was pressed for time (and there was a long line of people waiting in front of the cashier). Anyway, in one of those magazines an astrobiologist suggested that the Milky Way might be teeming and swarming with highly evolved aliens and their advanced technological civilizations. All it would take for this to be true, the astrobiologist wrote, is for these brilliant aliens to have found a way to make themselves immortal. Not only would the aliens themselves become immortal, but their civilization would become immortal, too. Like the small red dwarf stars of the universe which have remained "alive" and functioning ever since they emerged out of their natal cocoons, every alien civilization that ever has come into being might survive and keep on functioning if the aliens who created it can only make themselves immortal (or, as the astrobiologist put it, make themselves "semi-immortal").

But can these musings about immortal aliens in the Milky Way really be described as a scientific hypothesis, or are they more suited for a script of a science fiction movie? More precisely, how realistic is it to speculate about aliens who make themselves immortal and create immortal technological civilizations, too?

The way I see it, immortality is about stopping time. Or rather, it is about stopping the ravages of time and still enjoying all the benefits of time (such as enjoying a personal "timeline", to be able to think of "before" and "after", to be able to look forward to tomorrow and learn from the past, and not knowing with certainly what tomorrow will be like). Perhaps time is even necessary for the processes of biological life to function in the first place? Perhaps we can't even be "alive" without time? Perhaps we can only, at best, be frozen statues if we put a stop to time?

Is there anything remotely scientific about the speculation of immortality of advanced biological life-forms, or is it just wishful thinking pretending to be science?

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

This is a time-lapse movie showing the opening of a rose. The movie doesn't show us how this particular rose withers and dies. But can you really have many new roses continually "being born" and "living their lives" if other roses aren't dying at the same time? And can any rose "live and evolve" forever, without ever dying?

Ann

[Beyond]

Ann, this may help... or not.

Space and time and thought.

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

Wesley pulls himself out of time.

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

[Chris Peterson]

Can we stop time?

Almost certainly not.

The way I see it, immortality is about stopping time.

I don't understand that.

Is there anything remotely scientific about the speculation of immortality of advanced biological life-forms, or is it just wishful thinking pretending to be science?

I would assume that any technological species that chose to be immortal would be so. That includes us... certainly, we are no more than a few centuries at most from having total biological control over ourselves. Indeed, it is perfectly feasible that we (or any other technological species) could replace our biological components with mechanical ones. None of this stuff seems very difficult. (Of course, even an immortal being can be destroyed, although possibly such a being could be restored into a new body from a backup.)

However, creating a civilization that is stable over hundreds of millions or billions of years is a different matter. We have no concept of what such a civilization would be like, or of what kind of being could create one. Our minds don't work that way. And I don't think that an immortal civilization follows naturally from biologically or mechanically immortal beings. Why shouldn't we expect the culture of an immortal race to change with time?

[neufer]

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

Can we stop time?

Almost certainly not.

The way I see it, immortality is about stopping time.

I don't understand that.

[Moonlady]

Lets pretend humanity would be immortal in a future far far away...if the humans can still reproduce, and their progeny can reproduce etc,
the population would grow, but the mass transformation would be limited at some point.

If there is no law limiting the reproduction and lets say all females want to reproduce, the consumption of food would be limited, given that more people
want to eat.
Since the people dont die, and more and more people want to eat, the biomass on earth will become nearly extinct (we talk about eternal time
taking place to do so), all biomass would be transformed to human beings.
Hunger can make people react irrational, people would become cannibal, if immortals could be killed.
Since some people would complain of the immortal mother-in-law, the cannibal would go maybe first for her.

Maybe there would be a balance of population because the predator-prey relationship tells so. But immortal humans would maybe use technology to transform
themselves to cyborgs to avoid being eaten. The limitation of material would not let all immortal human turn into cyborgs. The war between cyborgs and human cannibals
would be epic but there again, even the most stable materials will be destroyed by atomic decay.
Which option is left?
Is there the opportunity to find other earth like planets and leave earth if they have the technology to do so? Lets say they do.
If they leave for other earth like planets, all the transformation from biomass of earth like planets would turn into more and more immortal humans.
The universe's earth like planets would be populated by cannibal immortal humans.
Maybe all the bored immortal humans would wait for immortal aliens, who would abduct them to other places.....

[Chris Peterson]

Lets pretend humanity would be immortal in a future far far away...if the humans can still reproduce, and their progeny can reproduce etc,
the population would grow, but the mass transformation would be limited at some point.

All you need is for your reproduction rate to match your death rate. Even an "immortal" species will experience death. Through accident, or simply by choice.

One of the best arguments against there being many other technological civilizations is that there's no reason for them not to be extremely long lived, but it takes practically no time at all- just a few million years- for such a species to spread over the entire galaxy. Since none apparently have, it's likely that none have survived long enough to do so. Probably not because they couldn't make themselves nearly immortal, but because they couldn't do the same for their culture.

