Jump to content

Talk:Indefinite lifespan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.157.99.169 (talk) at 14:49, 6 June 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The reference to the Law of Entropy is ridiculous. The biological mechanisms of aging are substantially more complex than a simple argument based on physical entropy. Though I'm not inclined to believe it achievable in the near future, from the point of view of a physical scientist, the claim that the stoppage of aging is somehow prohibited by the Second Law is a drastic oversimplification of Biology. There is FAR, FAR more room for exchange of entropy with the environment than such a claim would suggest. Orders of magnitude. Many.

If the 2LT is correct, the environment itself will degrade eventually.1Z 23:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entropy cannot prevent realisation of immortality, as the only requirement, in the Thermodynamic sense, to immortality is the convertion of energy into the work that is required to carry out biological repairs to damaged parts, and to return living matter to the state of youth. Why nature has chosen the method of reproduction instead of eternal repair to damages, as a way of preserving life is still a mystery.

Removed wrong interpretation of entropy. 81.157.99.169 (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Immortal to Old Age/Everything But Old Age

According to this article, "indefinite lifepsan" means immortality to old age but nothing else. Does anyone know what the term is for being immortal to anything but old age, which would essentially be an opposite form of immortality to indefinite lifespan? Sincerely, DanMat6288 (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a standard term. "unkillable" might work, or "invulnerable", though that doesn't get the disease resistance... really, I don't think anyone's needed the concept enough to have a word. -- Mindstalk (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]