Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> This is getting too silly to continue. Are you
No, there are still four walls. You said that if
the two copies pointed left, they'd be pointing at
different walls. I am merely asking how you *know*
they are different walls.
> claiming that the square room does not contain
> four walls because the walls are identical?
As far as I can tell, you believe the walls have an independent location. I am perhaps guilty of "selectively editing [your] responses to eliminate [your] objections" because I'm trying to establish where our opinions differ. As I have noted time and time again, I believe it is in our concepts of location. I apologise if I can be accused of any arrogance or dishonesty, this is certainly not what I intending.
I had hoped the idea of the room would help concrete the image of two identical entities acting as redundancy. It works for me, but I am of a biased viewpoint (as are you).
> A square contains only one side? A rectangle
> only contains two sides? An equilateral
> triangle has one side, while a symmetrical
> triangle has two sides and an asymmetrical
> triangle has three sides?
No, a square has four sides, a rectangle four, and so on. In my thought experiment you simply cannot distinguish between the identity and location of the walls, and thus the copies will not diverge.
> You are the one with strange theories of
> location and identity.
So:
What makes the walls different in this test?
How can we tell they are different?
How do you know there are two different people?
BM