Stephen,
you've hit a nerve with *'copying':*
**
*Fundamental *questions:
*1.WHO *(what) is copying and *HOW*?
2.*INTO* what(?) is copying being done?

Then are continuing questions:
3. Does the 'COPY'  (to be considerably identical) have identical
interconnective circumstances as does the 'original'? (Interconnections,
- interrelations -influence all discernible qualia and functions)

...and the main question:

4. Occurrence occurs by *relation* (anybody a better formula how any *
function* or *activity* can be figured?) and a *'relation' to itself** *is
passive at best. How is such passive state activated into the action of a
copying?
(If we consider the intrinsic identity notion a relation with itself, it is
an additional - different - view of self-observation as an outside
observer).

I have the feeling of slipping into the 'armchair view' of the early
universe (Big Bang theories) of the "scientist" - observing the fiery globe
of the universe in his ashtray sitting at the fireplace.* "WE" look at
copying?
*
John M
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:

>  *Hi Brent and Stathis,*
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brent Meeker" <meeke...@dslextreme.com
> >
> To: <everything-l...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 1:35 AM
> Subject: Re: Personal Identity and Ethics
>
> snip
> >>
> > There's no inconsistency between the universe being quantum mechanical,
> > while human thought processes are essentially classical.  The classical
> > world emerges from the quantum in the limit of large action.
> >
> > Brent Meeker
>
>    * Ok, my difficulty lies in the notion of "copying". If we are going to
> use a method X to derive a conclusion, does it not make sense that X must be
> sound? QM forbids the cloning or copying of states:*
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_cloning_theorem
>
> "The no cloning theorem is a result of quantum 
> mechanics<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics>which forbids the 
> creation of identical copies of an arbitrary unknown
> quantum state. It was stated by 
> Wootters<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wootters>,
> Zurek <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojciech_Zurek>, and 
> Dieks<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dennis_Dieks&action=edit&redlink=1>in
>  1982, and has profound implications in quantum
> computing <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer> and related
> fields.
>
> The state of one system can be 
> entangled<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement>with the state of 
> another system. For instance, one can use the Controlled
> NOT gate <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_NOT_gate> and the 
> Walsh-Hadamard
> gate <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadamard_matrix> to entangle two 
> qubits<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qubit>.
> This is not cloning. No well-defined state can be attributed to a subsystem
> of an entangled state. Cloning is a process whose end result is a separable
> state <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separable_state> with identical
> factors.
>
> .....
>
> "No-cloning in a classical context
>
> There is a classical analogue to the quantum no-cloning theorem, which we
> might state as follows: given only the result of one flip of a (possibly
> biased) coin, we cannot simulate a second, independent toss of the same
> coin. The proof of this statement uses the linearity of classical
> probability, and has exactly the same structure as the proof of the quantum
> no-cloning theorem. Thus if we wish to claim that no-cloning is a uniquely
> quantum result, some care is necessary in stating the theorem. One way of
> restricting the result to quantum mechanics is to restrict the states to
> pure states, where a pure state is defined to be one that is not a convex
> combination <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convex_combination> of other
> states. The classical pure states are pairwise orthogonal, but quantum pure
> states are not."
>
> *  How does a limit of large action change this? *
>
>
>  ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <
> stath...@gmail.com>
> To: <everything-l...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 1:19 AM
> Subject: Re: Personal Identity and Ethics
>
>
> > The psychological criterion of personal identity is, or should be,
> > agnostic on the question of how consciousness is actually generated.
> > It says simply that if I am destroyed here and a copy of me with the
> > same psychological properties is created there, then I will suddenly
> > find myself there. It is possible to accept this criterion but deny
> > that the right sort of psychological properties could be duplicated in
> > a computer, or by any physical means at all if there is a supernatural
> > element involved in consciousness. What I find incoherent is the idea
> > that the psychological properties might be able to be duplicated but
> > nevertheless there is no continuity of identity because the soul
> > cannot be duplicated.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Stathis Papaioannou
>
>
>  *In the Wiki article 
> **http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_cloning_theorem*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_cloning_theorem>
> * we find:*
>
>  "Imperfect cloning
>
> Even though it is impossible to make perfect copies of an unknown quantum
> state, it is possible to produce imperfect copies. This can be done by
> coupling a larger auxiliary system to the system that is to be cloned, and
> applying a unitary 
> transformation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_transformation>to the 
> combined system. If the unitary transformation is chosen correctly,
> several components of the combined system will evolve into approximate
> copies of the original system. Imperfect cloning can be used as an
> eavesdropping attack on quantum cryptography protocols, among other uses in
> quantum information science."
>
>    *Does this allow us to recover our method X? No, because unless the
> copy is "identical", not just "approximate",  we can not conclude that any
> notion of continuance of consciousness might obtain. *
> **
> * *
> *Onward!*
> **
> *Stephen*
> **
>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to