From: Robert Bradbury (bradbury@genebee.msu.su)
Date: Sat Apr 01 2000 - 02:07:23 MST
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, John Clark wrote:
> Mark Gubrud <mgubrud@squid.umd.edu> Wrote:
>
> >Each of us exists AT THE PRESENT MOMENT as a unique physical
> >construction of atoms.
>
> That happens to be true, but it expresses no profound truth, it's just an
> accident of history. No reason to expect it always to be true.
Well, I think that it will almost always be true. The cost of
disassembling a large unique collection of atoms (to isotopic specificity)
and reassembling it *identically*, is probably *very* large. [Consider
the error correction required for this.]
> > It is possible to say this, but that does not make it unambiguous. For
> >example, what if you make two copies simultaneously? Which one,
> >then is "you"?
>
> Only one way to tell, ask them. I'll bet you already know what they'll say.
Here is one way to look at the problem. We all have computers
that have processors that are run the same instructions and
for most purposes appear to be identical. However, if you understand
semiconductor manufacturing process, I'm sure that most will agree
that the transistors in those processors *are not* identical at
the atomic scale. Simple dimensions, quantities of dopant atoms,
impuritues in the silicon, dopants, or conductors require that they
be physically different. However(!), they function *identically*
within the realm of how those transistors are supposed to operate.
In the long run, the physical atomic differences, and "life histories",
will probably determine the maximum working life of individual processors.
But during the "lifespan" of those processors, they are, from the
perspective of everyday use, "identical". Now, if you push them to
the *absolute* limits, say by raising their temperature or by
increasing their clock speed, you will find that they are distinct
"individuals".
So, in the "human" copying process, the questions come down to the
reproducibility of the simulation. If you have extensive levels of error
correction code in the copying process and simulation hardware which
captures the inherent randomness present in molecular diffusion
and radiation in cells, then you will have an accurate copy. However
the minute the copies go off in different directions, they become
unique individuals (due to the diffusion and radiation effects).
I'm going to state *very* clearly, so people get out of the magical
quantum realm: "MOLECULAR DIFFUSION EFFECTS and RANDOM RADITION *DWARF*
any Quantum Effects"!
So, in answer to the question of "who is the orginal?" -- it is easy,
the person who has the most identical atomic match to the original.
Within milliseconds of the copying process however, neither of them
is "an original". You can only have an "original" if the copying
process stores it in a computer with sufficient ECC that you can
*reliably* reproduce the original.
I think where most people get stuck is the rather *huge* scale
differences between things like cells, synapses, molecules &
atoms. Until these are really grasped, people spend a lot of
time shouting at each other. If they were standing in the
shadow of the Empire State Building, looking through a microscope
at a grain of sand picked up from the street, it would be obvious
that you could make a functional copy of the Empire State building,
while making a accurate copy of the grain of sand would be a bit more
difficult. For the purposes of copying human existences (and identity)
however, the Empire State Building copies would seem to be sufficent.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:47 MST