X-Message-Number: 26602
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 11:13:37 -0700
Subject: Flavonoid Response
From: <>

Flavonoid wrote:

> If we are to believe the above, and RBR is actually a duplicate 
holder 
> of the name "Richard B Riddick," being a duplicate of the movie 
> character, then we have two original names, both valid, both 
> identical.  Of course, it could be complained that they were 
> independently produced.

You are mangling *concepts* with *things*. Concepts don't exist, 
except in your mind, and in such a context the use of words like 
'original' are meaningless at worst and misleading at best.

You and I exist. There can be an original you and an original me. 
Names don't exist as physical entities. Therefore, there is no such 
thing as an original Richard-B-Riddick-Name; or at least, you need 
to explicitly define what you mean if you use those words.

With reference to physical entities, 'original' has a very well-
defined and precise meaning: an arrangement of matter denoted Y 
enclosed within a region R at time T1 is the original X at time T0 
if there exists a continuous time-dependent sequence of regions [R] 
such that (1) At T0, Y is another name for (is numerically 
identical to) X, (2) At T1, [R] specifies the same region as R, and 
(3) For every point in time from T0 to T1, the matter in [R] has 
Xwise arrangement.

What this implies, among other things, is that the apple you left 
on your countertop last night is, in fact, the same apple you found 
there this morning (barring the possibility your wife switched it 
on you). And a copy of you is not the original you (nor can it ever 
be). This is the essense of 'identity', as it exists in the real 
world.

> Let's, then, take a word processor document.  We create it and 
save it 
> named "Sovereign.doc."  Then, we print out two paper forms of it, 
both 
> originals (no carbon paper please).  We take them to the meeting 
and 
> all parties sign off on all documents.  Which is the "original"?

Your confusion is again due to mangling of concepts with things. 
You did not create a document called 'Sovereign.doc'. You fiddled 
with the spin of electrons on a magnetic disk. That you interpret 
those spins to be a document is an arbitrary (but perhaps useful) 
choice.

When you printed out two 'copies', you created two arrangements. 
They are distinct from each other, but similar. Labeling one as the 
'original' and the other as a 'copy' is disingenous.

> OK.  You might say the unsigned "original" in the computer is it.

That's absurd. There is no 'document' in the computer that could be 
an 'original'. There are only electrons with spins. The 'document' 
is your subjective interpretation of those spins, and therefore 
does not exist. You can talk about the original magnetic disk, on 
which your 'document' is stored, but you cannot talk about an 
original subjective interpretation. Such talk is nonsense.

> So how do you identify which is the original and which is a copy? 
 

'Original' and 'copy' are concepts that apply to physically 
existing entities, not to subjective interpretations of 
arrangements.

Richard B. Riddick

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26602