Easy solution, tell your past self to pick immortality but then tell him everything you screwed up and how to fix it, hand it to him written down, then tell him how to build a time-machine and to come back in time in 'X' many years (basically after he has gone through your list) and tell his former self to pick immortality and fix up anything he screwed up, handing him a list etc. I mean, you'd cease to exist, but you would have given the new timeline the means to sustain itself by adding something to the timeline by removing it from your own.Agent_Nahmen_Jayden said:I...I'm so ashamed...RadiusXd said:ahhhh see, see what you did just now, you've made yourself a paradox!Agent_Nahmen_Jayden said:I would be immortal, then when they find a way to time travel I would decide whether or not to go back in time, and if I ultimately hate my exsistence I would tell my past self to just choose invincibility. Everything would be erased from my memory at that point so it's like nothing happened.
if you go back in time to tell yourself to pick invinciblity, then you won't have lived forever and made a time machine, therefore you can't have gone back to tell yourself to pick invincibilty. therefore you will be immortal afterall.
to quote the big bang theory, "this is a classic rookie time travel mistake".
And I call myself an Agent.
Being invincible does not protect you from harm. Being invulnerable makes you immune to harm and being indestructible means you can't be destroyed. Being Invincible means that you can't be beaten. This has been skewed by video games as Invincibility means you can die and are immune to harm but this is what makes you unbeatable. Even still invincibility is an impossibility. Even in Super Mario if you collect a Star you can still fall down a hole and die. Thus being defeated.Prometheous said:These two concepts are similar in that they both obviously avoid death in some way. Immortality takes death by old age out of the picture, while invincibility protects you from harm (for the purpose of this survey, invincibility does not protect from deterioration of cells. a.k.a old age).
So if you had to choose, would you live forever or live a life without injury (and why)?
P.S Trust me, I know the speed of your cells' independent degeneration is indicative of your invincible longevity so theoretically it doesn't make sense, but frankly neither of things are possible. So, which would it be?
You do know immortal carries no risk of death by any means what so ever? The point of being mortal is that you die. So by being without mortallity or immortal means death cannot affect you in anyway.Valkyrie101 said:Invincibility, because immortality still carries the risk of death. It's not like you are actually going to live for ever, because statistically you will be killed eventually. Better to guarantee a natural lifespan by being invincible, so you don't have to live in fear of death (the longer the life, the bigger a threat death comes - if it's scary to us now, think what it would be like if you had eternity to lose). Besides, I could do a lot of good with my invincibility.