On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 3:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 8/4/2019 10:44 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, August 2, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/2/2019 1:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 1:40 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/2/2019 11:03 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>> > It is like Saibal Mitra said, the person he was when he was 3 is
>>> > dead.  Too much information was added to his brain.  If his 3 year old
>>> > self were suddenly replaced with his much older self, you would
>>> > conclude the 3 year old was destroyed, but when gradual changes are
>>> > made, day by day, common-sense and convention maintains that the
>>> > 3-year-old was not destroyed, and still lives. This is the
>>> > inconsistency of continuity theories.
>>>
>>> On the contrary I'd say it illustrates the consistency of causal
>>> continuity theories.
>>>
>>>
>> Your close friend walks into a black  box, and emerges 1 hour later.
>>
>> In case A, he was destroyed in a discontinuous way, and a new version of
>> that person was formed having the mind of your friend as it might have been
>> 1 hour later.
>> In case B, he sat around for an hour before emerging.
>>
>> You later meet up with the entity who emerges from this black box for
>> coffee.
>>
>> From your point of view, neither case A nor B is physically
>> distinguishable.  Yet under your casual continuity theory, your friend has
>> either died or survived entering the black box.  You have no way of knowing
>> if the entity you are having coffee with is your friend or not.   Is this a
>> legitimate and consistent way of looking at the world?
>>
>>
>> Did the black box take A's information in order to copy him, or did it
>> make a copy accidentally.
>>
>
> Would that change the result?
>
>
> Holevo's theorem says it's impossible to copy A's state.
>

It's a thought experiment. Do you think the quantum state is relevant? One
typically doesn't track of the quantum state of their friend's atoms and
use that information as part of their recognition process.



>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Incidentally, my not knowing the difference between two things is not
>> very good evidence that they are the same.
>>
>>
>>
>
> That there's no physical experiment, even in principle, that could
> differentiate the two cases, I take as evidence that notions of identity
> holding there to be a difference are illusory.
>
>
> But you haven't postulated a case in which it is impossible to
> differentiate the two cases.  It's not clear what degree of differentiation
> is relevant.
>

If Holebo's theorem remains fundamental problems, then let's move
everything into virtual reality, and repeat the experiment.

In one case your friend's mind file is deleted and restored from a backup,
and in another he continued without interruption. Do not the same
conclusions I suggest follow?

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiYaEt_biTJfQ2m4Ui5ejv8-44YQvZmvwVQSVxdu51Y9w%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to