Jason, you 'assume' a lot what I don't. I learned those figments in college and applied in my conventional research - now reduced in my credibility (agnosticism) for phizix and its 'laws' - (in spite of the practical results which I use happily in my life-practice) - as - some *explanatory sweat *to comply with (poorly if at all understood) phenomena received in formats how the actual developmental level of our mentality could handle it.
I would think twice to 'accept' an argument just to make another one acceptable. Science means doubtfulness and we have no access to "TRUTH" - we just think of it. Computability? good method to use our brain-functions(?) to get results. I mean more than that embryonic binary boardgame we use, however a 'wider' *computability *may include logical domains we so far did not even hear about. So beware the word. I do not like mathematicians (the old Greeks?) from before the time when zero was invented. (maybe Bruno's simple arithmetics is an exception?). I am not ready to debate my ideas: my "agnostic" thinking is NG for argumentation. John M On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, John Mikes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Here is my tuppence about the *hoax-game* of the >> *fantasy-play*'teleportation': >> It is what I said, never substantiated and placed into circumstances >> never substantiated or verified even within our imaginary physical(?) >> explanations. >> Wana play? be my guest. >> In a 'transportation' (cf: reincarnation-like?) one is supposed to >> receive new identity as fitting for the new circumstances, with memory >> arased of the old one. >> YOU2 is NOT YOU1. (Not even YOU1*). >> > > If you don't accept in step 1 then computationalism is false (which is > possible, but it was an explicit assumption on which the rest of the > reasoning is based). > > Why should we think computationalism is true? Our particles are > substituted all the time through normal metabolism, so the particular parts > are not important so long as the pattern is preserved. Further, no known > laws of physics are incomputable, so then the brain must use some, as of > yet, undiscovered physics in order to assert computationalism is false. > > Jason > > > >> JM >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]>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 <[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. >>> >> >> -- >> 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. > -- 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.
