From: Jeff Davis (jrd1415@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Oct 26 2002 - 13:30:22 MDT
Extropes,
--- John K Clark <jonkc@att.net> wrote:
> "Jeff Davis" <jrd1415@yahoo.com>
>
> > Just because someone/everyone is unable to
> > distinguish between two items doesn't mean
> > they aren't an original and a copy.
>
> Here we have a case where the laws of Physics say it
> is imposable to ever
> tell the difference between two things
This is too strong a statement, John. *Your
understanding* of the laws of physics, perhaps.
Feynman said something like no one on the planet truly
understands quantum mechanics, so I'm inclined to be
somewhat circumspect. I wish you well with your
confidence on the subject.
> and you say
> nevertheless there is a
> huge difference between the two. You could state
> exactly the same thing more
> concisely and honestly simply by saying they are
> different because they have
> a different soul. You could say it, but I don't care
> to.
Dissing me with the religious thing is uncalled for
and unfounded, but no great matter.
While I'm on the subject of uncalled for stuff, I
think I owe Gene an apology for characterizing his
view on this topic as "disingenuous". I take it
back. I've been studying some of the back and forth
and I find lots of room for different underlying and
unvoiced assumptions, definitional variations, and
good old-fashioned errors.
Concerning errors: I wrote, regarding distinguishing
features of an "original" and a perfect copy, that,
"Each has a different history." Upon further
reflection--I decided to give it a try to see it from
the other point of view--I noticed that the history of
a thing is not inherent in the thing itself. The
history is an abstract notion, a neurological pattern,
a memory record, which exists in each observer,
(including the thing itself, if it has memory
capability), BUT OUTSIDE OF THE THING ITSELF, and
which varies from observer to observer. The events
which make up the history of a thing have had a
formative effect on the thing, but that is no matter.
An observer with a notion of continuity, a notion of
'a history', which he understands to be LOGICALLY
assignable to some thing for identification purposes,
clearly stands outside of the thing itself. The
memory of a thing and the logical connection of past
events to the present reality, are separate from the
thing in the here and now. Thus, it would seem, that
things which have distinguishable histories, may
themselves be indistinguishable.
>From this I get closer to understanding Gene's
emphasis on a thing's history not having any value as
a means to tell them apart.
But I'm still not happy. I'm starting to wonder what
is real and what isn't. The here and now is real (or
is it?). The past and the future are not real.(!?)
They're just 'ideas'. Is the concept of continuity
real, and/or true, or a fantasy? Is logic valid?
Always? Only sometimes? Is it enough to
*know*--based on logic--that something is true, or is
something *not true* unless and until proven? Can
something that was authentically true at one time
become not true at a later time as a result of
subsequent events (the creation of indistinguishable
copies)?
I'm still inclined to think that the truth of identity
remains a truth despite unknowability. And, as to
distinguishing between the two identical things(but
not as to which is the original and which the copy), I
fall back on Michael Dickey's point that, as long as
there are two of them, and you can grab one in each
hand, in the here and now, and pin a label on each,
then, unless we're in some kind of simulation and
NOTHING'S REAL, then they are separate, distinct, and
easily distinguishable.
Beyond that I have only one thing to say:
Quack, quack, quackk, quaak, quack, quacckkk,
quaaaakkk, quack, quack, QUACK, QUACK, quack, quackk,
quaak, quack, quacckkk, quaaaakkk, quack, Quack,
quack, quackk, quaak, quack, quacckkk, quaaaakkk,
quack, quack, QUACK, QUACK, quack, quackk, quaak,
quack, QUACK, QUACK, QUACK, QUACK, QUACK, QUACK,
QUACK, QUACK, QUAAAAAAAAAAAAK, quaaaaaaaaackkkkk.
I've been wanting to do that ever since this thread
started. Have a ducky day, and thank you for your
support.
Best, Jeff Davis
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside a dog it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:48 MST