On 2/16/2012 12:36 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 2/16/2012 2:13 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/16/2012 9:58 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi ACW,
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.
Onward!
Stephen
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.
Brent
Hi Brent,
Please read what you just wrote and then what I wrote to ACW again and think about
it. Is there a difference between theory - as in what we believe to be the case - and
facts - that which *we* have no choice but to agree is true, in your mind?
Sure. Theories are stories we invent to explain facts.
I am telling you that experiential evidence exists,
What is it?
and the mathematical theorems as well,
I'm aware of the QM no-cloning theorem, but it doesn't apply to classical teleportation.
Lawrence Krause, in "The Physics of Star Trek", estimates that the energy required to
determine the state of each atom in a human body is so enormous (like a supernova) that it
could never be implemented. However, mapping the neural network of a brain is a far
smaller problem.
Brent
that contradicts all this nonsense about classical teleportation and it is as if I am
writing random strings of symbols. How about you do some research of your own and stop
regurgitating other people's words?
Onward!
Stephen
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4813 - Release Date: 02/16/12
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything
List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@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.
