July 11, 2021
[Beginning of recorded material]
Rick Rosner: So, I’ve been collecting items from the past two hundred years, mainly for my wife but also for myself. I recently purchased a sampler from 1812, made by a girl named Philadelphia Henderson from South Eastern England. It came with a detailed genealogy, allowing us to trace her family from that time until the present day. There was even a picture of Philadelphia as an old lady. Additionally, I enjoy visiting thrift stores and vintage shops to buy old pictures that fit our collection of frames. It’s fascinating to see how quickly time passes, as these pictures capture moments of people who have likely passed away. For instance, I found a picture of Betty and George standing at their cash register in March 1955. Considering they were likely in their thirties at the time, they would be around 96 years old now if they’re still alive. However, the reality is that we, along with our pets, are all destined to be swept away by time. The universe itself offers little in terms of provisions to halt or care about this inevitability.
Nevertheless, we are on the verge of technological advancements that could significantly extend our lifespan. In the future, people might have the ability to live indefinitely, with their consciousness continuing in some form. However, at the deepest levels of existence, living forever becomes questionable. Infinity, by definition, implies an existence without end, which might not be feasible for any individual consciousness or anything else. Moreover, the purpose of living for an infinite time becomes a topic of examination. As humans, we have evolved to desire life and to not fear its cessation. This desire is what fuels the longing for immortality. While some people currently claim they do not want to live forever, this perspective may change as technology progresses. However, the universe itself and the principles governing existence provide only limited provisions for this desire.
Let’s consider the concept of the set of all possible moments within the set of all possible universes. Each moment exists within a timeline, while the set of possible moments itself transcends time. Although this set’s existence is difficult to analyze mathematically, we can make speculative assumptions. Moments of consciousness, including personal existence, might have a quasi-existence as members of this set. As long as a moment is logically consistent, it can exist within a timeline and be part of the set that transcends time. These are speculative ideas and offer little solace. They don’t provide a means to transcend our bodily constraints, which will require technological advancements that are currently far from perfect. Even as technology improves, there will always be forces that could potentially prevent us from achieving immortality.
The possibility of existing indefinitely, without ever reaching infinity, opens up a question of semantics and the distinction between infinite lifespan and perpetual existence. If there is a difference, does it hold any significance in terms of what we desire and what we will desire as we evolve further? These questions remain unresolved, and I find myself confused and uncertain. Perhaps my musings have only revealed my own ignorance on the subject. And ultimately, I question whether the difference between existing indefinitely and having an infinite lifespan truly matters in the context of our wants and desires as conscious beings. The end.
[End of recorded material]
Authors[1]
American Television Writer
(Updated July 25, 2019)
*High range testing (HRT) should be taken with honest skepticism grounded in the limited empirical development of the field at present, even in spite of honest and sincere efforts. If a higher general intelligence score, then the greater the variability in, and margin of error in, the general intelligence scores because of the greater rarity in the population.*
According to some semi-reputable sources gathered in a listing here, Rick G. Rosner may have among America’s, North America’s, and the world’s highest measured IQs at or above 190 (S.D. 15)/196 (S.D. 16) based on several high range test performances created by Christopher Harding, Jason Betts, Paul Cooijmans, and Ronald Hoeflin. He earned 12 years of college credit in less than a year and graduated with the equivalent of 8 majors. He has received 8 Writers Guild Awards and Emmy nominations, and was titled 2013 North American Genius of the Year by The World Genius Directory with the main “Genius” listing here.
He has written for Remote Control, Crank Yankers, The Man Show, The Emmys, The Grammys, and Jimmy Kimmel Live!. He worked as a bouncer, a nude art model, a roller-skating waiter, and a stripper. In a television commercial, Domino’s Pizza named him the “World’s Smartest Man.” The commercial was taken off the air after Subway sandwiches issued a cease-and-desist. He was named “Best Bouncer” in the Denver Area, Colorado, by Westwood Magazine.
Rosner spent much of the late Disco Era as an undercover high school student. In addition, he spent 25 years as a bar bouncer and American fake ID-catcher, and 25+ years as a stripper, and nearly 30 years as a writer for more than 2,500 hours of network television. Errol Morris featured Rosner in the interview series entitled First Person, where some of this history was covered by Morris. He came in second, or lost, on Jeopardy!, sued Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? over a flawed question and lost the lawsuit. He won one game and lost one game on Are You Smarter Than a Drunk Person? (He was drunk). Finally, he spent 37+ years working on a time-invariant variation of the Big Bang Theory.
Currently, Rosner sits tweeting in a bathrobe (winter) or a towel (summer). He lives in Los Angeles, California with his wife, dog, and goldfish. He and his wife have a daughter. You can send him money or questions at LanceVersusRick@Gmail.Com, or a direct message via Twitter, or find him on LinkedIn, or see him on YouTube.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Founder, In-Sight Publishing
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the Founder of In-Sight Publishing and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal (ISSN 2369-6885). Jacobsen works for science and human rights, especially women’s and children’s rights. He considers the modern scientific and technological world the foundation for the provision of the basics of human life throughout the world and the advancement of human rights as the universal movement among peoples everywhere.
Footnotes
[1] Four format points for the session article:
- Bold text following “Scott Douglas Jacobsen:” or “Jacobsen:” is Scott Douglas Jacobsen & non-bold text following “Rick Rosner:” or “Rosner:” is Rick Rosner.
- Session article conducted, transcribed, edited, formatted, and published by Scott.
- Footnotes & in-text citations in the interview & references after the interview.
- This session article has been edited for clarity and readability.
For further information on the formatting guidelines incorporated into this document, please see the following documents:
- American Psychological Association. (2010). Citation Guide: APA. Retrieved from http://www.lib.sfu.ca/system/files/28281/APA6CitationGuideSFUv3.pdf.
- Humble, A. (n.d.). Guide to Transcribing. Retrieved from http://www.msvu.ca/site/media/msvu/Transcription%20Guide.pdf.
License and Copyright
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com and www.rickrosner.org.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Rick Rosner 