There are two main arguments supporting our modal statement:
i., negative: there is not any particular natural law, neither biological, nor physical which excludes this possibility.
ii., positive: we could extrapolate the technological draft of a regeneration treatment of the whole human body from the present results and methods of regenerative medicine.
Concerning the first argument, the impossibility proof of something which is not based on an outright logical contradicition, is very hard. But the argument does not say nothing about the realisation of pimm, it just opens some place in the possibility space. What if opposition considers, that entropy, in the statistical "disorder" sense, could cause a problem, say: the second law of thermodynamics necessarily excludes the possibility of pimm, because the total entropy of the human body increases over time and approaching a maximum value? Now the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value. One point, where this metaphorical counterargument goes wrong is "isolated system". In thermodynamics, an isolated system is a physical system that does not interact with its surroundings. The human body is not an isolated, and not even a closed system, because it can exchange heat, work, i.e. energy and matter with its environment. I am pleased to announce that the human body is an open system.
Another source of objection could be based on evolution, but I discuss the connection between pimm, evolution and ageing later.
The second, positive argument is a macroargument, and the technological part of the pimm book tries to explicate this draft. An assertive quote:
”The promise of scientifically verified immortality has gained credibility with every successful organ transplant.” Frank Pasquale: Two concepts of immortality. Yale Journal of Law & the Humaities
Next: Maximum or radical life extension?
Originally posted at May 4th, 2006, http://attilachordash.wordpress.com/