R. Miller writes > Lee Corbin wrote: > >Stephen writes > > > > > I really do not want to be a stick-in-the-mud here, > > > but what do we base the idea that "copies" could > > > exist upon? > > > > It is a conjecture called "functionalism" (or one of its close variants). > > "Functionalism," at least, in the social sciences refers to the proposition > that everything exists because it has a function (use).
Well, that is *not* at all the meaning of the term in philosophy. To put it simply, "if it behaves like a duck in every particular, it is a duck". > I notice that many people seek refuge in the "no-copying" theorem of > QM. Well, for them, I have that automobile travel also precludes > survival. I can prove that to enter an automobile, drive it somewhere, > and then exit the automobile invariably changes the quantum state of > the person so reckless as to do it. > > >If someone can teleport me back and forth from work to home, I'll > >be happy to go along even if 1 atom in every thousand cells of mine > >doesn't get copied. > > Exposure to a nuclear detonation at 4000 yds typically kills about 1 in a > million cells. When that happens, you die. I would suggest that is a bad > metaphor. Well, my numbers, above, are *entirely* different from yours. One in a million cells is a *terrible* loss. But one atom? There are 10^14 atoms per cell. (And 10^14 cells in a typical human.) I would stick with my numbers. But in case you are somehow right, and that each cell would be wrecked by the loss of a single atom, my point can be made by relaxing the numbers: replace what I've written by "I'll be happy to teleport even if 100 trillion atoms are destroyed: a whole cell, gone". Lee P.S. Thanks for the interesting fact that death of 1/10^6 cells kills one.