On 2/16/2012 9:58 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
There is a problem with this way of thinking in that it assumes that all of the
properties of objects are inherent in the objects themselves and have no relation or
dependence on anything else. This is is wrong. We know from our study of QM and the
experiments that have been done, that the properties of objects are definite because of
interdependence and interconnections (via entanglement) between all things within our
event horizon. You seem to be laboring under the classical Newtonian view. To have a
consistent and real idea of teleportation one has to consider, for example, the
requirements of quantum teleportation <http://www.tech-faq.com/quantum-teleportation.html>.
It is things like that that are preventing COMP from being a realistic explanatory
theory. :-( I like COMP and UDA because I see them as ideas that have errors can be
corrected. This is not to say that my own ideas are not error filled! We are all,
including me, finite and fallible.
That's essentially just saying 'No' to the doctor. Since the doctor can only substitute
stuff that is functionally equivalent at a classical level you won't say 'Yes' if you
think the quantum entangled states of the stuff he's replacing are essential. Note
however that the replacement WILL have quantum entanglements; just not the same ones. So
you might say 'Yes', accepting that your consciousness will be different in some way and
yet still avoid being a p-zombie.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at