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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---