On 12 December 2013 08:57, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

> I don't disagree with any of that.  But by providing a with an id prior to
> the fork and then testing after the fork you are effectively modeling a
> "soul" that is not duplicated but rather belongs to one of the copies and
> not the other; and the soul always goes to Moscow.
> But it is pretty much what I suggested to John; that he should consider a
> repeated sequence of teleportations and what conclusion John_n might draw.

You aren't duplicating the processes if they end up with different IDs,
unless the ID is "external" - Helsinki man had a red hat, which was
teleported to Moscow OK, but for some reason turned green when it was sent
to Washington.

I suspect that a garden of forking processes might well be copied in both
instantiations, perhaps saved to disc and recovered later, or moved around
in the computer's memory, regardless of the ID attached to them. So the ID
wouldn't "really" tell you which was the original anyway. Indeed in a
digital world the concept could be considered meaningless.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to