Stephen, - especially to the 2nd part of your reply -
I do not speak about a 'certain' uncertainty (i.e. 'quantum') I speak about
the concept: "uncertainty" is inherent in whatever we think about, because
in our 'model' of the knowable world there is only part of the total (see
the historical additions and project such to the future) and we THINK about
yesterday's knowable as "all of them". Accordingly EVERYTHING is uncertain.
Logic, too.

Intercourse does not create babies: it gives a chance to a sperm and egg to
find each other in a way to start a genome. You can do it in a test-tube.
And - the babies are human beings, with (working?) complexity including
mental aspects, (even in mentally impaired persons) which develops in the
course of gestation - according to Princeton's Singer even later, after
birth. So please, do not fall for the political haruspexs who cry 'murder'
in case of an abortion, the murder is saved for killing persons, i.e. full
complexities developed and evolved from the parasite-state (embryo - fetus)
into a substantial HUMAN being.
Now about identicity:
If you look for it... there are similarities in many unexpected relations
between off springs and ancestors, maybe not the total ones as e.g. a
clone, but the
identicity lives on in the genetic sequences.
BTW: what do you mean by "a mind" - to deem it "absolutely NEW"?

I agree with your rejecting 'randomness, or stochasticity' mainly on the
basis of the above mentioned ignorance about the wholeness, but also on the
basis that 'unatached' occurrences would make ANY ordered description
Russell replied to an earlier such remark of mine with the correction into
(as I recall) "conditional randomness". Which is not random in my view.

John M

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Stephen P. King <>wrote:

> On 3/22/2012 4:47 PM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 1:31 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012  Bruno Marchal <> wrote:
>  >> This illustrates the problem I have with your ideas, it's not your
>>> mathematics it's the assumption you make right at the start which is the
>>> foundation for everything else.
>> > Which assumption?
> Your assumption that if a identical copy of you is made everything may
> seen identical to a third party but to itself, to the copy and the
> original, they would somehow have different viewpoints even if everything
> they saw was the same and they remained identical. I think that is just
> plain wrong. Lately you seem to be equivocating somewhat on this point and
> everybody has a right to change their mind, but if you do then you'll have
> to rewrite your proof from page 1 because that assumption was important.
> > Those admit precise and simple definition, related to the duplication
>> and multiplication thought experience.
>> First person = content of a diary bring in the duplication devices.
> OK, but the original and the copy will both write in their diaries "I
> walked into the duplicating chamber, the machine was turned on and a copy
> of me appeared right in front of me face to face", the copy and the
> original agree on what occurred, so according to you the first person
> perspective, the one that both you and I believe is most important, is
> identical; so there is only one perspective, one consciousness.
> I don't think Bruno disagreed with this.  I know I didn't.  The one
> consciousness only becomes two when there is something different - in the
> perception of the outside (Washington vs Moscow) or some random internal
> change.  Your thought experiment shows that comp implies that persons
> bodies can be duplicated without duplicating their consciousness (at least
> for a moment or two).  But as I said I don't see that this invalidates
> Bruno's argument which I take to be that quantum uncertainty can be modeled
> by uncertainty in personal identity.
> Hi Brent,
>     Could you offer some sketch of how quantum uncertainty can be modeled
> by uncertainty in personal identity? The uncertainty of QM follows from the
> mathematical properties of canonical conjugates (roughly, there exists a
> Fourier transformation between them) and the general non-commutativity of
> observables (roughly, as they have complex number valued amplitudes).
> Quantum uncertainty is not "just randomness" or stochasticity, the
> evolution of QM systems is the template of a deterministic process. It is
> just that it is impossible to recover the information required to make a
> local prediction that makes it seem "classically random" (aka decoherence).
> I think that we are taking the "branching tree" analogy used by many to
> explain the many worlds interpretation way too literally here... We should
> disabuse ourselves of that concept.
>     The uncertainty generated by the copy and paste operations of
> computation follows from the fissioning of the first person sense of self,
> so it is indeed generates a "branching tree graph" IFF we ignore
> cul-de-sacs and other delete operations, cycles and non-monotic relations.
> Additionally, we assume that conservation laws, which would be "no new
> rules or data" restrictions for computations. Where is the bridge
> connecting these concepts? What about the fact that intercourse between
> humans create "babies", which would be entirely new minds? How do they fix
> into these scheme?
> Onward!
> Stephen
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to