[saturno2]

Ann
This topic is very, very interesting
I think that the time can not be stopped because ( the time) is movement and
transformation of matter.
Immortality would not stop time, it would to live more time, but this
is limited.
The things in the Universe are not immortal: the stars, species,
living beings, civilizations, economic systems, etc They have end

[Ann]

One of the best arguments against there being many other technological civilizations is that there's no reason for them not to be extremely long lived, but it takes practically no time at all- just a few million years- for such a species to spread over the entire galaxy. Since none apparently have, it's likely that none have survived long enough to do so. Probably not because they couldn't make themselves nearly immortal, but because they couldn't do the same for their culture.

That's a very good point, Chris.

When I talked about immortality, I was talking about biological life surviving in a radically changing cosmos.

Let's start with considering biological life that is near-immortal in itself. My colleague Arnost says that bacteria are practically immortal. They don't reproduce sexually but by division, so their biological processes are different from ours, and their life spans radically so.

But there may be a limit to their ability to withstand changes in their environment. Does Mars have life? It may have had in the past, when Mars was relatively wet. It has not been proved whether or not Mars ever had life, but if it did and if it no longer does, then the Mars "bacteria" could not survive the several-billion-year "drought" on Mars.

Of course, if fossilized Mars bacteria with preserved DNA are ever found, then humans may revive these "extinct Martians". So the death of these bacteria may not be forever.

But what will happen when the Sun becomes a red giant? Mars may be affected a bit less than the Earth by this enormous change in the solar system. Of course a super-advanced human civilization will have left the Earth before this happens, and these humans will not settle on Mars. What outer moon will they terraform? Europa? Titan? Is it that easy?

And then these super-advanced humans may leave our own solar system for another, travelling light-years to get there. Is it that easy? And then they will settle on a planet in this other solar system, terraforming it to suit their needs. Or else they may have risen above biological needs, having become as hardy as today's Mars rovers or better.

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

But what will happen when the Milky Way collides with Andromeda, and enormous tidal forces are let loose, and scorching star formation sweeps the galaxy, followed by large numbers of nearby supernovae? Will the immortal humans just sit back or go on peacefully terraforming planets to their heart's content, untouched by the galactic upheaval around them?

I have no trouble picturing humans learning to control their own bodies and prevent their bodies from decaying. What I can't picture at all is humanity learning to control the universe and prevent it from interfering with their lives.

When I talked about "stopping time" I meant both stopping human bodies from decaying and stopping the universe from evolving in a way that interferes with human (or superhuman) life.

Ann

[Chris Peterson]

When I talked about immortality, I was talking about biological life surviving in a radically changing cosmos.

That does not seem like a big challenge.

Let's start with considering biological life that is near-immortal in itself. My colleague Arnost says that bacteria are practically immortal. They don't reproduce sexually but by division, so their biological processes are different from ours, and their life spans radically so.

Looked at that way, humans are similarly immortal. Each of us is descended through a chain of single, living cells. Because we reproduce sexually, our genomes differ more widely from generation to generation, but even bacterial genomes change between generations, they just do so more slowly.

In fact, when we talk about immortality in an intelligent species, I think we need to talk about survival of the self, not the body.

Of course, if fossilized Mars bacteria with preserved DNA are ever found, then humans may revive these "extinct Martians". So the death of these bacteria may not be forever.

But the individuals... to the extent that there are bacterial individuals... are still dead.

But what will happen when the Sun becomes a red giant? Mars may be affected a bit less than the Earth by this enormous change in the solar system. Of course a super-advanced human civilization will have left the Earth before this happens, and these humans will not settle on Mars. What outer moon will they terraform? Europa? Titan? Is it that easy?

I'd say it is very easy. Trivial even. It doesn't require anything I'd call "super-advanced". Already, our science is sufficient to understand reasonably well how to do this. It's mainly an engineering problem, and an economic one. How much more advanced would we really need to be? Hardly any, I'd say. If we can maintain our civilization, things like this should be trivial in a few hundred years (along with managing near immortality at the level of the organism).

Civilizations have been categorized as Type I, II, and III. Type I civilizations utilize their local resources. Type II utilize the full output of their star. Type III utilize the full output of their galaxy. Nothing you have proposed requires more than the capabilities of a Type I civilization.

But what will happen when the Milky Way collides with Andromeda, and enormous tidal forces are let loose, and scorching star formation sweeps the galaxy, followed by large numbers of nearby supernovae? Will the immortal humans just sit back or go on peacefully terraforming planets to their heart's content, untouched by the galactic upheaval around them?

Assuming there is upheaval. In any galactic collision, many regions remain safe. But I don't see any major effort required to simply move, assuming a long-lived civilization.

I have no trouble picturing humans learning to control their own bodies and prevent their bodies from decaying. What I can't picture at all is humanity learning to control the universe and prevent it from interfering with their lives.

Well, that is what Type III civilizations do. There is no evidence that they exist. But if long-lived civilizations exist, there's little need for their technology to be much beyond our own. There's no need to control the Universe, only to adapt a bit, or relocate to continue surviving.

When I talked about "stopping time" I meant both stopping human bodies from decaying and stopping the universe from evolving in a way that interferes with human (or superhuman) life.

The former is all but certain. The latter, all but impossible. Indeed, I'd argue that if it were feasible, it would already have happened and we'd have evidence of it.

In practice, I think it simply comes down to the reality that technological civilizations are transient. There must have been millions in the Universe, but none survive long enough to become so advanced that they can alter the nature of the Universe itself.