On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >1. Teleportation is survivable > Yes. > > 2.Teleportation with a time delay is survivable, and the time delay is > imperceptible to the person teleported > Obviously. > 3. Duplication (teleportation to two locations: one intended and one > unintended) is survivable, > That's basically the same as #1. > and following duplication there is a 50% chance of finding oneself at the > intended destination > JOHN CLARK HATES PRONOUNS! Following duplication there is a 100% chance Jason Resch will be at the intended destination. > > 4. Duplication with delay changes nothing. > Obviously. > 5. Teleportation without destroying the original is equivalent to the > duplication with delay. > Which is equivalent to duplication without delay, which is equivalent to duplication and destroying the original, which is equivalent to duplication and destroying the copy. > If someone creates a copy of you somewhere, there is a 50% chance you > will find yourself in that alternate location. > JOHN CLARK HATES PRONOUNS! If someone creates a copy of Jason Resch somewhere, there is a 100% chance Jason Resch will find Jason Resch to be 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. > JOHN CLARK HATES PRONOUNS! If a virtual copy of Jason Resch is instantiated in a computer somewhere, then as in step 5, there is a 100% chance Jason Resch will find Jason Resch to be 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 > Could be. > 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. > That would only be true if everything that could exist does exist, and maybe that's the way things are but it is not obviously true. > Hence, arithmetical realism is a candidate TOE. > A candidate certainly, but is it the real deal? Maybe but it's not obvious. > This is the "grand conclusion" you have been missing for all these years. > I don't think this was obvious to Og the caveman. > Nor is it obvious to John the non-caveman. John K Clark -- 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.
