John K Clark (johnkc@well.com)
Thu, 27 Mar 1997 10:13:32 -0800 (PST)


mikec@jax.gulfnet.com (Mike C.) On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 Wrote:

>>if the chamber had cylindrical symmetry you could not tell if you
>>were the copy or not.

>If I was standing in a cylinder with a red dot where the original
>was and a blue dot where the copy would be I could know who was the

If the chamber had a red dot and a blue dot then it would not have
cylindrical symmetry.

>>one second after you first saw your double, a bullet hit him in
>>the back of the head and his brain exploded. Regardless of whether
>>you are the copy or the original you still have all your memories
>>and you still have a feeling on continuity with your past, just as
>>you do now, so nobody died.

>It's brain is dripping off the wall and it is not dead?
>Do you want to retract that?

I have been known to retract things from time to time, but only when it is
clear I am wrong and No, I most certainly do not want to retract anything.
I never said that a brain didn't die, I said nobody died.

>All objects are processes.

That's debatable, Moravec things so, I'm not sure.

>All processes are objects.

No. Objects have a position and a momentum and can be destroyed. Where is
arithmetic located? What is the momentum of arithmetic? How could I destroy

>If I were to copy my self EXACTLY no thing would happen because two
>things can not occupy the same position in spacetime.

No, that's only true for fermions. Two identical bosons, like photons of
light, can occupy the same position in spacetime but not so for fermions,
The Pauli Exclusion Principle tells us that 2 identical electrons can not be
in the same orbit in an atom. If we didn't know that then we couldn't
understand Chemistry, we wouldn't know why matter is rigid and not infinitely
compressible, and if we didn't know that atoms are interchangeable we
wouldn't understand any of that.

Imagine what the world would be like if what you say is true. When I look at
you the photons of light coming from your face would collide with photons
coming at right angles to us scrambling them. Vision would be a useless way
to obtain information about the world.

>If I destroy my post and yours survives they are obviously not the
>same post.

Then the only reason I have not convinced you that I am correct is that all
you have seen is a copy of my posts, the originals were much more convincing.

>I would like you to prove that a thing does not occupy a unique
>position in spacetime.

What is the radius of an electron?

>We need not know for a thing to be.

Not true if you're talking about a change my consciousness, if the change
is so small that I can't detect it then my consciousness has not changed.

>The smallest change is change.
>Do you disagree?

There is a difference between a small change and a large change.
Do you disagree?

>[Showing a chart of Fermions and Bosons]
>Am I going to have to disprove all that too?

Yes, and that would just be the start of your problems. If you insist that
atoms have individuality then you must disprove every bit of that chart and
do far more too, like explaining why matter is rigid, why Chemistry has the
laws it does, why Biology is possible ...

>If you exchange positions they are still the same distance from each
>other, so why bother?

No reason to bother at all if atoms have no individuality, the system would
be unchanged. On the other hand if as you say each atom is different then
exchanging atoms will change the system. This has been tested experimentally
many, many times. I'm right, you're wrong.

>If I do not know what x is x might be even, odd, or neither.

I was not talking about even or odd integers, I was talking about
even functions F(x) = +F(-x) and
odd functions F(x) = -F(-x)

>How about if I scatch an electron off?


>You are saying when the distance between two things is 0 there are
>not two things.

No, I am saying the probability of finding 2 electron, or any Fermion,
zero distance apart is zero.

John K Clark johnkc@well.com

Version: 2.6.i