I do not believe in #1 due to the no cloning theorem. If comp produces QM it must also produce the no cloning theorem. Richard
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> > Bruno: The question is: is it enough correct so that you would please >>> us in answering step 4. If not: what is incorrect. >>> John Clark: (No answer, deleted the question) >>> >> >> I have not read step 4, however if it is built on the foundation of the >> first 3 steps >> > > > What is the error in step 3? > > > >> (and I can't think why it would be called "step 4" if it were not) then >> I can conclude that one thing wrong with step 4 (I don't claim it is the >> only thing) is the previous 3 steps. >> > > I think if you read the whole set of steps (or even just the next few > steps) you would see where things are going and wouldn't have so much > trouble understanding the point of the third step. > > I will summarize them for you here: > > 1: Teleportation is survivable > 2: Teleportation with a time delay is survivable, and the time delay is > imperceptible to the person teleported > 3. Duplication (teleportation to two locations: one intended and one > unintended) is survivable, and following duplication there is a 50% chance > of finding oneself at the intended destination > 4. Duplication with delay changes nothing. If duplicate to the intended > destination, and then a year later duplicated to the unintended > destination, subjectively there is still a 50% chance of finding oneself at > the intended destination > 5. Teleportation without destroying the original is equivalent to the > duplication with delay. If someone creates a copy of you somewhere, there > is a 50% chance you will find yourself in that alternate location. > 6. If a virtual copy of you is instantiated in a computer somewhere, then > as in step 5, there is a 50% chance you will find yourself trapped in that > computer simulation. > 7. A computer with enough time and memory, that iteratively executes all > programs in parallel will "kidnap" everyone, since all observers everywhere > (in all universes) will eventually find themselves to be in this computer > 8. There is no need to build the computer in step 7, since the executions > of all programs exist within the relations between large numbers. Hence, > arithmetical realism is a candidate TOE. > > This is the "grand conclusion" you have been missing for all these years. > I don't think this was obvious to Og the caveman. > > Jason > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
