> > A program can run in two different places at the same time, and
> > the program (treated as the pattern) is perfectly capable of
> > receiving input X in one location at the same time that it
> No, program is the wrong model. You can have identical pieces of a bit
> pattern (CD-ROM, human zygote), but they diverge when instantiated on
> different machines, given different input. Even given very homogenous
> instances (say, one C. elegans and another with very similar neuranatomy,
> since genetically determined) they're processing different information, and
> representing different environments (e.g. sensing a chemical gradient).
> > receives input Y in another. It would then be correct to say
> > that the program was enjoying two different scenarios at the
> > same time.
> No, it's not the same program.
What do you mean? I am postulating that it *is* the same sequence
of code bytes, the *same* program. Do you know what I mean when
I say that program A is the same program as program B?
It is this same, identical program that is running in two different
places at "the same time" (pace relativity). Program A at location
one is receiving input X and program A at position two is receiving
input Y. I can't make it any clearer than that.
> You could say the space between your ears and mine enjoys the
> same physical laws, though. Both the arrangement of matter
> and the state of that matter (frozen-frame picture of spikes
> and gradients, gene activity, etc.etc) are very different.
Of course. That's because the Eugen program is quite different
from the Lee program. Now, the Eugen 2004 (March 23, 12:00:00)
program is also somewhat different from the Eugen 2002 program
(March 23, 12:00:00), but they are *very* similar in many,
many ways. So many ways that we are justified in asserting
that they are for all practical purposes the same person
(and the same basic program).
P.S. I had great, great difficulty in understanding anything
that you had to say. I was not able to make most of it out.
Perhaps you could add some redundancy to your tight prose?