Grate isn't so much immortal as...well he's something else.
Does he die?
...
Hm...
Immortality isn't about not dying, it's about remaining alive.
If you're still alive, you didn't die, you just got killed.
That's how I look at it.
Grate has quantum immortality. He both dies and remains living, like a pair of possible timelines merging, and his loss of memory is the universe's attempt to reconcile the paradox by using the original point of divergence.
Know of any other characters with quantum immortality?
Why are you all arguing over grate being immortal? He obviously only possesses quantum reincarnation.
If immortality is eternal life and reincarnation requires you first to die, how then can grate be immortal?
He lives eternally.
Besides, most don't define "immortality" so narrowly.
Yeah, whatever Grate is, he's not immortal in a way I would ever want to be.
Barring unforseen difficulties, I don't see why. I mean, losing your memory would be a pain I guess, but it's better than nothing.
Especially if you plan ahead and leave something for your next self.
True i suppose, but if we stick to traditional definitions then is not immortality a single eternal life and reincarnation numerous new lives of limited span?
Correct, it is not so.
Consider cloning complete with mental imprinting, can that truly be considered a form of immortality?
If you die and a clone takes your place then your memories and personality would not be lost, but the clone is not you and you would still be dead.
...How is a clone with your memories and mind not you? How do you define "you"? I define it by the mind, not the specific collection of molecules that make up my body. By that definition, everyone dies a couple times a month.
(in which case, we are all immortal by the laws of thermodynamics. Our energy will never cease to exist, therefore we are all immortal. Disregarding all the people who owned our energy before us, and who will own our energy after us)
Strawman argument.
But much like a copy of a work is not exactly the same as the original (and is certainly not exactly the same as the person that wrote it), the copy of Grate is not quite the same Grate as the one that died.
Once upon the time, this was the case. Now, however, we have the ability to create works which are, in fact, exact copies, down to the last line, letter, bit, or bump. And no one's going to claim that a specific copy of, say,
Crime and Punishment isn't really
Crime and Punishment just because it's not the original manuscript.
Analogously, if the copying methods used on people are flawed, there will be differences between copies, and they may well be different people (although possibly not to an extent that anyone notices, or cares). On the other hand, if the copying methods are sufficiently advanced, the copies will be exactly the same, and hence effectively the original.