On 5/23/2020 1:42 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Friday, May 22, 2020, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 5/22/2020 1:48 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 3:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything
List <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 8/4/2019 10:44 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2019, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything
List <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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?
So you're postulating that your friend has been duplicated but in
a way that you have no way of knowing. And then you ask, "Is this
a legitimate and consistent way of looking at the world?" I guess
I don't understand the question. If you have no way of knowing,
then you don't know...ex hypothesi.
Brnet
My point is that identity is an intrinsic property of what something
is now. The history of the of the constituent particles have no affect
on the behaviors or operation of those particles. To say the history
is relevant to identity is to add an arbitrary extrinsic property
which can be of no physical relevance.
This is a direct consequence of QM, you can't distinguish two
electrons, from each other.
But they still have locations and histories, c.f. Griffiths consistent
histories interpretation of QM or Feynmann's path integral QM. When
electrons make spots on the film in an EPR experiment the electron that
made this spot is not identical with the electron that made that spot in
the sense of being the same electron. And in any case I don't see how
the sameness of particles implies the sameness of complex structures
made of particles, i.e. persons.
Brent
I reach the opposite conclusion of Davidson in his swampman thought
experiment: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swampman
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/72ea0584-91a6-fdc7-1c43-3f6e7e41522b%40verizon.net
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/72ea0584-91a6-fdc7-1c43-3f6e7e41522b%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUghy-%3DEvjShedEUutNu7zpH3oVg_7yhEVvtg3zdVJqr_Q%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUghy-%3DEvjShedEUutNu7zpH3oVg_7yhEVvtg3zdVJqr_Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a10a96ca-50f5-9e54-5d7b-a56c1de18113%40verizon.net.
