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 <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>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 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.
>

-- 
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