From: Forrest Bishop (forrestb@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Tue Jun 11 2002 - 10:31:14 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: Eugen Leitl <eugen@leitl.org>
To: Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com>
Cc: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 4:42 AM
Subject: RE: When Programs Benefit
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Lee Corbin wrote:
>
> > 2. You are informed by the OS that you have been scheduled
> > to run exactly twice in the history of the universe.
> > Thus, *this* may be the first or second time from your
> > perspective (although since they're identical, the point
> > is moot, and I give it only for the purpose of description).
A conscious entity cannot be run identically twice in the history of the universe- each run occupies a unique spacetime interval
with unique external interactions. This unrepeatable input alters the 'program' for each run differently.
> > You have the following choice: if you press button A then
> > the second run will be terminated precisely at the moment
> > that the button is pressed. (In other words, your first
> > run continues regardless of whether you press A or not;
> > but the second run is affected.) Do you press the button
> > for ten dollars?
>
> No, even if both trajectories are to be identical. I would try to remove
> constraints keeping them both synched, thus allowing them to become two
> separate people.
Absolute synchronization contraints cannot be realized in practice anyway.
==========
http://www.extropy.org/exi-lists/extropians.3Q98/0753.html
Hal Finney writes:
When we last left our discussion, I had described a set of computer systems.
In one, we had a computer built out of double-thick components. Each wire and transistor took up twice the area which would normally
be used. ...
Now let me re-propose the system above, but with a divider down the middle of the double-width components, a divider which can be
electrically switched between conducting and insulating states.
When it acts as a conductor, the two sides are electrically connected and we have effectivelly the double-width circuit example
above. When it acts as an insulator, the two sides are electrically separated and the system acts like two circuits. However, due to
the fact that the two halves are electrically identical, the two circuits stay synchronized at all times as they operate. ...
[FB: The two halves cannot be made electrically identical, for several reasons. Consider two current-carrying conductors 'a' and
'b' (your choice of cross-section) side-by-side, each nominally carrying the same current 'I' (pardon the pun). The current and
charge density in 'a' is associated with electric and magnetic fields surrounding 'a', and similarly for 'b'. These could be
constructed to be mirror images of each other. Classically, each charge-carrier in each conductor is affected by the overall
electric field (the scalar potential) and magnetic fields (the vector potential) generated from the sum of all other charges in the
rest of the machine (crosstalk) as well as in the rest of the Universe. This (vector) sum will alway be different for each
conductor, hence affect the currents differently. In the quantum electrodynamic picture each charge-carrier is exchanging different
real and virutal photons than each other charge-carrier. Adding redundancy by using a multiplicity of charge-carriers, as with
current practice, can reduce, but never eliminate, the error rate thus generated. At some finite runtime the numbers store in the
side-by-side registers (of which ever kind) will diverge. Implementing checksums between the two registers would invalidate the
electrically isolated premise. Quantum fluctuations, shot noise, gravitational gradients and other perturbations from ideal compound
the problem.
This is one of the inherent flaws in the proposals for multiple uploads]
Now, what will you say happens as we switch between the insulating and conductive states for the divider which runs down the middle
of each circuit? Would you view this as causing two instances of the computation to run when it is insulating, while one instance
runs when it is conductive?
If the computation is a conscious program (an upload or AI), will this cause a switch between two individuals and one?
If you think so, suppose you learn more about the circuit and discover that the electric fields are such that electrons never
actually cross the divider even when it is in the conductive state. They travel lengthwise down the wires but there is no electric
fields pushing them sidewise, hence they never need to cross over the divider region. So actually changing between insulating and
conductive does not change the behavior of any electron in the system. Their paths are unchanged.
Would you still think that making the divider insulating causes one individual to become two?
How about if we can vary the divider's insulation smoothly between full conductivity and perfect insulation? Does it make sense to
say that it is possible for one person to _gradually_ become two?
Would these changes actually be perceptable to the person(s) involved? Would the consciousness feel any different as we switch
between the two cases?
Thanks,
Hal
....
Forrest
-- Forrest Bishop Chairman, Institute of Atomic-Scale Engineering www.iase.cc
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:44 MST