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