X-Message-Number: 25224
From: 
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 16:34:00 EST
Subject: "essentials"

Thomas Donaldson writes in part:
 
>how is it that
>becoming a record which is then used to  recreate me destroys my QE?
>For that matter, as I described in my last  message, just what 
>difference does a span of time in which we don't  exist make to the
>presence of the same QE in us? It's not enough here to  define the
>continuation as new. If a QE is physical, then it should be  quite
>possible (in theory) to make an exact copy of it and destroy  the
>previous version. If not, why not? Remember that I'm discussing  an
>exact copy. So how is that EXACT copy not essentially the  same?


First of all, systems separated in space or time can never be exactly the  

same in other respects, for reasons I have discussed before, but that is not the
 main problem.
 
The main problem is in the word "essentially." Two systems  are "essentially" 
the same if they differ only in non-essentials. But is a gross  separation in 
space or time inessential, irrelevant? 
 
For the umpteenth time, suppose that me-1 and me-2 are  widely separated in 
spacetime.  Everyone agrees that if (1) dies, (2) can  still live, or if (2) 

dies, (1) can still live. But to claim that if (1) dies  and (2) survives, then
(1) also survives (even though he has died) does not  comport with the common 
sense of most people.
 
One might (and some do) still claim that survival of a  duplicate, or even a 
near-duplicate, constitutes "your" survival; and they may  claim this, despite 
the bizarre implications, mainly because they see no  alternative way of 
establishing identity between "selves" at different  times.
 
But I have offered such an alternative--the overlap/continuity  requirement. 
I postulate (and as far as I can see, current physics allows  it) that there 
is no film-frame universe, but rather every physical system and  event is 

spread out, with extension in space and time. Thus I overlap, and  can at least

partly identify with, my predecessors and successors or  continuers--but not 
with 
disjoint copies, however similar  otherwise.
 
Robert Ettinger










And  here's another way to look at it: our QE must itself change, for
otherwise  how could we experience anything at all? And if you say that
it never  changes (except by destruction) then what is it doing in the
first place?  Even our experiences would not change it ie. we have a 
QE which sits there  doing nothing. So what changes are acceptable
and which are not for our  QE?





 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25224