From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Oct 25 2002 - 23:41:26 MDT
My resolve to wait until I read all the posts before
replying is collapsing. Jeff Davis writes
> > Please show you how you can tell which is the
> > original,
>
> This is one of those logical 'problems' that I see
> repeated again and again on this topic. Just because
> someone/everyone is unable to distinguish between two
> items doesn't mean they aren't an original and a copy.
That's correct, if you are a philosophical realist.
We believe in a truth that stands outside any one
person's (or many people's) attempts to know it.
We believe that it has prior existence, and we
humans can strive to learn it, and can often estimate
the probability (never 1) that we have found it.
For example, we know that the planets orbit the
sun in ellipses.
> Observer ignorance/inability is a separate matter
> from the facts of identity. If a tree falls in the
> forest and no one is there to hear it, it still makes
> the same huge crashing sound. Unless you can
> establish that the laws of nature are observer
> dependent, you need to retire this 'argument'.
I agree. Interestingly, I learned that in Turkish
it's impossible to posit that old riddle. In that
language, there is a grammatically clear distinction
between "sound" as in what one hears and "sound" as
in what results from a physical process. We say
(Jaynes' example) that "the room is noisy" and "there
is noise in the room", and can become confused about
how those phrases differ (they do). But such confusion
is absolutely impossible in Turkish.
> > > The other is the nth copy of "the original".
> > > Its history begins from the moment of its
> > > production. Part of that history is the
> > > origin of its 'design'.
> > > For any copy of something, by the very
> > > definition of copy (duplicate, xox, etc),
> > > its pattern, its form and function, its
> > > design, its specifications require, and
> > > are completely dependent upon, an original
> > > (in the general case, or "the" original,
> > > in a specific case) (with the exception
> > > of a copy of an (n-x)th copy; n>x).
> >
> > This is meaningless, as long as you can't
> > provide a measurement procedure allowing
> > you to tell two copies apart.
>
> Just because you don't know, or can't know, the
> difference, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I agree with you. But I agree with Eugen that the
historical path of a system is not an element of
its identity and should not be used to distinguish
it. If two systems are completely identical (thanks
to Eugen now I don't need to discuss position), then
their history is irrelevant for *all* purposes that
I can think of.
> What's more, the argument seems to me not just
> disingenuous, but even a bit ridiculous. To
> make a copy, you have to have an original from
> which to make it. It is impossible then to
> have the two without creating/having, in the
> process of making the copy, the means of
> distinguishing the two. Destroying the
> evidence, or losing it, or whatever, and
> then claiming in full view of everyone, some
> fanciful state of affairs, is, well, pure
> stubbornness.
I think that you are over-reacting to his point.
Clearly the experiment could be changed so that
the original is destroyed and we have two
duplicates, one in the original position and
one in the remote position. Eugen firmly
believes that each one---considered in isolation
is identical to the original---it's just that if
they are to have even one second's difference in
experiences, he goes ballistic: "NO FORKS!!!!"
> > Why do we keep having the same discussion, year,
> > after year, after year?
>
> Stubbornness?
No. We keep bringing this up because
(i) New people come onto the list who haven't
talked about it for years
(ii) people gradually change their minds about
such difficult issues
(iii) it's a real problem in the sense that at
some point in the future uploaded duplicated
selves will have to have policies on *what
to do*!
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:47 MST