You made some very strong statements, in a form that conveyed the notion that what you said was "the truth". Either you make it clear that you are stating a personal opinion, or you support it by evidence (if you don't like "proof"). The evidence you provided is so faint that it can just support vague speculations.
Unfortunately I can't resist challenging unsupported arbitrary statements. However this discussion seems so inane that perhaps we'd better stop it (I apologize to the list). Daniel On 10Jul 2011, at 18:54 , [email protected] wrote: > > I don't like hearing the word 'proof' when it comes to science. > Proof is only for maths and alcohol. > > I am perfectly fine with a sound discussion, and I thought I was > clear on how I defined 'perfect duplication'? And, as a software > developer, I fail to see how perfect duplication has to do with > information theory since they seem to be two separate things. > Perfect duplication implies there is no problem with communication > between the source and clone, and really doesn't deal with that > since it is a separate issue. > > Besides, it is really theoretical at this point because we lack the > technology to do such a thing. Maybe once we can build controlled > Nuclear Fusion reactors, we might be on our way... but I will agree > that it's not exactly a priority to have 'replicators' right now. > Although, it would solve the world food supply problem, but would > also put a lot of people out of work. > > -William _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
