Jack Mallah wrote:
--- On Wed, 1/27/10, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Jack is talking about copies in the common sense of initially physically 
identical beings who however occupy different places in the same spacetime and 
hence have different viewpoints and experiences.

No, that's incorrect.  I don't know where you got that idea but I'd best put 
that misconception to rest first.

When I talk about copies I mean the same thing as the others on this list - 
beings who not only start out as the same type but also receive the same type 
of inputs and follow the same type of sequence of events.  Note: They follow 
the same sequence because they use the same algorithm but they must operate 
independently and in parallel - there are no causal links to enforce it.  If 
there are causal links forcing them to be in lockstep I might say they are 
shadows, not copies.

I see don't that as possible except possibly by realizing the two copies in two virtual realities so that whole environment is simulated. And the simulated worlds would have to be completely deterministic - no quantum randomnes.

Such copies each have their own, separate consciousness - it just happens to be of the 
same type as that of the others.  It is not "redundancy" in the sense of 
needless redundancy.  Killing one would end that consciousness, yes.  In philosophy 
jargon, they are of the same type but are different tokens of it.

Philosophy jargon doesn't require that two of the same type be the same in every respect, e.g. A and A are two tokens of the same type, but they are not identical (one is the left of the other for example).


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to