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 <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.

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.
Hi Brent,

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 http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2007/May/PhotosynthesisWorksQuantumComputing.asp

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to