X-Message-Number: 20874 From: Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 10:13:17 EST Subject: information & copies --part1_62.2b80871e.2b56d48d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Francois wondered whether information is conserved, and thinks a perfect copy qualifies as an original. 1. I think it's a minority opinion, but on "philosophical" considerations I think it's true that information is conserved. Tipler (See THE PHYSICS OF IMMORTALITY) thinks it doesn't matter as far as resurrecting people is concerned, because far future super-computing will allow construction or reconstruction (emulation) of not only anyone who ever lived, at every phase of his existence, but also of everyone whose existence was ever possible. 2. On the "identity of indiscernibles" I disagree. To claim that a copy is the "same" as the original is merely to assert your preferred definition; that doesn't prove anything. Why not just stick to the objective facts? If (say) two electrons are at two different locations, and are otherwise identical by all known observation techniques, just say so--"They are identical, as far as we can tell, except for location." Of course, a difference in location will inevitably compel other differences too, especially in more complex systems, since at a minimum the gravitational interactions will be different in a different environment. Finally, if you choose to say that A and B share identity if they are sufficiently similar, then your similarity cut-off point would appear to be arbitrary. You could just fall back on the "quantitative approach" and simply list the differences and degrees of difference, without making any qualitative claim or label. The fact is, "identity" remains an unsolved problem, and possibly one which does not have any satisfactory solution. Robert Ettinger --part1_62.2b80871e.2b56d48d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20874