Eugen writes

> > 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).

Lee

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?

Reply via email to