On 12/19/2013 1:06 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Roger,

No, QM allows teleportation so 1) and 2) are already shown (in the case of atoms) to be possible. What QM disallows is 3) - 5), which makes the rest of the steps subject to debate.

The non-cloning theorem disallows 3)-5) at the level of the quantum state. It's not so clear though how that is related to consciousness and identity. Our brain is *mostly* classical. So what is lost in a duplication may be no more than short-term memory, as from a concussion.


I wish that Bruno could run his UD argument without any discussion of 
teleportation.
As I see things, it boils down to whether or not first person indeterminacy is a non-trivial fact

QM seems to imply that either what happens to you is indeterminate, or everything happens and who it happens to, i.e. "you", is inderterminate.

and whether or not if transformations on integers are sufficient to faithfully represent the physical world and our existence in such as "self-aware" entities.

Whether they are or not, it must be that they are sufficient to encode any representation we can understand. In fact a finite subset must suffice. But then Godel's theorem may be irrelevant.

Brent




On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com <mailto:yann...@gmail.com>> wrote:

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




        On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com
        <mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

            On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com
            <mailto: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.

Reply via email to