From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Fri May 05 2000 - 20:19:15 MDT
"White, Ryan" <ryan@dvelco.com> asks on Friday, May 05, 2000 3:13 PM,
> Question: I don't recall who originated this thread, but you know who you
> are (or, as the case may be, 'were'). Of this person, I ask:
>
> was activation implied by 'copy', or no?
>
> Ryan v23.9
Hahahahahahaha (evil laugh). I started this thread, and I'm glad. And I'd
do it again, too! Hahahahahaha, nobody can stop the evil thread that
wouldn't die....
Sorry. I almost feel like someone else said that.
Anyway, I don't think that activation was ruled in or out of the examples.
This is what I think causes a lot of our "disagreements" on this question.
We sometimes interpret ideas differently. I don't think anybody really
agreed on what the question was. I'm not sure anybody has ever agreed to
the detailed definition of this question. I am beginning to think that this
whole question is a semantic trick with smoke and mirrors.
If the copies are somehow "forced" to keep in synch, then I'm not sure they
both can be considered conscious or actually interacting with the world.
They couldn't be walking around and perceiving reality normally, because
they would be in different locations. I doubt that molecularly exact
environments could exist due to random molecular motion. In a digital
world, I'm not sure exact environments could be simulated due to slight
variations in hardware and random bit errors. At least one copy would have
to be "controlled" to keep it in synch with the other copy. I don't believe
that both copies could stay in synch otherwise. Thus, I think this question
is asking about what should be allowed in a theoretically impossible
situation. I don't think the situation could really arise.
If the copies are not forced to stay in synch, I believe one must diverge.
As soon as they diverge, they are not exact copies, but separate and
distinct individuals (according to most people). Therefore the question
does not arise. Thus, I am leaning toward concluding that the question is
ambiguous and meaningless, and can't be "answered".
-- Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> IBM Certified Senior Security Consultant, Legal Hacker, Engineer, Research Scientist, Author.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:26 MST