On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.