Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>
> >>> I agree. Just because the world can't detect the difference
> >>> doesn't mean there isn't one.
>
> >> I beg to differ: what cannot be measured /doesn't exist/.
>
> > Do you really believe this? Do you think, as an absolute, that
> > what we can measure today is the end and be-all of all that does
> > and can exist? Are you sure?
>
> I certainly don't believe it as you just worded it; that would
> indeed be silly. Perhaps it would be more clearly expressed
> as "If you can't measure it--that is, if something makes no
> percievable, describable affect on your (or anyone else's) senses
> at the present time--then it can't possibly make any difference to
> any decision you might make at that time.
Hmmm. Ideas and concepts? No sense impression per se. States
of consciousness?
The experience of being self-conscious itself? Some might go so
far as to
argue these are really non-existent.
> In the context of the discussion, if there is no way to tell
> the difference between two atom-for-atom copies of something,
> it cannot make any possible rational difference which one is
> chosen for any reason. "Identity" is not a measurable property
> of matter like mass or charge. It is an arbitrary choice made
> for the purpose of reasoning and communication. A convenient
> short-cut for talking about relationships between matter and
> different points of spacetime.
I agree within the context of that discussion at least.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:26 MDT