On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Information is physical. True, and nothing physical can be transferred faster than light so we can never effect things more distant than 13.8 billion light years and they can never effect us. > > > If there is no transfer of information It is not always necessary to transfer information for 2 things to be identical. There are only a finite number of ways a finite number of atoms can be arranged in a finite volume, so if the universe is infinite and not just very very big then a gargantuan (but still finite) number of light years away there must be a collection of atoms identical to Bruce Kellett , in fact there are an infinite number of them. And at even larger (but still finite) distances a volume of space with a radius of 13.8 billion light years centered on one of those Bruce Kellett s is identical to the volume of space with a radius of 13.8 billion light years centered on this Bruce Kellett . And there are an infinite number of them too. > > there is no way one could test what the copy thought. There is no way to know directly what your next door neighbor is thinking but you can usually make a pretty good guess, and if a copy of you is physically identical to you then it's a pretty good guess he's thinking the same thing you are. John K Clark On 3/10/2015 1:52 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On 2 Oct 2015, at 4:28 PM, Bruce Kellett < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > > I think you are continuing to confuse the issues between local copies, > obeying the laws of physics and information transfer, and remote copies > outside our particle horizon. The latter are of absolutely no relevance to > me here-and-now because there is no possibility of information transfer. > > > Remote copies are still copies. If a copy of you were made in the > Andromeda Galaxy a billion years hence, it would still *by definition* > think it was you despite being made of different matter, despite it being > far removed in space and time, despite it possibly having no physical > connection with you. > > That is still within the forward light cone, so information could be > transmitted. Information is physical. If there is no transfer of > information, there is no way one could test what the copy thought. > Alternatively, what could it possibly mean for the 'copy' to think -- I am > the person that was born in another galaxy a million years ago? Perhaps > people think crazy things like that all the time, but they are usually put > away so that they can do no more harm to themselves. > > Suppose you're told that according whatever criteria you have defined you > were *inadequately* copied last night in your sleep. You believe you're > Bruce Kellett, have his memories, look like him, and everyone who knew > Bruce agrees that he seems to be the same guy. However, the atoms just > weren't put in place using the right procedure, whatever that might be. > What difference does the knowledge of this deficit make to you? What > difference does it make to anyone else? > > > How does such an implausible scenario differ from the observation that I > sloughed off some flakes of skin during the night, some cells died, and > some new cells grew, nourished by the food I ate for dinner last night? > Minor changes do not disrupt bodily continuity, and all these changes are > subject to the laws of physics, so are completely traceable and > understandable. > > > Yes, but as far as I can tell you think that there is some possible > scenario where your psychological continuity is preserved in the sense I > have described but physical continuity is not preserved. > > No, I don't think that. I think 'psychological continuity' is an empty > phrase when there is no physical information transfer. > > For example, if the copy is made using random processes, or by > exhaustively emulating every possible human. What difference would it make > to you or to anyone who knows you if the duplication had occurred in such a > way? > > You can duplicate that way all you like. But then you abandon all > possibility of connecting your computational theory of mind with real-world > physics. > > Whatever arbitrary scenario you come up with, you cannot find anything > that puts any serious dent in the closest continuer theory of personal > identity, and your idea of "psychological continuity" is easily shown to be > a nonsense for copies outside our light cone. > > > "Closest continuer theory" is an embarrassment to philosophy. It's > something a ten year old might come up with - then a few minutes later > realise how silly it is. Sorry to put it in such blunt John Clark-like > terms. > > > Psychological continuity as a definition of personal identity is plain > crazy. > > Bruce > > -- > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
