X-Message-Number: 14194 From: Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:36:30 EDT Subject: Clark,Pauli It gets pretty tedious, but it has a certain morbid fascination--why certain mind-sets seem impervious to reason, or slaves to language. John Clark is a fine fellow, doubtless with many virtues and abilities that I lack, but he seems to be stuck in a rut on the question of "identity of indiscernibles." (It's true he has the company of some distinguished people in this view.) In the second place (#14187), he says that instantly switching locations of otherwise indistinguishable systems "happens all the time in the quantum world." How very strange! By his own account, you never know (for example) which electron is which, so how could you know they switch places--or why would it even be meaningful to say they switched places??!! In the first place, he cites the Pauli exclusion principle as one of the proofs of identity of indiscernibles. If anything, it proves the opposite! The exclusion principle says, for example, that you can't have two electrons in the same quantum state in the SAME ATOM. In the lithium atom, you can have two electrons in the lowest energy state, one spin up and one spin down; the third electron has to go into the next orbital. But there are lots of lithium atoms, each with its own electrons, so if we disregard which atoms we are talking about, there are plenty of lithium-attached electrons in the "same" quantum state--if we disregard the phase space coordinates of the atom as a whole, which is precisely what I argue we cannot do, in general. In any case, when we talk about the "identity" of duplicate or similar people, the quantum states are never exactly the same, since merely being at a different location, in space or time, will instantly change the environment and therefore the system, albeit not necessarily a great deal, and we have the same old philosophical problems, which remain unsettled. Robert Ettinger Cryonics Institute Immortalist Society http://www.cryonics.org Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=14194