On Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:00:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 11/10/2012 1:11 AM, freqflyer07281972 wrote: > > Hey all on the list, > > > > Bruno, I must say, thinking of the UDA. The key assumption is this > teleportation > > business, and wouldn't it really be quite Ockham's Razorish to simply > conclude from the > > entire argument that the correct substitution level is, in principle, > not only not > > knowable, but not achievable, which means: > > > > congratulations, you have found a convincing thought experiment proof > that teleportation > > is impossible in any cases greater than, say, 12 atoms or so (give me a > margin of error > > of about plus/minus 100) ... this is very reminiscent of the way that > time travel > > theorists use some of godel's closed timelike curve (CTC) solutions to > einstein's > > relativity to argue that time travel to the past is possible. The > problem is, the > > furthest back you can go is when you made the CTC, and yet in order to > make the CTC, the > > formal and physical conditions require that you already have to have a > time machine. > > This, of course, leads to paradox, because in order to travel in the > time machine in the > > first place, you have to have had a time machine to use as a kind of > mechanism for the > > whole project. > > > > In the same way, I think, does your ingenious UDA lead not to the > conclusion you want it > > to, (i.e. we are eternal numbers contained in the computation of some > infinite computer) > > but rather the less appealing conclusion that, perhaps, the > teleportation required in > > your entire thought experiment is simply impossible, for much of the > same reasons as > > time travel is impossible. > > I don't see the parallel. Can you spell it out? > > Brent > > Sure, I'll try.