Dear Stathis,

----- Original Message ----- From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: Many Pasts? Not according to QM...


It is true that nature is quantum mechanical rather than classical, but I am not aware that anyone has proved that the brain is not a classical computer. If it is, then it should in theory be possible to get a functionally equivalent copy by copying the computational state, rather than exactly emulating the quantum state; rather as one can transfer the operating system and files from one electronic computer to another, without copying the original machine atom for atom.

I would not be so hasty to swallow Tegmark's argument that the brain can not be anything other than a classical computer: But that is really not the point I was trying to make. As you admit, Nature is quantum mechanical and thus we have to be sure what our ideas about what subset of Nature is or is not classical. The rules are different for these two realms. When we are musing about copying our 1st person experience and considering the implications, are we merely only required to "copy" the informational content of those 1st person viewpoints, like some tape recording or MP3, or are we also requiring tacitly that the means that those particular information structured can to be ordered as they are?

We can wax Scholastically about the properties of relationships between numbers forever and ever but unless our theoretics make contact with the tangible world and represent faithfully those aspects that we have verified experimentally, are we merely generating material for the next episode of Sliders?


Reply via email to