If you killed someone, a life sentence would be pretty torturous. This option doesn't seem desirable when you consider that eventually you will probably commit a murder or be wrongfully convicted of a murder.

Lol. Why would you probably commit a murder? So in 80 years you probably won't, but in 300 you would?

The OP doesn't make sense, or at least isn't well thought out. It specifically states that while disease and natural disasters don't exist anymore, you can still be killed. This means population WILL decrease every day. Probably much more than OP realizes off hand. Car accidents alone, take the life of someone every few seconds worldwide on average. This population would obviously have to be replenished in order to keep the number of people 'set' as OP states.

This is the problem with a hypothetical that isn't well thought out.

The chance of any event occurring increases with time. Given enough time, Mother Theresa is more likely to commit murder than not.

I don't want to say that you are absolutely wrong, but I feel like you are missing some perspective. Think of words like progress and evolution. Are fish more likely to drown the further they evolve and adapt to an environment surrounded by water? No, they are LESS likely to drown because they have reached a point at which it isn't possible for them to choke on water.

e.g Say the likely hood of Ghandi committing murder is 5% for the first lifespan (x years), and 0% for all years thereafter. Then living longer wouldn't make him more likely to commit murder. Now if the rate doesn't ever go to 0% then I agree the chances he commits murder continually go up, even if the rate at which he murders is going down, but he would actually still becoming a less-murderous person. So I look at living forever as a chance to become an infinitely better person than I could ever be in a typical 65-90 year lifespan, even though it means at some point in that infinite life I would almost certainly commit and experience more heinous actions that I would typically experience in a limited lifespan.

centuries of ailments kinda sucks balls badly.

As described in the OP, I'd snap take this offer. The only thing that would keep me from taking immortality is the whole "eventually you get trapped in a locked box with no air in space and suffer for all eternity" bit. The fact that you can still die in the OP makes this as easy call.

There are tons of things I want to do with my life - visit Ireland, write a critically acclaimed novel, finish the original Bubble Bobble - and more stuff comes up all the time.

People seem to worry that they'll eventually over a long enough time line "do everything" and become bored, but I don't buy it. Not only are new things to enjoy coming up all the time, you also have the ability to create new things to do yourself, plus the fact that there are many, many things worth doing more than once. Even doing some things a million times is unlikely to get boring, if you spread it over a billion years or more.

So.... yeah. I guess if I ever had the option to extend my life in such a way that it didn't cost me much/anything personally, and kept me in generally okay working order, I would take it.

Eventually you'll be released tho, or eventually the jail will breakdown, or eventually someone will rescue you, or eventually you will escape.....and eventually so much time will pass that you won't even remember you were in jail.


Given enough time she will eventually un-murder her victim

Here's your problem. You're right that it comes down to perspective. You need to think about what 0% really means. Nothing is ever 0%. Any event that doesn't violate the laws of physics has some non zero percent chance of occurring. Given an infinite amount of time anything than can happen will happen. There's no getting around that.

I agree with this but I think it's possible to reach a point where there is a 0% chance something will happen while progression is still taking place. For example, it isn't possible for fish to just accidentally drown overnight and given an infinite amount of time in order for a fish to drown there would have to be regression period so to speak where fish were changing gradually to be less and less equipped to live and "breathe" in water.

ok...well you laid down the rule so....

that means that eventually the infinite time universe will run into the finite time universe that didn't have infinite time but now will.

It also means that in the infinite time universes eventually we'll harness time travel AND be able to bring it to all universes where time travel isn't possible. Because time travel would be now possible in finite time universes time would become infinite in them.

Therefore time travel is here now and its just barriers of the mind that block it from our view.

I don't think I'm understanding what you're trying to say here. You don't think there's ever been a fish that has accidentally drowned? Really? Define accident. I'm sure somewhere over the history of time there has been a fish who got caught up in some seaweed, under a rock or some other obstruction and drowned. Maybe even while just swimming in a storm or strong current.

I think you're being too absolute and are not fully appreciating what 0% really is. I repeat. Nothing that does not violate physical laws can ever be labeled as having a 0% probability of occurring, just as we can never predict an outcome with 100% certainty. This is science 101.

I apologize if we're talking past each other and you mean something totally different. Like I said, I might be misunderstanding you.

I'm not laying down any rule. If you don't like it, blame physics.

Not sure what the rest of your post means (assuming it makes any sense at all). I specifically stated:

"Any event that doesn't violate the laws of physics has some non zero percent chance of occurring."

I didn't get through the entire jibberish you posted, but a quick glance seems to indicate a clear violation of physical laws.

does time travel break the laws of physics?

billionaires-russian-mogul-wants-upload-your-brains-immortality

I assume if this is fully possible this means two things:

1. humans are purely deterministic (hard) and in reality "free will" doesn't exist since for every input there is a same reaction by our brain
2. living beings are more likely an information carrier then anything more (for a lack of a better description)