firstname.lastname@example.org (Harvey Newstrom) writes:
> Hal Finney <email@example.com> wrote:
> > What if the redundancy is obtained by using double-thick wires and
> > double-sized transistors in the circuit design? Now someone proposes
> > to save costs by shaving away half of this circuitry, while leaving the
> > logic alone. Would this bother you?
> You keep asking the same question over and over in different ways. I'm
> not sure why you expect to get a different answer at some point. As
> long as the original object/function that I define as "me" ceases to
> exist, I object on the grounds that I don't want to cease to exist. For
> me to find a procedure acceptable, you must convince me that the
> original definition of "me" is no longer valid, and that a new
> definition of "me" has replaced it. You then will destroy the old "me"
> and replace me with a new person who has been redefined to be "me".
My view is that there is no difference between two instances of "you" and one, if they are in perfect synchrony. My various examples are meant to illustrate this by blurring the lines between the two.
It seems implausible that doubling the width of the wires would change one "you" into two. So I don't see why reducing the thickness of the wires in the simulation would make anyone cease to exist. Perhaps my wording above was unclear that this is what I was proposing?