On 2/16/2012 6:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:
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:
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
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.
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.
And we should never mistake those stories to be anything other than
stories that we invent to explain fact.
I am telling you that experiential evidence exists,
What is it?
Try this http://physics.aps.org/articles/v2/32 and this
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/315/5814/966.short and this
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.
So Kraus' argument does itself show at least one aspect of how
classical teleportation is problematic. I rest my case.
Additionally, in consideration of the "mapping the neural network"
idea, how exactly are you going to overcome the fact that the more
precisely you measure the positions of every atom in a brain the less
information you can gather of their momenta? if we are going to
implement a simulation of a brain that allows for continuation then we
had better be able to map both the position and the momentum data down
to the substitution level. The problem is that the substitution level is
molecular in scale, we know this because chemical neutransmiters play a
vital role in brain behavior. The fact that a tiny amount of LSD will
totally change your "state of mind" is sufficient proof of this.
You see this is the kind of problems that get completely glossed
over in UDA. Many of you balk that I am making a big deal about physics,
but without physics we would simply not be here to have this conversation.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at